From Gesta Normannorum Ducum, Rogert de Torigni's autographed redaction (trans. van Houts):
"Because we have refered to Countess Gunnor on account of Rogerde Montgomery's mother, her niece, I should like to write down the story as reported by people of old of how Gunnor cane to be Duke Richard's wife. One day when Duke Richard was told of the celebrated beauty of the wife of one of his foresters, who lived at a place called Equiqueville near the town of Arques, he deliberately went hunting there in order to see for himself whether the report he had learned from several folk was true.While staying in the forester's house, the duke was so struck by the beauty of his wife's face that he summoned his host to bring his wife, called Sainsfrida, that night to his bed chamber. Very sadly the man told this to Sainsfrida, a wise woman, who comforted him by saying that she would send in her place her sister Gunnor, a virgin even more beautiful than her. And thus it happened. Once the duke perceived the trick he was delighted that he had not committed the sin of adultery with another man'swife. . . ."
Apart from Sainsfrida, Gunnor had two sisters, Wevia and Duvelina. The latter (Duvelina)*, with the help of thecountess, who was a very wise woman, married Turulf of Pont-Audemer. He was the son of someone called Torf, after whome several towns are called Tourville to the present day.Turulf's brother was Turketil, father of Ansketil of Harcourt.Turulf had by his wife Humphrey of Vieilles, father of Roger of Beaumont. The third of Countess Gunnor's sisters (Wevia)* married Osbern de Bolbec, by whom she bore the first Walter Giffard, and then Godfrey, father of William of Arques. . . ."
* The original manuscript, of which several copies survive, did not further identify these sisters, other than as "the latter"and "the third". This resulted in a certain degree of confusion, since Duvelina is actually named third, but had already been described as "the latter". However, in Robert's autographed copy, he has specifically inserted their names, which removes all ambiguity. Thus we have Sainsfrida married to the unnamed forester of (St. Vaast d') Equiqueville, Wevia married to Osbern de Bolbec, and Duvelina married to Turulf de Pont-Audemer.
There have been many requests for information on the various Normanrelationships compiled by Robert de Torigny. This is an attempt tosummarize and harmonize several recent works on some of the lines:
Elisabeth M C van Houts. Robert of Torigni as Genealogist. in Studiesin Medieval History presented to R. Allen Brown, p.215-33.
Kathleen Thompson. The Norman Aristocracy before 1066: the Example ofthe Montgomerys. in Historical Research 60:251-63.
K S B Keats-Rohan. Aspects of Torigny's Genealogy Revisited. inNottingham Medieval Studies 37:21-7.
Robert de Torigny, writing after the Norman Conquest, recorded thegenealogical traditions which tied many of the Norman nobility to thefamily of Gunnor, first mistress of Richard I, then Duchess ofNormandy. He reported the tradition that Richard had become infatuatedwith the wife of one of his foresters, but being the pious wife, shesubstituted her sister Gunnor, much to everyone's satisfaction. Heproceded to name the siblings of Gunnor, and also indicated the shehad numerous nieces, who are left unnamed, but whose marriages anddescendants are provided.
The genealogical information contained in his account has at varioustimes been praised and condemned, but recent opinion seems to favorthe view that, while minor errors abound, the genealogies accuratelyrepresent a tradition of shared descent that may account for the rapidrise of these nobles.
The parentage of Gunnor and her siblings is unknown. While somesources call her father Herfastus, this was in fact the name of herbrother. She has also been claimed as daughter of the Danish royalfamily, but there is no evidence for this, and the context of hercoming to the attention of Richard I and the family's subsequent riseto power militates against her being a royal daughter. Douglas argued(in a 1944 English Historical Review article on the family of WilliamFitz Osbern), based on the donations of brother Arfast to themonastery of St. Pere, that the root of the family was in the Cotetinregion of Normandy, but van Houts has suggested that the Cotetin landwas granted to Arfast, rather than inherited by him. Thus we are leftwith the more ambiguous statements of Torigny and others that she wasa member of a Norman family of Danish origins.
The only known brother of Gunnor was Arfast/Herfast, of whom we gainwhat little insight we have from a trial of heretics conducted by KingRobert II of France. Arfast testified that he had pretended to jointhe sect, all the better to denounce them when the time arose. Helater donated lands to the monastery of St. Pere, to which he retired.He had at least two sons: Osbern, who was steward to the later Dukes, and was murdered by William de Montgomery while defending the youngDuke William; and Ranulf, known from charters. Osbern maried a nieceof Richard I (the daughter of his half-brother) and by her was thefather of the Conquest baron William Fitz Osbern.
Gunnor had at least three sisters, of which the oldest appears to havebeen Senfria (Seinfreda), who was wife of the (unnamed) forester fromthe area of St. Vaast d'Equiqueville, and it was her charms which aresaid first to have attracted the attentions Duke Richard I. Sheappears to have had at least one daughter, Joscelina, wife of Hugh deMontgomery. (Torigny makes Joscelina daughter of another sister, Wevia, but a contemporary of Torigny, in demonstrating thegenealogical impediment to a marriage of a bastard of Henry I to aMontgomery descendant specifically calls Joscelina's mother Senfria, and the inheritance by the Montgomerys of large holdings suggests thatJoscelina was a significant coheiress to her parents, which does notmatch Wevia's family where the two sons would be expected to acquiremost of the family land.) Hugh de Montgomery and Joscelina had a sonRoger, but contrary to Torigny's statements, he was not the Conquestbaron of that name, but instead his father. By a wife possibly namedEmma, Roger had: Hugh; Roger (who married Mabel of Belleme and playeda significant role in pre-Conquest Normandy); William (who murderedcousin Osbern); Robert, and Gilbert.
Duvelina, a second sister of Gunnor, married Turulf de Pont Audemer, son of a Norman founder Torf, and uncle of the first of the Harcourts.They had at least one son, Humphrey de Vielles, who in turn was fatherof Roger de Beaumont, another Conquest-era baron.
Wevia, the only other sister of Gunnor named by Torigny, marriedOsbern de Bolbec (who is otherwise unknown to history). They had atleast two sons: Walter Giffard, ancestor of the EnglishGiffard/Gifford families, and also, through a daughter, of the Clarefamily; and Godfrey, whose son William de Arques had two daughters andco-heiresses.
Torigny indicates that Gunnor had numerous nieces, naming thedescendants of several of them, but usually not naming the niecesthemselves or their parents. As has already been seen with nieceJoscelina, the accounts of these families are more difficult toharmonize with other available sources.
One niece is said to have married Nicholas de Bracqueville, and tohave had William Martel and Walter de St. Martin. As to Martel, thereseems to have been a connection to Bracqueville, since Hawise, daughter of Nicholas married Hugh de Wareham, son of a Grippo. Hughhad a brother Geoffrey Martel, but beyond this no recent analysisprovides any insight as to the descent of the later Martels. Walter deSt. Martin is even more of a problem, since elsewhere Torignyincorrectly makes him brother of William de Warenne, but the ancestrygiven there is clearly false. Thus it is not clear that Torigny knewthe exact connection of Walter, and there is no evidence to helpclarify his true origins.
A second niece is said to have married Richard, vicomte of Rouen (whowas son of Tesselin). He had a son Lambert of St. Saens, whose sonHelias married a bastard daughter of Robert II of Normandy. (If theconnection here given is correct, then these two were within theprohibited degree, which may throw doubt on the relationship, orsimply suggest that the relationship did not come to light at thetime.) Based on later interactions between Montgomery and Warenne(thought to be related to this branch) it has been speculated thatthis niece was sister of Joscelina, which is possible but unsupported.
It appears to be through this family that the relationship of two moreNorman barons come into play, but not exactly as Torigny presents it.He shows yet another niece marrying Ranulph de Warenne, and by himhaving William de Warenne and Roger de Mortimer. This is clearlyuntrue, because Roger appears to have been a generation older thanWilliam. The solution appears to be that Torigny (as he had done withthe Montgomerys) compressed two people, a father and son of the samename, into one individual. Ranulph de Warenne (I) appears to havemarried Beatrice, sister of Richard, vicomte of Rouen, and thussister-in-law of one of Gunnor's nieces (thus it would appear thatthis family actually does not descend from a relative of Gunnor's, butis genealogically linked to some of her descendants) and had sons:Roger (de Mortimer) and Ranulph de Warenne (II), who in turn wasfather of another Ranulf (III) and of William de Warenne.
Finally, Torigny states that a niece married Osmund de Centumvillis, vicomte of Vernon, and had a son Fulk de Alnou, and a daughter whoseson was Baldwin de Reviers. Much debate has focussed on the attempt toidentify these men, but in the latter case, clearly a connection tothe Reviers/Vernon Earls of Devon is intended. The precise nature of the relationship is more difficult to pin down. It would seem that the first Earl Richard de Reviers and his brother Hugh were sons of a Baldwin, who had brothers Richard de Vernon (app. d.s.p.) and WilliamFitz Hugh de Vernon. (William, who was perhaps a uterine half-brother, had by wife Emma a son Hugh, often confused with the brother of EarlRichard. It is this error that has led to the statement that Emma wast he relative of Gunnor, which derives from a set of relationships hypothesized in Complete Peerage (CP, under Devon) and predicated onher being mother of Hugh, brother of Earl Richard, an untrue relationship, and on Richard being nephew of William Fitz Osbern, which is discussed below.) If Baldwin, father of Earl Richard, was the same as the grandson of Osmund de Centumvillis this would complete the picture, but one more relationship invites comment. Earl Richard issaid by an early source, cited by CP, to be nephew of William FitzOsbern. If the stated connection with vicomte Osmund is correct, then Baldwin de Reviers would have been too closely related to William FitzOsbern to have married his sister. (An alternative solution, that the wife of vicomte Osmund was sister of William Fitz Osbern, and hence grandniece of Gunnor, is chronologically impossible.) I suspect thatthis tradition records the memory that William Fitz Osbern was anolder male relative of Richard, rather than a precise genealogical relationship.
The work of Robert de Torigny thus provides a valuable source for the genealogical origins of the immediate pre-Conquest Norman aristocracy.When it has been possible to compare the information with other sources, some inconsistancies are found, but it is unclear whetherthese represent errors of Robert, or inaccuracies in the genealogical traditions he was recording. In most cases, an in-depth study of the available material has enabled modern historians to satisfactorillyreconstruct the descents from Gunnor's family and provide arepresentation of the true relationships among these early Norman families.
Gunnora de Crepon 
