William the Conqueror (c1028-1087)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I will put that on my list of books to read over the next Christmas holidays when I have some time to read history for pleasure rather than for work.
 
Thank you for the heads up, Carolyn! I just reserved my copy at the library today which fortunately had it.
 
I can't wait to read it! I always wanted to know more about her.
 
Have I heard about this woman? Is she on my Queen's list? Te only Matilda I can recall now is the Empress, but I will definitely look for it the next time I go to the library.
 
I will certainly read this book. If my memory is intact, she was very short [like 4'8"] and he was quite tall [well over 6 foot]
 
Have I heard about this woman? Is she on my Queen's list? Te only Matilda I can recall now is the Empress, but I will definitely look for it the next time I go to the library.

The Empress Matilda was this lady's granddaughter.

William and Matilda (sometimes called Maud) had a number of sons, the youngest of whom was Henry I. Henry had two children - his son who drowned when the White Ship sunk in the channel and his daughter, The Empress Matilda who fought the civil war with another of William and Matilda's grandsons - Stephen.
 
I know the history of Empress Matilda, her father, her brother, and cousin; I was just stating for no reason that I have little recollection of William's wife and the only Matilda I have at the top of my head is the Empress.
 
The Bayeux Tapestry, showing scenes from William I's conquest, was displayed for the first time in Bayeux Cathedral in 1077.

When William was preparing to invade England, Matilda outfitted a ship with her own money and gave it to him.
The ship was the Mora.

:king::queen4:

In Kings and Queens of Great Britain, David Soud wrote:

William's control of England meant the arrival of a Norman brand of feudalism, in which the entire kingdom was the property of the Crown. William treated a portion of it as his own; the rest was divided among manors, which were allotted to barons who swore allegiance to the Crown. :crown7:

In Kings & Queens of Great Britain, David Soud wrote:

William I's view of the kingdom as his personal property led him to establish vast preserves for his own pleasure, most famously the New Forest. Every leaf of the New Forest was considered as belonging to the king.

In Queens Consort, Lisa Hilton wrote:

The prestige of Matilda's ancestry was obviously considered a sufficient compensation for someone of William's relatively uncertain status, as she brought no dowry of land or titles to the union.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
William and Matilda were actually first cousins. He fell in love with her at first sight but she repeatedly refused to marry him until he changed her mind!
 
Was Matilda of Flanders REALLY as little as everyone thinks?

William the Conqueror's wife has always interested me, and I know people were shorter in the 11th century, but 4 foot 2?! It's been said that whoever measured her skeleton when her tomb was first opened was a bit wishy-washy with how he did it, but what if he wasn't? If Matilda WAS truly that tiny, then the story about William throwing her over his shoulder makes a lot of sense - she would have only reached his armpit. What does everyone think? Is England's smallest queen not so RIDICULOUSLY tiny after all?
 
Congratulation on your first post. :flowers:

A remarkable topic to start out with.
Well, IMO it's more likely a mistake.
The average height for women in that period would have been around 150-155 cm. For nobles, and other well to do, the average height for men and women would have been a little higher, due to better nutrition and slightly better living conditions.
That means Matilda would have been at least 20 cm below the average height!
Even at that time she would unquestionably have been labelled a "dwarf". - With all the stigma that followed I find it unlikely that the Duke of Normandy, a very important man regionally, would have married what he and his peers would have called a "freak" behind her back. - Why, she would likely give births to "freaks" rather than big strong sons and what duke would want that?

That William was able to carry his wife on his shoulders, doesn't impress me.
He was a strong, fit man, who was physically active for most of his life - like most other men of the warrior class.
It would surprise me if he couldn't!

She might very well have been slender and/or below average height at the time, but not that short.
 
Last edited:
In the course of subduing Normandy William mastered the technique of land acquisition that would characterize his eventual conquest of England: Deliberate advance, ruthless intimidation, and construction of castles to secure recently conquered areas.
 
Congratulation on your first post. :flowers:

A remarkable topic to start out with.
Well, IMO it's more likely a mistake.
The average height for women in that period would have been around 150-155 cm. For nobles, and other well to do, the average height for men and women would have been a little higher, due to better nutrition and slightly better living conditions.
That means Matilda would have been at least 20 cm below the average height!
Even at that time she would unquestionably have been labelled a "dwarf". - With all the stigma that followed I find it unlikely that the Duke of Normandy, a very important man regionally, would have married what he and his peers would have called a "freak" behind her back. - Why, she would likely give births to "freaks" rather than big strong sons and what duke would want that?

That William was able to carry his wife on his shoulders, doesn't impress me.
He was a strong, fit man, who was physically active for most of his life - like most other men of the warrior class.
It would surprise me if he couldn't!

She might very well have been slender and/or below average height at the time, but not that short.

Agreed.

We know from historical records, that if she had some kind of obvious physical deformity, there would be written record of it. And dwarfism would most certainly be that. The fact there is not one source that mentions her suffering from dwarfism seems to point to it not being truth. She may have been shorter, but highly unlikely a dwarf.

Not that there were not royal women who didn't have deformities and still married. Claude of France had a clubbed foot and hunchback.

It seems she was actually around 5 feet tall. Not tall by modern standards, but certainly no dwarf.
 
Its a miracle that Matilda's remains survived the wanton vandalism of rampaging Huguenots and then the horrors of French Revolution.Her daughter Cecilia of Normandy is also buried at L'abbaye aux Dames in Caen.
 
I just want to know: at what point did people switch from referring to him as "the Bastard"?

Because it wasn't after he conquered England or any time that soon after, seemingly.
 
Robert Curthose: The eldest son of King William I
 
Back
Top Bottom