Person:Halewijn Van Leiden (1)

The Rhyme Chronicles of Holland mention a Halewijn van Leiden--a wealthy man of means and valor, well-met and respected among the people.

Halewin was the first Viscount of Leiden and possibly born at Diksmuide in Flanders as a son of Diederik III of Beveren, Viscount of Diksmuide, and Beatrix of Ghent. This would make him the grandson of Arnulf de Bevere, born in 907 AD at Manor Bevere Claines‎, Worcestershire UK.

The sheild of Halewijn matches that of the de Beveres of England. Halewijn was among other things lord of Wassenhoven. In the Netherlands however there is no region with that name. There is a Wassenhove in Flanders, Deerlijk and a Wassenhove at Grotenberge. Deerlijk lies at Kortrijk on the way to Ghent, near a hamlet with the name Beveren. Grotenberge is between Ghent and Brussels.

State archivist Mr. H. Hardenberg thinks that the line Van Wassenaar (the oldest line in the Netherlands) results from the Van Beverens in Waasland at Antwerp. This corresponds with the similarities of the sheild of the oldest Van Wassenaars and that of the Van Beverens. The Van Wassenaars descend of the first viscounts of Leiden. Given his function as a Viscount of Leiden and his military and political competences, it seems possible that Halewijn descended of the family Van Beveren at Diksmuide in Flanders.

There is a great deal more information on Halewijn developing through the research of B. Kranenburg.

Halewijn I van Leiden (1050*-1110*) Burggraaf cq eerste kastelein van de Burcht te Leiden. Mogelijk geboren te Diksmuide in Vlaanderen als zoon van Diederik III van Beveren, burggraaf van Diksmuide, en Beatrix van Gent. Ghm NN. Het wapen van Halewijn wordt steevast afgebeeld als: op een veld van azuur een dwarbalk van goud. Het is echter de vraag of dit juist is, en niet een wapen dat in de 15e eeuw of eerder is geconstrueerd. Het geslacht Van Wassenaar, dat voortspruit uit de oudste burggraven van Leiden, voert namelijk oorspronkelijk een heel ander wapen en wel: op een veld van azuur vier dwarsbalken van goud met daarover een rood Andrieskruis. Ipso facto moet Halewijn I dit wapen ook voeren. Verder betekent het dat ook Halewijn voortspruit uit het geslacht Van Beveren. Mogelijk uit de tak Diksmuide in Vlaanderen. In 965 is daar ene Thiry de Beverne benoemd tot burggraaf door de graaf van Vlaanderen. Diens nazaten zijn drie eeuwen lang burggraaf van Diksmuide. Burggraaf Diederik III van Beveren zou dan de vader van Halewijn I kunnen zijn. Deze Diederik III is gehuwd met Beatrix van Gent.

Halewijn is o.a. Heer van Wassenhoven. In Nederland is echter geen regio te vinden met die naam. Ook bron AWA, een uiterst gedetailleerde historisch-geografische encyclopedie, noemt nergens een Wassenhoven. Daarentegen bevinden zich in Vlaanderen twee heerlijkheden met de naam Wassenhove. En wel Wassenhove in Deerlijk en een Wassenhove bij Grotenberge. Deerlijk ligt bij Kortrijk op de weg naar Gent en Grotenberge (gem Zottegem) ligt tussen Gent en Brussel. Aangezien er geen andere heerlijkheden met de naam Wassenhove lijken te bestaan, moeten we aannemen dat Halewijn inderdaad Heer van Wassenhove in Vlaanderen is geweest. Gezien de beschikbare gegevens gaat het waarschijnlijk om Wassenhove bij Grotenberge. Deze optie lijkt zeer waarschijnlijk. Zijn mogelijke broer Diederik IV van Beveren huwt namelijk met de dochter van Wouter heer van Sottegem. Dit duidt op een zekere relatie tussen de Van Beverens en de heer van Sottegem. In dat kader lijkt het heel aannemelijk dat Halewijn door de heer van Sottegem is beleend met Wassenhove.

Wie de ouders zijn van Halewijn I is vooralsnog niet formeel bekend. Gezien zijn functies en kwaliteiten moet hij uit een vooraanstaand geslacht komen. Rijksarchivaris Mr H. Hardenberg meent dat het geslacht Van Wassenaar voortspruit uit het geslacht Van Beveren in Waasland bij Antwerpen. Dit stemt overeen met de bovengenoemde overeenkomst van het wapen van de oudste Van Wassenaars en dat van het geslacht Van Beveren uit Waasland. De afstamming moet dan gaan via Halewijn I van Leiden. De Van Wassenaars stammen immers af van de eerste burggraven van Leiden. Gezien zijn functie als burggraaf van Leiden en zijn militaire en politieke bekwaamheden, lijkt het goed mogelijk dat Halewijn afstamt van de burgraven Van Beveren te Diksmuide in Vlaanderen. Dit geslacht vervult die functie drie eeuwen lang sinds Arnulf van Beveren uit Waasland bij Antwerpen daar in en mogelijk ook vóór 964 burggraaf is. In dit milieu lijkt Halewijn goed te passen. Mogelijk is Halewijn door Robrecht de Fries naar Holland gehaald. Deze Robrecht huwt in 1064 met Gertrudis van Saxen, weduwe van graaf Floris I van Holland. Na de dood van Floris I wordt Gertrudis gravin van Holland in 1061-1064. Daarna wordt Robrecht in 1064-1071 graaf van Holland. In oktober 1071 wordt Robrecht graaf van Vlaanderen. Tussen de graven van Vlaanderen en de heren van Diksmuide bestaat reeds in die tijd een nauwe en vertrouwelijke relatie. Mogelijk leert Robracht zodoende de jonge Halewijn kennen en beveelt hij hem aan bij zijn stiefzoon Dirk V, die sinds 1071 graaf van Holland is.

Bron BVL (p 31) schrijft dat het ambt van burggraaf van Leiden is gecreëerd naar Vlaams model. Ook hier dus een relatie met Vlaanderen. Een interessante vraag is hoe de Vlaamse invloed hier tot stand is gekomen. Aangezien Dirk V sinds 1071 de grafelijke functies vervult, ligt het voor de hand om te veronderstellen dat de relatie met Vlaanderen hier door hem is gelegd. Maar waarom het model van Vlaanderen gekozen? Het antwoord op deze vraag lijkt wederom Robrecht de Fries, stiefvader en voogd van Dirk V. Robrecht is een zeer bekwaam militair en politiek figuur, die inmiddels graaf van Vlaanderen is geworden. Bovendien is Robrecht getrouwd met Gertrudis van Saxen, de moeder van Dirk V. Zij trouwen in 1064, na de moord op Floris I in 1061. Dirk V en Robrecht moeten derhalve veel contact met elkaar hebben.

Bron BVL (p 31) schrijft verder dat in 1083 'Adaluuin castelanus' al in 1083 figureert in het falsum van graaf Dirk V. M.a.w. Halewijn functioneert in 1083 (reeds) als burggraaf van Leiden. Hij is dan rond de 33 jaar. Voor deze functie moet hij beschikken over belangrijke militaire en politieke kwaliteiten. Dat betekent dat hij uit zeer goede huize moet komen, waar hij al vroeg op de hoogte komt van politieke en militaire zaken. Maar waarom kiest Dirk V voor hem als burggraaf? In die tijd gebeurt dat meestal op grond van een familiaire relaties. Familieleden en verwanten zijn in die tijd belangrijke steunpilaren, die door machthebbers vaak op belangrijke posten worden neergezet. Dat is een wederzijds belang. Robrecht de Fries kan daarin een belangrijke schakel zijn geweest. Alias: Heer van Wassenhoven Zoon: Halewijn II van Leiden.

• • SBW, Burggraaf, Burcht van Leiden, Van Wassenaar (wapen), Van Beveren, Diederik III van Beveren, Floris II van Holland, Wassenhove, Drogo de Beuvriere

1. HRAC, AWA, RDS, GLW, BVL, UGW, HVW, GDM (p 27-28)

It is probable that Halewijn is known to the British as Drogo.

Drogo ends up in Flanders with Willem the Conqueror in 1066. The shield of Drogo is identical to that of Halewijn on above image: on blue a "dwarsbalk" ??(don't know the English translation of this Dutch word)?? of gold. This sheild is found on a drawi ng of hofstede Beaulieu in Beveren-Leie in Flanders. There are many other similarities and coincidences between Halewijn and Drogo, to make the leap that this is one and the same person. Drogo was a `friend of the family' of William the Conqueror .

From the Domesday book , Somerset, 45,12 ?(written around 1080)?:

   Drogo of Montacute holds KNOWLE ?(Park)?. Alnoth held it before 1066; it paid tax for 1 1/2 hides. Land for 3 ploughs; as many there. 6 villagers, and 4 slaves with 1 cottager.
   Meadow, 15 acres; woodland 4 furlongs in length and 3 furlongs in width. 26 pigs.
   Formally 40s; value now £4.
   Drogo holds it from the King.
   From this land 1 hide of land has been taken away which was there before 1066. Thurstan son of Rolf holds it, & an Englishman from him. Value 20s.

The original reads Drogo de Montagud with the name written vertically, that is, the last name is above the first and they both share the same D.

Also of interest, Drogo is not the only Montacute on the page. The Domesday book, Somerset, 45,18, describes Drogo's brother Ansger as follows:

   Ansger of Montacute holds PRESTON ?(Plucknett)? from the King.
   Alfward held it before 1066; it paid tax for 2 hides. Land for 1 plough, which is there, in lordship, with 1 slave;
   8 smallholders.
   Meadow, 10 acres. 1 cob; 5 cattle; 80 sheep.
   Formerly 15s; value now 40s.

The original reads Ansgervs de Montagud. Ansger de Montaigu was one of Williams 'companions' , that is, officers.

Drogo de Montagud also owned lands in Devon. From the Domesday book, Devon, 15,23-24:

   Drogo holds HONITON from the Count. Aelmer held it before 1066. It paid tax for 5 hides. Land for 18 ploughs. He has 2 hides in lordship.
   24 villagers, 6 smallholders and 3 slaves with 16 ploughs and 3 hides.
   Meadow, 18 acres; woodland, 50 acres. A mill which pays 6s 6d; 2 salt-workers who pay 5s. Pasture 1 league long and 5 furlongs wide. 2 cattle; 4 pigs; 100 sheep, less 20. Value formerly and now £6.

   Drogo holds `WOMBERFORD' from the Count. Wulfward held it before 1066. It paid tax for 1 virgate of land. Land for 3 ploughs, which are there, with 1 slave and 6 villagers.
   Meadow, 3 acres; woodland, 40 acres; pasture, 40 acres. 7 cattle; 50 sheep.
   ?[Value]? formerly 3s; now 5s.

In the Falaise Roll, Crispin and Macary describe the brothers Drogo and Ansger as follows:

   "From the parish of Montaigu-les-Bois, in the arrondissement of Coutances, commune of Gavay. Ansger de Montaigu, with his brother Dreu, came to England at the conquest in the train of the earl of Mortain. The former ?(Ansger, ed.)? held lands-in-chief in the counties of Devon and Somerset, and as an under-tenant of the count of Mortain in Dorset, and of the bishop of Countances in the same county. It is apparent that he died without posterity, as there is no record of any in England. Dreu, his brother, held several manors in Somerset, among which were Shipton and Sutton. The first was his seat, which was later called Shepton-Montague, and the latter was designated Sutton-Montague. He was the father of William de Montagu, who succeeded him towards the end of the reign of Henry I. He left much posterity in England, among whom were the earls of Salisbury and Manchester. The name appears on the Dives roll, as well as that of Leland." ?(Crispin and Macary)?

Skipsea Castle was built in and around 1086, in the years following the Norman Conquest by Drogo, the First Earl of Holderness, in order to defend against Viking raids. He is related to William the Conqueror through marriage to William's cousin, and participated in the Norman Invasion of England. For this, William the Conqueror placed Drogo's name on the "immortal Roll of Honour of Battle Abbey at Senlac or Hasting", and rewarded Drogo with "so-called 'isle' of Holderness".

Although Drogo built the castle, he eventually fled back to Flanders because death of his wife whom he "unhappily killed". Drogo's hasty flight out of England has given rise to the legend that "Drogo murdered his wife by giving her a poison draught which he led her to believe was a love potion. He then rode a fast horse to the king's court, borrowed a large sum of money from William and took [a] ship to the continent before news of his deeds could reach the court. The ghost of a 'lady in white' is said to haunt Castle Hill".

Drogo is an undoubted companion of the Conqueror, whose name does not appear in the roll of Battle Abbey, but who is presumed to have been an ancestor of the De Brewers or Briweres, so powerful in the thirteenth century. According to the Book of Meaux and the Register of Fountains Abbey, which I have already quoted, this Drogo was a Fleming of approved valour, who came over to England with William, and received for his services the Isle of Holderness, on which he built the strong Castle of Skipsey, and other considerable estates in various counties, amongst them Bytham in Lincolnshire. By the same authorities he is said to have married a kinswoman of the King, -- how related to him, or how named, is not stated, nor whether her hand had been bestowed upon him as part of the guerdon he had merited. Whoever she was, Drogo killed her -- whether by accident or with malice prepense, does not appear in the indictment. His subsequent conduct, however, was that of a guilty man. He hastened to the King and pretended that he was desirous to take his wife to Flanders; but, not having sufficient money at command for the purpose, craved assistance from his royal connection. The King, not doubting his story, gave or lent to him the sum requested, with which Drogo wisely made the best of his way to the coast, and took ship for the Low Countries. The King on learning the truth sent orders for his arrest, but too late. Drogo was beyond his reach. He lost no time, however, in seizing his estates, some of which he appears to have bestowed on Odo of Champagne, who, according to the same writers, is said to have complained that the soil of Holderness was sterile and would grow nothing but oats; and his wife having presented him with a son, named Stephen, he prayed the Conqueror to give him some land on which he could grow wheat, that he might feed his (William's) nephew; whereupon the King gave him Bytham, another forfeited manor of Drogo's, and other places.

Now, if the story about Drogo be true, the slaying of his wife and flight to Flanders must have taken place late in 1086, for up to August in that year he was in possession of all his estates, and shortly afterwards William quitted England never to see it more. Drogo's personal interview with him must, therefore, have been during the few months that elapsed between the completion of the survey and the King's sailing for Normandy; either at the time of his holding his last great Witan at Salisbury (1st August), to which all the principal landholders in the kingdom were summoned, or while he was subsequently residing in the Isle of Wight, waiting the collection of the money extorted from all against whom he could bring any charge, whether by right or otherwise -- that final robbery of his English subjects, with the booty of which he departed, amid "curses not loud but deep," to die deserted, dishonoured, and despoiled in his native land.

The grant of Holderness to Odo has just the same narrow chance of having been made in England at that period, and the additional one of Bytham a few months later in Normandy, which shows how little reliance can be placed on the story that the complaint respecting the soil of Holderness was made to the King at Odo's request by "the same Archbishop" to whose good offices he had been indebted for the hand of his wife and the city or county of Aumale. Jean de Bayeux died 1079, seven years at least before the grant of Holderness to Odo. Bytham, originally held of the King by Drogo, was probably given to Odo at the same time or shortly afterwards, and was one of the many manors in England with which his son Stephen endowed the monastery of Aumale, he being the first who described himself as "Albemarlensis Comes," his father never assuming that title, but invariably granting or witnessing charters as "Odo de Campania," or "Odonis Comitis de Campania."

Of his step-daughter, the younger Adelaide or Adeliza, Countess of Aumale, we know nothing beyond her confirmation of the grants of her mother and father to the Abbey of St. Martin d'Auchi (or Aumale). She must, however, have died unmarried or without issue, when her rights and title devolved solely upon her half-brother Stephen.

It is most remarkable, considering the position and connections of Adeliza, sister of the Conqueror and Countess of Ponthieu, that the discovery of her triple marriage should have been left to reward the diligence of an English antiquary of the nineteenth century. Every previous account of her and her issue being, from the ignorance of that simple fact, full of errors and contradictions. The date of her death is still unknown; but she was living in 1080, when she witnessed a charter of her aunt Adeliza, sister of Duke Robert II, and died before 1085, her daughter the younger Countess Adeliza having then presumably succeeded to the suzerainty of Aumale, and being the tenant in Domesday.

1.   Http://www.kranenburgia.nl.
2.   Http://ginnysanchez.com/famtree/individual.php?pid=I644322450&ged=3255054.ged.