Emma de Sackville and Robert de Lucy

[pd...@peterdale.com]

Greetings,

I have been researching the de Lucy family and am presently reviewing the readily available literature regarding Robert de Lucy, brother of the English Justiciar Richard de Lucy (d. 1179). I have found 2 competing narratives for his wife Emma de Sackville’s maternal lineage:

1. Emma de Sackville is the daughter of Robert de Sackville and his wife Letitia de Woodville; and

2. Emma de Sackville is the daughter of Robert de Sackville and his wife Letitia, daughter of William de Glanville.

With respect to item #1 above the references are all unsourced (i.e. http://fabpedigree.com/s037/f673352.htm). With respect to item #2 above it only appears in the book, ‘Families, Friends and Allies – Boulogne and Politics in Northern France and England, c. 879-1160’, (2004), by Heather J. Tanner [http://history.osu.edu/directory/Tanner87], published by Brill Leiden, Boston, p. 318 (http://books.google.ca/books?id=ytfCmK2xGaAC&pg=PA318&lpg=PA318&dq=%22ela,+dau.+ralf+de+dene%22&source=bl&ots=OeTDZGRe0C&sig=CM06mUjh2uwDmprld6Ba4YLfK_4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XCzMUNaRCqqE2QXp_4DACA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22ela%2C%20dau.%20ralf%20de%20dene%22&f=false).

I would be very appreciative for:

a. any clarification of this obvious discrepancy; and

b. any references to primary evidence to support the identification of Robert de Lucy’s wife as Emma de Sackville and her parentage.

Many thanks, and best wishes for a Merry Christmas and enjoyable Festive Season!

Cheers,

Pete

[Doug Smith]

I believe Emme de Sackville was the daughter of Herbrand de Sackville.


See DP, p 251. DD, pps 558-559. William Urmston Searle Glanville-Richards, Records of the Anglo-Norman House of Glanville from AD 1050-1880, London, (1882). Collins, Peerages of England, Vol. II, 1812, sub Sackville Duke of Dorset.

Domesday tenant of Walter I Giffard.

Doug Smith

[Wjhonson]

Fabpedigree is worthless dog crap.
It's not even worth my typing this :)

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message

[pd...@peterdale.com]

Hi Doug,

Thank you for the information and I will review the material you have referred me to. My initial thoughts are that there is a least 1 additional generation between Herbrand de Sackville and Emma given the timeline and what is known regarding Robert de Lucy.

Will, I likewise have found numerous errors, etc. in Fabpedigree. I only listed it by way of an example of the unsourced information referencing a “Letitia de Woodville”. In my research I am really only interested in primary evidence or compelling corroborative evidence and essentially disregard all unsourced material unless it can be otherwise supported. Hence my post seeking same.

All assistance is welcome and appreciated!

Cheers,

Pete

[Wjhonson]

Starting from fabpedigree guarentees you are doing research in a way abhorrent to my eyes.
Why even start from an "online tree" ? Online trees like that are worse that wrong, they are misleading, based on utter nonsense. And you're back to the twelth century?

It's rather odd isn't it.

[pd...@peterdale.com]

Hi Will,

I certainly don’t wish to be abhorrent in anyone’s eyes! As I already advised, I simply used the fabpedigree item as an example of unsourced references to “Letitia de Woodville”. I do not start nor end with it nor any other unsourced genealogy, etc. Hence, again, why I posted here in the hope that experienced individuals like yourself and others may kindly point me toward some credible source material. I welcome any meaningful commentary that you may have and thank you.

Cheers,

Pete

[Renia]

On 15/12/2012 22:59, pd...@peterdale.com wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> I certainly don’t wish to be abhorrent in anyone’s eyes! As I
> already advised, I simply used the fabpedigree item as an example of
> unsourced references to “Letitia de Woodville”. I do not start nor
> end with it nor any other unsourced genealogy, etc. Hence, again,
> why I posted here in the hope that experienced individuals like
> yourself and others may kindly point me toward some credible source
> material. I welcome any meaningful commentary that you may have and
> thank you.

Don't be put off. Online pedigrees can be helpful as a guide, but so
many of them are just plain wong, that you should use the guide as a
starter point. You have done the right thing by coming here for help,
but you also need to look elsewhere for other source material which
might point you in the right direction.

[Bronwen Edwards]

On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:36:02 PM UTC-8, wjhonson wrote:
> Starting from fabpedigree guarentees you are doing research in a way abhorrent to my eyes.
>
> Why even start from an "online tree" ? Online trees like that are worse that wrong, they are misleading, based on utter nonsense. And you're back to the twelth century?

Yes, Will, all of us work our tails off to avoid appearing abhorrent in your eyes. Our research results cannot be considered valid or worthy of consideration until they have received your seal of approval. We just can't stop thinking about you and how you feel about us. You are always at the edge of our thoughts. Yours very aborrently, the editorial us

[Richard Carruthers]

Quite often I check them to see what other errors may have crept into
a given family in an effort to trace the errors' origin. This is a
sort of perverse negative form of research I carry out in an effort to
catch my own errors. I also helps me in me vain efforts to try to
account for every instance of the name ERNLE (and variants) I can find
in order to explain its existence and count it in or out of my
long-term study of that family since its apparent origin at Earnley in
Sussex in the 12th century.

Just a thought on the value of coming to grips with all sources
including the bad ones. After all, it takes time for a genealogist to
become expert enough to develop a keen eye for plausible errors, pins
lost in otherwise error-filled haystacks of information, and weigh
evidence. All the while one has to guard against hubris and
assumptions in order to remain humble enough to learn more. After all,
isn't one of the great delights of genealogy for many of us the
ever-expanding aspect of the study as a vehicle for learning the truth
of the aphorism, "Nothing human is alien to me." (Terence) ?

All the best for the balance of Advent, Christmastide, and the Year to come.

May many Gelegenheitsfunde (Gleanings along the way; and this implies
chaff!) come all of our ways.

Richard:)

Richard Carruthers-Zurowski, Vancouver, CANADA

[Wjhonson]

Don't use it at all. Zero. Nada. Might as well flip a coin.

[John Higgins]

On Dec 15, 2:59 pm, "pd...@peterdale.com" <pd...@peterdale.com> wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> I certainly don’t wish to be abhorrent in anyone’s eyes!  As I already advised, I simply used the fabpedigree item as an example of unsourced references to “Letitia de Woodville”.  I do not start nor end with it nor any other unsourced genealogy, etc.  Hence, again, why I posted here in the hope that experienced individuals like yourself and others may kindly point me toward some credible source material.  I welcome any meaningful commentary that you may have and thank you.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 5:36:02 PM UTC-5, wjhonson wrote:
> > Starting from fabpedigree guarentees you are doing research in a way abhorrent to my eyes.
>
> > Why even start from an "online tree" ?  Online trees like that are worse that wrong, they are misleading, based on utter nonsense.  And you're back to the twelth century?
>
> > It's rather odd isn't it.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>
>

> > To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
>
> > Cc: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>; gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>

>
> > Sent: Sat, Dec 15, 2012 11:00 am
>
> > Subject: Re: Emma de Sackville and Robert de Lucy
>
> > Hi Doug,
>
> > Thank you for the information and I will review the material you have referred
>
> > me to.  My initial thoughts are that there is a least 1 additional generation
>
> > between Herbrand de Sackville and Emma given the timeline and what is known
>
> > regarding Robert de Lucy.
>
> > Will, I likewise have found numerous errors, etc. in Fabpedigree.  I only listed
>
> > it by way of an example of the unsourced information referencing a “Letitia de
>
> > Woodville”.  In my research I am really only interested in primary evidence or
>
> > compelling corroborative evidence and essentially disregard all unsourced
>
> > material unless it can be otherwise supported.  Hence my post seeking same.
>
> > All assistance is welcome and appreciated!
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Pete
>
> > On Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:29:29 PM UTC-5, wjhonson wrote:
>
> > > Fabpedigree is worthless dog crap.
>
> > > It's not even worth my typing this :)
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
>
> > > From: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>
>

> > > To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>

>
> > > Cc: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>
>
> > > Sent: Sat, Dec 15, 2012 1:11 am
>
> > > Subject: Emma de Sackville and Robert de Lucy
>
> > > Greetings,
>
> > > I have been researching the de Lucy family and am presently reviewing the
>
> > > readily available literature regarding Robert de Lucy, brother of the English
>
> > > Justiciar Richard de Lucy (d. 1179).  I have found 2 competing narratives for
>
> > > his wife Emma de Sackville’s maternal lineage:
>
> > > 1.    Emma de Sackville is the daughter of Robert de Sackville and his wife
>
> > Letitia
>
> > > de Woodville; and
>
> > > 2.    Emma de Sackville is the daughter of Robert de Sackville and his wife
>
> > > Letitia, daughter of William de Glanville.
>
> > > With respect to item #1 above the references are all unsourced (i.e.
>
> > >http://fabpedigree.com/s037/f673352.htm).  With respect to item #2 above it
>
> > only
>
> > > appears in the book, ‘Families, Friends and Allies – Boulogne and Politics in
>
> > > Northern France and England, c. 879-1160’, (2004), by Heather J. Tanner
>
> > > [http://history.osu.edu/directory/Tanner87], published by Brill Leiden,
>
> > Boston,
>

> > > p. 318 (http://books.google.ca/books?id=ytfCmK2xGaAC&pg=PA318&lpg=PA318&dq=%2...).

>
> > > I would be very appreciative for:
>
> > > a.    any clarification of this obvious discrepancy; and
>
> > > b.    any references to primary evidence to support the identification of Robert
>
> > de
>
> > > Lucy’s wife as Emma de Sackville and her parentage.
>
> > > Many thanks, and best wishes for a Merry Christmas and enjoyable Festive
>
> > Season!
>
> > > Cheers,
>
> > > Pete
>
> > > -------------------------------
>

> > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com

>
> > > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
>
> > > the message
>
> > -------------------------------
>

> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com

>
> > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
>
> > the message

Don't consider anything from Will Johnson to be "meaningful
commentary". The phrase he used above, "worthless dog crap", seems
appropriate here.

[Wjhonson]

The best solution is not to use fabpedigree whatsoever.
Not as an example, not as a source, not at all.

-----Original Message-----
From: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>

To: soc.genealogy.medieval <soc.genealo...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

[pd...@peterdale.com]

Hi Will,

I clearly understand your point re fabpedigree – thank you and noted. With respect to references to Letitia being the daughter of Henry de Woodvil, there are numerous other references (please see below). They, however, likewise all appear unsourced as well. Hence my initial inquiry remains and look forward to any clarity on this point and hope to avoid any further segue with respect to fabpedigree. Thank you.

Cheers,

Pete

References (randomly collected) to Henry Woodvil being the father of Letitia, wife of Robert de Sackville:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=SgQVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA436&dq=%22robert+de+sackville%22+%22woodvil%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=h5nPUMesGbPE2QXunIC4CQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22robert%20de%20sackville%22%20%22woodvil%22&f=false

http://books.google.ca/books?id=nxgwAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA58&dq=%22robert+de+sackville%22+%22woodville%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IprPUJ-WB4SE2QXtvIHoBw&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22robert%20de%20sackville%22%20%22woodville%22&f=false

http://books.google.ca/books?id=29ExAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA92&dq=%22henry+woodvil%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aJrPUJflIqH42QXKiYHgBw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22henry%20woodvil%22&f=false

http://books.google.ca/books?id=XvMRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA150&dq=%22henry+woodvil%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aJrPUJflIqH42QXKiYHgBw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22henry%20woodvil%22&f=false

http://books.google.ca/books?id=5Us-AQAAIAAJ&q=%22henry+woodvil%22&dq=%22henry+woodvil%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aJrPUJflIqH42QXKiYHgBw&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCA

http://books.google.ca/books?id=C_0bAQAAIAAJ&q=%22henry+woodvil%22&dq=%22henry+woodvil%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aJrPUJflIqH42QXKiYHgBw&ved=0CGUQ6AEwCQ

[Richard Carruthers]

In your opinion, yes, Will.

On 17/12/2012, Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> The best solution is not to use fabpedigree whatsoever.
> Not as an example, not as a source, not at all.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>

> To: soc.genealogy.medieval <soc.genealo...@googlegroups.com>
> Cc: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 1:53 pm

[norenxaq]

Richard Carruthers wrote:

>In your opinion, yes, Will.
>
>

anyone looking at it for any length of time would come to the same
conclusion. AVOID it...

[Richard Carruthers]

I'm not saying I disagree with the spirit of Will's statement, but
with the letter of it. One can indeed use it to trace the
proliferation of a given error, to check where new ones might have
crept in, and, of course, as a salutary example of how not to go about
things. This doesn't actually count as a positive endorsement, while
of course allowing a) one to keep an open mind (as each case needs to
be judged by its own particulars, a perfectly reasonable position for
a Burkean conservative) and b) a happy exception to rule to be allowed
for in those rare-ish instances in which same might arise.

[James Dow Allen]

On Dec 16, 1:56 am, "pd...@peterdale.com" <pd...@peterdale.com> wrote:

> Will, I likewise have found numerous errors, etc. in Fabpedigree.  I only listed it by way of an example of the unsourced information referencing a “Letitia de Woodville”.  In my research I am really only interested in primary evidence or compelling corroborative evidence and essentially disregard all unsourced material unless it can be otherwise supported.  Hence my post seeking same.

No comment on Emma's parents, but Arthur Collins'
_Peerage of England_ shows, on page 92, Robert's wife as
"Lettice, daughter of Sir Henry Woodvil ,Knight"

http://books.google.com/books?id=xVI5AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92#v=onepage&q&f=false

James

[Wjhonson]

I don't trust this book's pedigree (inter alia) of the Sackville family
William de Sackville who d.s.p.l. his daughter MABEL, his only living child was declared illegitimate in 1161, William's heirs when he died in 1159 were his THREE sisters, Mabel challenged this *and* lost.

That's how we know the lineage here. One of those sisters, shown here in the wrong place, was this Hodierna who married Matthew de Gernon. Hodierna was living in 1159. Matthew was living in 1161.

So the rest of this chart is made suspect by this

-----Original Message-----
From: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>
Sent: Sat, Dec 15, 2012 1:11 am
Subject: Emma de Sackville and Robert de Lucy

[Wjhonson]

http://books.google.com/books?id=oGMBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA191
"Genealogical Memoirs of the Extinct Family of Chester of Chicheley, their Ancestors and Descendants", by Robert E. C. Waters, esq
Volume 1, page 191 wj

http://books.google.com/books?id=oGMBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA200
"Genealogical Memoirs of the Extinct Family of Chester of Chicheley, their Ancestors and Descendants", by Robert E. C. Waters, esq
Volume 1, page 200 wj

-----Original Message-----
From: Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
To: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sat, Dec 22, 2012 7:36 am
Subject: Re: Emma de Sackville and Robert de Lucy


I don't trust this book's pedigree (inter alia) of the Sackville family
William de Sackville who d.s.p.l. his daughter MABEL, his only living child was
declared illegitimate in 1161, William's heirs when he died in 1159 were his
THREE sisters, Mabel challenged this *and* lost.

That's how we know the lineage here. One of those sisters, shown here in the
wrong place, was this Hodierna who married Matthew de Gernon. Hodierna was
living in 1159. Matthew was living in 1161.

So the rest of this chart is made suspect by this







-----Original Message-----
From: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: pdale <pd...@peterdale.com>
Sent: Sat, Dec 15, 2012 1:11 am
Subject: Emma de Sackville and Robert de Lucy