Mr Freeman, followed by Professor Tout,[17] holds that the story in the false Ingulf is not to be wholly cast aside, as it may contain some genuine Crowland tradition;[18] but he has not accurately given that story. It might hastily be gathered, as it was by him, that it was Hereward's mother-in-law who 'very considerately takes the veil at the hands of Abbot Ulfcytel', whereas it was, according to the _Gesta_, his wife who did this. The _Gesta_ version, he writes, 'of Turfrida going into a monastery to make way for Ælfthryth is plainly another form of the story in Ingulf, which makes not herself but her mother do so'. But if the _Historia Ingulphi_ (pp. 67-8) be read with care, it will be seen that 'mater Turfrid_æ_' should clearly be 'mater Turfrid_a_', the reading that the sense requires. So there is here no opposition, and Ingulf merely follows the _Gesta_ version. As for the honour of Bourne, it can be shown from the _carta_ of Hugh Wac in 1166, from our list of knights, and from the Pipe-Roll of 1130, to have been formed from separate holdings and to have descended as follows: ------------------------------ | | William Richard de Rullos, de Rullos Lord of Bourne (see p. 161) _temp._ Hen. I. | Baldwin fitz Gilbert, = Adelina Lord of Bourne, | _jure uxoris_, | Founder of | Bourne Priory, | 1138[19] (see p. 359) | --------------------------------- | | Roger Emma = Hugh Wac, | Lord of ------- Bourne, | _jure uxoris_ Baldwin in 1166 Wac, Lord of Bourne The Psuedo-Ingulf's version runs: Leofric, = Edith Lord of Bourne, | 1062 | ------------- | Hereward, = Turfrida Lord of Bourne | --------------- | a daughter, = Hugh de Evermou heiress of Bourne | Lord of Depyng (p. 67) ---------- | a daughter, = Richard de Rullos. heiress of living _temp._ Will. I. Bourne and (pp. 77-8; Depyng pp. 95, 99, 118)