Descent from Eustace I, Count of Boulogne
Roem...@aol.com
Eustace I to Thomas II Forester of Etherstone
from the website of Jim Weber
The remainder from websites of Sharon Neal,
Errol Bevan, Deb Day, David Bridge, and my
family records:
Eustace I, Count of Boulogne
b. abt 1004-d. 1049
m. Mahaut (Maud) de Louvain
b. abt 1004
Eustace II, Count of Boulogne
b. abt 1018-d. abt 1080
m. 2nd Ida de Lorraine
b. abt 1040-d. 13 Aug 1113
Geoffrey, Count of Boulogne
Duke of Lower Lorraine
b. bef 1061-d. 18 Jul 1100
m. Beatrice de Mandeville
b. abt 1061
William de Boulogne
of Carshalton
b. bef 1085-d. bef 1129
Rohese de Boulogne
b. abt 1104-d. bef 1179
m. Richard "The Loyal" de Lucy
Justiciar of England
b. abt 1098-d. 14 Jul 1179
Alice de Lucy
b. 1129-d. 1197
m. Odinel II de Umfreville
Lord of Prudhoe
b. abt 1125-d. 1182
Richard de Umfreville
of Prudhoe & Redesdale
b. abt 1163-d. 11 Oct 1226
m. Sybil de Torrington
b. abt 1177
Sir Gilbert de Umfreville
of Prudhoe
b. abt 1195-d. bef 13 Mar 1244/45
m. Maud, 7th Countess of Angus
b. abt 1218-d. abt 1261
Gilbert de Umfreville
1st Earl of Angus
b. abt 1244-d. bef 13 Oct 1307
m. Elizabeth Comyn
b. abt 1248-d. bef 17 Feb 1328/29
Robert de Umfreville
2nd Earl of Angus
b. bef 1277-d. Mar 1324/25
m. 2nd Eleanore (Alienor) Lumley
b. abt 1297-d. 31 Mar 1368
Sir Thomas, 1st Baron de Umfreville
of Hessle
b. abt 1321-d. 21 May 1387
m. Joan de Hodham (Rodham)
b. abt 1328-d. 1386
Thomas II, 2nd Baron de Umfreville
of Harbottle
b. abt 1361-d. bet 12 Feb & 8 Mar 1390/91
m. Agnes Grey
b. abt 1365-d. 25 Oct 1420
Elizabeth de Umfreville
b. abt 1391-d. 23 Nov 1424
m. Sir William de Elmeden of Embleton
b. abt 1375-d. 25 May 1447
Joan de Elmeden
b. abt 1408/16-d. aft 1483
m. Thomas I Forster of Buckton
b. abt 1395
Thomas II Forster of Etherstone
b. abt 1427
m. Elizabeth Featherstone
b. abt 1430
Thomas III Forster, Baronet
b. abt 1447-d. 1526
m. Jane Hilton
b. abt 1453
Sir Thomas IV Forster
b. abt 1477/1500-d. 1526
m. Dorothy Ogle
abt 1500
Thomas V. Forster
b. abt 1518-d. 1589
m. Florence Wharton
b. abt 1528-d. aft 1569
Barbara Forster
b. abt 1569
m. Robert Roddam
b. abt 1563
Edmund Roddam
b. 1589
m. Margaret Grey
b. abt 1600
Matthew Rodham
b. 1620-d. 1671/72
m. Elizabeth Lee Hewitt (Heuett)
b. 1610-d. 1674
Elizabeth Rodham
b. abt 1640/52-1709
m. Capt. Richard Kenner, Jr.
b. 1635-d. bef Jan 1691/92
Francis Kenner
b. 18 Dec 1680-d. 1728
m. Hannah Howson
b. 1677-d. 1712
Howson Francis Kenner
b. 1712-d. 1778
m. Margaret Eskridge
b. 1712/15-d. 1801
Mary Ann Kenner
b. 1742-d. 1799/80
m. William Seaton
b. 1743-1782
James B. Seaton
b. abt 1771-d. 1836
m. Elizabeth "Betty" James
b. 1774-d. 1832
Margaret Seaton
b. 1806-d. 1884
m. 1st Thomas R. Clark
b. 1803/04-d. abt 1827
William Thos. Clark
b. 1825-d. 1858
m. Fanny Mary Robertson
b. 1830-d. 1867
John William Clarke, M.D.
b. 1858-d. 1932
m. Julia Ann Ellis
b. 1879-d. 1946
Kathryn Grace Clarke
b. 1911-d. 2003
m. Thomas Christian Roemer
b. 1905-d. 1973
(son of George Roemer
b. 1848 and Mary
Eliz. Baskerville b. 1863)
Kay (Roemer) Baganoff
b. 1929
Nathaniel Taylor
Roem...@aol.com wrote:
> My line from Eustace I, Count of Boulogne
<...>
<...>
The immigrant in this line is this Matthew Rodham (or Roddam) of
Northumberland County, Virginia. Does he appear in any of the recent
compilations of early colonists with valid published royal descents? If
not, is there anything in print which proves his ancestry? If there is
nothing satisfactory published, can someone summarize the case for his
parentage and ancestry?
Also, further up in this line -- what is the nature of the baronetcy
said to be held by Thomas Forster who died in 1526?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
taf
> Eustace II, Count of Boulogne
> b. abt 1018-d. abt 1080
> m. 2nd Ida de Lorraine
> b. abt 1040-d. 13 Aug 1113
>
> Geoffrey, Count of Boulogne
> Duke of Lower Lorraine
> b. bef 1061-d. 18 Jul 1100
> m. Beatrice de Mandeville
> b. abt 1061
As mentioned in my earlier response, this man is Geoffrey, a minor
Anglo-Norman landholder. He was not Count of Boulogne (that was his
brother Eustace III), and he was not Duke of Lower Lorraine (that was
his brother Godfrey, to whom your death date would also apply). He was
likewise not son of Ida of Lorraine, who just had three sons, Eustace,
Godfrey, and Baldwin. He is presumed to have been illegitimate son of
Eustace II.
taf
WJho...@aol.com
you are referring to something called Knight Banneret, which is quite a
different thing Kay. Maybe you could review the source again and tell us what it
was.
Will Johnson
wjhonson
>
> Eustace I to Thomas II Forester of Etherstone
> from the website of Jim Weber
> The remainder from websites of Sharon Neal,
> Errol Bevan, Deb Day, David Bridge, and my
> family records:
>
> Eustace I, Count of Boulogne
> b. abt 1004-d. 1049
> m. Mahaut (Maud) de Louvain
> b. abt 1004
Kay these "b abt" years are without any substance. You should remove
them.
>
> Eustace II, Count of Boulogne
> b. abt 1018-d. abt 1080
> m. 2nd Ida de Lorraine
> b. abt 1040-d. 13 Aug 1113
Wikipedia states that Eustace died in 1093
>
> Geoffrey, Count of Boulogne
> Duke of Lower Lorraine
> b. bef 1061-d. 18 Jul 1100
> m. Beatrice de Mandeville
> b. abt 1061
>
Isn't there an error here? I don't find it likely that a man of his
elevated position would marry such a nobody as the Mandeville family
were at that time. I find it much more likely that this "Gaufridus
the son of Eustace, and Beatrice his wife" was a bastard.
> William de Boulogne
> of Carshalton
> b. bef 1085-d. bef 1129
>
> Rohese de Boulogne
> b. abt 1104-d. bef 1179
> m. Richard "The Loyal" de Lucy
> Justiciar of England
> b. abt 1098-d. 14 Jul 1179
>
As far as I know Kay, we have nothing whatsoever to pin the birthyears
of either Rohese or Richard to anything. Both of them *could* have
been born anywhere within an almost 30-year span. We can *guess* that
they might have been born now or then, and married now or then, but we
have to make sure that we clearly state that these are guesses based
on no evidence, or the use of average ages or something of that sort.
Rohese was dead by 1152, buried at Holy Trinity. I have a note saying
that there was discussion of that fact back in Jun 2005, but I didn't
copy it.
> Alice de Lucy
> b. 1129-d. 1197
> m. Odinel II de Umfreville
> Lord of Prudhoe
> b. abt 1125-d. 1182
>
Again the birthyear of Odinel is not based on anything. He might have
been decades older than Alice AFAIK. This "abt 1125" seems to try
only to co-ordinate their ages, but I don't think we know that.
> Richard de Umfreville
> of Prudhoe & Redesdale
> b. abt 1163-d. 11 Oct 1226
> m. Sybil de Torrington
> b. abt 1177
>
> Sir Gilbert de Umfreville
> of Prudhoe
> b. abt 1195-d. bef 13 Mar 1244/45
> m. Maud, 7th Countess of Angus
> b. abt 1218-d. abt 1261
I don't think we know what approximate year Maud was born. They must
have married 1243 or 1244 as John Comyn, her first husband, was yet
living and apparently died 1242 (in France)
>
> Gilbert de Umfreville
> 1st Earl of Angus
> b. abt 1244-d. bef 13 Oct 1307
> m. Elizabeth Comyn
> b. abt 1248-d. bef 17 Feb 1328/29
I don't think we know anything about when Elizabeth Comyn was born. I
currently have her birth anywhere within a 24-year span of 1236/1260
Will Johnson
wjhonson
> of Harbottle
> b. abt 1361-d. bet 12 Feb & 8 Mar 1390/91
> m. Agnes Grey
> b. abt 1365-d. 25 Oct 1420
>
> Elizabeth de Umfreville
> b. abt 1391-d. 23 Nov 1424
> m. Sir William de Elmeden of Embleton
> b. abt 1375-d. 25 May 1447
>
> Joan de Elmeden
> b. abt 1408/16-d. aft 1483
> m. Thomas I Forster of Buckton
> b. abt 1395
>
I believe Kay this is a mistake. The Joan de Elmeden who married
Thomas Forster, should be a co-heiress of her father THOMAS de
Elmedon, Knt by his wife Elizabeth Umfraville who was a daughter of
Robert the 8th Earl Angus by some wife or maybe even illegitimate
AFAIK.
I believe this Elizabeth (Umfraville) Elmeden is somewhere called a
"co-heiress" of her brother (or half brother or step brother) Gilbert,
but I'm not sure where.
Thomas de Elmeden died in 1416 and it was probably at that time that
we find some Joan (Elmeden) Forster as his "co-heiress". So you might
look for that more in-depth to see what we can find.
> Thomas II Forster of Etherstone
> b. abt 1427
> m. Elizabeth Featherstone
> b. abt 1430
>
I think this woman's name should be "Etherstone", her brother Roger
was Lord of Etherstone, and it's as his heiress (or co-heiress) that
we know about her AFAIK.
At this point, there is most likely another Thomas Forster generation
that needs to be inserted.
> Thomas III Forster, Baronet
> b. abt 1447-d. 1526
> m. Jane Hilton
> b. abt 1453
>
> Sir Thomas IV Forster
> b. abt 1477/1500-d. 1526
> m. Dorothy Ogle
> abt 1500
>
The Thomas Forster who married Jane Hilton, daughter of Sir William,
was living under H6. It was his son, also Thomas, who married Dorothy
Ogle and has the 1526 Will. I think the two have been conflated here
which creates the chronologic problem.
Will Johnson
Don Stone
>> Geoffrey, Count of Boulogne
>> Duke of Lower Lorraine
>> b. bef 1061-d. 18 Jul 1100
>> m. Beatrice de Mandeville
>> b. abt 1061
>>
> Isn't there an error here? I don't find it likely that a man of his
> elevated position would marry such a nobody as the Mandeville family
> were at that time. I find it much more likely that this "Gaufridus
> the son of Eustace, and Beatrice his wife" was a bastard.
Leaving aside the Geoffrey/Godfrey issue, I have seen just the opposite
case made about Beatrice, that she was far from a "nobody." Her father,
Geoffrey I de Mandeville, "after the conquest of England had risen from
relative obscurity to become a major landholder in England and castellan
of the Tower of London," according to Alan Murray's /The Crusader
Kingdom of Jerusalem/, p. 160. At the time of Beatrice and Geoffrey's
marriage (which occurred by 1085), Geoffrey de Mandeville would have
been a very wealthy man.
-- Don Stone
Merilyn Pedrick
The Conqueror and His Companions
By J.R. Planch�, Somerset Herald. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1874.
This progenitor of one of the noblest and most powerful families on either
side of the channel is simply alluded to by Wace as "li Sire de Magnevile"
(l. 13,562).
The French antiquaries, whilst agreeing as to the individual present at
Hastings, differ respecting the locality whence he derived his name; Mons.
Le Pr�vost considering it to be Magneville, near Valonges, while Mons.
Delisle reports that it was Mandeville Le Tr�vi�res, the Norman estates of
the Magnavilles, Mandevilles, or Mannevilles, as they were indifferently
called, lying partly in the neighbourhood of Creulli, and the rest round
Argentan, where, at a later period, they held the honour of Chamboi.
No particular feat of arms is attributed to him by the Norman poet. He is
only mentioned as one who rendered great aid in the decisive battle, and we
find him in consequence rewarded with ample domains in England at the time
of the great survey, amounting to one hundred and eighteen lordships in
various counties, of which Walden, in Essex, was the chief seat of his
descendants, who became the first Norman earls of that county in the reign
of Stephen.
He was also the first Constable of the Tower of London after the Conquest,
an office enjoyed by his grandson of the same name, which I mention on
account of the interesting fact that, in the charter of the Empress Matilda,
which confers this amongst many other honours bestowed upon him, the custody
of the Tower of London is granted to him and his heirs, with the little
castle there (described, in another charter as under it) which belonged to
Ravenger.
This charter in which she creates Geoffrey de Mandeville (grandson of the
companion of the Conqueror) Earl of Essex, is stated in a marginal note in
Dugdale's Baronage to be "the most ancient creation charter which hath been
ever known," and, I may add, for the numberless concessions and privileges
recorded in it, the most remarkable.
To return to the first Geoffrey, we learn from his charter of foundation of
the Benedictine Monastery of Hurley, in Berkshire, that he was twice married
His first wife Athelaise (Adeliza) being the mother of his heir William de
Mandeville, and other children not named; and his second wife, Leceline, by
whom he appears to have had no issue.
Mr. Stapleton, in his annotations to the Norman Rolls of the Exchequer,
suggests that Adeliza, the first wife of Geoffrey, was sister to Anna, wife
of Turstain Haldub, mother of Eudo al Chapel.
-------Original Message-------
From: Don Stone
Date: 20/10/2009 12:13:52 PM
Subject: Re: Descent from Eustace I, Count of Boulogne
Wjhonson wrote:
> On Oct 17, 9:53 am, Roemer...@aol.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> Geoffrey, Count of Boulogne
>> Duke of Lower Lorraine
>> b. Bef 1061-d. 18 Jul 1100
>> m. Beatrice de Mandeville
>> b. ABT 1061
>>
> Isn't there an error here? I don't find it likely that a man of his
> elevated position would marry such a nobody as the Mandeville family
> were at that time. I find it much more likely that this "Gaufridus
> the son of Eustace, and Beatrice his wife" was a bastard.
Leaving aside the Geoffrey/Godfrey issue, I have seen just the opposite
Case made about Beatrice, that she was far from a "nobody." Her father,
Geoffrey I de Mandeville, "after the conquest of England had risen from
Relative obscurity to become a major landholder in England and castellan
Of the Tower of London," according to Alan Murray's /The Crusader
Kingdom of Jerusalem/, p. 160. At the time of Beatrice and Geoffrey's
Marriage (which occurred by 1085), Geoffrey de Mandeville would have
Been a very wealthy man.
-- Don Stone
-------------------------------
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
.
wjhonson
> Thomas III Forster, Baronet
> b. abt 1447-d. 1526
> m. Jane Hilton
> b. abt 1453
>
> Sir Thomas IV Forster
> b. abt 1477/1500-d. 1526
> m. Dorothy Ogle
> abt 1500
>
> Thomas V. Forster
> b. abt 1518-d. 1589
> m. Florence Wharton
> b. abt 1528-d. aft 1569
>
On to the next target!
Sir Thomas IV Forster is likely *slightly* older than you 1500
terminus date.
Leo for some reason does not include in this family the most famous
member, who was Sir John Forster, warden of the Middle Marches for 25
years. He was evidently a younger son, as his elder brother was that
Sir Thomas Forster of Adderstone, who you have above as marrying
Florence Wharton.
I'm doubtful that this younger Sir Thomas was as young as 18 in 1536
when he was a co-conspirator in the rising that year. In the
description of the events preceding this, there is specific
contemporarnous mention of a group of men "repairing to the house of
Thomas Forster". I don't think they would state it in this fashion,
if he were only 17 years old.
In addition this younger Thomas' sister Dorothy is that same one who
married Sir Reynold Carnaby, and again specific contemporary mention
is made of the fact that the reason they were hanging around together
is because Reynold had married Thomas' sister. So Sir Reynold was
also an adult at this time, and already married to Dorothy, which sets
her own birthrange. Reynold and Dorothy by the way, had three co-
heiresses born from 1539 to 1543 (ish).
The DNB states that Sir John Foster the warden was born 1520 ? which
makes sense if his elder brother was already in a conspiracy in
1535/6. Their father of course was dead. I can't say if the mother
Dorothy (Ogle) Forster was yet living or not.
Will Johnson
John
The information (unsourced) that Kay Roemer provided in the original
post regarding the connection of Umfreville to Elmeden and thence to
Thomas Forster agrees with pedigrees of the families of Umfreville and
Elmeden in Surtees' History of Durham and , for Umfreville, in CP.
The unsourced version of this connection provided by Will Johnson does
NOT agree with these pedigrees, but appears to closely follow a
questionable account in Joseph Foster's "A pedigree of the Forsters
and Fosters of the North of England" published in 1871. I say
"questionable" because the author claimed a connection between his
Foster family and the more distinguished Forsters and then seems to
have engaged in some creative genealogy to give the Forsters a more
illustrious ancestry. Unless a better source can be found to support
Foster's version of the Umfreville/Elmeden connection which Will has
followed, I think it should be discarded.
The Umfreville and Elmeden pedigrees do mention that Joan de Elemeden
married Thomas Forster, but Foster mis-states the ancestry of Joan as
shown in these pedigrees. More importantly, he doesn't provide any
evidence that the Thomas Forster who married Joan de Elmeden is
connected to the family of Forster of Etherstone or Adderstone, rather
than some other branch of the Forsters. Pedigrees for Forster of
Adderstone in the [new] History of Northumberland and in Raine's
History of North Durham do NOT show this Elmeden connection - which,
if valid, would surely have been known to the Forsters due to the
illustrious connections it provides. The Forster pedigrees start only
with the Thomas Forster who married the heiress of Etherstone.
The descent that Kay Roemer presented to the immigrant Matthew Rodham
has been questioned here, specifically with respect to the immediate
ancestry of the immigrant. But the earlier parts of the line,
particularly the early Forster connection, should also be questioned.
FWIW, the later line in valid does still have a royal connection
through Dorothy Ogle who married one of the Thomas Forsters.
Monica Kanellis
> wjhonson wrote:
> > On Oct 17, 9:53 am, Roemer...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >> Geoffrey, Count of Boulogne
> >> Duke of Lower Lorraine
> >> b. bef 1061-d. 18 Jul 1100
> >> m. Beatrice de Mandeville
> >> b. abt 1061
> >>
>
>
I see that his wiki says he was never married or do I have the wrong
person?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_of_Bouillon
best, MK
taf
wrote:
Yes and No. Godfrey of Boulogne, Duke of Lower Lorraine and Advocate
of the Holy Sepulcre, never married. However, the posted descent is
from Geoffrey of Boulogne, Norman magnate. It had been proposed that
these two were identical, but there is no evidence to support this,
other than that the names Godfrey and Geoffrey derived from the same
original Germanic name.
taf
wjhonson
> b. abt 1391-d. 23 Nov 1424
> m. Sir William de Elmeden of Embleton
> b. abt 1375-d. 25 May 1447
>
Another correction Kay. Sir William de Elmeden, husband of Elizabeth
de Umfreville co-heiress of her brother Gilbert, did not die 25 May
1447.
We can know this because Elizabeth herself has an IPM in which it
specifically states that she was one of five co-heiresses to her
brother Gilbert. In that IPM she is called the widow of William, so
right away that tells you that *she* outlived *him* if nothing else.
Then it goes on to state that her heiresses are her four daughters.
THEN we have the IPM of William who has a son and heir William aged 11
obviously someone completely different from the man already dead above
leaving female co-heiresses, and it is this second IPM which is
discussing the Manor of Elmeden.
So two Williams, or three if you count the 11-year-old minor.
And the elder two are not father and son.
Will Johnson
wjho...@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
taf
>>
-----------------
I will go further than Todd. Not only is there no evidence to support that the two men were the same.
There is evidence to support that they were not the same person.
That evidence is a charter in which Gaufridus and his wife Beatrice appear, and which in addition specifically
states that this Gaufridus was the son of Count Eustace.
So if we accept that the famous Godfrey never married. Then he cannot be this "Gaufridus", although
apparently Gaufridus must be his half or full brother.
Will Johnson
taf
> I will go further than Todd. Not only is there no evidence to support that the two men were the same.
> There is evidence to support that they were not the same person.
>
> That evidence is a charter in which Gaufridus and his wife Beatrice appear, and which in addition specifically
> states that this Gaufridus was the son of Count Eustace.
>
> So if we accept that the famous Godfrey never married. Then he cannot be this "Gaufridus", although
> apparently Gaufridus must be his half or full brother.
Yes, true, but this is conclusion is dependent on the condition that
the Crusader never married. In other words, only if we accept that th
eCrusader never married does the fact tha tth eAnglo-Norman nobleman
married mean that they couldn't be the same man. However, those who
argue in favor of the identity point out (rightly) that the view of
Godfrey as virgin paragon of virtue is a later development, and that
there is no contemporary evidence that Godfrey didn't marry. Thus,
they argue, there is nothing to stop him from having left a wife
behind in England, unknown to the later tradition elaborators.
This is not really evidence against, as the marriage of the Anglo-
Norman Geoffrey was never disputed by those suggesting that he and the
Crusader were identical - in fact they embraced it.
(Don't get me wrong, I think the connection is bogus, just not for the
reason that the English Geoffrey married.)
taf