*1. Ansold I, Divitis:
Auguste Longnon identified the
oldest known member of the family he styled “dite
de Paris” as the Ansoldus divitis
Parisiacae civitatis who, according to the nearly–contemporary Life of Count Bouchard the Venerable of Corbeil, was the kinsman—perhaps
the father—of Magenard, Abbot of St. Maur–des–Fossés in the time of King Hugh.
Longnon speculated that this “Ansold Le
Riche of Paris” was the same “Ansold” who subscribed a charter of King
Robert in 997, his simple “
S.[ignum] Ansoldi” being placed between those of Count Hugo of Beauvais and
Count [sic: Viscount?] Hugo of Meulan.
Longnon went on to find this personage in various charters from the early
years of the eleventh century; but,
later, Joseph Depoin was able—or thought he was able—to distinguish two separate
Ansolds in these documents, father and son, the elder
“Ansold I, Le Riche, married, after 956, Raingardis, who, at the end of his life, Hugh le Grand took as mistress, and by whom he had Herbert, Bishop of Auxerre [968–13 August, 994]....Ansold and Raingardis had, among other children: Ansold (II, Le Riche), who succeeded him; and John, a student of Gerbert, who replaced his brother as Bishop of Auxerre, and who died, after a short episcopate, 21 January, 998.”
*2. Ansold II, son of Ansold I, husband of Reitrud:
In acts of 1006 (or perhaps 1014) at Orléans, King Robert confirmed gifts made to Saint–Denis–de–la–Châtre by quidam nostrorum militum/fidelium, nomine Ansoldus, et uxor sua Reitrudus, of property at Limoges–en–Brie/Fourches, near Brie–Comte–Robert.
Joseph Depoin, editor of the St. Martin–des–Champs documents, asserted that this Ansold was Ansold II, Le Riche, who was “one of the four regular signatories of the early acts of King Robert” from 995 to 1006. However, closer examination of Depoin’s cited evidence suggests that he may have somewhat overstated the case. The simple “Ansoldus” who is purported to have signed (next to last) a 997 charter of King Robert for St. Magloire of Paris may have been this Ansold (presumably Le Riche); but this act appears to be a forgery and, in any event, we have been unable to locate a single other appearance of a possible “Ansold” in a royal charter.
Depoin also assures us that “Reitrudis had, of Ansold II: Guerin I, baron of Paris in 1022; Ansold III, first Lord of Maule; and Herbert of Gallardon....” The first two sons’ existence (and relationship to Ansold) may, presumably, be established from extant documents, but Herbert “of Gallardon” only appears in a single document as such, and, though he is indeed said there to have had a mother named Rotrudis, his father’s name is neither mentioned nor known. Depoin’s confidence notwithstanding, the relationship between this “Ansoldian” branch of Le Riche and subsequent lords of Gallardon is not confirmed, apparently resting solely upon the fact that Herbert’s mother was named Rotrudis. It is also worth noting that the names Ansold, Rotrud/Reitrud, and Herbert do not otherwise appear among the subsequent members of the Gallardon family for as far as we have been able to trace it.
*3. Reitrud/Rotrud, wife of Ansold II:
Reitrudis is mentioned with her husband, Ansold (II, Le Riche), requesting King Robert’s confirmation of gifts of property near Brie–Compte–Robert to Saint–Denis–de–la–Châtre in 1006 or 1014/16. According to Depoin, Reitrud had, “of Ansold II: Garin I, baron of Paris in 1022; Ansold III, first Lord of Maule; and Herbert of Gallardon...”
As far as we have been able to determine, this Reitrud’s supposed connection with Gallardon rests solely upon an act from the time of Abbot Hubert of St. Peter’s of Chartres (1069–circa 1078), wherein quidam miles, Herbertus nomine, de Galardone castro, coming to the abbey to become a monk, gave various properties, including a house at Châteaudun, and, at Premetis villa, an allod which his mother, Rotrudis, possessed. Property at this place, Premetis/Premodis villa, had been held (by someone else), in 1003, as a benefice from the property of St. Mary of Châteaudun, through the largess of Viscount Hugo. Thus, the first act (csp 223–14) establishes that Herbert, miles de Galardone, had a mother named Rotrudis and that she was, probably, from the Dunois, while this act and that of 1003 (csp 399–400) are, together, apparently the source of the speculation that Rotrud was “the daughter of Viscount Godfrey of Châteaudun,” first expressed by Lucien Merlet in 1860; then by Auguste Moutié and Adolphe de Dion, the editors of the Épernon documents, in 1878; echoed by René Merlet, Lucien’s son and successor as archiviste at Chartres, in 1893; and, cautiously, by Albert Sidoisne who, at least, tried to explain it.
*4. Ribald, father of Albert:
Joseph Depoin was the first scholar to identify the “Albertus de VValardone” in a royal charter of 1028—the first person known to be styled “of Gallardon”—with a certain “Albert, son of Ribald,” who appears in several documents from St. Peter’s of Chartres. Furthermore, in his reconstruction, Ribald, father of Albert, was the son–in–law of
“...Albert I Le Riche, brother of Anno, abbot of Jumièges (943–4), then of St. Mesmin de Micy (944–87). Albert I married Hildeburge of Bellême, daughter of Ivo I and of Godeheu, sister of Countess Ledgarde. He had of her Albert II, abbot of Micy after 1012, the donor of Bouafle.... The latter died 14 Janruary, leaving of Hildegarde of Châteaudun a son, Arnoul, Archbishop of Tours (1025–1052). In the donation which Albert II of Micy made in 1026 [sic] to his abbey of the allod of Dame–Marie in the pays of Bellême, which he possessed ex materna haereditate, the first signatory, after the donor and his son Arnoul, is Ribald.”
This single appearance of Ribald with Albert II Le Riche, and the supposition that the son of the Ribald mentioned therein was (presumably) named Albert are, apparently, the evidence upon which Depoin’s hypothesis is founded. Unfortunately, the identification of this Ribald with the father of Albert appears to be incorrect. It is also worth noting that Albert “of Gallardon” is never called “son of Ribald”; that neither of these Alberts (nor any subsequent member of the Gallardon family) is ever styled divitis; nor appears in any document with any recognizable member of this Divitis family. Nevertheless, as far as scholars subsequent to Depoin are concerned, Gallardon was in the hands of the Le Riche family, the descendants of Ribald, from “circa 1025.”
A half–century before Depoin, Lucien Merlet, archiviste of the Eure–et–Loir and the first trained historian to have full access to the then largely unpublished documents, declared that “Ribald, Lord of Brezolles and Senonches, was the father of Albert, Teudo, Garin, and Frodolina, who married Gasto of Thimert”; and that “two lords divided the Thimerais: Albert, son of Ribald, lord of Brezolles, and Gastho, who ruled at Thimert and Rémelard.” Though he had previously (in 1860) devoted an extensive article to the history of Gallardon, curiously enough Merlet never associated Albert, son of Ribald, with that place. Ribald’s connection with Brezolles is clearly documentable (see below), but the basis for Merlet’s assertions about both Ribald at Senonches and Gastho’s position at Thimert—independent of Albert—were put forward without reference.
Accepting the identity of “Albert of Gallardon” with “Albert, son of Ribald (Ribaldi),” we may push the latter’s origins a bit further. Sometime before 1034 a certain miles Guarinus de castro Drocas, filius Alberici, militis Ragenoldi vicedomini made a gift to St. Peter with the agreement of meis senioribus Riboldo et Ansoldo. The name not being a common one in the region, this Riboldus may be the Ribaldus Drocacensis who signed—just before Viscount Fulc of Dreux and Albert de uualardone—King Robert’s confirmation of the restoration of the abbey of Coulombs in 1028. The latter Ribald is a good candidate to be the father of Albert (the intervention of Viscount Fulc forbidding an Albertus filius ejus entry in the list) and the former is also. Strengthening this connection between Ribald, Albert, and Dreux is a 1058 royal charter which informs us that Albert, son of Ribald, held a significant part of the church of St. Martin of Dreux from King Henry.
This Ribald “of Dreux” does not otherwise appear as such in the documents of the diocese of Chartres, and the father of Albert is known only from references concerning his son which tell us little more than that he was a fidelis of King Henry with holdings at Brezolles (25km west of Dreux), including the stone church he built there.
In 1060 King Philip re–issued the confirmation made by his recently deceased father, Henry I, of the gifts made to St. Peter’s of Chartres by fidelis noster [Henrici], Albertus...filius Ribaldi, nobilissimi viri. The copy in the CSP has Henry noting that Albert’s father, fidelis noster Ribaldus, “built the church of St. Germain of Brezolles cementariorum opere.” We may assume that Ribald was no longer alive at the time of this act.
The transfer of Gallardon from the hands of Viscount Godfrey of Châteaudun (who held it circa early 1025, the date of Bishop Fulbert’s letters to the King) to an Albert, probably the son of Ribald of Brezolles/Dreux (by 1028, date of the royal charter for Coulombs), appears to have been the result of a settlement reached through—or, more likely, imposed by—the King. The appearance of both Viscount and Bishop at the King’s court in 1028 suggests a peaceful transition (!), which may have been a bit more palatable to the Viscount because of an indirect family connection: in Depoin’s reconstruction, Albert’s maternal aunt, Hildegard, wife of his uncle, Albert II, abbot of Micy, was apparently from the Viscountal family. The possible marriage of Herbert, son of Rotrud, (perhaps related to the Viscountal house, *9 below) to a daughter of Albert (Hildeburg?), with the understanding that he would be Albert’s heir at Gallardon, may have played a rôle as well.
*5. Albert, abbot of Marmoutier:
We have included Albert, the most important Abbot of Marmoutier in the eleventh century, in the genealogy of the Gallardons because of Depoin’s imaginative identification (made without comment) of the Herbertus nepotis Alberti abbatis who signed King Henry I’s confirmation of an “act of association” between Bishop Agobard and the canons of Chartres and Abbot Albert and the monks of Marmoutier, as “Herbert de Gallardon.”
For this interesting supposition to be literally true, either (1)Herbert’s mother, Rotrud, or his (presumed) father, Ansold, would have to have been the sibling of Abbot Albert; or (2)Herbert could have been the son of another of the siblings—known or unknown—of Abbot Albert. But the origins of Herbert’s mother—such as we know them—seem to be in the Dunois; while his father—assuming that he was indeed the son of Ansold II, Le Riche—equally has no demonstrable connection with the family of Abbot Albert, whose origins—such as we know them—are associated neither with the Royal Domain nor with the Dunois.
The authors of the Gallia Christiana believed that Albert was born at Orléans, noting that he had a brother, Hubert de Firmitate, who gave Marmoutier some vineyards in Aurelianensi pago sitam...prope suam Firmitatem. Referring to a different document (?), the Merlets, too, believed that Albert was the brother of a Hubert “de la Ferté,” but this time a donor of land at Ver–lès–Chartres to the Marmoutier priory of Bonne Nouvelle, near Orléans. For l’abbé Clerval, Albert was from a family of the Orléanais; for L. de Grandmaison, “from the Touraine or nearby.” Most recently, Stephen Fanning accepted Clerval’s identification of Albert’s father as “probably the Hubert of la Ferté who had the duty of guarding the castellum of Vendôme during November...;” but, apparently ignoring the evidence from the Orléanais, confidently asserted that “Albert was from the Vendômoise.”
However, all these scholars are silent on the question of the identification of this “La Ferté” in the Orléanais, Touraine or Vendômoise. The donation to Marmoutier cited by the Gallia Christiana strongly suggests a Firmitate in the pagus of Orléans, though this would not, of itself, preclude a Hubert “of la Ferté” at Vendôme.
Save for this “la Ferté” connection, nothing is known of Albert himself before his election as Dean of the cathedral chapter of Chartres sometime between 1004, when his predecessor, Dean Rodulfus, was elected Bishop, and 1022, when he first appears as Dean during Bishop Fulbert’s trip to Rome, writing to Archbishop Hugo of Tours concerning depredations in the Archdeaconry of Châteaudun (perhaps by Viscount Godfrey) and elsewhere.
Albert’s obituary notice in the cathedral necrology tells us that he was “rerum ecclesiasticarum procurator egregius,” which perhaps partially explains his election as Bishop by the cathedral chapter upon the death of Bishop Fulbert (10 April, 1028). He was supported by Count Odo, but opposed by King Robert, whose own candidate, Theoderic, won out after a somewhat protracted dispute, sometime in the course of which Albert apparently became a monk at Marmoutier.
At Marmoutier, after an unknown period of time, he was elected Abbot, and served until his own death on 20 May, 1064. By all accounts Albert was an extraordinary man whose documentable career alone spanned more than five decades. During his long tenure as abbot 36 new priories were added to Marmoutier. Said to be of advanced age at the time of his death, he was revered as a near–saint by his brother monks.
*6. Albert [III, Le Riche ?], de Gualardone:
According to Joseph Depoin, “Albert III [Le Riche], son of Ribald, appears from 1025 with the title dominus castri de Galardone....” If we could find this document, it would be the first appearance of this title.
Jean–François Lemarignier apparently misread Depoin’s admittedly somewhat convoluted reconstruction of the Gallardon genealogy, confusing the “Ansoldian” and “Albertian” branches of Le Riche (which Depoin never connected) and making the “Ansoldians” descendants of Hugh le Grand: “…à la demande de Fulbert de Chartres...Robert le Pieux... en 1025 le [Gallardon] donne … à Aubert Le Riche, issue d’une famille remontant, par un bâtard, … à Hugues le Grand.” Again following Depoin, he also assures us that Herveus of Gallardon was “the son of Albert of Gallardon....”
In fact, though Albert, son of Ribald (known primarily from several appearances in the documents from St. Peter’s), is usually given the respectful title domnus, the only documents we have been able to find explicitly mentioning an Albert, dominus castri Gualardone, are two nearly identical confirmations of the property of Bonneval. They are a bull of Lucius III in 1144 and a confirmation by Archdeacon Henry of Chartres in 1207—issued nearly a century and a century and a half after his death—which may incorporate more of contemporary tradition than verifiable history and contain at least one possible error of fact.
There are, however, only three appearances of “Albert of Gallardon” in the surviving contemporary documents: (1)Albertus de uualardone signed—between “Ribald Drocacensis” (who we believe to have been his father) and Viscount Godfrey of Châteaudun—an act of King Robert at Paris for Coulombs in 1028; and (2)Albertus Galardonensis signed, between Arnulf of Dreux and Viscount Gilduin (of Chartres) a charter of Count Odo II for St. John in the same year. Finally, (3)Albertus de Gualardone witnessed, in the courts of Count Odo (†1037) and Bishop Theoderic (1029–48), a concordia settling a dispute with St. Peter’s.
On the other hand, “Albert, son of Ribald [Ribaldi],” is a better documented figure, appearing in at least five charters, all but one of which involve property transfers in the Drouais—in the extreme northwest marche of the diocese of Chartres, bordering Normandy—and the fifth is a transfer of royal property in Dreux itself. In addition, if Depoin’s identification of “Albert of Gallardon” with “Albert, son of Ribald” is accepted, then he may also be the Albert, senior of Guarin, knight of Dreux, who gave his consent to the latter’s gift of the villa of Pinus in the Drouais to St. Peter before 1034. And Albertus, filius Ribaldi,...viro nobilissimo appears in an act of Abbot Landric of St. Peter’s († March, 1069) as an overlord to rights at Armentières, in the Sarthe.
It is curious that Albert, called “of Gallardon” from 1028 in three appearances, is styled “son of Ribald” in several subsequent acts, including at least one done after 1048. We can only assume that, as most of these appearances concern property in the region of Dreux or Brezolles, referring to Albert as the “son of Ribald” in this region apparently made more sense than styling him after his holdings in “far–away” (25km) Gallardon. Nonetheless, Albertus filius Ribaldi witnessed, with Gaszo de Castello (i.e., Gastho of Châteauneuf), Ivo of Courville’s donation of the church of Chuisnes (near Courville) to Marmoutier (1048x65).
Bishop Fulbert’s letters to the King, Queen and Abbot Odilo of Cluny urgently pleading for their aid against the depredations of Viscount Godfrey of Châteaudun, operating from his newly reconstructed castellum at Gallardon, are the first appearance of this place in any source. From the appearances of Albert de Walardone noted above we may conclude that, sometime between early 1025 (the apparent date of Bishop Fulbert’s letters) and early 1028 (before 10 April), an Albert, presumably son of Ribald, replaced Viscount Godfrey at Gallardon. The documents do not tell us when and how this happened, but the appearance of both Bishop Fulbert and Viscount Godfrey in the royal court at Paris in 1028 (in the charter for Coulombs) suggests a reconciliation (!) between these two and a peaceful transition of power at Gallardon. It is surely no accident that this is also the first known appearance of “Albert of Gallardon.”
Though Lucien Merlet’s insistence on the continuous dominance of the Viscounts of Châteaudun at Gallardon cannot be sustained, if Depoin’s conjectural reconstruction of Albert’s origins are accepted, he was himself not without family connections—though quite indirect—with Châteaudun: his aunt Hildegard, wife of his uncle, Albert II, abbot of Micy, was apparently from the Viscountal family. And, if we accept the suppositions that (1)Herbert, miles de Galardone castro (q.v. *9. Herbert, below), was Albert’s successor at Gallardon, and that (2)this Herbert was married to Albert’s daughter, and (3)that his mother, Rotrud (presumably the undocumentable wife of Ansold II, divitis), was indeed from the Dunois, then it may have been that the marriage of Herbert and Albert’s daughter—with the understood expectation that their son would inherit Gallardon—may have served to satisfy the Viscount’s family’s rights to the place as well as the Bishop and King’s needs for peace. An added bonus would have been the (re–)unification of the “Ansoldian” and “Albertian” branches of the Le Riche–the only such connection we have been able to find.
Lemarignier speculated that, like Bouchard of Montmorancy, Albert of Gallardon profited
“…from the domains of Saint–Germain–des–Près. They are both from families a part of whose fortune was due to the fact that they collected fragments from the former domaine san–germanien, the Le Riche (including Albert) notably in the region south [sic] of Paris...”
This supposition seems reasonable enough, and may even be true; unfortunately the documents offer little confirmation of it.
Lemarignier also suggested that the “Albertus who was among the twelve milites subscribing an act of King Robert in 1026x30” was “almost surely” Albert of Gallardon. This may be true, but the Albert who subscribed, among the milites of the king, an act of Henry I for Ste. Croix of Orléans in 1044 appears to us to occupy too modest a position in the list to be Albert of Gallardon.
In any case, the reconstruction of the arrival of Albert at Gallardon offered by René Merlet and l’abbé Clerval is at once imaginative and fairly unencumbered by documentary support:
“The history of Albert is closely tied to that of the celebrated viscount of Châteaudun, Godfrey....[who] gave the garde to Albert, who became then, under the suzerainty of the Viscounts of Châteaudun, the first lord of Gallardon.”
Unfortunately, the documentary evidence does not support these tidy suppositions and, indeed, seems to suggest the contrary: after the letters of Fulbert there is no mention whatever of the Viscounts of Châteaudun being connected to Gallardon until the end of the twelfth century, and the Lords of Gallardon are not found in the retinue of the Viscounts. Indeed, the only connection between the two families appears to be in the person of Reitrud, wife of Ansold II, Le Riche, who (if she is indeed Rotrud, the mother of Herbert, miles de Galardone castro in csp 223–4) seems to have had some family connections in the Dunois. Her marriage may have occurred before Fulbert’s troubles with Viscount Godfrey and, perhaps, was part of the latter’s rôle in larger geopolitical machinations involving the Counts of Maine and the Perche (his kinsmen), and the Duke of Normandy, which was checked by the King, the Bishop of Chartres and the Count of Chartres/Blois. Accepting the suppositions that she was of the Viscountal family, and that she was the mother of Herbert, it is possible that his investment with Gallardon (if it occurred) was in part due to his mother’s family’s claim to the place, but this could have been more of a sop to satisfy the strongly held feeling against final alienation of family property than as any absolute right to the place by the Viscounts of Châteaudun.
In 1058, at the siege of Thimert, Henry I conceded the church of St. Martin in the castrum of Dreux to St. Germain–des–Près, sub nostro dominio, with the agreement of “Alberto filio Fabaldi.” This further establishes Albert’s connections with Dreux and, we believe, the identification of his father as the “Ribald of Dreux” who appears with him in 1028.
In 1060 King Philip re–issued the confirmation made by his father, Henry I, of the gift made to St. Peter by fidelis noster, Albertus...filius Ribaldi, nobilissimi viri, of the church of St. Germain of Brezolles built by Albert’s father cementiorum opere. Clearly Albert was the Lord of this place, as his obituary notice in the necrology of St. Peter’s tells us that he also gave the vicus of Brezolles as well as the church.
Later tradition had it that Albert “founded the church of Gallardon,” according to an (unpublished) 1144 bull of Lucius II which confirmed to the ancient Benedictine abbey of Bonneval (between Chartres and Châteaudun) “…the church of Gallardon, which was founded by Albert, lord of this castrum, with all the additions and gifts which his son Herveus gave to it, as well as [those] of his sons, Hugo and Garin…”
The specific wording of this bull, like most others of its type, was probably based on a previous or contemporary Episcopal confirmation, though no such act of Bishop Godfrey II appears to have survived. In any event, this phrase was repeated verbatim in a general confirmation of the possessions of Bonneval by Archdeacon Henry of Chartres in December, 1207. The 1144 bull was apparently unearthed by Albert Sidoisne: it was unknown to René Merlet, who published the critical section from the 1207 confirmation, noting (without citation) that the church of Gallardon had been given to Bonneval in 1118. Depoin misread this (admittedly somewhat ambiguous) passage and applied the date of 1118 to the archdeacon’s 1207 confirmation (H.609; CBV 130). Thus is history made.
While the authenticity of the papal bull of 1144 and the archdeacon’s confirmation of 1207—the latter extant in a verifiable “original”—cannot be questioned, it may be that the assertion made there that Herveus was Albert’s son (for which there is no other evidence) was a later and reasonable interpolation made by those living three, four, or five generations after the fact. What these documents tell us, in effect, is that tradition in the mid and late twelfth century had it that a fellow named Albert was dominus of Gallardon and that he had founded the church there. It also being common knowledge that a fellow named Herveus—whose existence as the father of Hugo I was known from at least one Bonneval document and whose tomb was visible to all at that abbey—was one of his successors in those old days past, it logically followed that Herveus was the son of Albert. It seems that, by three generations after the event, folks could no more easily explain the transition from Albert to Herveus than we can, and that Herbert—assuming that he ever had a place in the secession of domini—had left the collective memory altogether. On the other hand, if the bull had called Herveus the grandson (neptus) of Albert, then Depoin’s hypothesis that his (undocumentable) father, Herbert, had acquired Gallardon through his marriage to Albert’s (otherwise unknown) daughter would be proved and the inconsistency would be resolved.
Though Adelaisa, wife of Albert Ribaldi, appears in a single act with him (in 1060), we are also told in another charter that Albert, son of Ribald, apparently died without direct male heirs. Joseph Depoin proposed two different solutions to the question of Albert’s progeny. In his first edition of the St. Martin–des–Champs documents (1905), he stated that “Albert left only daughters. The eldest, Frodelina, carried Thimert to her husband, Gasco; the second, who married Herbert of Paris, had Gallardon for a dowry.” He repeated this note verbatim in the 1912 edition of the CSMdC, citing his own, intervening (by publication date at least), genealogical appendix to the cartulary of St. Martin of Pontoise (1909). But there he had declared that, “Herbert was called to Gallardon, as garde de Château, by his cousin, Albert III, Le Riche, son of Ribaud and nephew of Ansold II [?sic: Albert II?]....In addition to his daughters, one of whom married Gasco of Thimert, Albert III had a son, Herveus I, Lord of the Château of Gallardon after him.” Both reconstructions are typically imaginative and the first appears to be reasonable, but, unfortunately, neither rests on a reliable documentary foundation, there being no mention in the contemporary sources of Albert’s having had either a daughter or a son. In addition, the evidence for the assertion that Albert III was the nephew of Ansold II and cousin of Herbert is not at all apparent.
Orderic Vitalis, apparently following an older (lost) source, tells us that Hugo of Châteauneuf, nepos et hæres Alberti Ribaldi, played an important rôle in the 1077–8 revolt of Robert Curthose against his father, Duke/King William. We may therefore assume that the domni Hugonis, nepotis viri clarissimi Alberti who gave his assent to a gift to St. Peter’s of Chartres in the neighborhood of Brezolles, was this Hugo I of Châteauneuf, son of Gasco and Frodolina, and, if this identification is correct, this document provides an independent proof that Hugo’s mother, Frodelina, was the sister—rather than the daughter—of Albert. This may have been what Chédeville had in mind when he, without reference, confidently asserted that “a sister of Albert married Gasco of Thimert.” However, his conclusion, that “their son, Hugo, who succeeded them as well as his uncle Albert, who died without children,” was “l’origine de la redoutable maison de Châteauneuf” may be questionable in view of Gasco’s clear possession of the place in his own right, and of the definite possibility that Albert had a daughter who carried Gallardon to her husband, Herbert.
In fact, Albert Ribaldi appears to have died without direct male heirs, as we are told in a 1069x79 act that Hugo, son of VVaszo (of Châteauneuf–en–Thimerais), confirmed an act for St. Peter’s of Chartres as the domni Alberti heres. This unusual state of affairs could be explained by the supposition that the marriage of Albert’s sister, Frodolina, to Gasco of Thimert was part of a settlement ending the bello quod longo tempore inter domnum Albertum et Gauszonem fuit mentioned in a pre–1070 act.
The established connection between Albert Ribaldi and the family of Châteauneuf also supplies a thread of evidence connecting this Albert with Albert of Gallardon. Between 1079 and 1081, Gasco, son of Gasco, younger brother of Hugo de Castello [novo] (and nephew of Albert Ribaldi) consented to a gift of tithes at Chaletulo, held from him in fief, to St. Peter. Before 1164 property at this place, Challet (15km Northeast of Chartres), was given to the Cistercian abbey of l’Estrée (Eure) by Herveus II of Gallardon, perhaps as an entry gift for his younger son, Garin. Part of the family holdings at Challet thus may have been from of the dowry of Albert’s sister, Frodolina, and passed to her younger son, Gasco, while the rest remained to be passed (through Albert’s daughter, wife of Herbert?) to the younger sons at Gallardon. By extension, such a reconstruction suggests that Challet may have originally been part of the holdings of Ribald (or his wife, Hildeburg of Bellême?).
In an act done early in the term of Abbot Hubert, Landric’s successor, Albert is spoken of as venerabilis, and his death is mentioned in another undated act of Abbot Hubert, which also calls him liberalissimus ac Deo devotus nostrique loci amicissimus.
*7. Garin, brother of Albert, son of Ribald:
Teudo and Garin, brothers of Albert, son of Ribald, subscribed, with their brother, King Henry’s original confirmation of Albert’s gifts to St. Peter, re–issued by King Philip in 1060.
*8. Herveus, Archdeacon of Orléans:
“Hervé‚ de la Porte, Archdeacon of Ste–Croix, Orléans, and Dean of St. Vrain of Jargeau, upon return from a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, built a church at La Ferté–Aurain to house important relics he had acquired. This was done with the approval of his brothers, Albert and ‘Thédouin’; it was given, in 1035, to his uncle, Abbot Albert of Micy–Saint–Mesmin, to establish a priory.”
A nephew of Abbot Albert [II, Le Riche] of Micy with brothers having the same names as two out of the three otherwise known children of Ribald suggests the possibility that this Archdeacon Herveus might be another son of Ribald, a brother of Albert of Gallardon. The timing here seems a bit off, however, as Dean Herveus—veteran of a pilgrimage—would have had to have been in his thirties at least in 1035, suggesting that he was senior to Albert of Gallardon—an unlikely possibility in view of his clerical career. The name coincidence could be attributable to a collateral branch of the family, and this, indeed, appears to be the case. Apparently working from documents from the abbey of Micy, Depoin confidently has it that Herveus, “archdeacon of Orléans, Dean of St. Vrain, and founder of Notre–Dame du Bourg,” was the son of a sister of Albert II named “Reine” and a knight named “Harvain”; and “from a brother of Hervé descended the castelains of La Ferté–Avrain.” Though Depoin is subject to occasional flights of fancy, it seems probable that he indeed found some document in which Reine and Havrain existed as parents of Herveus.
DEPOIN ON THE CAROLINGIAN CONNECTION:
CSMP, p. 470, n. 911:
“The surname of Reine, as well as the title nobilissimus attributed to Ribaud and the benefices given by Abbot Anne, allows one to think that this branch of Le Riche was related to the last Carolingians. The domain of Bouafle** which Albert II disposed of had been in the dot attributed by Charles le Simple to his first wife, Frederune. But the daughter of Albert III, married to Gasce de Thimert, is named Frodeline (diminutive of Frederune), and it is known that the father of Louis d’Outremer had no less than six daughters from his first marriage, born between 896 and 918. Might not one of them—perhaps one who carried the name of her mother—have married the father of Albert I Le Riche and of Abbot Anne??”
**DEPOIN’S ERROR: Queen Friderune’s dot consisted of the fiscs of Corbeny & Craonne [in Laonaise] & Ponthion–en–Perthois [<Lot & Lauer, R.A.Charles III, I, #56, pp. 120–123; cf. ## 87 & 91]. Act #94, pp. 214–6, the only one to mention Bouafle, says that it was given, at request of Duke Robert, Abbot of St. Germain to that abbey, together with several domains, including Suresnes, for the anniversary of the late queen. Depoin either mis–read this document or, less likely, the [uncited] one in which Albert II disposed of “Bouafle.”
[Also, note that Ribald may be nobilissimus but he is not a Le Riche by blood, only marriage.]
MORE ON ABBOT ALBERT:
“Albert, dean of the chapter of Notre–Dame and abbot of MM belonged to the family of la Ferté. This kinship is established by a single document, the original of which has been lost and not re–found, which is known from a summary in a ms. in the Archives of the Loiret: ‘Attestation que Hubert de la Ferté, frère d’Albert, abb‚ de Marmoutier, a donné quinze arpens de près sciz … Verd, sur la rivière d’Eure’ (sans date).
“Dom Martène, in his Hist. de MM analysed this charter and concluded that Albert was the brother of Hubert, powerful lord, possessing property in the counties of Blois, Chartres, and Orléans: ‘He gave MM 15 arpents of land on the Eure, super fluvium Auduram, with the consent of his sons: Albert in response gave him a mule. The charter of gift is signed by Counts Theobald and viscounts Hilduin, Hardouin of Chartres and Herveus of Blois, and Prior Renaud of MM.’
“Hubert de la Ferté appears in charter XV of the CND (1049–60), with his son, Hugo. His other children were: Samson, Hubert, Baldwin, Sulpice, Beatrix. They all appear in an act giving MM a vineyard near la Ferté: ‘prope suam Firmitatem... in pago Aurelianensi.’
(Métais, Templs aux Eure–et–Loir, 74, p. 102, n. 1. Inexplicably, but not uncharacteristically, Métais has added this note to a charter of William, dominus Feritatis in Pertico , concerning land at “Mainterne, Tessilly, et les autres circonstances” which “ne laissent pas de doute sur l’identification de la Ferté au Perche avec la Ferté–Vidame.” (ibid. n.2) This seems reasonable enough, the William in question in this act of 1220 being probably the grandson of William “of Ferrières” (husband of Vidamess Elisabeth) and the Feritatis in question surely la Ferté Vidame, but how this place could be identified with a Firmitatem in pago Aurelianensi (with a lord named Hubert, a name not found in the later namengut of the Vidames) in the 11th c. is simply one of those little questions which frequent readers of Métais will not find unusual.
 A. Longnon, “Recherches sur une famille noble dite de Paris,” Bull. de la Soc. de l’histoire de Paris, 1879, p. 133, citing the Vita Burchardi Venerabilis Comitis, II, iii, (RHGF X, pp. 351A, 352C): “...Magenardus, vir nobilis, secundum hujus caduci saeculi honorem nobiliter natus.... Abbas Magenardus...nobilis progenie erat, ex sanguinitate enim Ansoldi Divitis Parisiacæ civitatis existebat...”
 RHGF X, p. 574; CGP 73; GV VII, instr., c.25; Newman 121. Though it purports to exist in a once–sealed original (A.N. K 18, no 2a), de Lasteyrie, the editor of the CGP (1887), declared this charter to be a late–eleventh century forgery; Newman (in 1937) agreed. See the discussion below, note 7.
 We have been unable to find at least one of these supposed appearances. See note 5, below.
 CSMP p. 468, citing the Gesta episcopum Autissiodorensium, “which gives the two prelates the same mother and different fathers.” Cf. the same author’s slightly later summary in CSMdC, p. 8, n.6, citing a 990 charter from Cluny (Bruel, Chartes de Cluny, III, p. 70) in which an “Ansalt et uxor sua Rotrudis” are mentioned, to prove that Ansold II was married by this date. However, there appears to be nothing more than these two names connecting this document with the Le Riche.
CSMdC 4, 5; GC VII, instr., cc.191,
29; RHGF X, pp. 595, 596; CGP 80, 81. On the dates, cf. Newman 39 (sealed
original, A.N., K 18, no
8), 44 (once–sealed original, A.N.,
K 18, no 7). Auguste Longnon, whose work (“Recherches sur une
famille noble dite de Paris,”
Bull. de la Soc. de l’hist. de Paris, 1879,
pp. 132–44) formed the basis of Depoin’s investigations into this family
(though he did not distinguish between the two Ansolds), tells us that “
S. Ansoaldi Divitis Parisii” appears
in an act of King Robert in 1006 (ibid.,
p. 133, n.4, citing Tardif, Mon. hist.,
cartons des rois, p. 156). Tardif
being unavailable to me, I have been unable to find reference to such an
act in Newman, who accepts, however, the identification of Ansold, husband
of Reitrud, as “Ansaud le riche de
Paris” (Newman 39, n.2 and 44, n.2, following CSMdC p. 8, n.6).
 CSMdC n.6: “Ansoud Le Riche de Paris fut un des quatre signataires habituels des premiers diplômes émanés de Robert II... avec les comtes Bouchard de Corbeil et Hugues de Dreux et le vicomte Hugues de Meulan,” citing CGP, pp. 97 [no 70], 101 [no 73], 112 [sic: p. 111, no 81]. Of these three acts: (1)CGP 70 is a 995 act of Bishop Rainold of Paris which, though signed by an “Ansoldus,” does not mention King Robert, even in the dating clause (“anno VIIIvo regnante Hugone rege”); (2)CGP 73 (=Newman 121) was declared to be a forgery of (at least) the late eleventh century by de Lasteyrie himself (p. 100–1, n.2; Newman agreed, suggesting the twelfth century; see note 7, below); and (3)CGP 81 is the second donation to St. Denis–de–la–Châtre by Ansold himself, “quidam nostrorum fidelium, nomine Ansoldus, et uxor sua Reitrudis” (Newman 44; CSMdC 5; RHGF X, p. 596). Using Newman as a guide, we have been unable to locate another published, legitimate, early charter of Robert II subscribed by any “Ansold.” Cf. CSMP, p. 468, asserting (without reference) that Ansold was still alive In 1015.
RHGF X, p. 574; CGP 73; GV VII, instr.,
c. 25. Newman (no 121) agreed with de Lasteyrie that this act
is a forgery, primarily on the grounds that the script of the supposed “original”
(AN, K 18, no 22)
is of the late 11th or 12th century. Pfister (no
1) accepted it as genuine, as did Auguste Longnon, (“Recherches...,” p.
133). The paleographic argument seems strong enough, but, in any case, the
simple signature (“
S[ignum]. Ansoldi”), is hardly an
 CSMP, p. 468, without citation.
 CSP 223–4; cf. infra, *9. Herbert, son of Rotrud.
 ...quidam nostrorum militum/fidelium, nomine Ansoldus, et uxor sua Reitrudis... CSMdC 4, 5; RHGF X, pp. 595, 596; GC VIII, instr., cc. 191, 29; Newman 39, 44. Depoin also suggested (CSMdC, p. 8, n.6) that the “Ansalt et uxor sua Rotrudis” who appear in a 990 charter from Cluny (Bruel, Chartes de Cluny, III, p. 70) might be Ansold Le Riche and his wife. However, there appears to be nothing more than these two names connecting this document with the Le Riche.
 CSMP, p. 468, without citation.
 ...una cum consensu filiorum suorum, Hervei scilicet atque Fulcherii et unicæ filiæ, nomine Guiburgis, alodos quos habebat in territorio castri Dunensi sancto Petro et ejus monachis concessit, unamque domum intra castrum, in Premetis quidem villa, alodum quem mater sua Rotrudis possedit....item in Marlai villa [Malainville, farm, cne la Chapelle–du–Noyer] ...[XII]...aripennos terræ; item in Angeliaco [Langeyum, Langey, con Cloyes] aripennos tres et dimidium; in Boardi Villa [Boirville, near Lutz–en–Dunois] quicquid hereditario jure possedit; in Isiginiaco [St.–Lubin–d’Isigny, farm, cne Marbou, site of a priory of St. Mary of Châteaudun] terram quam Constantius, pater Vitalis, coluit, vel Rotrudis mater sua visa est habere dum vixit.... (CSP 223–4; place identifications from the DTEL.) We have been unable to identify this Constantius, pater Vitalis. The final clause might suggest that Rotrud was still alive(?).
 Pruneville, 22km east of Châteaudun, between Bazoches–en–Dunois and Patay.
 ...Drogoni, qui beneficium ex rebus sancte Marie Dunensi, per largitionem Hugoni vicecomiti, seniori meo, tenere videor....Est autem ipsa terra in comitatu Dunensi, in vicaria Arnulfi, in Premodis villa.... (CSP 399–400).
 “...the Viscount of Châteaudun, whom we see cited several times as the suzerain [sic] of Herveus, Herbert’s grand–son [sic] and the first authentic lord of Gallardon [sic]....” (L. Merlet. “Gallardon et ses Environs,” MSAEL, II, 1860, p. 286, emphasis mine). Merlet cited no document suggesting a Viscount of Châteaudun as suzerain of Gallardon and we have yet to find one as well. It would seem that the source of his extraordinary error was his belief (loc. cit., p. 286) that the “Viscount Hugo” who appears with Herveus of Gallardon in CSP 412–3 “circa 1129”) was Hugo of Châteaudun; but clearly this document concerns the infamous Hugo (III) of Le Puiset, Viscount of Chartres.
 “Hervé de Gallardon était fils d’Albert ou Herbert, seigneur de Gallardon au milieu du onzième siècle, et de Rotrude, que l’on a tout lieu de croire fille de Geoffroy, vicomte de Châteaudun, qui construisit le Château de Gallardon, vers 1020” (CE p. 4, n.8).
 R. Merlet and l’Abbé Clerval, Un manuscrit Chartrain du XIes., (Chartres, 1893), pp. 193–4, cited by Depoin, CSMP n.914, who does not, however, mention Rotrud’s connection with the Viscountal family. Cf. LTSMdC n.384; CSMdC n.188.
 “...on a vu dans cette Rotrude la fille d’Emeline de Châteaudun [CMMD 35], laquelle Emeline aurait pu appartenir …à la famille des vicomtes de Chateaudun, possesseurs de Gallardon, …tout le moins Geoffroi II, au debut du XIes.; ce qui expliquerait comment Gallardon a pu passer des mains de Geoffroi II en celles de ce même Albert ou Herbert” (CBV 39, n.3). Thus, Sidoisne, in very uncharacteristically vague fashion, fudged the whole question of Albert’s possession of Gallardon, simply conflating him with Herbert as “Albert ou Herbert.”
CMMD 35 (1042x52) establishes the names Rotrud, Herbert, and Herveus in the namengut of a prominent family (perhaps a collateral to that of the Viscounts) of Châteaudun: “...Emelina de Castro Duno...Herbertus, filius ejus, et filia ejus Rotrudis, cum filio suo Herveo...et Guillelmus, frater ejusdem Emelina, cum filia sua Rotrude....” But the connection with the mother of Herbert does not appear to be a direct one, unless we posit Herbert as an unmentioned brother of Herveus, thus:
? + Emelina William +
│ “of Châteaudun”“ │
Herbert Rotrudis + ? Rotrudis
├────── ??? ────────┐
Such a supposition, though contrary to the hypothetical Le Riche origins of Herbert, would also explain the entry of the name Herveus (Herbert’s son and presumed sucessor) into the Gallardon namengut. (Note, however, that the name Emmelina is not known in the family.) The property in question here, half of the church of Morée (Loire–et–Cher, 21km Northeast of Vendôme, 25km south of Châteaudun), was held from the Vidame, in fief from the Count. The Viscount of Châteaudun is not mentioned.
 St.–Martin–de–Bouafle, Seine–et–Oise, near Meulan. Cf. Newman 97 (dating 996 x 1031 but known from a 12th century copy); RHGF X, p. 615.
 CSMP, p. 469, and note 911, citing Mabillon, Vetera analecta, nova edit., p. 431 (=Newman 75: AD Seine–Inférieure, 9 H 1433 [the original, ed. Jules Vernier, Rec. des Chartes de Jumièges, I, no ix]; PL 135.585 [lacking some subscriptions]; cf. Sœhnée 6): “It was not from his mother, as the Chronicle of the Archbishops of Tours says (B.N., ms.fr. 17,047, fol. 11), but by his maternal [sic: paternal?] grandmother that Archbishop Arnoul was connected to Bellême. He was certainly the nephew of his predecessor, Hugh of Châteaudun [by his mother, Hildegard of Châteaudun].”
We have not seen the “Chronicle of
the Archbishops of Tours” (unpublished? cf. A. Salmon, Rec. de chroniques de Tours, pp. 201–17, apparently a different text)—nor
the publication of the original charter by Verier—but it appears that the
signature list in the document which Mabillon publishes has either been
corrupted or, more likely, that the “Ribald” there is a cleric, as he and
one “Gilbert” both sign after the higher clergy and before the King, thus:
S. Arnulfi Turonensis Archiepiscopi.
S. Ribaldi. S. Gisleberti. S. Roberti regis. S.
Willemi Bellemensis. S. Richardi comitis Normanorum.”
Indeed, Newman (p. 95, n.1, without noting the CSMP mention of this act) believed this Ribald—whom he calls “Rabaud”—to be a future Bishop of Seez (from 1025, citing GC XI, c. 680) and therefore dates the charter “1025–6 Aug., 1027 ou 1028.”
 This is not particularly surprising, however, as Albert would have been, in Depon’s reconstruction, a Le Riche by distaff descent only.
 We might add that the name Ribald does not subsequently occur in the family, though this is perhaps explained by the fact that Albert, son of Ribald, apparently died without a direct male heir. The name Albert does occur, but only once in the later documents, among the cadets: Aubertus de Gualardone was a subdecon and canon of the Cathedral of Chartres at the end of the 12th century (Obits SM 58B).
 J.–F. Lemarignier mis–read Depoin’s admittedly somewhat convoluted reconstruction of the genealogy, confusing the “Ansoldian” and “Albertian” branches of Le Riche (whom Depoin never connects) and made the “Ansoldians” descendants of Hugh le Grand: “...Robert le Pieux... le [Gallardon] donne … à Aubert Le Riche, issue d’une famille remontant, par un bâtard, … à Hugues le Grand” (Le Gouvernement Royal aux premiers temps Capétiens, [Paris, 1965], p. 70, citing CSMP, pp. 468–70). André Chédeville was more circumspect, though he too found Depoin’s format too difficult to penetrate without mis–interpretation: “...la vaste famille des Le Riche.... était sûrement représentée par les Gallardons depuis Albert qui apparaît vers 1025...” (Chédeville, p. 259, citing CSMP, p. 468.)
 L. Merlet, “Notice historique sur la baronie de Châteauneuf–en–Thimerais,” Revue Nobiliare, n.s. I, 1865, pp. 337–47; 401–8; 464–73; 506–13; 529–37; at pp. 341, 340. This obscure publication was apparently unknown to Depoin.
 L. Merlet, “Gallardon et ses environs,” MSAEL, II, 1860, pp. 282–311. Cf. his later remarks on Gallardon (CND [1862–5], II, p. 65, n.2 and p. 66; CT  36, n.1) in which Albert is simply never mentioned.
 ...Ego miles Guarinus de castro Drocas, filius Alberici, militis Ragenoldi vicedomini...dono alodum meum in pago Drocassino ad villam quæ vocatur Pinus.... Et postea Drocas, videntibus et annuentibus meis senioribus Riboldo et Ansoldo [Divitis??].... (CSP 119–21, apparently dated by the presence of Archbishop Robert of Rouen, who was dead by 1033). Guérard identifies this place as “le Pin en Drouais, près de Bellême,” apparently confusing it with the Pinu... in Castri Bellissimi pago mentioned in a 1040x64 act for Marmoutier (CMMP 7). L. Merlet, citing CSP 119–21 and the cathedral polyptique of 1300 (DTEL, pp. vi, 73), confidently identifies it with La Fosse–Neuve (com Fontaine–la–Guyon, con Courville), some distance South of Dreux and a place unknown to Joanne’s massive Dictionaire géographique de la France. But a more probable identification would be with the ...terram quam apud sanctum Georgium..., Pino scilicet... (CSP 582–3), i.e., just North of Dreux, across the Avre, at St.–Georges–[sous]–Motel, site of a priory of St. Peter’s of Chartres (cf. CSP 91, 119, 384, 571, 577, 582, 583). Like many in this border region, the place has, apparently, disappeared without a trace, and is also unknown to Joanne.
 RHGF X, pp. 617–19; GC VIII, instr., c. 297; (Newman 72: known from early modern copies and an 18thc. partial facsimile of the lost original). In his table of the signatories of the charters of Robert II Lemarignier (Le gouvernement...) calls “Ribaud de Dreux” the “parent de Aubert de Gallardon” but does not mention him in his text. Depoin does not speculate at all on the origins of Albert’s father.
 ....Ego Henricus... cum in obsidione cujusdam Castri, Timerias nuncupati.... annuente Alberto filio Fabaldi [/Falbaldi], atque Isualdo [sic: Isnardo, cf. CSP 126–7, 151–2] de Maurivillare [?Morvilliers, near la Ferté–Vidame], nec non etiam Morino de Trembleia [Tremblay–le–Vicomte/–les–Villages, 25km east of Châteauneuf].... (RHGF XI, pp. 598–9; Sœhnée 114, known from a 12thc. cartulary copy). Alberti filii Rebaldi is among the signatories—between Counts Theobald and Radulf—in a variant note (p. 599, note c).
 The eleventh century documents from Dreux apparently have not survived (cf. Stein, Bibliog. gén. des cartulaires français, no 1231 and p. 598); though there may be something of interest in the slightly later documents from the nearby Fontevriste convent of St. John of Belhomer (founded c. 1090 by Albert’s nephew, Hugo I of Châteauneuf) in the papers of l’abbé Lainé, prior of Mondonville, B.N., ms. fr. 24,133, pp. 301–4 (Stein, no 503bis) and (uncatalogued) in the AEL, used extensively by L. Merlet in his reconstruction of the Lords of Châteauneuf (Rev. Nobilaire, 1865).
 Ego Henricus....notum....quod quidam meus fidelis Albertus nomine, filius scilicet Ribaldi, nobilissimi viri... quandam æcclesiam, quam pater ejus, fidelis noster Ribaldus..., cementariorum opere, in Bruerolensi vico, pro salute animæ suæ construxerat.... Unde ego Albertus, nobilissimi Ribaldi filius,... favente mea carissima conjuge, Adelaisa nomine,...æcclesiam de Bruerolensi vico, quam pater meus in honore sancti Germani episcopi construxit,... Sancto Petro coenobii Carnotensis concedo.... Altare quoque ejusdem æcclesiæ, quod ab episcopo Carnotensi semper in fevo [sic: fisco] tenueram.... Drocis, in curia regis.... (CSP 127–31, after the Vetus Aganus). The phrase in cementariorum opere is not in the original act of Philip (Prou 2, from the “original,” AEL H.399; RHGF XI, pp. 602–4; GC VIII, instr., c. 301); cf. Sœhnée 105, dating (without explanation) the original confirmation of Henry I “1056 (?).” Brezolles is 30km east of Dreux.
We know of several smaller churches which are specifically said to have been “built in cement and stone” between c.1050 and c.1150. Cf. Chédeville, p. 105 and n.141, noting three churches in this region: CSP 92–3 (“Saint–Georges–Motel, avant 1080” [i.e., the destroyed church of Rescolius, “...moderno tempore a monacho nomine Huberto major cemento et lapide est edificata.”]), CSP 127–31 (“Brézolles, avant 1061”), CSP 138 (“Les Châtelets, vers 1060” [“....in Pertico, non longe a Mori Villare, Castellariorum aeclesiam, coemento et lapide constructam...”]). To this list we may add the churches of Croth (...quamdam æcclesiam, sitam in Croto superiori super fluvium Auduræ.... cemento et lapide...fieri..., CSP 216–7); and, further south, Boisville–la–Saint–Père (æcclesia beati Laurentii lapide cementoque constructa.... CSP, p. 36); Brou (...majoris oratorii fundamenta cemento et lapide stabilire potuissent.... CSP 148–51); Montigny–le–Gannelon (...facient monachi capellam ligneam; nos autem auxilio Dei et parrochianorum edificabimus ecclesiam lapideam.... CMMD 184, before 1140); and, in the Loire–et–Cher, Villebefol (...capellam...que antea lignea erat lapideam fieri permisi.... CMMD 175, after 1116).
The Thimerais–Drouais region, even today relatively rich in woodlands, lacks significant sources of good building stone (as does most of the Beauce). “Cementariorum opere,” “cemento et lapide,” etc. perhaps refer to a method of construction involving relatively small, uncut stones imbeded in a “cement” matrix, finished with an exterior stucco and, on the interior, with (painted) stucco–plaster. Finely–cut ashlar stonework, where employed at all, was restricted to structural features—arches and portals—which may even have been sculpted, as at Tiron (later 12thc.) or, outside the region, Dangeau (late 11thc.).
 See the discussion below, note 57.
 J. Depoin, Les Comtes de Beaumont–sur–Oise et le Prieuré de Sainte–Honorine de Conflans. Pontoise, 1915, pp. 22–3 and p. 22, n.2, citing “B.N., ms. lat. 12,776, fol. 336 [sic?: 333?],” dating this act, which was confirmed by King Henry, 1057 or 1058. By this pactum Bishop Agobert and the cathedral clerics granted Abbot Albert and his monks a prebend in return for the monks’ societatem and prayers and promised to inscribe all the Bishops of Chartres in their necrology and celebrate a solemn mass for each canon who dies. “Signum....Hugonis filii vicedomini; Herberti, nepotis Alberti abbatis; Hugonis, filii Huberti de Firmitate.” (CND 15, from a vidimus of 1241, AEL G. xxx; Sœhnée 83). Allowing for super–scripted nepoti[–e?]s Alberti abbatis and/or filii Huberti de Firmitate, is it possible that both Herbert and Hugo are the sons of Hubert “of La Ferté,” i.e., the known brother of Abbot Albert? If so, we are clearly not in the presence of Herbert of Gallardon. There being no property transfer nor family interests involved here, it is not clear why the nephews of Abbot Albert subscribed this act. Are we to believe that Uncle Albert was just visiting the neighborhood and the boys simply tagged along?
 Vide supra, *3. Reitrud, wife of Ansold II.
 GC, XIV, cc.201–2, citing “Martène [Hist. de Marmoutier?], I, [p.?] 312.”
 “Suivant l’Inventaire du prieuré de Bonne–Novelle conservé aux archives du Loiret, [le doyen] Albert était le frère d’Hubert de la Ferté, qui donna … Marmoutier 15 arpents de pré à Ver [=?Vernus, Ver–lès–Chartres, 4km south of Chartres], sur la rivière d’Eure” (Digs 7, n.2).
 Dictionaire d’histoire et géographie ecclesiastique, I, (1912), cc. 1432–5, citing Martène, Hist. de Marmoutier, II, p. 278, and Digs, p. 7: “...His brother, Hubert of La Ferté, Hubertus de Firmitate, appears to have been a great lord, as he made several donations to Marmoutier, when Albert was Abbot, from property in the counties of Blois, Chartres, and Orléans. These donations were confirmed by his wife, Beatrix, and sons, Samson, Hubert, Hugo, Baldwin, and Sulpice; and daughters, Beatrix and Adelaide.” Note that these documents, presumably published by Martène, establishes a nephew of Abbot Albert named Hubert, though not Herbert. It is difficult to believe that, with this many members of the family known, an association with some “la Ferté” cannot be made.
 Dictionaire de biographie français I, cc. 1176–7.
 A Bishop and His World before the Gregorian Reform: Hubert of Angers, 1006–1047. (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 78, part 1, Philadelphia, 1988), pp. 59, 37, and n.99, citing Guillot, I, p. 245; Clerval in the DHGE; C. Chantelou, Cartulaire tourangeau..., p. 27; and, on Hubert at Vendôme, CTVD 2.
 Digs 6.
 PL 141.263–4; Behrens, Letters of Fulbert, ep. 65, p. 110–3, dating the letter “late 1022–early 1023”; cf. Digs 7; GC VIII, col.1197).
 Obits 13AB.
 On the circumstances of Albert’s episcopal election, see Guillot, I, pp. 36–8. The letters of the chapter on his behalf to the Archbishops of Sens and Tours, the Bishops of Beauvais and Orléans, and Abbot Odilon of Cluny are published in the RHGF, X, ep. 27, p. 508, ep. 28, p. 309; Berhends ed., The Letters and Poems of Fulbert of Chartres, nos 128–30.
 Guillot was unable to precisely date the beginning of Albert’s abbacy, but noted that Abbot Albert, successor to Evrard, appears in several acts of Count Odo II, who died 15 November, 1037 (Guillot, II, C 55, citing L. Lex, Eudes II de Blois..., p. 238, and two of Odo’s acts for Marmoutier, Arch. Indre–et–Loire, II, 269, no 3 and Lex, 1892 ed., p. 164, no 27). Clerval (DHGE, I, cols. 1432ff) confidently asserts—without reference—that he was elected abbot in 1032.
 GC XIV, col. 202; Clerval in the DHGE I, cols. 1432ff. Guillot believed Albert died 20 May, 1064 (Guillot, II, C 247=CMMB 42), noting that he was still alive on 3 April, 1064 (CMMV 32), and that his successor, Bartholemy, appears as abbot no later than July, 1064 (Guillot, II, C 248 [=CMMP 7], noting that this date was accepted by Prou, L’acquisition du Gâtinais...., p. 182).
 CSMP 469, without citation. The 1025 date is accepted by Lemarignier (p. 70) and, cautiously, by Chédeville (p. 259: “vers 1025”), citing Depoin.
 Lemarignier, Le Gouvernement...., p. 70, citing, in note 8, CSMP 468–70; and p. 154, citing, in note 71, CSMP 469. For Depoin, Ansold I indeed shared his wife with Hugh le Grand, by whom she had a son, but the “Ansoldian” Le Riche were descended from Ansold and are not Capetian by blood. The conncection between the two branches of the family was never illuminated by either Longnon or Depoin (or any other source we have seen), and we have yet to find a document in which Albert is styled “divitis.” Depoin’s opinion that Albert was the father of Herveus was based on his mis–reading of R. Merlet’s mistaken acceptance of the testimony of a later document (see page *18 and note 72, below).
 CSP 119–21, 131, 132, 136–7.
 CBV 39, 130; see the discussion, page *18 and note 68, below.
 GC VIII, instr., col. 295–7; RHGF X, pp. 617–9; Newman 72: “Before 10 April” (the death of Bishop Fulbert). The King, at the request of Bishop Odolric of Orléans, confirmed the possessions of the abbey which Odolric’s uncle, Bishop Roger of Beauvais, had held in benefice of the King and which Odolric sought to reconstruct and restore. Lemarignier calls Roger “lord of Nogent[–le–Roi], dead in 1022” (Le gouvernement..., p. 89, n.86; cf. p. 55, n.60). According to Newman, the published editions of this charter were made from early modern copies, themselves copies of a “vieil” cartulary from Coulombs. However, a carefully made—though partial—facsimilé/calque published in 1762 (which he also notes), establishes that there was, extant at this date at Coulombs, an early 11thc. “original” with a Royal monogram and indications of preparation for a seal en–plaquette, in which most of the signatories, including Ribald and Albert, were still legible (C. F. Toustain, Nouveau Traité de Diplomatique, [Paris, 1762], V, pl. xcvii, opposite p. 771).
 CSJ 1 (=AEL H.3084, “original”), dated by R. Merlet to 1028, after the death of Fulbert (who does not appear) in April and before the election of the capicerius Theodoric (who does appear with this title) as his successor.
 CSP 160–1, dating, perhaps, to 1033 x 1037.
 CSP 119–21. See above, n. 27, for this text and the identification of the place.
 Albertus, Ribaldi filius....cuidam fideli Isnardo de Mori Villare condonavit.... testes....Hugo Drocensis, Herbertus de Burseriis.... (CSP 126–7). Note that Isnard of Morville shared, with Albert, son of Ribald, rights over St. Martin of Dreux, held from the King, in 1058 (RHGF XI, pp. 598–9; Sœhnée 114; note 29 above); Herbert “of Berchères [–le–Mangot?] “ may be Albert of Gallardon’s successor there, i.e., Herbert “of Gallardon” (cf. *9. Herbert, below).
 “...canonici sanctæ mariæ; Rotrodus comes. Albertus filius ribaldi. Gaszo de castello. Hvgo uicedominis. Amalricus de sparnoto. Simon & mainerius filius eius.” (H.2308/1 [unsealed original], ed. CMMD 109, with the suggested date “1048–61”). The appearance of Bishop Agobert in this document implies a terminus post of at least 1048; Dean Hugo, also present, was deposed by Pope Alexander II in 1065. Cf. Digs 122, suggesting (without comment) “1055.”
 Fulbert, (Behrends ed.) ep. 99–101; on their dates, cf. pp. lxxxvi–vii. Guy Vilette apparently believed that the site was documented from the 10thc., but failed to cite a source (Recherches concernant les noms de lieux…, Gallardon, p. 17).
 Albert’s uncle, Albert (II, Le Riche, later Abbot of Micy), married “a daughter of Hugo of Châteaudun.... Albert was not an only child, the names of Albert’s sibling and wife are unknown.” (T. Head, Hagiography, p. 227, n.126, citing GC XIV, col. 56; G. Bry, Hist. des pays et comté de Perche..., 1620, pp. 137–8; J. Boussard, “La Seigneurie de Bellême...,” Mélanges offert à Louis Halphen, 1951, p. 46, n.4; M.–M. Lemarignier, Études sur les anciennes chartes de l’abbaye St.–Mesmin de Micy...”, typescript thèse de l’École des Chartes (Paris, 1937), no 25, p. 132). We presume that one source for these connections is a charter of King Robert for Abbot Albert of Micy telling us that Albert was the son of Hildeburgis of Bellême (Jules Vernier, ed., Rec. des Chartes de Jumièges, I, 15, pp. 51–2; RHGF X, p. 615; Newman 97, with the suggested dating “24 Oct., 996–20 July, 1031”). Depoin’s identification of Albert II’s wife as “Hildegard of Châteaudun” (CSMP, p. 469) is made without reference.
 The connection of Rotrud, mother of Herbert, miles of Gallardon, with the Dunois seems clear enough (CSP 223–4, 399–400), though that with the Viscountal family is not, despite L. Merlet’s interesting observation noting the relationship between the root of her name and that of “Rotrocus,” “a patronymic of the counts of the Perche” (L. Merlet, “Gallardon et ses Environs.” MSAEL, II, 1860, p. 287). Cf. note 10, above.
 Lemarignier, loc. cit., p. 73, citing, in note 16, Marie de la Motte–Collas, (“Les possessions territoriales de l’abbaye de Saint–Germain–des–Près,” Rev. d’hist. de l’église de France, xliv, 1957, pp. 49–80, esp. 68–9): “The Albertus miles of p. 49 [sic: 69] may only be Albert, lord of Gallardon between 1025 and 1063 [CSMP 469]. Other evidence for this: the usurpations of san–germainian lands by his family, the places of his own power, his later intervention in a donation made by Henry I to St. Germain–des–Près [Poupardin 62 = Sœhnée 114, ed. RHFG XI, 598] in 1058.” We must note that, in this latter act, Albert is one of three co–donors, at the King’s “request,” of the church of St. Martin of Dreux which they held from him (“de nostro domino”). To call Albert’s role here an “intervention” seems to be reading more into the text than is there—though Lemarignier’s is not as free a reading as that of la Motte–Collas, who saw in this act Albert “s’était émancipé dans le Château de Thimert.... Sans doute s’était–il aussi approprié des biens des moines puisque ces derniers allèrent trouver en 1058 le roi qui l’assiégeait dans son Château et en obtinrent des concessions” (“Les possessions...,” p. 69, citing Poupardin 62, p. 99). Though the church of Brezolles was dedicated to St. Germain, we have been unable to find any specific connections between the “places of Albert’s power” and St. Germain–des–Près, nor any “usurpations of san–germainian lands by his family,” Albert’s supposed lordship of Châteuneuf rests on Orderic Vital’s statement that Hugo, son of Gasco, was his “heir,” independently (?) repeated in CSP 133–4 (see note 77, below).
 Lemarignier 133, n.282; Newman 86; ed. RHGF X, p. 612, Poupardin CSGDP 49. The act in question is a confirmation of certain property of St. Germain near Corbeil, Sceaux and Versailles, which Newman (not mentioned by Lemarignier) dates “29 jan., 1025–26 — 1028–30.”
 Sœhnée 69; noted by Lemarignier, p. 134, n.283.
 MsChart, pp. 193–4, without citation. Thirty–three years earlier Lucien Merlet had expressed the same ideas in almost identical terms (MSAEL, II, 1860). René Merlet apparently felt it necessary to champion the opinions of his father (without citing him or any other sourece), concerning the persistent influence of the Viscounts of Châteaudun at Gallardon. Like his father, René did not identify Albert of Gallardon with the son of Ribald.
 For L. Merlet (MSAEL, II, 1860, pp. 296–7), the marriage of Herveus III to Alix, daughter of Godfrey III of Châteaudun (before 1213), “was a new link between the families of Châteaudun and Gallardon, and we believe that it is to these two alliances—that of Rotrud with the father of Herbert and of Alix with Herveus III—that we must attribute the parfaite similitude between the heraldic arms of the lords of these two places.” We have not seen this heraldic evidence.
 RHGF XI, pp. 598–9, after an apparently very corrupt 12thc. cartulary copy (Poupardin CSGdP 62, Sœhnée 114). Of the other principals in this act, Isualdo de Maurivillare, is surely the Isnardo de Mori Villare in CSP 127, 229; Alberto filio Fabaldi appears in the text, Alberti filii Rebaldi is among the signatories—between Counts Theobald and Radulf—in a variant note (p. 599, note c, from “Gerard, Dubois Hist. Paris. Eccles., I, p. 657”). Lemarignier (Le gouvernement..., p. 73, n.16) sees here an “intervention” by Albert on behalf of St. Germain, which seems to be reading more into the text than is there: literally, he is one of three co–donors, at the King’s “request.” Cf. note 59, above.
 The confirmation of the restoration of Coulombs by King Robert, GC VIII, instr., c. 297. See note 50, above.
 Henry’s lost act is known only from Philip’s vidimus, published as CSP 127–31, after the Vetus Aganus, which differs somewhat (omitting the construction detail) from the text in Prou 2, after Philip’s original, H.399; RHGF XI, pp. 602–4 (after “fragmenta D. Estiennot, p. 314, Ms. Sangerman, n.574”; GC, VIII, instr., c. 301. Cf. CSMP, p. 469; Sœhnée 105.
 …Albertus, miles, qui dedit Sancto Petro vicum Bruerolensem cum ecclesia... (Obits SP 197B, 4 November). The use of the term miles should not, at this early date, be taken as indicating a modest rank. Ribald, who was apparently dead by the time of the 1060 charter (see note 31 above), does not appear an any published necrologies of the diocese.
 “…ecclesiam de Gualardone sicut ab Alberto, ejusdem castri domino, fundata est, cum incrementis et donis que Herveus, ejus filius, eidem ecclesie contulit, et hiis omnibus que postea filii ejus, Hugo et Garinus...” CBV 39 after B.N., coll. Baluze, vol. 38, fol. 14 (a 17thc. copy, with a description of the original) and AEL H.607, fol. 111vo (a fragmentary 16thc. copy); noted in GC VIII, col. 1243; Jaffé 8566. Ed. J. Ramakers, Papsturkunden in Frankreich, n.f., VI, Orléanais, (Göttingen, 1958), pp. 110–112, no 52.
 Bishop Godfrey (III, of Lèves)’s original confirmation of the church of Gallardon in 1118 (H.1067; CBV 17; GC VIII, instr., c. 315) mentions neither Albert nor Herveus, telling us only that the church was at that time in the hands of a certain layman named Guido [son of Herveus, later lord of Auneau]. The acta of Bishop Godfrey—one of the most important French bishops of the 12thc., have yet to be catalogued. An unpublished 1130 confirmation by Archbishop Henry of Sens (H.1067; CBV 26) only concerns churches held by the abbey in the diocese of Sens.
 CBV 130, after the original, AEL H.609.
 MsChart pp. 192–3, carefully correcting his father: “The viscounts of Châteaudun were suzerains of the lords of Gallardon, but, from the eleventh century, they were no longer propriètaires de ce Château. We cite as proof of this an act of December, 1207, where the lineage of the lords of Gallardon during the eleventh century is clearly indicated....”
 CSMP n.913, citing “Letters of the archdeacon of Chartres, 1118. AEL, fonds Bonneval: cited by Merlet and Clerval. Cf. H.1067.” The confirmation of Gallardon to Bonneval in 1118 by Bishop Godfrey, mentioning neither Albert nor Herveus, is, indeed, in H.1067 (a once–sealed original; CBV 17, edited in GC VIII, instr., c. 315).
 ....ego Hvgo Guarlardonensium dominus... pro patris mei Heruei...ab ipsis inibi [in boneuallensi monasterio] sepulturæ.... (From the circa 1100 foundation charter of Auneau priory for Bonneval, H.999 (an “original”); CBV 9; ed. Ann. d’Eure–et–Loir, 1847, p. 179 [=Ed. Lefèvre, Documents sur Auneau, I, p. 95]).
 The tomb, in the north side–aisle of the abbey church, destroyed in 1783, is known from a drawing made for Gaignières, minimally reproduced by J. Adhemar and G. Dordor, “Les tombeaux du collection Gaignières,” Gazette des Beaux Arts, LXXXIV, 1974, p. 20, no. 59 as “Tombeau d’un comte de Dunois (?) … la abbaye de Bonneval. Tombeau du XIIe siècle”; and, in a larger format, in (Ch. Métais), Dalles Tumulaires et Pierres Tombales du Département d’Eure–et–Loir, (Chartres, 1895), I, pl. lvi. The tomb had been previously identified as that of Foulque, the 9thc. founder of Bonneval (Dom J. Morenne, Histoire Abregée de Bonneval, p. 228); Sidoisne convincingly argued that it belonged to Herveus (CBV 9, n.4 and Bull. soc. dun., XVII, 1936, p. 300). The form of the effigy—in very high relief—suggests a date closer to 1150 than 1090, though the archaic costume—conical helmet, hauberk, long, pointed shield—places it before the end of the 12th century. However, any terminus post arguement runs the risk of being circular, there being very few surviving examples of this type which can be placed much before 1200. Unfortunately, the style of the original does not survive the 17th century transfiguration.
 It is curious—at the least—that, despite the overwhelming importance of family and dynastic considerations in this period among the nobility, there is some evidence that the collective memory of the average noble family in this period may not have extended much beyond three or four generations. See Georges Duby, The Chivalrous Society.
 ...ego Albertus, nobilissimi Ribaldi filius... favente mea carissima conjuge, Adelaisa nomine,... (CSP 127–31, after the Vetus Aganus; Prou 2, from the “original,” AEL H.399; RHGF XI, pp. 602–4; GC VIII, instr., c. 301.)
 CSP 133–4/H.400, naming Gasco [of Châteauneuf’s] son, Hugo, as his heir. Orderic Vitalis also calls Hugo the heir of Albert, presumably at Châteauneuf (M. Chibnall, ed., The Ecclesiaticical History of Orderic Vitalis, [Bk. IV], vol. II, p. 358; noted by L. Merlet, Revue Nobilaire, I, p. 342). See note 80, below.
 LTSMdC, n.384; CSMdC, n.188, citing CSMP p. 469. Though he cites his intervening publication in this latter note, Depoin repeats the LTSMdC note’s erroneous reconstruction of Albert’s origins, which he had corrected in the CSMP: “The land of Gallardon previously belonged, with that of Bouafle and of Thimert, to Albert Le Riche, nephew of Anne, Abbot of Jumièges. Albert married Hildeburgis of Bellême, by whom he had Albert II, Garin and Thion.” Albert’s supposed lordship of Châteauneuf rests upon an implication in Orderic Vital (see note 80, below).
 CSMP, p. 469, citing “ms. lat. 5417, fol. 498.” We have been unable to discover what this document might be, nor what the connection might be between the “Ansoldian” and “Albertian” branches of the Le Riche. In addition, though Orderic’s context seems to imply that Hugo, son of Gasco, was Albert’s heir at Châteauneuf, apparently ther is no other evidence that he was, indeed, ever overlord of Thimert/Châteauneuf. On the other hand, CSP 136–7 tells us that there was an extended war between these two; and at least one other document tells us that it was Gasco who built the “new castle” there (Mabillon, Ann. O.S.B., IV, 545; CMMV 117; Sœhnée 115, 116, discussed below in note 84). See also the following note.
 “...Hugo de Nouocastello nepos et hæres Alberti Ribaldi...” (M. Chibnall, ed., The Ecclesiaticical History of Orderic Vitalis, [Bk. IV], vol. II, p. 358; noted by L. Merlet, Revue Nobilaire, I, p. 342). It is very curious that Orderic, writing more than 2 generations after the event, should have first identified Hugo in this fashion, only then adding (the seemingly much more significant fact) that he was, “as it happened” (enim), married to the sister of Robert of Bellême, one of the major participants in the revolt. Orderic’s sources for the revolt are unclear, but it would seem that the one he used here was contemporary with the events, when the newly–deceased Albert, son of Ribald, would still have had some significance to its audience.
 CSP 140–1, “c. 1061.”
 Chédeville, p. 260, citing CSMP 469 and CSP 133–4 [original in H.400], subscribed by filii VVaszonis, Hugo videlicet, domni Alberti heres, et Guaszo, frater ejus. Chédeville’s conjecture that “the construction of the castle of Thimert [sic] probably corresponded to a division of the seigneurie of Brezolles in favor of Gasco, beau–frère of Albert of Brezolles” (ibid., p. 270, n.138), while interesting, was not expressed by L. Merlet, whom he cites (“Notice historique sur la baronnie de Châteauneuf–en–Thimerais,” Revue Nobilaire, 1865, p. 3 [sic]). No document styles Albert “of Brezolles,” (though his dominance over this place could be reasonably inferred from CSP 133–4), and we have been unable to determine from the Chartres documents whether or not Albert was ever lord of Thimert. Note that there is evidence to suggest that Gastho built the “new castle” at Châteauneuf (see n.84, below.
 CSP 133–4 = AEL H.400. Cf. the previous note.
 CSP 136–7. This act concerns a vassal of Lord Albert who was fatally wounded ante Castrum Novum, i.e., the “new castle” built near Thimert by Gasco I shortly before the 1059–60 war between King Henry and Duke William of Normandy: “...Castrum Teodemerense...noviter… quodam Guazone constructum,” from an additional subscription by King Henry I added to an earlier donation by Count Godfrey of Anjou (AEL H. 2486 [“original”]; Mabillon, Ann. O.S.B. IV, 545; CMMV 117; Sœhnée 115, dating the king’s subscription “1059, April or May [before the 23rd]”; Guillot C 162, dating the original gift 1056, 14 Jan. x 31 July, and the King’s “après coup” subscription before Pentecost, 1059; cf. RHGF XI, p. 602, note c., identifying the donor as “Tetbaldi Comitis Turon.” and citing a source not noted by Guillot: “Chartulario ejusdem Monast., fol. 45” [also citing “Valesius, Notit. Gall. p. 551]. The RHGF reference may be to another subscription of Henry I, also made at the siege of Thimert, this time to a gift by Count Theobald of Blois, also to Marmoutier, which, according to Soehnée, shares the same “addition confirmative et souscriptions,” though these might have been “added by the monks of Marmoutier from the previous charter” [Sœhnée 116, who does not mention a copy on fol. 45 of a Marmoutier cartulary, but only an 18th century copy, B.N., coll. de Touraine, II2, fol. 121, no 682. According to Soehnée, this act is unpublished.])
 CSP 234–5, noted by L. Merlet, Rev. Nobilaire, 1865, pp. 341–2.
 Sometime between 13 May, 1169 and 3 April, 1176 Hugo II (*33 below) of Gallardon exchanged land at Challet which his father, Herveus II (*29 below), had given to l’Estrée for a yearly grain–rent; this agreement was confirmed by Archbishop William of Sens (G.1174/1/2). L’Estrée sold this grain–rent to the dean and chapter of Chartres sometime before 1262, the date of an act of Abbot “P.” of Pontigny approving this sale (G.1174/3, original, once sealed). More information about Challet may be found in a fifteenth century cartulary from l’Estrée (Archives de l’Eure, H.319, unpublished). Garin (*38, below) later became Abbot of Pontigny (mother–house of l’Estrée) and Archbishop of Bourges.
 CSP 131. Landric died in March, 1069.
 H.400/CSP 133–4.
 CSP 127–31, after the Vetus Agano and the slightly different text in Prou 2, after Philip’s “original,” H. 399; RHGF XI, pp. 602–4; GC, VIII, instr., col. 301; PL 151.1036; Sœhnée 105; cf. CSMP, p. 469).
 Firmitas Abrini, L–et–C, arr Romorantin, com La Ferté–Imbault, in the Sologne.
 T. de Morembert, “La Ferté–Aurain” in DHGE, XVI, 1298, citing GC VIII, 1532 and E. Jarossay, Hist. Micy–S.–Mesmin, (1902), pp. 147, pp.183–4.
 As we have seen, many genealogical attributions in this family have been based on less evidence; but we must heed the caution voiced by Jacques Boussard concerning attributing traditional names to a single family without taking into consideration “possible collateral branches whose existence may be undocumented” (“La seigneurie de Bellême aux Xe et XIe siècles,” in Melanges...Louis Halphen (Paris, 1951), p. 43, n.2).
 CSMP p. 470, n.911, citing B.N., Coll. Baluze, XXXVIII, 16.
 We assume that this is indeed the case, as Thomas Head calls Herveus the nephew of Abbot Albert of Micy, though he does not specifically elaborate (Hagiography and the Cult of Saints..., p. 229 and n.130, citing “Études sur les anciennes chartes de l’abbaye Saint–Mesmin de Micy et essai de reconstruction des cartulaires” [an unpublished 1937 École des Chartes thesis of Marie–Madeleine Lemarignier], no. 25, pp. 128–33).