geoffrey
born:
died: 1071
father: tancred d'hauteville [1]
if roger bossa and robert guiscard were brothers then geoffrey could not have been a brother of roger (and therefore robert), and it is from this realization that the legendary genealogy first begins to disintegrate as such.
in 1058, pope nicholas II started to more vigorously enforce rules against incest (see [2]). robert guiscard was consequently forced to divorce and remarry. now, this indicates that robert guiscard must have been related to the ducal line of normandy, as the confused mythical history states.
robert guiscard took over control of apulia in an unclear way. either circumstance was remarkably fortuitous, or the history that exists is essentially a lie to justify his seizure of control, with the backing of the church. it is said he was the brother of humphrey, who was the brother of geoffrey, putting him next in the line of succession. ok, let's accept that supposedly historical statement at face value.
it would then follow that robert guiscard was also the brother of geoffrey, who had a grandson that entered the clergy and married into the norman aristocracy. oops.
first, note that the clergy were, at this point, permitted to marry. laws against priests marrying are actually fairly recent (and the reformists rejected them for that reason). so, there's nothing weird about a priest marrying. but, how do we explain a priest marrying into his own family, breaking the rules that the church leaders were recently so keen to enforce? how do we accept that the church forced the powerful duke to divorce and yet permitted his priestly grand nephew to marry his own second cousin? even acknowledging that the church had difficulty enforcing the new rule, it is very difficult to accept that a priest would break it.
the solution is that geoffrey did not marry his second cousin at all. to be clear, i'm not suggesting a reason to think that marriage that is recorded didn't happen. rather, the marriage was not one between cousins because geoffrey and roger were not actually brothers. geoffrey would have likely been a norman/varangian "bandit" with no actual landholding background. while this contradiction only either (A) explicitly breaks the connection between roger and geoffrey or (B) explicitly breaks the connection between roger and robert, it is enough to cast doubt on the entire idea that there were twelve brothers conquering italy in favour of the idea that they were random bandits.
the evidence suggests that guiscard really was an aristocrat and that it is consequently the sons of tancred from his first wife that comprise the likely historical fiction, as it was concocted by guiscard to justify his seizure of power after the death (and possible poisoning) of humphrey. so says my hypothesis, anyways. this doesn't clarify whether any of the claimed sons of tancred's second wife were actually brothers of robert.
that being said, geoffrey is said to have had a special relationship with william and mauger; they appeared in sicily together, and the inheritance of titles seems to have moved from mauger to william to geoffrey (all under the rule of humphrey) before passing on to the sons of william and geoffrey. might the three have been brothers? well, geoffrey is said to have been the son of tancred's first wife, while the others are the sons of his second wife; if the idea that there's a separation is valid, it would discount such a thing. further, it's said that william gave geoffrey his titles out of "deep love". this all seems to point towards the idea that geoffrey and william may have been lovers rather than brothers.
christian attitudes about homosexuality are well known, leading to a historical record of failed attempts at historical revisionism - and no doubt many more successful revisions. the normans at this point, however, were not entirely christianized. the existing history has largely erased this reality, but we know it to be true. so, what were viking attitudes towards homosexuality? we actually don't really have a clear answer. we know that vikings had a strong concept of the division of sexes and would go so far as to publicly murder men that were seen as being effeminate, but we don't really know how viking culture reacted to rough male-on-male action. i think basic intuition is that the culture is sort of inherently homo-erotic, with all it's talk of submission and dominance, but whether that was openly acknowledged or repressed simply isn't well understood.
so, gay vikings that the church converted into brothers to expunge the ruling house of it's history of sinful lust? that seems to be the obvious conclusion, here. regardless, i've stuck with the traditional relationship of twelve brothers for the purposes of convenience.
[1]: the deeds of count roger of calabria & sicily & of duke robert guiscard his brother , book I
[2]: reform and the papacy in the eleventh century: spirituality and social change, p. 149-150
[3]: consanguinity, inbreeding, and genetic drift in italy (MPB-39), section 2.2