[6] Historians have not mentioned an uterine sister of William, called Muriel. We remarked, at p. 45, their error as to Adelidis, usually so reckoned; but who, as we have seen, was of the whole blood, and married Enguerran, count of Ponthieu; not Odo of Champagne, who, in fact, married her daughter. The mistakes hitherto prevailing as to Adelidis, render us less averse to suspect others of the same sort among the genealogists; and Wace's account of Muriel is confirmed from other sources. It would seem to have been to her, then a widow—ad Muriel sancti-monialem—sister of Odo, bishop of Bayeux—and therefore sister, or more properly half-sister of Adelidis, that the poet Serlon, the canon of Bayeux, (as to whom see Wace, ii. 235, 393) addressed his verses de captâ Bajocensium civitate. The baron here called Iwun-al-Chapel seems to be EUDO DE CAPELLO—du manteau, or capuchon—son of Turstain Halduc and Emma his wife, and subscribing himself Eudo Haldub in a charter of 1074. Mém. Ant. Norm. viii. 436. He was dapifer to duke William; although not the Eudo dapifer of Domesday, who was son of Hubert de Rie. He was the head of the house of Haie-du-Puits in the Cotentin, and undoubtedly married a Muriel, as appears by the charters of Lessay, whether she were a daughter of Herluin or not. The estates of Eudo went to his nephew, which confirms Wace's account of his having no issue. See the Lessay charters in Dugdale and Gallia Christiana, and our subsequent note on Haie.
[7] Wace does not name the place of meeting of this great council. William of Malmesbury informs us that it was at Lillebonne; where the remains of the ancient castle still exist; see the roofless hall in our vignette above, at p. 101.
[8] This jealousy, which from the nature of the meeting may well be called parliamentary, characterized the assemblies of the Norman estates much later. See Delafoy's Constitution du duchi de Normandie, p. 159. At the meeting in 1350, when an extraordinary supply was granted, the states stipulated expressly, and the king agreed, that no prejudicial consequences should follow; 'cette imposition ne portera préjudice aux gens du pays de Normandie, ne a leurs privileges ou chartes en aucune manière, ou temps présent ne a venir; et ne sera trait a conséquence.'
[9] See in M. Le Prevost's notes to PTcrce,vol.ii. 531, the curious list from Taylor's anon. MS. (supposed to be of the age of Hen. I.) containing the proportions in which William's naval force was furnished. Fitz Osbero's number agrees with Wace's account of his promise. The same list, with some variations, (whence arising we know not) is printed in Turner's History of the Anglo-Saxons; and in Littleton's History of Hen. II. vol. i. See also Ellis, Domesday, i. 227.
[10] Saint Germer near Gournay. The king of France at this time was Philip, the successor of Henry, whose army was defeated at Mortemer. Philip was a minor; Baldwin the fifth, William's father-in-law, being his guardian; but not, as Sismondi says, taking any active part in the management of French affairs. Philip, however, could personally have taken no conduct of such matters.
Son regne laisse si assis,
E a si tres feeus amis,
A sa femme, la proz, la sage,
Que n'el en pot venir damage.
Benoit de Sainte-More.
[12] Part of this passage is obscure in the original:
Li conte de Flandres requist,
K'en sa busuigne a li venist,
Cum od serorge et od ami.