A modern interpretation

Exactly who fought at Hastings has been the interest of many academics for centuries. Many Anglo-Norman families have claimed descent from an ancestor who supposedly fought at the great battle but few can show proof of this. Beyond the trifling 20-40 identified, depending on which source, the participants will remain unknown forever. However, the chroniclers insist that there was a wide ranging recruitment of auxiliary troops, the clear importance of ducal loyalty and Norman government as well as those Normans who migrated from the original base. ¹

The Foundation of Medieval Genealogy acknowledges the fifteen commanders named by William of Poitiers (circa 1073-1074) who fought at Hastings and another five possible names from those identified by Odericus Vitalis Angligena. (qv.) [This source can no longer be traced.]

In addition to the commentary of Master Robert Wace, the medieval poet-chronicler of Le roman de Rou, written in 1160, There are three lists of those who allegedly fought at Hastings: The Battle Abbey Roll, The Dives Roll; and The Falaise Rolls.

In this information, there is much on-going debate to reliability and validity of the evidence of who actually fought with William, who provided materials and men, who remained in Normandy maintaining the peace and who ventured to England after the Conquest. Keats-Rohan argues that the Chronicles were concerned, apparently, with auxiliary troops, composed of well-born and led by nobles, rather than mercenaries. ² Though named on all three Rolls, there is no written evidence that Gilbert de Venables came with the Conqueror.

The Battle Abbey Rolls

Prior to the 'Dissolution of the Monasteries’, a scrolled tablet hung in Battle Abbey, which reputedly held the names of the commanders at the battle. The earliest known printed version dates from the 16th century, translated from a probable 14th century edition. Its origins are thought to be the third and final section of Le roman de Rou. Written in the language of the time it records the surnames or, more accurately, the names of the places where men came from. It was altered by the Battle Abbey scribes to the 12th century Anglo-Norman spellings. There are various ‘copies’ of this roll with considerable additions and differences. The ‘Battle Abbey Rolls’ appears to be a composite list from different sources. An aggregate number, with duplicates removed, from all the rolls suggests there were about 600 named people, from a total force of about 5000 men. Midgley suggests there were 375 elite ‘commanders’ who provided ships, men and horses. It has been suggested that monks were bribed to insert names of lower origins men whose families had become wealthy and powerful, but were not at Hastings. Such insertions are thought not to be more than twenty. It is also suggested that the monks associated and recorded Norman-sounding names of those who followed later with descendants of the invaders. The Roll could be a list of 14th century families of Norman origin, including the grandchildren of those who fought. It is probable that these were the progenitor of families who demonstrated Norman descendancy and entered England as a settler after the Conquest. (Midgley)

Above: A page from the Battle Abbey Roll

1066info 5, sheet 2

The Dives Roll

William’s gathered his invasion fleet at Dives-sur-Mer.

Perhaps the earliest reference to the Roll of Dives came from 'The Vicissitudes of Families, third series', by Sir Bernard Burke, second edition, Longmans, London, 1863. This stated that the compilation of a Roll of William’s Companions, in the Church of Dives sur Mer, was inaugurated on 17 August 1862. Presiding over an International Academic meeting Monsieur de Caumont, chairman of the French Society of Archaeology, with the approval of Mgr Didot, Bishop of Bayeux, Monsieur Renier, Vicar of Dives, Copunt Foucher de Careil, member of the Conseil General, Monsieur Arnet, Mayor of Dives compiled a list of 485 names. The results were perhaps from the research of Léopold Delisle, who left no records of his sources. It has been described as being ‘a companion record to that at Battle Abbey, but while the Battle Roll lists those who allegedly actually fought at Hastings, the Roll at Dives lists those who were otherwise engaged in furthering the Conquest of England’. Click on the Roll to open a 653kB A4 landscape image of the full Roll. Return to marker

Above: Gilbert's name on the Dives Roll Source: Author September 2006

Above: The church at Dive-sur-Mer. The Roll is located above the west door Source: Author September 2006

1066info5, sheet 3

The Falaise Roll

The French Government, in 1931, produced the "Falaise Roll" whose list shows considerable differences again.

There are about eight versions of the Roll in addition to the version accepted by the French Government. This lists 315 men whose names were engraved on the bronze tablet erected, on 21 June 1931 in the Chapel of Duke William’s castle at Falaise. Its probable source was Wace’s Le roman de Rou and the Battle Abbey Rolls.

Falaise Town Hall, downhill from the castle, now houses The Falaise Roll. The chief archaeologist at the castle is sceptical about its completeness and suggests the wall mural over the main entrance to Dives-sur-Mer church may be more correct.

Le roman de Rou [The romance of Rollo]

Written 100 years after the battle, the work of the poet-chronicler Master Robert Wace, a Jerseyman who studied in Paris and Caen and later became ‘clerc lisant’ in Caen itself, has long been disputed and his reputation virtually demolished. In 2005 Dr Elisabeth van Houts argued that some of the names, in the rhyming poem, could be identified in Normandy and linked to men who settled in England after the Conquest.

Written in a time of a changed political situation it is thought that Master Wace may have written his chronicle to celebrate Normandy’s former greatness and, it is now believed to honour neglected local heroes from his home region of western Normandy. van Houts argues that Master Wace, in his home of Caen, didn’t know of the existence of the Domesday Book or other English works when he talked to the descendants of more than 100 Hastings veterans and recorded the oral history. But, if he was unsure about individual claims he could have had them confirmed from the then contemporary financial and church records in Caen, and other documents of William’s court, now long since lost.

Master Wace mentions 116 individuals, surnamed by their toponym (place of abode), because, as he wrote, ‘I do not know the names of all the men from Normandy and Brittany’. He refers to three types of people:

1. seventeen participants mentioned by first name and surname, with long accounts of their actions;
2. twenty two participants mentioned by first name and surname, with no accounts of their actions; and
3. seventy seven names indicated as lords of such-and-such.

Most of the names in category 1 and 2 can be identified and the likelihood of them taking part in the Battle of Hastings is very great indeed. ³

Identifying individuals by their toponym in English post-conquest documents is almost impossible because formal family names were not adopted until in the reign of Henry II. By comparing the names on late 11^th century and early 12^th century Norman charters with those in Domesday and other English records van Houts found evidence of the continuation of the family name of new knights and minor barons in the districts of Caen and Bayeux and England of Domesday. Several names were also found from the generation that would have fought at Hastings. Near-contemporary English documents link names such as Bohun and Averenchis [sic] [Hugh d’Avranches, Earl of Chester] with Normandy.

It can be argued that, if the Battle Abbey Roll was based on Le Roman de Rou then van Houts’ research authenticates some of the names. Although Wace mentions ‘the good citizens of Rouen’ and eight people from Eure, the absence of Gilbert’s name from Master Wace’s list is perhaps due to the geographical location of Venables, in High Normandy.

William of Poitiers

William of Poitiers was a Norman born in Préaux (Department of Eure). Between 1050 and 1077 he was sometime Archdeacon of Lisieux. Though not present at Hastings, he crossed the Channel sometime after the invasion.

His book, Gesta Guillelmi Ducis Normannorum et Regis Anglorum [The History of William, Duke of the Normans and King of the English] was written circa 1073–1074 when he was chaplain to King William. It is possible that King William’s oral history was his source. The Gesta is by far the most complete account of the invasion written in the eleventh century. It existed only as a copy, published in1619, but this is now lost.

In the translation by Thorne, William names twelve who fought in the battle, and adds that there were ‘a great number of other most famous fighting men whose names should be recorded in history books for their war like deeds’. [Translated by Thorne] Thorne lists another three names, identified on the Bayeux Tapestry, making the fifteen accepted by the Foundation of Medieval Genealogy.

1066info5, sheet 4

Odericus Vitalis (qv.)

Odericus Vitalis was born near Shrewsbury c.1075, the eldest son of an English woman married to Oderlerius, the Norman confessor and advisor of Roger of Montgomery, 1^st Earl of Shrewsbury. He spent most of his life as a monk in the monastery of Saint Evroult near Lisieux in Calvados.

His Historia Ecclesiastica, written 70 years after the event, is composed of thirteen books written between 1123 and 1141. It is said to names an additional five men who fought at Hastings. Hostile to Hugh d’Avranches ⁴, questioning of William

I dare not commend him for an act which levelled both the bad and the good in one common ruin by a consuming famine...I assert, moreover, that such barbarous homicide should not pass unpunished.

and sympathetic to Harold. He was still putting the final touches to the story of the Norman master race when the death of Henry I brought to an end the male line which could be traced back to 911AD.

He records that ‘Men from Anjou, Brittany and Maine were still serving in January 1070, complaining bitterly and asking to be discharged’, ⁵ having presumably taken part in the Harrying (qv.). According to the Hastings battle plan Gilbert, a pure Norman, would not have been part of these ‘auxiliary’ troops.

Conclusion

It can be argued that these sources include four types of persons:

1. Those twenty real people who were generally agreed to have been present at the Battle of Hastings.
2. Real people who may well have been at the Battle of Hastings, but for whom it is not possible to produce evidence to show this.
3. Real people not at the Battle of Hastings.
4. Fictitious characters.

The difficulty is that although category 1 has been well defined by earlier work and category 4 can usually be found out by research, it is not possible to distinguish those in categories 2 and 3.

Though Gilbert de Venables appears on the three Rolls neither he nor his tenant-in-chief, Earl Hugh d’Avranches, have been positively identified as having fought at Hastings. Gilbert may have:

• fought at Hastings;
• fought at Hastings under Hugh d’Avranches as part of his feudal obligation to his pre-1066 tenant-in-chief;
• fought at Hastings under Hugh d’Avranches so achieving a high status tenancy in Hugh’s Palatine.

Or, as an opportunist ‘youngest son’ who, on hearing of England's potential, sought a better parcel of land than his Venables fiefdom:

• there appear to be no pre-1066 close honorial relationship between the Gilbert the Norman tenant and Hugh his tenant-in-chief ⁶;
• geographically Avranches, in the Manche department of Low Normandy and Venables in the Eure department of High Normandy are at the extremes of modern Normandy so it is unlikely that Gilbert, was a pre-1066 tenant of Hugh and fought under him;
• Gilbert may have come to Hugh’s attention during the ‘Harrying’ (qv.) and achieved status because of his deeds.

We know of Gilbert circa 1050/66 from the Caen records and of Gilbert in the great survey of 1087. Whilst he appears on the three Rolls neither he nor his Earl, Hugh d’Avranches, have been positively identified as having fought at Hastings. Gilbert may have arrived in England, to enhance his fortunes, at the time of Hastings to take the manor of Fifehead Magdalen (qv.).

End notes

1. Keats-Rohan, 1999 p.9
2. ibid p.30
3. van Houts 1997, p.112
4. Odericus Vitalis ii pp.260-2
5. ibid p.234
6. Keats-Rohan, 1999 p.10

1066info5, sheet 5

Sources:

• Full Battle Abbey Roll, with Gilbert's name (Accessed: 13 March 2020)
• Fallen, Valentine, ‘Crossing with the Conqueror’, Ancestors number 37, May 2005 as an abstract of van Houts, Dr Elisabeth, ‘The History of the Norman People by Master Wace (Roman de Rou)’, Boydell Press, 2004
• Keats-Rohan, Katherine SB, ‘Domesday People, a prosopography of persons occurring in English documents 1066-1166 , Vol.1 Domesday Book’, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 1999
• Midgley Tim, ‘The Battle Abbey Roll Timekeeper’ (Accessed 13 March 2020)
• Midgley Tim, 'The Companions of William Duke of Normandy, 1066’ (Accessed 13 March 2020)
• Oderic's translations are available at Fordham University (Accessed 13 March 2020)
• Oderic's translations are available at 1066.co.nz see /library/extracts (Accessed 13 March 2020)
• Thorne Lewis, ‘The Bayeux Tapestry and the Norman Invasion’, Folio Society, London, 1973
• van Houts, E., 'Wace as Historian', in Keats-Rohan, KSB (Ed), 'Family Trees and the Roots of Politics The prosopography of Britain and France Tenth Century to Twelfth Century', Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 1997
• Wace, 'roman de Rou ’– see Chapters 22 and 23, Translated by Taylor Edgar, William Pickering, London 1837

What may have happened

Gilbert, being a minor son and having the small estate of Venables, may have jumped at the opportunity for fame and the fortune of an improved estate. He may have gained his Cheshire lands in one of the following ways:

• Gilbert fought at Hastings and received his Cheshire manorial lands in 1066. This is doubtful because Earl Edwin administered Cheshire until the rebellion of the Earls in 1069- 70.
• Gilbert fought at Hastings but wasn’t rewarded with any land until he had taken part in the Harrying of the North. However, would Gilbert have waited four years for his rewards? If he had been at Hastings then he would have expected manors in Norman controlled southern England.
• Gilbert didn’t fight at Hastings but came to England at sometime after October 1066 and before the Saxon rebellion of 1069-70. For his part in the Harrying of the North (qv.) and maintaining the peace it is possible that, as an important tenant of Hugh, he received his eighteen manors from the deposed Wulfgeat, when Hugh gained Chester.
• Gilbert arrived in the north with Hugh d'Avranches, when he became Earl in 1070.
• It is reported that those knights who fought at Hastings received manors 'along' the south coast. Gilbert fought at Hastings and received the manor of Fifehead Magdalen, in Dorset, as a reward. [VCH Cheshire, page 311 says that it is possible Gilbert held this manor for Count Hugh, but this cannot be proved. However, this Gilbert has no 'surname' or name related to place of abode.]

Fifehead Magdalen

'Fifehead (often Fifehide) Magdalen is a little village situated a mile north from Marmhull. It is a well inclosed parish, upon the western banks of the Stour, between the river and the parish of Stalbridge. The village is beautifully situated upon the summit of the hill which rises with a gradual ascent from the banks of the Stour. It is called Fifehide from the five hides of land it contained, and received the addition name Magdalen from the saint to whom its church is dedicated. In Domesday Book this place is survey amongst the lands of Earl Hugh.' ¹

(200) Earl Hugh holds FIFEHEAD MAGDALEN, [Fifhide] and Gilbert [holds] of him. Alnoth held it TRE, and it paid geld for 5 hides. There is land for 5 ploughs. In demesne are 3 ploughs, and 6 slaves; and 4 villains and 4 bordars with 2 ploughs. There are 2 mills rendering 22s 6d and 30 acres of meadow, [and] woodland 4 furlongs long and 2 furlongs wide. It was and is worth £7.
	Above: The Domesday entry for Fifehead Magdalen

'Hugh de Abrincis [sic], son of William the Conqueror's sister, came to England, and was created Earl of Chester A.D.1070. Amongst the vast possessions given to him was this manner and nine more in the county. Ranulph, surnamed de Gernons, his descendant, gave this manor, and the churches of St. Leonard, St. Nicholas and Allhallows, in Bristol, to the canons of St. Augustine there.' ² However, Fifehead may have been given to St. Augustine's by Robert son of Harding, who survived the Conquest, and the grandson of Eadnorth (Alnoth) the staller. ³

1066info5, sheet 6

Above: A map locating the manor of Fifehead Magdalen, on the A30 between Sherbourne and Shaftsbury Note the existence of a weir, which may have been the location of one of Gilbert's mills, but not of a motte.

An analysis of Earl Hugh's Dorset Domesday lands (After Derby, 1962)

Of Earl Hugh's Dorset lands Gilbert was tenant of one manor and William the remaining ten. But Gilbert, the first named tenant, assumes a degree of importance and a closeness to Earl Hugh.

1066info5, sheet 7

1. Of considerable importance are the three manors called Fifehead, the modern Fifehead Magdalen, Fifehead Neville, and Fifehead St Quintin, each assessed, not surprisingly, at five hides. ⁴
2. Probably William Malbeenc (Malbanc) who appears in the Geld Roll for Beaminster Hundred as part of Catsley. It is reasonable to assume William Malbank held the other manors of Earl Hugh. (VCH Dorset p.50) Domesday records Willelmus Malbanc as holding Earl Hugh's manors of Wepre County Flint, Wincho in Cheshire (Natwich) and Witebiam (Whitby) in Yorkshire. Willelmus Malbanc and Gilleburtus de Venables co-signed both the Foundation Charter for St Werburgh's Abbey and the Great Charter of Ranulf II that confirmed the original Charter. ⁵
3. If the manors of South Perrott and Catesly were to be returned to the church on Alnoth's death then either Alnoth survived Hastings and was alive in 1087 or Domesday recorded an historical fact that the conquerors had chosen to ignore.

A comparison of the Dorset and Cheshire manors suggest that the Dorset manors appear to be wealthier than Gilbert's northern manors and that the single manor of Fifehead was by far the most valuable and substantial manor in Dorset.

1066info5, sheet 8

The assets of Fifehead Magdalen suggest that Hugh d’Avranches had entrusted a prime manor to Gilbert de Fifehead.

• It was one of 103 manors, out of 515, valued at five hides and should be considered important. Only fourteen Dorset manors were assessed at over 20 hides. ⁶
• Its value was only 14s less than the whole of Gilbert's Cheshire manors.
• The manor, which had been in production from 1066 to 1086, was acquired as a working Saxon manor and had not been 'wasted'.
• The five ploughs needed equalled the ploughable area, suggesting that all the land was in cultivation. On the Dorset chalk uplands the density of plough teams was about two per square mile. In Domesday Dorset 46% of the manors were 'understocked' with plough teams and 8% had an excess. The value of the 'understocked' manors had generally decrease by the time of Domesday. ⁷
• At 22s 6d the two Fifehead Magdalen's mills were a valuable asset that contributed more than five times the value of the two Cheshire mills, suggesting a more intense farming of cereals. The other eight mills on the upper Stour rendered, n total, 27s 2d. Generally the Dorset mills had a value of 5s, 7s 6d, 10s and 12s 6d and some as little as 20d. ⁸ Of the 272 Dorset Domesday mills, all of Saxon origin, 34 were of the Kings demesne and the remaining 238 were held by 178 manors. Forty-three manors held between two and four mills. ⁹
• In Domesday Dorset, meadows dominated the Stour valley in villages along steams that broke the chalk surface. Individual amounts were often over 25 acres and sometimes well over ¹⁰ The 30 acres of Fifehead meadow supported a population (14) second only to Brereton in Cheshire.
• On the chalk uplands the density of Domesday population was 8 per square mile. This and the relationship with plough teams reflected something of the distribution of wealth and prosperity in the County. ¹¹

The possession of a southern manor usually suggested that the previous owner, Alnoth, had either been killed at Hastings or dispossessed for being involved in the defence of Saxon England. This suggests that Gilbert de Fifehead fought at Hastings and was rewarded shortly after.

Though one can never be certain, the evidence linking Gilbert de Fifehead to Gilbert de Venables is dependant on:

• the continued association with Hugh d'Avranches, his liege lord;
• Gilbert de Fifehead being given Hugh's best Dorset manor and was therefore an important prime tenant;
• this prominence being matched to his high status in Hugh's Cheshire court; and
• the probable link manorial between William and William Malbeenc in Dorset and Willelmus Malbanc who was also a Cheshire tenant of Earl Hugh.

However, the Fifehead manor did not pass to the Venables of Kinderton.

• If, as Hutchins (qv.) suggests, Earl Hugh passed his Fifehead manor to 'Ranulph, surnamed de Gernons, [and] his descendant', after Domesday then Gilbert of Fifehead was without land, which would seem unusual for some one who had owned an important and valuable manor.
• If Gilbert of Fifehead was Gilbert de Venables then his tenant-in-chief granted additional lands, after taking part in the Harrying of the North (qv.).
• If the Gilberts are one of the same, Hugh may have dispossessed Gilbert in favour of his relation. If this was the case Gilbert de Venables would not have had such a prominent position in the Cheshire court?
• Gilbert may have relinquished the Fifehead manor as a form of political speculation that would enhance his family’s future stature and wealth in these frontier lands - a scenario paralleled in the 19^th century American west.

If the manors of South Perrott and Catesly were to be returned to the church on Alnoth's death:

• Alnoth survived Hastings and was alive in 1087; or
• Domesday recorded an historical fact that the conquerors had chosen to ignore.

I would like to believe that Gilbert de Fifehead and Gilbert de Venables is the same person.

I would like to believe that Gilbert of Fifehead was suitably rewarded for fighting at Hastings with the high status manor of Fifehead Magdalen, so establishing his high status allegiance to Earl Hugh. After taking a prominent part in Earl Hugh's retinue in the Harrying of the North (qv.) he was rewarded as a sub-tenant with his Cheshire manors and high position in the Cheshire court, where Domesday recognised him as Gilbert de Venables.

1066info5, sheet 9

Fifehead Magdalen today

Gilbert would have been at home in his first English manor. Though Venables is a larger settlement than Fifehead the visiting Venablois would recognise the farming community:

• the familiar geographical location - a settlement build on a spur over looking the Rivers Seine and Stour;
• the linear developments along roads climbing out of the valley and traversing the spur;
• expensive period houses at the heart of the village;
• a church at one end of the village.

1066info5, sheet 10

Above: Index to Fifehead Magdalen photographs, author February 2007 The black numbers locate the image. The blue arrows show the angle of the shot.

End notes

1. Hutchins 1861, p.56
2. ibid
3. VCH Dorset p.57
4. ibid p.50
5. Barraclough, 1988
6. VCH Dorset
7. Darby, 1967
8. ibid p.114
9. Alecto, 1991 Table 3
10. Stanier 2000, p.11
11. Darby, 1967

Sources: (Researched on the 940th anniversary of Hastings.)

• Barraclough Prof. G, 'Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester c.1071- 1237', The Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 1988
• Darby HC and Maxwell IS, 'The Domesday Geography of Northern England', Cambridge University Press, 1962
• Darby HC and Welldon Finn R, 'The Domesday Geography of South-west England', CUP, 1967
• 'The Dorset Domesday', Alecto Historical Edition, London, 1991
• Hutchins John, 'The History and Antiquities of the County of Dorset Vol.IV, Nichols, Westminster, 1861-74
• Pugh RB, 'Victoria History of the County of Dorset, Vol.III', University of London Institute of Historical Research, OUP, 1968
• Stanier Peter, 'Discover Dorset Mills', The Dovecote Press, Wimborne, 2000

1066info5, sheet 11

The Harrying of the North 1069 ¹

Something made Gilbert go north to claim his Cheshire land. The author suggests that he followed his liege lord Hugh d’Avranches in William's progress through the north of England in the winter of 1869-70. In William's scorched earth campaign he burnt his way west to Chester before deciding he had made his point. Forfeited land would then have been distributed to his faithful follower Hugh d’Avranches, with Gilbert as a sub-tenant.

Odericus Vitalis, in Historia Ecclesiastica suggest that whilst some Normans found themselves endowed with lands and riches beyond their wildest dreams, others complained that they had been given ‘barren farms, and domains depopulated by war’. Gilbert, judging by the Domesday values of his Cheshire estates, fell in to the latter category. However, the manor of Fifehead Magdalen alone returns only 14s less than all his Cheshire manors and was therefore rich lands, perhaps richer than his Normandy Venables.

A contemporary account was written by Orderic Vitalis, a Benedictine monk born in Atcham, Shropshire in 1075 who was the eldest son of a Saxon mother married to Oderlerius, the Norman priest confessor and advisor of Roger of Montgomery, 1^st Earl of Shrewsbury. He spent most of his life as a monk in the monastery of Saint Evroult near Lisieux in Calvados. At some time between 1110 and 1141he became the chronicler of thirteen books, which was one of the great contemporary chronicles of 11th and 12th century Normandy and Anglo-Norman England entitled, The Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy'. (Accessed: 30 January 2025) Books iv to v focus on the deeds of William the Conqueror.

‘Nowhere else had William shown such cruelty. Shamefully he succumbed to this vice, for he made no effort to restrain his fury and punished the innocent and the guilty. In his anger he commanded that all crops and herds, chattels and food of every kind should be bought together and burned to aches with consuming fire, so that the whole region north of the Humber might be stripped of all means of sustenance. In consequence so serious a scarcity was felt in England, and so terrible a famine fell upon the humble and defenceless populace, that more than 100,000 Christian folk of both sexes, young and old alike, perished of hunger.’ ¹

My narrative has frequently had occasions to praise William, but for this act which condemned the innocent and guilty alike to die by slow starvation I cannot commend him. For when I think of helpless children, young men in their prime of life, and hoary grey beards perishing alike of hunger, I am so moved to pity that I would rather lament the griefs and sufferings of the wretched people than make a vain attempt to flatter the perpetrator of such infamy. ²

'The King stopped at nothing to hunt his enemies. He cut down many people and destroyed homes and land. Nowhere else had he shown such cruelty and to his shame he made no effort to control his fury and he punished the innocent with the guilty. He ordered that crops and herds, tools and food should be burned to ashes. More than 100,000 people perished of hunger. I have often praised William in this book, but I can say nothing good about this brutal slaughter. God will punish him'.

End note

1. Quoted in Wild
2. ibid

1066info5, sheet 12

Did the first Gilbert live in Kinderton, as has been suggested?

The Venables were known as the Barons of Kinderton. From at least the middle of the 13^th century until the death of Peter Venable, last of the male line, in the late 17^th century Kinderton was their main residence. However, whilst Kinderton was amongst Gilbert's holdings, it is likely that he settled in Eccleston for a number of reason:

there seems to have been an 'early' mother church in Eccleston 1 Domesday tends to list holdings of the Normans in a particular order; the major holding is named first, which in Gilbert's case is Eccleston. Eccleston is near Chester, which was the heavily defended centre of power in the County. Eccleston was on Walting Street, the old Roman road leading to Chester: a route for any rebel attack. It protected Chester from any indirect invasion from Dublin.

Above: Map locating the Eccleston mound, the possible site of Gilbert's northern home

• In 1071 Eccleston was 'waste' but in 1086 had been improved and worth 50s. Kinderton was also  'waste' and worth 10s in 1086.
• Eccleston was one of only three 5-hide units in Cheshire. This places its importance just below Chester and Halton (10-hides), even though Eccleston value had risen from 10s to 50s in 1086, there were only two plough-teams for the six units of plough-lands. ²
• The Ordnance Survey map shows an insignificant ‘mound’, located at grid reference SJ 414; 428, at the north-eastern end of the village over looking the River Dee. Today the ‘mound’, though distinct, has the appearance of a bramble bank rising out of the undulating grassland. Trees, slightly more than sapling, grow from the rive side. A view from the top still commands the outlook to the bypass and out into England, but not over the western ridge. The mound was re-scheduled and classified as a motte. It is documented as:

‘Below the church, in one of the glebe fields, was formerly a Tumulus (adjoining a bath), the site of which is now planted with trees. It stood on the Roman road which ran from Chester to the Iron Bridge over the Dee. The tumulus was opened by the rev. Charles Mytton, then rector, about half a century ago, and a great quantity of human bones and, some say, coins were discovered.’ ³ However, this single ‘mound’ is certainly not the size of a motte neither does it have the skyline location of a tumuli cluster.

Ormerod records that the tumulus stood on the Roman road which ran from Chester to the Iron Bridge over the Dee. It was opened ‘about half a century ago (c.1830) and a great quantity of human bones and some say coins were discovered’. Mound was badly disturbed in c.1770 and 1850.’ ⁴

… The motte and associated earthworks east of the Old Rectory at Eccleston is one of a group of early post-Conquest mottes and motte and bailey castles forming a defensive system, the aim of which was to curb Welsh raids on the rich farming areas of Cheshire. Equally important was the role these sites played in imposing and demonstrating the new post-Conquest feudal order on the area. [The} monument includes consists of an oval earthen mound, mutilated on east side and partly surrounded by a ditch and bank with other banks to south and south-west. [The] Motte measures 28m x 14.5m and is 3m high. … [It] is one of several castles in Cheshire that were constructed in the medieval period to defend the rich agricultural resources of Cheshire from raids.’ ⁵

1066info5, sheet 13

There is no evidence of a motte at Kinderton but the Normans did not construct them at all of their settlements. That apparent absence would not of itself preclude Gilbert's settling there instead of at Eccleston. However, it is likely that Eccleston was still the seat of the Venables in the early 13^th century since the deeds of that date (Catalogue of the Vernon Collection, Cheshire Records Office DVEI/MII/15 ) shows William de Venables (circa 1228) as 'Lord of Eccleston'. However, by the mid 13^th century, Kinderton had become more valuable holding than Eccleston.

This proposition is supported by statements in the Victoria County History of Cheshire, which makes reference to:

• 'Kinderton, which was later to be the caput of the Cheshire barony of the Venables family, though there is nothing to indicate it had special status in 1086.' ⁵ In fact Domesday records that Kinderton was Wasta fuit et inventi, or waste in 1066 and 1070 and when Gilbert took it over.
• His demesne manor was Eccleston (demesne being lands retained by a feudal lord for his own use.
• In all instances, what was to become the first caput the barony was distinguished in Domesday by being placed first amongst the holder's estates in the hundred, the only exception being Kinderton, which was in no way distinguished from the other Middlewich holdings of Gilbert.' ⁶

After the devastation of The Harrying of the North in 1069-70, recovery was at first slow, but as the town of Chester rose from the ashes, small villages were encouraged to sustain the economic growth. The evidence of the Domesday Book suggests a landscape of woodland, arable lands, meadows and wasteland across the width of the County. Every manor grew subsistent crops of wheat, barley and oats of necessity and annually ploughed, sowed and reaped two-thirds of their common open fields, always leaving one-third fallow.

Gilbert’s ‘castle’ motte may have carried a simple watchtower keep, whilst the inhabitants of the village lived in the surrounding area of the bailey. If the Eccleston motte is not the location of Gilbert’s keep then there appears to be no other alternative location unless it is beneath the village Right: An artists impression of a Norman bailey

1066info5, sheet 14

End notes

1. VCH Cheshire Early Medieval Chester 400-1230
2. Darby, 1962
3. Ormerod ,1882
4. VCH
5. Historic England
6. VCH, Vol.1, p.311
7. ibid, Vol.1, p.307

Sources:

• Darby HC and Maxwell IS, 'The Domesday Geography of Northern England', Cambridge University Press, 1962
• Elvington, CR (Ed), ‘The Victoria County History of the Counties of England: A History of Cheshire Vol.1’, University of London Institute for Historical Research, 1987 p.83
• Historic England (ref: 1011118) Motte and associated earthworks east of Old Rectory (Accessed: 05 February 2025)
• Ormerod G., ‘History of Cheshire Vol.2’ 1882, p.829
• Strickland Tim, Archaeologist of Chester Museum, Discussion on a coach bound for Dives- sur-Mer, 14 July 2006
• Sylvester D., ‘A History of Cheshire’, Phillimore and Co. Ltd, Chichester, 1980
• 'The Victoria History of the County of Cheshire, Vol.1', University of London Institute of Historical Research/OUP, 1987
• VCH Cheshire Early Medieval Chester 400-1230, Vol 5 Part 1 the City of Chester (Accessed: 05 February 2025)
• Walton Mike, 'The Venables - Barons of Kinderton', of Middlewich. With acknowledgement of his unpublished paper, 5^th Venables Conference, Venables, Department of Eure

  ---

Eccleston today

The village gives every appearance of being an affluent village with the solid house built in solid Cheshire sandstone. The same white cast iron village nameplate, surmounted by a golden dog, adorns each house or gatepost. The settlement and its cathedral-like church, built in the Early English style and consecrated in 1900, have been, and may still be, heavily influenced by the affluent Grosvenor estate at Eaton Hall, 2km south along Walting Street. It is a village worthy of the Duke of Westminster, the richest British person in the United Kingdom, whose property investments were valued by The Sunday Times Rich List 2006 at £6.6 billions.

Hoverbox Photo Gallery - Eccleston Author: February 2007 This feature does not function correctly on phones and tablets

1. Shelter Church Road The 'centre' of Eccleston, at the start of the continuing Roman Road to Eaton Hall, showing the tower of 20th century Early English style church

. 2. Eccleston's substantial Cheshire sandstone buildings, built above the river footpath. 3. The large house.

1

2

3

---

Sources:

• Forester,Thomas translator Oderic - The Norman Conquest (Accessed: 20 January 2025)
• Just History Posts – What happened after the 1066? The Harrying of the North (Accessed: 20 January 2025)
• Rylstone Project (Accessed: 20 January 2025)
• Thorpe, Lewis, The Bayeux Tapestry and the Norman Invasion, The Folio Society, London, 1973
• Vitalis, O. (1853) London: Bohn (Accessed: 20 January 2025)
• Wilde, Robert, William the Conqueror and The Harrying of the North (Accessed: 20 January 2025)

---

1066info5, sheet 15

More information 1

The Background to the Harrying of the North The Harrying of the North was a campaign of brutal violence carried out in the North of England by King William I, in an attempt to stamp his authority on the region. He wasn't the first monarch to have to quell revolution. However, he was be famed as one of the most brutal. At the time of the Norman Conquest, the north of England was a shared culture with a community mixed of old Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. The aristocracy was mostly Danish in origin, and the north was very separate from the south due to poor road links. Whilst the north technically came under rule of southern kings, since 962 the northern earls were ruled by an autonomous leader who pledged loyalty to the southern king. They did not even speak a common language with the southerners. This meant that in many ways, the north of England viewed itself as somewhat different to other areas of the country. After the success of the battle of Stamford Bridge on 25 September 1066, the northerners were remarkably absent, though expected, at the battle of Hastings on 14 October 1066. Whilst the predominately Saxon/Norse northern army was exhausted, events on the southern coast of England was just too far away to concern them. After Hastings, William the Conqueror was busy with effective campaigns putting down resistance in the south by building a huge number of castles and forts across England. Aside from a change in leadership not much happened for two years in the North. It seemed like life could go on as before. Initially, William tried to rule the north via local people, placing two native English earls to govern. However, the first earl was murdered by a rival in 1067, and the second defected in 1068 to Midland rebels. The North England had always been a wilder and peace wasn’t meant to be. York and Durham were just too important to be ignored. In 1068, Eadgar Aetheling, the grandson of Edward the Confessor’s half-brother and last surviving heir to the Saxon throne, made his bid for the throne in conjunction with Edwin Earl of Mercia, Morcar former Earl of Northumbria, and Cospatric, current Earl of Northumbria who had purchased the earldom from William. At the very least they had one eye on northern autonomy. King William was quick to respond, and the rebellion was crushed immediately. Eadgar Aetheling fled to Scotland with his family, and Malcolm III, King of the Scots married his sister Margaret. Given support from his new brother-in-law, Eadgar returned to England in response to a new Northumbrian uprising in early 1069CE. In January, Northumbrian rebels converged on Durham. Eadgar Aetheling and his supporters joined a large Danish fleet led by the sons of Svein Estrithson, King of Denmark; the Danes were apparently welcomed in the north. William finally sent one of his own men with an army to subdue the region; however, the army was ambushed at Durham and all but two of the Normans in the garrison were killed including William’s new appointee Robert de Comines. The combined forces continued south and recaptured York, which was burned to the ground and the Norman garrison destroyed. Unfortunately for Eadgar, his army was an unruly force and he was more of a figurehead than a leader, so no attempt was made to force his claim or even declare Northumbria’s independence. Attacked on all sides, William did remarkably well. He left the south-western rebellions to be dealt with by his deputies, whilst he crushed the Welsh and their allies before turning north. William reached the north of England in winter 1069CE; he entered the ruined city of York and celebrated the Nativity in what was left of the Minster. The rebels had plenty of warning of his impending arrival and dispersed, with Edgar returning to safety in Scotland. The Danes had nowhere to stay over the winter with their fleet and so William was able to bribe them with payments of silver and gold to return home, which they duly did. William had ridden out the storm of rebellion, but after several years dealing with these problems, and frustrated that he hadn’t been able to crush the rebels in battle, his tether had worn thin. He decided to employ Roman strategies to end any hope of future rebellion. By Christmas 1069, in a protracted campaign, he exerted control over his lands which has come to be known indirectly as the Harrying of the North. What happened? Vegetius, writing in the fourth century about Roman warfare, had said ‘the main and principal point in war is to secure plenty of provisions and to destroy the enemy by famine’ and that is exactly what William set out to do. During the winter of 1069-70CE, William divided up his northern army into small raiding parties to flush out the hiding rebels, and to destroy resources so that the rebels wouldn’t have amenities to build up their strength again after he left. The results were devastating. The chronicler Orderic Vitalis describes what happened:

1066info5, sheet 16

More information 1 cont

What happened? cont ‘He levelled their places of shelter to the ground, wasted their lands, and burnt their dwellings with all they contained. Never did William commit so much cruelty; to his lasting disgrace, he yielded to his worst impulse, and set no bounds to his fury, condemning the innocent and the guilty to a common fate. In the fullness of his wrath he ordered the corn and cattle, with the implements of husbandry and every sort of provisions, to be collected in heaps and set on fire till the whole was consumed… there followed, consequently, so great a scarcity in England in the ensuing years, and severe famine involved the innocent and unarmed population in so much misery, that, in aristian nation, more than a hundred thousand souls, of both sexes and all ages, perished of want. On many occasions, in the course of the present history, I have been free to extol William according to his merits, but… when I see that innocent children, youths in the prime of their age, and grey headed old men, perished from hunger, I am more disposed to pity the sorrows and sufferings of the wretched people… I assert, moreover, that such barbarous homicide could not pass unpunished. The Almighty Judge beholds alike the high and low, scrutinizing and punishing the acts of both with equal justice’ 1 Right: Normans burning Anglo-Saxon buildings, with a woman and child fleeing from Bayeux Tapestry What transpired next was so devastating that even those used to a scorched earth policy, were shocked. Deciding to make an example of Yorkshire, William systematically plundered, burned and murdered every living creature between York and Durham. It was said that the bodies of inhabitants lay scattered across the countryside, unburied and rotting, and that starving exiles made their way south, either to die on the road or to sell themselves into slavery for food. The idea behind the slaughter was to show conclusively that William was in charge, and that no one would send aid to anyone thinking of rebellion. The level of destruction is heavily disputed. Symeon of Durham wrote in the early twelfth century that there were no villages left between York and Durham. Even 17 years later, in the Domesday Book of 1086CE, the word 'waste' is noted in page after page and it is estimated that a total of 60% of holdings in Yorkshire and the North Riding were recorded as waste land. It is believed that only 25% of the population remained, with 80,000 oxen and 150,000 people killed or fled. William had crushed the North. King William, with Earl Hugh and Gilbert, burnt his way west to Chester before deciding that he had made his point, and spent Easter of 1070 in Winchester, convinced that there would be no more rebellion in Northumbria. And indeed he was right. He had bought peace at the cost of much future revenue – not to mention his reputation. However, competing modern theories argue that, given just three months during winter, William’s forces could not have caused the amount of carnage attributed to them. William might instead have been probing for known rebels in secluded places, with the result more like that of a surgeon's scalpel than a smashing broadsword.

1066info5, sheet 17

More information 1 cont

Conclusion Orderic Vitalis rounded figure of 100,000 deaths isn’t to be taken as read. Wilde writes: William was generally criticized for his methods of subjugating England, particularly by the Pope. The Harrying of the North might have been the campaign that such complaints chiefly concerned. It’s worth noting that William was a man capable of this cruelty who was also worried about his standing come judgment day. Worries about the afterlife led him to richly endow the church to make up for savage events like the Harrying. Ultimately, we will never conclusively confirm how much damage was caused. Historians have been conflicted in the extent of the damage that William was responsible for. Archaeological evidence such as a plethora of coin hoards deposited at that time supports a mass destruction and displacement of people. Moreover, it has been suggested that the regular dispersal of villages in Durham and Yorkshire suggest a large scale organised reconstruction, rather than natural expansion. Nonetheless, other historians have questioned whether William’s army could really be responsible for such large-scale damage. William’s army had already fought the Welsh, and parts of his army were spread across the south either quashing other rebellions or preventing more. Would it be possible for the small remnants of his force to do so much damage? Generally few dispute the extent of the mass death and destruction. However, there is the suggestion that, rather than the damage being exaggerated, the damage wasn’t entirely William’s doing. William was in the north for three months at most and with a reduced retinue of troops. It may have been that the raids by William’s men were compounded by raiding Danes or Scots who capitalised on the destruction and lack of defence. Whatever happened, whilst further uprisings against William still took place in later years, William never faced such a huge rebellion as experienced in 1069. To further cement his absolute rule, William stopped trying to integrate his followers into the existing Anglo-Saxon power structure. From then on, he decided on a full-scale replacement of the old Saxon aristocratic ruling class with loyal Norman ones, who tightened his grip on the country. However, Norman natives only populated the higher levels of society with Gilbert being the fourth ranking in the Palatine of Cheshire. For centuries Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Scandinavian culture and ‘local government’ survived under the surface. Even in the thirteenth century, charters survive with pre-conquest names, and very few places took on Norman names. Orderic Vitalis claims in his chronicle that on his deathbed William deeply regretted his actions, saying: I persecuted the native inhabitants of England beyond all reason. Whether nobles or commons, I cruelly oppressed them; many I unjustly disinherited; innumerable multitudes, especially in the county of York, perished through me by famine and sword…I am stained with the rivers of blood that I have shed.’ End notes Orderic Vitalis, The ecclesiastical history of England and Normandy, Vol II p.28

---

This page was created by Richard Crompton and maintained by Chris Glass		Version A9 Updated 04 February 2025

---