de Lucy
Benjamin Hertzel
Does anyone have any information on the de Lucy family? I have three Maud
de Lucys, but I do not know how they are related:
Maud de Lucy, daughter of Thomas de Lucy and Mary de Multon. Maud married
Henry Percy (1341 - 1408). Children?
Maud de Lucy, married Gilbert de Umfreville, Earl of Angus (died 1381).
Children?
Maud de Lucy, daughter of Richard de Lucy, married Walter FitzRobert de
Clare (died 1198). They were the parents of Robert and Alice.
Sorry, I have not dates on any of these Mauds, and I have no further
information on their parentage.
Thank you.
Benjamin
ED MANN
>
> Does anyone have any information on the de Lucy family? I have three Maud
> de Lucys, but I do not know how they are related:
>
> Maud de Lucy, daughter of Thomas de Lucy and Mary de Multon. Maud married
> Henry Percy (1341 - 1408). Children?
>
> Maud de Lucy, married Gilbert de Umfreville, Earl of Angus (died 1381).
> Children?
These are the same person. Burke's shows a son, Robert, by the 1st
marriage, to Gilbert de Umfreville. See BxP:544.
> Maud de Lucy, daughter of Richard de Lucy, married Walter FitzRobert de
> Clare (died 1198). They were the parents of Robert and Alice.
I have:
Descendants of Richard de Lucy
1 Sir Richard de Lucy d: 1179 ref #: (Ä148-26)
+Rohese ref #: (Ä184B-5)
2 Aveline de Lucy ref #: (Ä184B-5)
+Gilbert de Montfitchet d: Abt. 1187 ref #: Ä184B-5
3 Richard de Montfichet d: 1204 ref #: Ä184B-6
+Milicent ref #: (Ä184B-6)
2 Maud de Lucy ref #: (Ä148-26)
+Walter FitzRobert d: 1198 ref #: Ä148-26
3 Sir Robert FitzWalter d: 9 Dec 1235 ref #: W50-1
+Rohese ref #: (Ä148-27)
3 Alice FitzWalter ref #: AAP:196
+Gilbert Pecche ref #: AAP:196
--
FWIW; AFAIK; IMHO; YMMV; yadda, yadda, yadda.
Regards, Ed Mann mailto:edl...@mail2.lcia.com
References:
Ä = Weis, _Ancestral_Roots_, 7th ed.
AACPW = Roberts & Reitwiesner, _American Ancestors and Cousins of
the Princess of Wales_, [page].
AAP = Roberts, _Ancestors_of_American_Presidents_, [page] or
[Pres. # : page].
BP1 = _Burke's_Presidential_Families_, 1st ed. [page].
BPci = _Burke's_Peerage_, 101st ed., [page].
BRF = Weir, _Britain's_Royal_Families_, [page].
BxP = _Burke's_Dormant_&_Extinct_Peerages_, [page].
EC1 = Redlich, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol I, [page].
EC2 = Langston & Buck, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
EC3 = Buck & Beard, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
F = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, [page:para].
S = Stuart, _Royalty_for_Commoners_, 2d ed. Caveat emptor.
W = Weis, _Magna_Charta_Sureties,_1215_, 4th ed.
WFT = Broderbund's World Family Tree CD, [vol]:[num] Caveat emptor.
WMC = Wurt's Magna Charta, [vol]:[page]
Richard Borthwick
>>Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
>>Old-To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>>Date: 17 Sep 1998 18:19:03 -0700
>>From: ja...@midas.millcomm.com (Benjamin Hertzel)
>>Organization: RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative
>>Sender: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com
>>Subject: de Lucy
>>Resent-Message-ID: <"G1HY8B.A.0tE.9XbA2"@bl-30.rootsweb.com>
>>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>>Resent-From: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>>X-Mailing-List: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/11837
>>X-Loop: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>>Resent-Sender: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com
>>
>>
>>Does anyone have any information on the de Lucy family? I have three Maud
>>de Lucys, but I do not know how they are related:
>>
>>Maud de Lucy, daughter of Thomas de Lucy and Mary de Multon. Maud married
>>Henry Percy (1341 - 1408). Children?
>>
>>Maud de Lucy, married Gilbert de Umfreville, Earl of Angus (died 1381).
>>Children?
his second wife) and her second was Henry first earl of Northumberland (and
was his second wife). Maud dsp.[CP I:150, VIII:254, IX:712]. The Lucy family
to which she belonged was the Lucy of Egremont (Cumberland). It is thought
this family was closely related to the Lucy of Diss (Norfolk)but the nature
of the connection is not known [but see CP VIII:247 note (c)]. The son of
Gilbert, Robert, was by Gilbert's first wife and Robert dvp and sp. The
Umfreville descent was through earl Gilbert's brother, Thomas [CP I:150-151].
>>Maud de Lucy, daughter of Richard de Lucy, married Walter FitzRobert de
>>Clare (died 1198). They were the parents of Robert and Alice.
Maud de Lucy received Diss. Her brother Geoffrey (I) dvp and his son,
Richard, succeeded his grandfather, Richard the justiciar. Geoffrey (I) also
had a daughter Rohese and she succeeded her brother Richard. Geoffrey (II)
was a son of Geoffrey (I) but was either by another marriage or
illegitimate. In any case the Lucy family of Newington descends from
Geoffrey (II) [CP VIII:257-263, see 257 note (c)]. Rohese de Lucy married
John de Dover (d.about 1194) lord of Chilham, Kent [Sanders, 111].
An interesting sidelight. Alice, another dau. of Richard de Lucy of Diss
(the justiciar) m. Odinel (II) de Umfreville (d.1182) of Prudhoe,
Northumberland.This pair were the ancestors of Gilbert who m. Maud de Lucy
(of the Egremont family). [Sanders, 73].
ED MANN
>
> Ed,
>
> > > Maud de Lucy, daughter of Thomas de Lucy and Mary de Multon. Maud married
> > > Henry Percy (1341 - 1408). Children?
>
> > > Clare (died 1198). They were the parents of Robert and Alice.
>
> duplication of two of the three Mauds. Do you know how the above two
> families are related?
No. Here is what I do have:
Direct Descendants of Reynold de Lucy
1 Sir Reynold de Lucy d: Abt. 11 Jan 1198/99 ref #: BxP:336
+Amabel FitzWilliam ref #: Ä40-25
2 Sir Richard de Lucy d: 1213 ref #: Ä40-26
+Ada de Morville d: Aft. 1229 ref #: BxP:388
3 Amabel de Lucy ref #: Ä40-27
+Lambert de Multon d: Abt. 1246 ref #: (Ä40-27)
4 Thomas de Multon d: 1271 ref #: Ä40-28
+Ida ref #: (Ä40-28)
5 Sir Thomas de Multon d: Bef. 24 Jul 1287 ref #: Ä40-29
+Emoine le Boteler d: Abt. 1286 ref #: (Ä40-29)
6 Sir Thomas de Multon b: 21 Feb 1275/76 d: Bef. 8 Feb 1321/22 ref #:
Ä40-30
+Eleanor de Burgh ref #: W15-6
7 [2] Mary de Multon ref #: BxP:388
+[1] Sir Thomas de Lucy d: 1365 ref #: BxP:336
8 Maud de Lucy ref #: BxP:336
+ Henry de Percy
3 Alice de Lucie ref #: BxP:388
+Alan de Multon ref #: BxP:388
4 Thomas de Multon d: 1304 ref #: BxP:388
+Isabel de Bolteby ref #: BxP:336
5 Sir Anthony de Lucy d: 1343 ref #: BxP:336
+Elizabeth Tillioff ref #: (BxP:336)
6 [1] Sir Thomas de Lucy d: 1365 ref #: BxP:336
+[2] Mary de Multon ref #: BxP:388
Descendants of Richard de Lucy
1 Sir Richard de Lucy d: 1179 ref #: (Ä148-26)
+Rohese ref #: (Ä184B-5)
2 Aveline de Lucy ref #: (Ä184B-5)
+Gilbert de Montfitchet d: Abt. 1187 ref #: Ä184B-5
2 Maud de Lucy ref #: (Ä148-26)
+Walter FitzRobert d: 1198 ref #: Ä148-26
There may be a link here, but I've missed it.
Suzanne Doig
Borthwick) wrote:
>>>Maud de Lucy, daughter of Richard de Lucy, married Walter FitzRobert de
>>>Clare (died 1198). They were the parents of Robert and Alice.
Where does this Walter fit into the family of the Lords of Clare,
Earls of Hertford etc?
Suzanne
- * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - *
* Dr Suzanne Doig sm...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz *
* Remove '*!*' from anti-spam reply-to address *
* NO UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL E-MAIL *
- * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - *
Richard Borthwick
>On 18 Sep 1998 03:51:58 -0700, rg...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au (Richard
>>>>Maud de Lucy, daughter of Richard de Lucy, married Walter FitzRobert de
>>>>Clare (died 1198). They were the parents of Robert and Alice.
>
>Where does this Walter fit into the family of the Lords of Clare,
>Earls of Hertford etc?
>Suzanne
>
>- * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - *
>* Dr Suzanne Doig sm...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz *
>* Remove '*!*' from anti-spam reply-to address *
>* NO UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL E-MAIL *
>- * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - *
>
According to Altschul, M *A Baronial Family in Medieval England: The Clares,
1217-1314* (1965) (see Table I) Robert fitz Richard (d.1136) was son of
Richard fitz Gilbert (I) (b.1035 d.1090) lord of Tonbridge by Rohese
Giffard. Sanders *English Baronies* p.129 says "The lands [of William
Baynard i.e. Little Dunmow, Essex] were granted to Robert, younger son of
Richard fitz Gilbert de Clare d.1136 lord of Clare, Suffolk. Robert I,
ancestor of the house of Fitz Walter, d.1134-6 leaving Walter I ...". CP
V:472 note (f) says "Robert was a yr. s. of Richard fitz Gilbert, of Clare
and Tonbridge." CP does not indicate a death date for Richard fitz Gilbert
(unlike the entry for each other member of the filiation line recited). ES
III/1:156 (which in the main follows Altschul) gives Robert f Gilbert (I) a
son Robert but with no death date or designation (unlike Altschul's entry).
Also see ES III/4:701B for Robert's marriage & dates. On the other hand
neither Altschul nor ES III/1 give Robert f Gilbert (II) (d.1136) a son
named 'Robert'.
There may be no problem here; but the dates for the Dunmow descent starting
with Richard f Gilbert (I) while not impossible look a bit strained. Richard
(b.1035 d.1090) -> Robert I (d.1134-36) -> Walter I (d.1198) -> Robert II
(d.1235). A descent from Richard f Gilbert (II) would have Robert I being
born after 1115 breeding, being granted a barony and dying before he was
twenty-one (i.e. about 17 or 18 years old).
Hitherto I have just assumed that Sanders made a typo or a mistake, and have
followed Altschul. Suzanne's question sparked a new and more careful look.
Is there a problem?
Richard