Hugh d'Avranches, known by his contemporaries as "Vras" or "Le Gros" and after his death as "Lupus"[1]
Birth Year Estimation
Hugh was supposed to have fought at the battle of Hastings in 1066 when he would have been at the most 19 years old,[1] so born about 1047.[2][3]
Hugh was the son and heir of Richard "le Goz", Vicomte d'Avranches, in Normandy, and his wife, once thought to be Emma, daughter of Herluin de Conteville and his wife, Herleve or (Harlotte), also the mother of William "the Conqueror",[1] but her identity is now considered unknown.[4] [3]
C. P. Lewis, writing in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, notes that Richard Goz was vicomte d'Avranches and seigneur de St Sever, and that Hugh's paternal family were aristocratic landowners of viking descent in the Cotentin.[5]
Sisters Hugh was the brother of:
Although the Brevis Relatio de Origine Willelmi Conquestoris records that "Hugone postea comite de Cestria" contributed 60 ships towards the invasion of England in 1066,[3] C. P. Lewis notes that in 1066 Hugh was still a young man and his father was vicomte d'Avranches, so he could not have been the ‘Viscount Hugh’ of the Ship List and is unlikely to have fought at Hastings.[5]
While Hugh apparently did not fight at the Battle of Hastings, [5] he soon afterwards crossed to England in the service of William, the new king of England.
Cawley suggests that there could well have been a first marriage but that no direct evidence has been found for one.[3] If Hugh was born circa 1047, he was 46 by the time of his documented marriage to Ermentrude by 1093, so he may have previously been married.
Keats-Rohan refers to Hugh as the "father of several known bastards", but their mothers are not named.
An unknown daughter of a man named Dedol is shown by some popular genealogies as one of his mistresses.
Early in 1070, William had installed a Flemish ally, Gherbod, as the new ruler of portions of Mercia and the city of Chester,[1] but Gerbod had been unable to maintain his position against assaults by the sons of Aelfgar of Mercia and their Welsh allies, and returned to Flanders. [7] In 1071, Hugh became earl of Chester when William "the Conqueror", granted the whole of the county of Chester, except Episcopal lands, to Hugh to "hold as freely by the Sword as he [the King] himself held the Kingdom of England by the Crown."[1]
Earl Hugh created hereditary barons: Eustace of Mold, baron of Hawarden, co Flint, Hereditary Steward; William Fitz-Niel, baron of Halton, Hereditary Constable and Marshal, later taking the name de Lacy, became earls of Lincoln in 1232; William Malbank, baron of Nantwich, or Wich-Malbank; Robert FitzHugh, baron of Malpas, who died without surviving male children, but was succeed in earl Hugh's lifetime by David le Clerk (or Belward); Hamond de Massey, baron of Dunham-Massey; Richard Vernon, baron of Shipbrooke; William Venables, baron of Kinderton; Robert Stockport, baron of Stockport and of questionable existence; and Hugh FitzOsbern, barony of Pulford.[1]
C P Lewis states that Hughes' first military command was Tutbury Castle in still unpacified Mercia; but probably in 1070 the king instead gave him the much more important castle in the regional capital of Chester and made him an earl. It was a significant promotion, shared, among the Conqueror's other regional commanders in Mercia, only by Roger de Montgomery, an older man close to the king. [5] who became Earl of Shrewsbury.
Lewis adds that along with Chester and the earldom came the beginnings of a huge landed estate in England. The honour of Chester was accumulated gradually over some twenty years. [5][8]
From the first the lands of Hugh's honour were essentially northern, with scattered and not especially valuable outliers over much of the midlands and south. Cheshire was the heart of it, not for its value—a third or less of the total—but for the importance of Chester itself and the fact that the earl received every manor in the shire except the bishop's. [5]
One reason given for the lower value of Cheshire manors at the time of Domesday was the extent of destruction required to turn Saxon Mercia into Norman Cheshire.
Hugh d'Avranches worked closely with a half dozen men of his generation in pacifying Mercia. C P Lewis observes that because Earl Hugh did not control the family's Norman honour until his father died, there was no existing baronage awaiting rewards in England, and that Hugh instead attracted a following of knights from various parts of Normandy, probably mostly young men of his own generation. A dozen or so of these young men became the core of Hugh's honorial baronage, each with a stake, often a compact fief, in Cheshire. These were backed up by other manors, usually more valuable, elsewhere in the country.[5]
The leader of this honorial baronage was Hughes' older cousin Robert de Tilleul, who was prominent, along with Robert fitz Hugh of Malpas, William Malbanc of Nantwich, William fitz Nigel of Halton, and Hugh fitz Norman of Mold. A good two dozen lesser knightly tenants were endowed either in or beyond Cheshire, but not both. [5]
By 1086, Lewis notes, and probably long before, Hugh had arranged his estates in a clear and distinctive pattern, demonstrating a calculating liberality towards his men. He gave all the southern manors to his knights and kept some fifteen large northern and midland manors in demesne, not all in Cheshire but spaced around the honour, so that it was possible to travel in stages from Macclesfield to Leek, Repton, and Barrow (in Leicestershire), and then either north to the Lincolnshire estates or south to Coventry and Chipping Campden. All were market towns and the centres of large and productive manors.[5]
Other notables in Hugh's honour included Roger (I) Bigod, William de Percy, and sheriffs Robert (I) d'Oilly and Edward of Salisbury.[5]
Chester was also the base for the conquest of north Wales, in which Earl Hugh was initially an equal partner with Robert of Rhuddlan. By 1086 Hughes had taken into his own hands Bistre and Iâl along the English border. Co-operating closely with the Normans of Shropshire, the earl had raided the distant Lly^n peninsula perhaps as early as the mid-1070s, and in 1081 he first laid a successful trap for one of the north Welsh princes, Gruffudd ap Cynan, and then invaded Gwynedd in force.[5]
Noting Hugh's key companions, Orderic Vitalis records that “Hugonis de Abrincis filio Ricardi cognomento Goz...cum Rodberto de Rodelento et Rodberto de Malopassu” [Robert de Rhuddlan and Robert de Malpas] shed “multum Guallorum sanguinem” . [3]
Hugh succeeded his father, Richard le Goz, who was living in 1082, as Vicomte d'Avranches in Normandy.[1] [3]
Lewis notes that this represented a diversion of the earl's responsibilities in Chester. Lewis also notes that change may have been the occasion for Hugh's marriage. [5]
Cawley notes that an undated charter records the grant of pasturage rights "ad castrum Claromontis, Credulii, Gornaci, Lusarchiarum" to Saint-Leu d’Esserant by "Hugo comes Cestrensis" and "Hugo Claromontensis et Margarita uxor eius", later confirmed by "Rainaldus comes" with the consent of "uxore eius Clementia et filiis eius Guidone et Rainaldo"[28]. [3]
Hugh was the only lay tenant-in-chief in Cheshire. All other landlords were under him, except for two clerical ones.
Domesday Book records that “Earl Hugh” held Bickton in Fordinbridge Hundred in Hampshire; Drayton in Sutton Hundred and Buscot in Wyfold hundred in Berkshire; his land-holdings in Dorset; and in numerous other counties.[3]
Hugh's honour extended to the Cotentin in Normandy. William complicated Hugh's life by placing this honour under the authority of William's younger brother, the future Henry I. Earl Hugh was often in Henry's company but maintained an overriding loyalty to the king, acting as a brake on both when their disagreements threatened to become overheated. In 1091, for example, he detached himself from Henry when open war between the brothers looked likely, and thus helped to prevent its happening; and later he was instrumental in Henry's return to favour. [5]
Orderic Vitalis names “Hugonem comitem et Ricardum de Radveriis...Rodbertum de Molbraio” as the main supporters of “Henricus clito” who governed “Abrincas et Cæsarisburgum et Constantiam atque Guabreium” [Avranches, Cherbourg, Coutances, Gavray], dated to [1090][30]. [3]
Hughes was also frequently at William II's side, at his courts, and campaigning with him against the Scots in 1091 and on the Norman frontier in 1097–8. [5]
Robert of Rhuddlan's death at Welsh hands in 1093 left Hugh with prime responsibility for north Wales at the moment when a serious rebellion was breaking out. Hugh did not regain the initiative until 1098, when he and Hugh de Montgomery, earl of Shrewsbury, led a determined assault on Anglesey. [5]
Florence of Worcester records that, in 1098, Hughes and Hugh de Montgommery Earl of Shrewsbury led troops into Anglesey where they mutilated or massacred many of the inhabitants of the island. [3]
Despite Hugh of Shrewsbury's death, Hugh of Chester came away with booty and prisoners, and in the following year was able to install Gruffudd ap Cynan as the client ruler of the island of Anglesey.[5]
Hugh married Ermentrude de Clermont, daughter of Hugues, Count of Clermont in Beauvaisis and his wife, Margaret de Roucy, daughter of Hilduin, Count of Rouci and Montdidier,[1] before 1093. She died after 13 May 1106. [3] Orderic Vitalis records that “Hugonis de Abrincis filio Ricardi cognomento Goz” married “Ermentrudem filiam Hugonis de Claromonte Belvacensi”. [3] The Genealogiæ Scriptoris Fusniacensis refers to a sister of "comes Rainaldus" as husband of "comiti Hugoni de Cestre"[39]. [3] C P Lewis suggests was motivated perhaps to further Norman ambitions beyond the eastern frontier.[5]
Ermentrude was still living in 1106 after her husband's death[3]
As Keats-Rohan describes it, Hugh "was the subject of hostile treatment from Orderic Vitalis".[9] Orderic Vitalis states that Hugues was "a slave to gluttony, he staggered under a mountain of fat" and was "given over to carnal lusts and had a numerous progeny of sons and daughters by his concubines"[34]. [3]
Lewis wrote that "The earl revelled in his wealth and status, indulging himself to excess in hunting, war, women, mountains of food, reckless expense, and lavish generosity to the knights and clerks of his household. He fathered many bastards, grew grotesquely fat, and fought the Welsh with a ferocity which embedded him in their memory as Hugh the Wolf. At the same time he was at least conventionally mindful of the perils to his immortal soul, and steadfastly and conspicuously loyal to successive kings."[5]
Hugh founded the abbeys of St Sever in Normandy and St Werburg at Chester, and endowed the abbey of Whitby, co York.[1]
Saint Seveur Abbey in Cotentin
Robert of Torigny's De Immutatione Ordinis Monachorum records that "Hugo vicecomitis Abrincatensis postea…comes Cestrensis" founded "abbatiam Sancti Severi in Constantinensi episcopatu". [3] Despite his enduring interests in the Cotentin, however, Earl Hugh owed his significance to the earldom and honour of Chester[5]
Saint Werburg at Chester
Hugh founded the Abbey of St. Werburg at Chester and had apparently been laying plans for his own house at an early date, perhaps after 1075 when his minster church of St Werburgh was challenged in Chester by the relocation into the city's other major church, St John's, of the cathedral seat of the bishop of Lichfield. A crucial stage in the refoundation of St Werburgh's as a Benedictine monastery came in 1092, when Earl Hugh enticed to Chester no less a person than Abbot Anselm of Bec, who brought with him the monks who were to form the basis of the new monastic chapter. A lavish building programme may already have been under way, and the earl shortly endowed Chester Abbey with extensive possessions and encouraged a great many of his barons to give something too.
Hugh fell ill, probably in the autumn of 1100 or the following winter.[5] "…Hugonis comitis…" subscribed a charter dated 14 September, 1101, under which Henry I King of England donated property to Bath St Peter[32]. [3]
Hugh took monastic vows at Chester in his last days,[5] [3] literally, because it was on (?24) July, 1101, three days before his death[4] that he became a monk at St Werburg's.[1]
He died on 27 July, 1101,[5] at St Werburg's.[1] The Annales Cestrienses record the death in 1101 of “Hugone comite Cestrensi”[35]. The Annales Cambriæ record the death in 1101 of "Hugo comes Crassus urbis Legionum"[36]. A manuscript narrating the descent of Hugh Earl of Chester to Alice Ctss of Lincoln records the death “VI Kal Aug” of “Hugo primus comes Cestriæ”[37]. [3]
Hugh was buried on 27 July, 1101,[2] [3] in the cemetery of St Werburg's Abbey, Chester, but his body was removed to the Chapter House by Earl Ranulph le Meschin,[4] his nephew.[5]
Succession
Earl Hugh was succeeded by his son Richard, who died in the wreck of the White Ship in 1120.[5]
Earl Hugh had one confirmed legitimate son by his wife, and several illegitimate children by unknown mistresses. Keats-Rohan wrote that Hugo, Comes de Cestrie was the father of several known bastards including Robert, abbot of Bury and Otuer fitzCount; Geva, wife of Geoffrey Ridel was probably another of them. [9] Both Cawley and Keat-Rohan list the following:[3]
Other Children with some Documentation
This child is not mentioned in any reliable source and has been disconnected as a daughter of Hugh Lupus:
Frauds and Children with No Documentation
These children have been disconnected:
The Complete Peerage claims that Hugh d'Avranches' mother was Emma, daughter of Herluin de Contville and his wife, Herleve or Harlotte, who was the mother of William "the Conqueror".[1]
Cawley observes that a manuscript relating to St Werburgh’s Chester records that “Hugo Lupus filius ducis Britanniæ et nepos Gulielmi magni ex sorore” transformed the foundation into a monastery and states that this suggests that the mother of Hugues may have been a uterine sister of King William, and therefore daughter of Herluin de Conteville. However, no indication has been made in other primary sources which supports the contention that Hugues was the son of a duke of Brittany. Cawley suggests therefore that both lines of his parentage have been romanticised in this document to improve Hughes' status and reputation.[3]
The pedigree in the Visitation of Cheshire (1580)[11] reflects the more "romantic" erroneous perspective described by Cawley, as does John Pym Yeatman's work. [12]
Reflecting this more recent thinking, C. P. Lewis, writing in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, refers to Hugh's mother as "an unknown mother formerly identified on the basis of unsatisfactory evidence as Emma, supposedly a half-sister of William the Conqueror. [5] Based on this, the link to Emma Conteville as the mother of Hugh d'Avranche has been disconnected.
Wolcott integrates into Earl Hugh's narrative some persons believed by Wolcott to be his relatives, but the relationship is not confirmed by others. Sir William de Malpas is one in particular:
Conquest: Sir William of Malpas serves new Lord
Wolcott notes that Sir William of Malpas was already in Cheshire when the Normans replaced the Saxon rulers. William was then about 40 years old and had 3 sons yet minors; we suggest he continued to serve his new Norman lord just as he had served the Saxon Earls and now held Malpas as a tenant of Earl Hugh.[7]
1085 Lordship of Malpas to Hugh's Son
Wolcott states that about 1085, Earl Hugh settled the Lordship of Malpas (mostly a landlord's income stream, not actual possession of land) on his base son Robert-fitz-Hugh. For Wolcott, the base son, who became a monk and abbot, is the same person as Robert fitz Hugh who was a military companion of Hugh.
1085 Hugh's daughter Tanglust given to William of Malpas
Wolcott states that to mitigate the intrusion on the Baron of Malpas (giving property to Robert FitzHugh), Hugh gave one of his base daughters (Tanglust) as wife to William II, the eldest son of Sir William ap Gruffydd of Malpas. Wolcott adds that the two families (Robert fitz Hugh and the son of Sir William) continued their cordial relationship into the next generation, when a daughter (Mabel) of Robert married William III of Malpas[7]
Tanglust's mother, a supposed mistress of Earl Hugh, is linked as Unknown Dedol . Dedol's birth was shown as 1078, but assuming Tanglust was at least 17, born 1068, when she was given to William in 1085, Dedol should be assumed to have been at least 17, born 1051, when she became Tanglust's mother.
Have you taken a DNA test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.
Featured National Park champion connections: Hugh I is 25 degrees from Theodore Roosevelt, 28 degrees from Stephanus Johannes Paulus Kruger, 24 degrees from George Catlin, 25 degrees from Marjory Douglas, 34 degrees from Sueko Embrey, 25 degrees from George Grinnell, 28 degrees from Anton Kröller, 24 degrees from Stephen Mather, 31 degrees from Kara McKean, 28 degrees from John Muir, 22 degrees from Victoria Hanover and 36 degrees from Charles Young on our single family tree. Login to find your connection.
A > Avranches | D > d'Avranches > Hugh (Avranches) d'Avranches
Categories: Domesday Book | Earls of Chester | Honour of Chester
Anyway, there is no competing theory or disproof. It is just that we don't know where Dugdale got his information. Dugdale is however a little unusual in the sense that people do tend to trust the idea that he had real sources we no longer was, and that he was pretty careful most of the time. Don't we then keep the attachment but mark things as uncertain in cases where there is only one uncertain theory?
In any case the practical question in this case is why we are not allowing any link to the uncertain mother. It seems to be partly because of the emphasis on this birth year.
I have just edited the narrative to call attention to the matter of Hugh's mother by moving the material to a separate entry under "Research Notes". You'll see that within that discussion there is a "link" to Emma's profile although she is not "connected." You'll see that the reason given for disconnecting Emma de Contville as Hugh's mother was not a conflict with an estimated birth year, but was the research of historian C. P. Lewis. Certainly the presentation of C. P. Lewis' research could be improved and strengthened -- looking at the footnote, I apparently did not access his article directly, not having a subscription to ODNB, but via someone else's website.
I have always admired your ability to find the best available research on a particular topic. If you can find ways to strengthen the discussion on Hugh's mother, as presented now under Research Notes, I would be most appreciative.