Chapter IV., in its bearing upon the general question of the English

succession.

Footnote 66:

William of Poitiers, 92.

Footnote 67:

This is definitely asserted by William of Malmesbury.

Footnote 68:

See on this episode, Round, _Feudal England_, 382–385.

Footnote 69:

Page 95.

Footnote 70:

William of Jumièges, vii., 7.

Footnote 71:

_Labbè Concilia_, xi., 1412.

Footnote 72:

For example, Freeman, _N. C._, iii., 92.

Footnote 73:

Count Baldwin III. assumed the title of Marquis on the coins which he issued.

Footnote 74:

_Vita Eadwardi_ (R.S.), 404.

Footnote 75:

Page 97. On this question there is a conflict of evidence William of Jumièges, whose authority is only second to that of William of Poitiers, definitely asserts Geoffrey’s participation in the campaign. See Halphen, _Conté d’Anjou_, 77. On the other hand, although the argument from the silence of William of Poitiers should not be pressed too far, the terms of the treaty of 1053 (see below) certainly suggest that the king held Geoffrey guilty of a breach of feudal duty, and later writers, such as Orderic, cannot be trusted implicitly in regard to the detailed history of this period.

Footnote 76:

William of Poitiers, 99.

Footnote 77:

See note, page 112 above.

Footnote 78:

William of Jumièges, vii., 25.

Footnote 79:

See _The Laws of Breteuil_, by Miss M. Bateson, _Eng. Hist. Rev._, xx.

Footnote 80:

William of Poitiers, 99, 100.

Footnote 81:

In a charter abstracted by Round, _Calendar of Documents Preserved in France_, No. 1256, there is a reference to a knight named Richard who was seized by mortal illness while defending the frontier post of Châteauneuf-en-Thimerais in this campaign.

Footnote 82:

William of Poitiers, 101. Wace gives topographical details.

Footnote 83:

William of Jumièges, vii., 28. The battle of Varaville led to the king’s retreat, but a sporadic war lasted till 1060. It is probable that Norman chroniclers have attached more importance to the battle than it really possessed.