Richard de Lucy

[pd...@peterdale.com]

Greetings,

There was quite a heated and lengthy dialogue in 2005 with respect to
the purported wife of Richard de Lucy – apparently named Rohese de
Boulogne. There was debate regarding the accuracy and conclusiveness
of Douglas Richardson’s conclusion that she was: (i) Richard de
Lucy’s wife; (ii) the mother of all of Richard de Lucy’s children;
and
(iii) a sister of a Farmus de Boulogne. Contributions to this
discussion were many and included commentary by the following
individuals:


• Will Johnson
• Leo van de Pas
• Douglas Richardson
• Paul Bulkley
• Ginny Wagner
• D. Spencer Hines
et. al.


(see - http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2005-07/11...)


The topic of debate was of great interest to many of us. I/we would
be grateful
for any update, clarification or further articulation regarding the
conclusive determination of the wife of Richard de Lucy and the
maternity of his children, etc.


Cheers,


Pete

[pd...@peterdale.com]

[pd...@peterdale.com]

On May 31, 3:05 am, "pd...@peterdale.com" <pd...@peterdale.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> There was quite a heated and lengthy dialogue in 2005 with respect to
> the purported wife of Richard de Lucy – apparently named Rohese de
> Boulogne.  There was debate regarding the accuracy and conclusiveness
> of Douglas Richardson’s conclusion that she was:  (i) Richard de
> Lucy’s wife; (ii) the mother of all of Richard de Lucy’s children;
> and
> (iii) a sister of a Farmus de Boulogne.  Contributions to this
> discussion were many and included commentary by the following
> individuals:
>
> •     Will Johnson
> •     Leo van de Pas
> •     Douglas Richardson
> •     Paul Bulkley
> •     Ginny Wagner
> •     D. Spencer Hines
> et. al.
>

> (see -http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2005-07/11...)

>
> The topic of debate was of great interest to many of us.  I/we would
> be grateful
> for any update, clarification or further articulation regarding the
> conclusive determination of the wife of Richard de Lucy and the
> maternity of his children, etc.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete

Greetings,

Further to Norman Lucey’s posts (http://groups.google.com/group/
soc.genealogy.medieval/browse_thread/thread/
592da2dd9adb4a36/89194559e1362f7c%3Fq%3D%2522Lesnes%2BAbbey
%2522%2389194559e1362f7c&ei=iGwTS6eaOpW8Qpmqic0O&sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&source=groups&usg=AFQjCNEZwX97yR5n5uvQUkl4iM30gXyvrQ),
I confirm that I descend from both Richard de Lucy and Robert de Lucy
via the Mounteney and Somery families, respectively. I was fascinated
to review NL’s posts and his website (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/
rickmansworthherts/webpage10.htm) which I found most detailed and
informative.

I am curious if anyone can share with me any additional information
that they may have regarding the following:

1. The Mounteney – Lucy relationship. There is considerable
discrepancy whether Dionysia de Lucy married a Robert or Arnold de
Mounteney. I have managed to fairly comfortably establish my ancestry
back to Sir Arnold de Mounteney (b. approx. 1180/1200 – d. 1246 who
was married to Amabel de Somery) who was the father of Sir Robert de
Mounteney (d. 1287 and married to Isolda/Iseult) and his brother Sir
Arnold (of Yorkshire who married into the Furnival family). I believe
that his father was Robert de Mounteney who had at least 5 siblings
including William (the eldest), Michael, Hugh, Ralph and Helias. I
suspect that it was these brother’s father Robert who was married to
Dionysia de Lucy but it could, perhaps, have been Robert Jr.
Regardless, it would appear possible and likely that my ancestors
descend from Richard de Lucy given the clear Richard de Lucy
originating land inheritance for the succeeding 250+ years.

2. The Somery – Lucy relationship. I understand that Amabel de Somery
was one of at least 6 children of Miles de Somery who was, in turn,
the son of Roger de Somery and N.N. de Lucy, daughter of Robert de
Lucy. I further understand that Robert was the brother of Richard de
Lucy aforementioned. I am curious if you have come across any further
corroborative evidence for this relationship.

3. Rohais, wife of Richard de Lucy. I am curious if anyone has come
across any additional evidence to establish Rohais’ parentage. I note
a lengthy soc.gen.med discussion on this issue (http://
groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/browse_thread/thread/
d1c9b65d8976cd5/5af1f1ffd1c30dfd#5af1f1ffd1c30dfd) which, as best as I
could determine, resulted inconclusively.

I would be grateful for any assistance with the above queries and am,
of course, pleased to share with all interest participants any
additional information that I may have.

Cheers,

Pete

[pd...@peterdale.com]

> %2522%2389194559e1362f7c&ei=iGwTS6eaOpW8Qpmqic0O&sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&source=gr­oups&usg=AFQjCNEZwX97yR5n5uvQUkl4iM30gXyvrQ),

Greetings,

After some further inquiry, it would appear that the following would
be one of the evidentiary basis for the claim that Robert de Mounteney
was married to a daughter of Richard de Lucy. All the 3 other
individuals are direct descendants of the 3 known daughters of
Richard. I am keen for feedback, enlightenment, or correction.
Thanks!

Cheers,

Pete

The book, ‘LIBER FEODORUM’, (The Liber Feodorum, THE BOOK OF FEES,
COMMONLY CALLED - TESTA DE NEVILL, REFORMED FROM THE EARLIEST MSS. BY
THE DEPUTY KEEPER OF THE RECORDS., First published in 1920 on behalf
of the Public Record Office in December 1804, the Royal Commissioners
on the Public Records made an order:- "That the Books instituted Testa
de Nevill in the King's Remembrancer's Office, containing an account
of Knights' Fees and Serjeanties in the reigns of Henry the Third and
Edward the First, be forthwith transcribed and printed".), states the
following with respect to a Robert de Munteni and Richard de Luci:

(52)

A.D. 1212.

THE chronicler of Waverley Abbey, in his account of the events of the
year 1212, says that King John then issued certain writs:-

NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK. 135 ...

STOUE. ...”

Willelmus le Bretun et Robertus de Munteni et heres Ricardi de
Munfichet et heres Odinel de Unfranvill' tenent Thorneie, quam Rex
Henricus proavus tenuit in dominico suo, et illam dedit Ricardo de
Luci, sed nescitur per quod servicium.”

[William Bretun and Robert Munteni and the heirs of Richard Munfichet
and the heirs of Odinel Unfranvill hold Thorneie, which his great-
grandfather King Henry held of his own domain, and gave it to Richard
de Luci,] (source: http://www.melocki.org.uk/liber/PartI_1212.html)

[Wjhonson]

Can you determine what happened with this property next ?
The "heirs of Richard de Montfichet" were his two daughters Margaret who married Piers de Fauconberg and Aveline who married William de Fotz titular Count of Aumale

[pd...@peterdale.com]

On Jun 8, 10:42 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> Can you determine what happened with this property next ?
> The "heirs of Richard de Montfichet" were his two daughters Margaret who married Piers de Fauconberg and Aveline who married William de Fotz titular Count of Aumale

Hi Will,

Thanks for your reply. I am working on what happened next. Thus far
I have found the following with respect to the Mounteney family (which
nicely fits with what I had expected & hoped for):

“Liber Feordum – Part II 1242

SUFFOLK. ...

914 A.D. 1242-1243.
II.325-330 - cont. …

Ernaldus de Monteny feodum militis in Torneye de eodem [Walteri].

[Arnold de Monteny a knight's fee in Torneye of the same [of
Walter].]” (source: http://www.melocki.org.uk/liber/PartII_1242.html)


I also found the following regarding the Mounteney family:


“Liber Feodorum – Part I 1235

(405)
A.D. 1235-1236. ...

ESSEX AND HERTFORD. 479
II.229-238. II.283-285 - cont. ...

De Roberto de Munteny dimidia marca. …

[Of Robert de Munteny half a mark]

ESSEX AND HERTFORD. 483 …

484 A.D. 1235-1236.
II.229-238 - cont. …

De Arnaldo de Munteny de feodo comitis Marescalli dimidia marca.

[Of Arnold of Munteny, fee of the Earl Marshal, half a
mark.]” (source: http://www.melocki.org.uk/liber/PartI_1235.html)

“Liber Feordum – Part II 1242

( 637 )
A.D. 1242-1243. …

NORFOLK. 903
II.295-296 - cont. …

Ernaldus de Munteny unum feodum militis in Sprouton', Gatton' de eodem
[Walteri filii Roberti].

[Arnold de Munteny one knight’s fee in Sprouton, Catton of the same
[of Walter fitz Robert].] …

904 A.D. 1242-1243.
II.295-296 - cont. …

Ernaldus de Munteni unum feodum militis in Disce de eodem [Walteri
filii Roberti]. Radulfus de Gimges quartam partem feodi unius militis
in Disce de eodem [Walteri filii Roberti].

[Arnold de Munteni one knight’s fee in Disce of the same [of Walter
fitz Robert]. Ralph de Gimges a quarter of a knight’s fee in Disce of
the same [of Walter fitz Robert].]” (source:
http://www.melocki.org.uk/liber/PartII_1242.html)

[pd...@peterdale.com]

The only other relevant Thorney reference that I have discovered thus
far is as follows:

“Liber Feodorum – Part I 1235

(405)
A.D. 1235-1236. ...

SUFFOLK. 916
II.325-330 - cont.

Johannes de Hotot tenet quarterium feodi militis in Torneye de eodem
[Walteri].” (source: http://www.melocki.org.uk/liber/PartII_1242.html)

[pd...@peterdale.com]

Hi Will et al,

I’m enjoying another glorious weekend (weather wise) in Toronto. We
have the new cottage nearly completed so I expect that this will be
the last month I will be corresponding from town. If you have an
opportunity, I would appreciate your thoughts and feedback as per the
foregoing re my Mounteney-Lucy research. Thank you.

Cheers,

Pete

[pd...@peterdale.com]

On Sunday, June 10, 2012 3:11:55 AM UTC-4, pd...@peterdale.com wrote:
> On Jun 8, 8:10 pm, "pd...@peterdale.com"

> wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 7:37 pm, "pd...@peterdale.com"

Greetings,

I have been making some slow and steady progress in my Mounteney family research. I was quite pleased to more conclusively establish that Arnold de Mounteney (b. approx. 1200 and d. September 19, 1252 at Walden Abbey, Essex, England at the Round Table and bur. there as well – see - http://books.google.ca/books?id=Cx82AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA513&lpg=PA513&dq=%221252%22+%22throat%22+%22de+montigny%22&source=bl&ots=36UJz6UfhR&sig=nqB7_e7g_f9g8k6w8KoDXdfB3ZY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zkPjT9O0OKLn0QGltKX2Aw&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%221252%22%20%22throat%22%20%22de%20montigny%22&f=false) was most likely the son of Robert de Mounteney who I have referenced in my post dated June 8, 2012 regarding Richard de Lucy and the “Liber Feordum” - please see immediately below:

“The Essex Record Office provides the following records with respect to the Mounteney family:

“Grant

Repository: Essex Record Office

Level: Category Estate and Family records
Level: Fonds PETRE FAMILY OF INGATESTONE AND WEST HORNDON.
Level: Sub-Fonds DEEDS
Level: Series Medieval deeds pertaining to the Petre estates
Level: Item Grant
Level:
Item

Reference Code D/DP T1/289

Dates of Creation n.d. [approx. 1242]

Title [Grant]

Scope and Content Ernulf de MUNTENY son of Robert to the church and canons of Blessed Mary and St. Leonard of Ginges [Thoby Priory, Mountnessing]

Church of St. Giles of Mountnessing which belongs to his fee and all appurtenances of the said church both of the parsonage and the presentation of the vicarage etc.

Witnesses: Sir John de Nevile, William Dun, Robert de Scenefeld, Bartholomew fili Fulk, William de Alneto, William Franceis, Henry Curteis, Hugh Purte and Richard his brother

Fragment of seal” (source: http://seax.essexcc.gov.uk/result_details.asp?intThisRecordsOffSet=12&id=441709)”

In addition, and with respect to the foregoing, it would appear that Arnold de Mounteney is a descendent of Michael de Capra who founded Thoby Priory, etc. This would take the line back to the early 1100s or late 1000s. Please see:

The book, ‘Feet of Fines for Essex’, (1899-1910), Vol. 1, (A.D. 1182-1272), edited by R. E. G. Kirk, published in Nine Parts, with an Index by The Society at the Museum in the Castle, Colchester, states the following with respect to the Mounteney family in Essex:

“p. 141, 26 Henry III. 1242. 743. Eas. Ernulf de Munteny, pl. The Prior of Ginges, impedient. Advowson of the church of Gynges Munteny with appurts. Pl. acknowledged the right of impedient and his church as that which he had of the gift of Michael Chevere [aka Michael de Capra], pl.'s ancestor, whose heir he is. Pl. quitclaimed to impedient and his church. Impedient received pl. and his heirs into all benefits and orisons.” (source: http://www.archive.org/stream/pt1to10feetoffin01greauoft/pt1to10feetoffin01greauoft_djvu.txt and http://books.google.ca/books?id=DqQ5AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=%22michael+de+capra%22&source=bl&ots=RMxpTUsVtz&sig=VfN5w7pk8Y7BiwF9R2v0ZeCcWCs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IxbkT_uMA4mJ6gGEuIDICg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22michael%20de%20capra%22&f=false)

I, of course, most welcome any thoughts, corrections, or suggestions for further research. Many thanks.

Cheers,

Pete

[pd...@peterdale.com]

Greetings,

I have set forth below excerpts from 2 records that deal with certain property owned by Richard de Lucy in Newton, Suffolk and Diss, Sprowston and Tacolneston, Norfolk. Both records refer to a Robert de Mounteney holding said property of Richard de Lucy and Robert fitz Walter, respectively, in 1166 and 1236:

The book, ‘Liber niger Scaccarii: nec non Wilhelmi Worcestrii Annales rerum anglicarum, cum præfatione et appendice Thomæ Hearnii ad editionem primam Oxonæ editam, Volume 1’, (1774), Vol. 1, by William Worcester, edited by Thomas Hearne, states the following with respect to a Robert de Monteni and Richard de Luci and property in Newton, Suffolk and Diss, Sprowston and Tacolneston, Norfolk in 1166:

“pp. 234-35, [c. 1166] Carta Ricardi de Luci.

Hii sunt milites, quos Ricardus de Luci tenet de antiquo fefamento in Kent & in Sutfole & in Norfole, feilicet in Kent super Dominium suum de Niweton, feodum dimidii militis. Et Ricardus Persored feodum dimidii militis.

Essex.

Et in Sutfole & in Nortfole Robertus de Monteni feod V militum feilicet in Niweton, quae est membrum de Stowa, feodum I militis.

Et Walecot, quae est membrum de Dice, feodum I milits.

Et in Sprecton feodum I militis.

Et in Tacoloeston feod II militum.

Et in eadem villa de Takoloeston Hugo, filius Hamel, feodum I militis.

Et de hiis militibus faciebant antesessores ipsius Ricardi wardam ad Douram.

Et de novo fefamento in Devenescire,

Ogerus Dapifer feodum I militis in villa de Scotebroc, quae est de feodo, quod suit Willelmi Silvani.

[The charter of Richard de Luci.

These were the knights who held of Richard de Luci in the old feoffment in Kent and in Suffolk and in Norfolk – as follows - in Kent of his ownership of Newton, a half knight’s fee. And Richard Perfored a half knight’s fee.

Essex.

And in Suffolk and in Norfolk Robert de Monteni – as follows - 5 knights’ fees including the fief of Newton which is a part of Stow, 1 knight’s fee.

And Walcot, which is a part of Diss, 1 knight’s fees.

And in Sprowston, 1 knight 's fee.

And 2 knight’s fees in Tacolneston.

And in the same town of Tacolneston Hugh, the son of Hamel, held 1 knight’s fee.

And of these knights the ancestors of Richard did guard duty at Dover.

And of the new feoffment of Oger Dapifer in Devonshire 1 knight’s fee in the town of Scotebroc, which is the fee of William Silvanus.]” (source: http://books.google.ca/books?id=wv9VAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=%22de+monteni%22&source=bl&ots=g2DNFE_BA-&sig=I3IndbhParqOfc8C2MSLTkxSsQs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DhLLT82NBubV0QHm2pBi&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAjge#v=snippet&q=%22monteni%22&f=false; http://www.kentarchaeology.ac/digiarchive/ColinFlight/knights-LBB-text.pdf)

The book, ‘Calendar of the Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III., preserved in the Public Record Office’, (1908), Henry III – 1234-1237, printed for His Majesty’s Stationery Office by Mackie and Co. LD, London, states the following with respect to a Robert de Monteni and the same properties (in Newton, Suffolk and Diss, Sprowston and Tacolneston, Norfolk) owned by, presumably, another Robert de Munteny (my theory is that it was Robert II’s father) in 1236:

“pp. 230-31, 20 Henry III. 1236. [m. 19.]

Pro Roesia que fuit uxor Roberti filii Walteri. — Rex dilectis et
fidelibus suis Ade filio Willelmi et Ricardo de la Lad' salutem.
Mandamus vobis quod plenam seisinam habere faciatis Roesie que
fuit uxor Roberti filii Walteri de maneriis de Hemenhal', Disce et
de Theya cum pertinentiis, et de servitio feodorum militum que
continentur in carta quam predictus Robertus eidem Roesie fieri fecit
de maneriis et feodis predictis habendis in dotem die quo eam
desponsavit, videlicet : — de servitio feodi sex militum que Robertus
filius Thome tenuit de predicto Roberto, quondam viro suo, in
Wathacr', Raveningham, Chategrave, Brampton', et in Henham, et
de servitio feodi unius militis in Wathacr' quod Willehnus filius
Warini tenuit de eodem ; et de servitio feodi dimidii militis in
Hulmo, quod Robertus de Hulmo tenuit de eodem; et de servitio
feodi unius militis in Hemenhal' et in Fincham' quod Rogerus
Curpeil tenuit de eodem; et de servitio quarte partis feodi unius
militis in Hemenhaul' quod Walterus de Valeines tenuit de eodem;
et de servitio vicesime partis feodi unius militis quod heres Roberti
de Capeles tenuit de eodem; et de servitio quinte partis feodi unius
militis de Widone de Verdun' in Muleton'; et de servitio feodi
unius militis de Radulfo de Bailund in Boiiund; et de servitio
quarte partis feodi unius militis de hered' Henrici filii Willelmi in
Hemenhal' et in Kedington' : et de servitio feodi duorum militum
de Alicia Pointel in Frostenden' ; et de servitio feodi dimidii militis
de Johanne filio Roberti et Roberto filio Reginaldi in Hubbeston', et
de servitio feodori duorum militum de Hamone Chevr' in Wydekesho;
et de servitio feodi duorum militum de Radulfo de Presson' in
Stanfeld' et in Hulmo; et de servitio feodi unius militis de Johanne
et Rogero filiis Walteri in Theye, et de servitio feodi unius militis
de Galfrido de Essendon' in Essendon'; et de servitio feodi duorum
militum de Roberto le Haut in Worden'; et de servitio feodi unius
militis de Roberto filio Eustachii in Thakelingeston'; et de servitio
feodi iiij. militum de Roberto de Monten' in Newenton, Disce,
Sprouston' et in Thakelveston'; et de servitio feodi m ij. militum
de Ada filio Willelmi in Halmesho et in Shelewe. Teste ut supra.

[For Rose who was the wife of Robert, son of Walter. –King to his beloved and faithful Adam, son of William, and Richard de la Lad, greetings. Command that you do have full seisin of that land which Rose who was the wife of Robert, son of Walter, held of the Manor of Hemenhale, Diss and Theya, with the appurtenances therein, and the knights’ fees which are contained in the charter which the aforesaid Robert to the said Rose made of the manors and fees aforesaid, to have as dowry on the day he married her, to wit:
six knights’ fees that Robert, son of Thomas, held of Robert, once her husband, in Wathacr, Raveningham, Chategrave, Brampton and in Henham, and one knight’s fee in Wathacr that William, son of Warren, held of the same; and one half a knight’s fee in Hulmo that Robert de Hulmo held of the same; and one knight’s fee in Hemenhal and in Fincham, that Roger Curpeil held of the same; and one quarter of a knight’s fee in Hemenhaul that Walter de Valeines held of the same; and one twentieth of a knight’s fee that the heir of Robert de Capeles held of the same; and one fifth of a knight’s fee of Guy de Verdun in Muleton; and one knight’s fee of Ralph de Boilund in Boilund; and one quarter of a knight’s fee of the heirs of Henry, son of William, in Hemenhal and in Kedington: and two knights’ fees of Alice Pointel in Frostenden; and one half of a knight’s fee of John, son of Robert, and Robert, son of Reginald, in Hubbeston, and two knights’ fees of Hamo Chevere in Wydekesho; and two knights’ fees of Ralph de Presson in Stanfeld and Hulmo; and one knight’s fee of John and Roger, sons of Walter, in Theye, and one knight’s fee of Geoffrey de Essendon in Essendon; and two knights’ fees of Robert le Haut in Worden; and one knight’s fee of Robert, the son of Eustace, in Tacolneston; and four knights’ fees of Robert de Monten in Newton, Diss, Sprowston and in Tacolneston; and two knights’ fees of Adam, the son of William, in Halmesho and Shelewe. Witnesses as above]” (source: http://archive.org/stream/closerollsofreig03grea#page/230/mode/2up)

As you may recollect, set forth above this post is a copy of the Liber Feodorum entry which records a Robert de Munteny holding an interest in Thorney, Suffolk along with William le Bretun and the heirs of Richard Munfichet and the heirs of Odinel Unfranvill which was previously owned by Richard de Lucy.

The above properties remained in the Mounteney family for the next 200-300 (depending on the specific property) years. I would appreciate anyone’s insight on the foregoing and how it may contribute to:

(1) Establishing the nature of the Mounteney family’s relationship with Richard de Lucy; and
(2) What the relationship is between the 2 Robert de Mounteneys.

Many thanks.

Cheers,

Pete