1066 - Andrew Bridgeford [88]
What is more, Eustace could also trace a distant line of descent from the greatest of all the insular kings, Alfred the Great, through the marriage of one of Alfred's daughters to Count Baldwin II of Flanders. This connection, albeit distant, would have certainly recommended him in the eyes of the English, assuming it was known. William the Conqueror's kinship with Edward the Confessor was entirely based upon the fact that Edward had a Norman mother; William was not in any way descended from the ancient line of Wessex kings. The young Edgar Ætheling had been taken as a hostage by William to Normandy when he returned there in March 1067. In these circumstances, without further hope or choice, the Kentish rebels might well have turned to Eustace as the leader of a potential rebellion against the absent William. The state1 ment by William of Poitiers that the inhabitants of Kent wished 'to serve' someone that they knew hints, perhaps, at this larger ambition.
The identity of the nepos is also obscure. Nor is it known when, if ever, the nepos was released. As used in medieval Latin, the term nepos is often translated as 'nephew', but it could also mean 'grandson', 'bastard' and even 'cousin' generally. Much ink has been spilt on who the nepos might have been; but the question remains unanswered. Whether Eustace had any nephews is disputed; he certainly had a bastard son called Geoffrey.3 The most intriguing possibility again turns on a Boulonnais claim to the English throne. Professor Barlow has suggested that Eustace's marriage with Godgifu, Edward the Confessor's sister, may not have been childless after all. A daughter of theirs might well have had a son, a grandson of Eustace, who could have been just about fighting age in 1067. Such a grandson, another great-nephew of the Confessor, would have been a prime candidate around whom English opposition to William could have gathered. In this scenario Eustace was bringing with him, on that mysterious assault on Dover Castle, a young pretender to the English throne, a grandson who, however, was promptly captured and perhaps never heard of again.4
Although the identity of the nepos remains a mystery, what matters for our purpose is the known set of facts. In the latter part of 1067 Eustace attacked Odo's castle at Dover, suffered a humiliating defeat and a young kinsman of his, of the highest birth, was captured by Odo's men. In accordance with contemporary practice the young man was probably held by Odo for a large ransom. What became of him is not known. Realistically the Bayeux Tapestry can only have been made after Eustace's attack, in other words after Odo and Eustace came into such public conflict in the autumn of 1067. It is scarcely believable that the tapestry could have been conceived, organised, designed, approved and embroidered in the interim between William's coronation at Christmas 1066 and Eustace's attack on Dover in the latter half of 1067. With this in mind, the orthodox idea that Bishop Odo of Bayeux commissioned the Bayeux Tapestry, a work that is shot through with the English viewpoint and that makes Count Eustace into a hero at Hastings, is becoming even more unlikely.
William the Conqueror was not a man to flail about wildly at his enemies. His actions, if often crude, were cold and calculating, and if his interests required it he was quite capable of coming to terms with a former foe. So it was that in the 1070s Eustace and King William became reconciled again.5 A motivating factor, from William's point of view, may have been his deteriorating relations with Flanders. When William'sfather-in-law Count Baldwin V died in 1067, Flanders was inherited by his son Baldwin VI. Baldwin VI died only three years later, and the county descended into a civil war. William and Eustace took the same side in this conflict, supporting Baldwin's young son Arnulf III and his mother