Domesday book, Joscelin
Murray Lynn
Domesday book:
- Alvred de Lincoln - Lincolnshire
- Joscelin fitzLambert - Lincolnshire
- Joslin le Breton
I can't find any mention of them outside the Domesday book, but they
must have been significant nobles under William.
My specific interest is in "Joscelin, Alvred [of Lincoln]'s man" and the
history of the Josselyn (Joslin, Joscelin etc) family who descended from
him. He was father of St Gilbert of Sempringham and his family were in
Sempringham in the time of Edward the Confessor and came from Joscelin
in Brittany.
- Was he related in any way to Joscelin fitzLambert or Joslin le Breton?
- What was the connection between him and Alvred? I believe that being
someone's 'man' implies that he was probably a Baron or other minor
nobility.
- He is generally considered to have been a descendant of Charlemagne
and is closely connected to the Percy family, but I have some doubts
about this research. Is anyone aware of any well researched information
on his ancestry.
--
Kind Regards
Murray Lynn
Christchurch
New Zealand
Web Site <http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mlynn/>
Tim Powys-Lybbe
(My reply is interleaved within your text, the better to answer your
points and to show the flow of the reasoning (if any).)
> I am trying to find some details on these three people listed in the
> Domesday book:
> - Alvred de Lincoln - Lincolnshire
> - Joscelin fitzLambert - Lincolnshire
> - Joslin le Breton
>
> I can't find any mention of them outside the Domesday book, but they
> must have been significant nobles under William.
If you have not come across Keats-Rohan's pair of books 'Domesday
people' (DP) and 'Domesday Descendants' (DD), they are well worth
borrowing from a 'Good Library'. There is an article on Alfred of
Lincoln in DP.
> My specific interest is in "Joscelin, Alvred [of Lincoln]'s man" and the
> history of the Josselyn (Joslin, Joscelin etc) family who descended from
> him. He was father of St Gilbert of Sempringham and his family were in
> Sempringham in the time of Edward the Confessor and came from Joscelin
> in Brittany.
In DD Gilbert gets an article which includes that he was 'son of
Jocelyn, Domesday tenant of Alfred of Lincoln'. The odd thing is that I
simply cannot find Jocelyn in DP, which is where he should be (I have
looked for him under Goscelyn, Ioscelin and Joscelin).
PS: Found him under Gozelin, DP p. 237. He had sons Gilbert and Roger
and a daughter and heir Agnes, who m. a Musteil and had sons Roger
(who is in DD, p. 1048) and Hugh. Roger had a son William, who m.
Emma, and two daughters, nuns. Keats-Rohan refers to 'Early Yorks
Charters', Vol XI, no 14 and XII, no 106, which a very good library
might have on its shelves.
Keats-Rohan in the Gilbert article refers to 'B. Golding's magnificent
study "Gilbert of Sempringham and the Gilbertine Order", pub Oxford,
1995'. Sounds like another book to get out of that good library.
> - Was he related in any way to Joscelin fitzLambert or Joslin le Breton?
> - What was the connection between him and Alvred? I believe that being
> someone's 'man' implies that he was probably a Baron or other minor
> nobility.
Barons were not clearly defined then nor were nobility, they were all a
bunch of brigands! Why do you think William is known as the Conqueror
(and the Bastard)?
> - He is generally considered to have been a descendant of Charlemagne
> and is closely connected to the Percy family, but I have some doubts
> about this research. Is anyone aware of any well researched information
> on his ancestry.
Do you mean Jocelin of Louvain who married Agnes de Percy after 1154? He
was the son of Godfrey a la Barbe, duc of Lothier.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Murray Lynn
Many thanks for the detailed reply and the pointers, I have just
acquired a copy of the Domesday Book which has prompted me to do some
long delayed checking on the early history of the Joscelins. Hopefully
the local library will have the books you mention.
>> - He is generally considered to have been a descendant of Charlemagne
>> and is closely connected to the Percy family, but I have some doubts
>> about this research. Is anyone aware of any well researched information
>> on his ancestry.
>>
>
> Do you mean Jocelin of Louvain who married Agnes de Percy after 1154? He
> was the son of Godfrey a la Barbe, duc of Lothier.
>
The story that I have been given, but which seems to be at odds with the
facts, is that there are two branches of the family:
CHARLES, Duke of Lorraine
|
Lambert,Count JOSCELINE = GERBUCA (Granddaughter of Louis IV of France)
|
|
Percy, Baron of Topclift
EGIDIUS JOCELYN
|
|
Agnes = Josceline, Lord of Petworth, Sussex SIR GILBERT JOCELYN
|
|
the Percys
Gilbert J. (of Sempringham), eldest son
and EGIDIUS (or GALFRIDUS or GEOFFRY) J. (second son)
|
Dukes of Roden and other (mainly Suffolk and Essex) Josselyns
I am reasonably confident of the story from Sir Gilbert (Joscelin,
Alvred's man) and his father onward, but I believe the connection to
Lambert is doubtful.
paulv...@gmail.com
descendants can be found here:
http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00020068&tree=LEO
Murray Lynn
Thanks very much for the leads. While the Joscelin (and other spellings)
family appear to have been well researched by a number of people, I am
beginning to think that this particular connection to Lambert is incorrect.
The family tree is generally documented as:
Lambert I = Gerberga
Their son Egidius Joscelin, "Count of Joscelin in Brittany", who was in
England with Edward the Confessor and who appears to have had land in
Sempringham pre 1066 (from a court case involving Sir Gilbert, St
Gilbert, Gilbert of Ghent and possibly Alfred of Lincoln re the land
that the Priory at Sempringham was built on).
His son Sir Gilbert Joscelin who is almost certainly "Joscelin, man of
Alfred of Lincoln" in the Domesday Book and who married the daughter of
a Saxon
Their sons, (Saint) Gilbert of Sempringham and Geoffry or Egidius
The descendants of Geoffry, included the Earls of Roden and are
concentrated in Essex and Suffolk.
Because of the fame of Gilbert, there is some contemporary documentation
which fits in with the Domesday Book records and so the story from
Egidius down seems reasonably safe.
I suspect that someone has picked up the name of "Joscelyn de Louvaine"
GGGS of Lambert I and because of the common name has jumped to conclusions!
Kind Regards
Murray Lynn
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
>
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Hi Paul & Tim
>
> Thanks very much for the leads. While the Joscelin (and other
> spellings) family appear to have been well researched by a number of
> people, I am beginning to think that this particular connection to
> Lambert is incorrect.
>
> The family tree is generally documented as:
>
> Lambert I = Gerberga
>
> Their son Egidius Joscelin, "Count of Joscelin in Brittany", who was
> in England with Edward the Confessor and who appears to have had land
> in Sempringham pre 1066 (from a court case involving Sir Gilbert, St
> Gilbert, Gilbert of Ghent and possibly Alfred of Lincoln re the land
> that the Priory at Sempringham was built on).
>
> His son Sir Gilbert Joscelin who is almost certainly "Joscelin, man of
> Alfred of Lincoln" in the Domesday Book and who married the daughter of
> a Saxon
I simply don't believe this. Keats-Rohan does not even hint at it in
her Domesday People. Further, while there were knights (armoured men on
horses with a body of assistants) around, they were not called 'Sir'
then, that came much later.
> Their sons, (Saint) Gilbert of Sempringham and Geoffry or Egidius
Keats-Rohan says Gozelin's children were Gilbert of Sempringham, Roger
and Agnes. Agnes by 1166 was the heir to Gozelin; in other words the
lines of the sons had died out. What is the evidence for Geoffrey as a
son of Gozelin?
Keats-Rohan refers to an early book of Gilbert's life published as "The
Book of St Gilbert", edited and translated by R. Foreville and G. Keir,
Oxford 1987, page 10. If you want to disagree with her findings, you
should have a look at that book.
> The descendants of Geoffry, included the Earls of Roden and are
> concentrated in Essex and Suffolk.
And if Geoffrey was an invention?
> Because of the fame of Gilbert, there is some contemporary
> documentation which fits in with the Domesday Book records and so the
> story from Egidius down seems reasonably safe.
Not according to Keats-Rohan, unless the FMG site of DP/DD corrections
has anything to say on the matter: http://fmg.ac/ (Just checked, there
aren't.)
> I suspect that someone has picked up the name of "Joscelyn de
> Louvaine" GGGS of Lambert I and because of the common name has jumped
> to conclusions!
Agreed.
Murray Lynn
Ok - now you're getting me worried - but I must admit to having had some
doubts in my own mind over this era for some time and your arguments are
more convincing than my sources!
The information that I have summarised is widely printed in 19th C
histories of the Earls of Roden, for example"Debrett's Peerage of
England, Scotland, and Ireland" - eg the 1820 edition, but I have to
agree that the supporting evidence is all but non-existent.
It is also widely reported in Joscelin circles - there have been several
books written on the family - and so I think my next step is to go back
to the Joscelin Society and put your points to them.
What do you think of the next generations - see
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mlynn/16_Josselyn/FT_Josselyn_29_14.html
- through to the 15th C, which unfortunately largely comes from similar
tertiary sources?
Kind Regards
Murray
Leo van de Pas
first generations are not very detailed.
James Jocelyn, of Essex
father of
Henry Jocelyn married Jane daughter and heiress of William Chastelyn
parents of
Ralph Jocelyn, living circa 1204, married Beatrix
parents of
John Jocelyn
and so on.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray Lynn" <m.l...@paradise.net.nz>
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: Domesday book, Joscelin
> Hi Tim
>
> Ok - now you're getting me worried - but I must admit to having had some
> doubts in my own mind over this era for some time and your arguments are
> more convincing than my sources!
>
> The information that I have summarised is widely printed in 19th C
> histories of the Earls of Roden, for example"Debrett's Peerage of
> England, Scotland, and Ireland" - eg the 1820 edition, but I have to
> agree that the supporting evidence is all but non-existent.
>
> It is also widely reported in Joscelin circles - there have been several
> books written on the family - and so I think my next step is to go back
> to the Joscelin Society and put your points to them.
>
> What do you think of the next generations - see
> http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mlynn/16_Josselyn/FT_Josselyn_29_14.html
> - through to the 15th C, which unfortunately largely comes from similar
> tertiary sources?
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Murray
>
>
>
> Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<snip re descendants of Gozelin, a tenant of Alured of Lincoln>
> What do you think of the next generations - see
> http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mlynn/16_Josselyn/FT_Josselyn_29_14.html
> - through to the 15th C, which unfortunately largely comes from
> similar tertiary sources?
Where's the evidence in your sources of:
"The Genealogical History of The Ancient Family of Josselyn of
Horkesley" & "Genealogical Memoranda relating to the Family of
Josselyn", both published privately at Ipswich in 1880 and 1903
respectively.
While I know I have used books such as these, I am also aware that they
may not be very good. A standard by which you may judge such matters is
shown in the Henry Project at:
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/henry.htm
Anything less thorough can be criticised for precisely that reason.
Until we know where the above books got their information from there is
little more that can be said. Regrettably my investigations (I hesitate
to call them researches) have never touched on the Joscelin family so I
have no knowledge of them at all.
Murray Lynn
Thanks very much for this - at least part of the story is feasible!
Kind Regards
Murray
>> What do you think of the next generations - see
>> http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mlynn/16_Josselyn/FT_Josselyn_29_14.html
>>
>> - through to the 15th C, which unfortunately largely comes from similar
>> tertiary sources?
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Murray
>>
>>
>>
>> Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Leo van de Pas
Best wishes
Leo
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Hi Leo
> Thanks very much for this - at least part of the story is feasible!
>
> Leo van de Pas wrote:
> > Burke's Peerage 1999 page 2431 gives the line of the Earls of Roden,
> > the first generations are not very detailed.
> >
> > James Jocelyn, of Essex father of Henry Jocelyn married Jane
> > daughter and heiress of William Chastelyn parents of Ralph Jocelyn,
> > living circa 1204, married Beatrix parents of
Burke is not wholly to be relied on. I once got hold of, out of the
British Library, the original correspondence Burke had with
representatives of the various families for preparing his volume on
extinct baronetcies. He had a standard form in which he asked them to
lend him a copy of their family pedigree, which, of course, he would
return.
As far as I could make out, he then turned these pedigrees into solemn
and sonorous prose and published the result.
The modern Burke volumes still follow this method: they ask members of
the families to provide or update the pedigrees. At least Burkes no
longer publish some of the absolute rubbish that appeared in the 19th
century; there were too many criticisms of some of those pedigrees.
The important thing to deduce from all this is that Burke is not a
research organisation, unlike the team that created Complete Peerage
and which persisted in finding surviving documents of the periods
concerned from which the genealogy could be established.
The question to ask of the above pedigrees in Burke's volumes is where
they got the information from. Then you have to see if you can find
these documents, or transcripts or abstracts of them, and if they truly
underpin the pedigrees. You may just have a slight problem in reaching
that underpinning!
I have had to throw out one pedigree that is still in the latest Burke's
Scottish Landed Gentry and for which no evidence can be found today. I
have asked the family about it and they just assert that it is their
pedigree, full stop.
