Faramus of Boulonge and Richard de Lucy
mwelc...@yahoo.com
show up in the records.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
> Can anyone tell me when Faramus of Boulogne and Richard de Lucy first
> show up in the records.
Dear Mike ~
Thank you for your good post. Yes, I can answer that question for you.
Faramus of Boulogne first appears in the records in 1130, when he was
indebted £20 to the Exchequer "pro placitis terre sua tenet et ut
habeat terram suam quam Noverca sua tenet." [Reference: Pipe Roll of 31
Henry I, A.D. 1130].
Richard de Lucy first appears in the records in 1131, as indicated by
the following charter of King Henry I of England:
Date: Feb. 1131. Rouen.
"Notification by Henry I, 'by the grace of God King of the English
and Duke of the Normans' to the Archbishop of Rouen and all of
Normandy: That he has given to SS. Gervase and Protase of Sées, for
the use of the bishop, the fee of Laleu (Alodii) [Orne] which William
Goth held and the King bought from his niece Aveline and her son
Richard de Lucy (Luceio), and they delivered to Robert Earl of
Gloucester. Witnesses: Hugh Archbishop of Rouen, John Bishop of
Lisieux, Audoin Bishop of Évreux; Richard Bishop of Bayeux, John
Bishop of Sées; Robert de Sigillo; Nigel nephew of the Bishop of
Salisbury; Robert Earl of Gloucester, the King's son; William Earl
Warenne; Waleran Count of Meulan; Robert Earl of Leicester; Robert de
la Haie, sewer; Hugh Bigod, sewer; Rabel [de Tancarville] the
chamberlain; Brian Fitz Count, constable; Geoffrey de Clinton."
[Reference: Charles Johnson & H.A. Cronne, Regesta Regum
Anglo-Normannorum 1066-1154 2 (Oxford, 1956): 247].
Richard de Lucy appears to have been the eldest son and heir of his
mother, Aveline. As we see above, his mother, Aveline, was still
living in 1131. Besides Richard de Lucy, Aveline had younger sons,
Walter and probably Robert, and a probable daughter, Margaret.
Faramus of Boulogne, on the other hand, had a step-mother ("noverca")
who presumably just died in 1130.
Given these facts, it is impossible for Richard de Lucy and Faramus of
Boulogne to have had the same mother, as Richard de Lucy's mother,
Aveline, was still living in 1131, whereas Faramus of Boulogne's
step-mother had just died in 1130. They most definitely did not have
the same father.
As for their subsequent history, Sir Richard de Lucy and Faramus of
Boulogne both lived to advanced age. Sir Richard de Lucy died in 1179,
and Faramus of Boulogne lived until 1183/4.
In summary, the two men were almost exact contemporaries to one
another, they being on the stage of history together for almost 50
years. As such, I conclude they were of the same generation and
probably of similar if not identical birthdate. They were neither
brothers or half-brothers.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> Faramus of Boulogne first appears in the records in 1130, when he was
> indebted £20 to the Exchequer "pro placitis terre sua tenet et ut
> habeat terram suam quam Noverca sua tenet." [Reference: Pipe Roll of 31
> Henry I, A.D. 1130].
<snip>
> Richard de Lucy appears to have been the eldest son and heir of his
> mother, Aveline. As we see above, his mother, Aveline, was still
> living in 1131. Besides Richard de Lucy, Aveline had younger sons,
> Walter and probably Robert, and a probable daughter, Margaret.
>
> Faramus of Boulogne, on the other hand, had a step-mother ("noverca")
> who presumably just died in 1130.
Eh? The pipe roll as quoted above clearly implies that she was still
alive - "tenet" is present tense, and if she was currently holding
lands at the time of the 1130 entry then she wasn't dead. The suit of
Faramus that he might hold her estate would presuambly have other
reasons behind it. Unless you have some better evidence that his
step-mother wasn't Avelina, who was still living in 1131, the case is
yet to be made out that Faramus could not have been a uterine
half-brother of Richard de Lucy.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
If Faramus of Boulogne's step-mother ("noverca") in 1130 was Aveline de
Lucy, then Aveline's son, Richard de Lucy, would only have been a
step-brother to Faramus, not half-brother as you have it.
In which case, Faramus of Boulogne would not be uncle to Richard de
Lucy's son, Bishop Godfrey de Lucy. Faramus and Bishop Godfrey would
not be related at all.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122618380....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Peter ~
If Faramus of Boulogne's step-mother ("noverca") in 1130 was Aveline de
Lucy, then Aveline's son, Richard de Lucy, would only have been a
step-brother to Faramus, not half-brother as you have it.
In which case, Faramus of Boulogne would not be uncle to Richard de
Lucy's son, Bishop Godfrey de Lucy. Faramus and Bishop Godfrey would
not be related at all.
You are quite right about the consequences of the "step-" relationship, as I
carlessly misstated on this aspect, rather than a uterine one.
However, the woman was evidently alive and not dead in 1130 so the conundrum
is not resolved by this.
Is there definite evidence that the term "uncle" could not have been used
loosely to cover a step-uncle, that is a connection not related by blood to
the bishop at all, or that "noverca" could not have been used imprecisely
for that matter? Is it known what term was usually given for "mother-in-law"
in that roll, for instance? It seems likelier that a holding would be
tranferred to a son-in-law than to a step-son. What else is known about the
holdings of Faramus after this time - i.e. did he keep & pass on to his own
issue whatever he had sought in 1130, if this can be identified?
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
now provided with extra chevrons to make it clearer who wrote what.
The settings Richardson uses at times for his posts seem to get in the way
of automatic line markers when quoting in reply. This is not collegial.
Peter Stewart
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:64lGe.65831$oJ....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for your good post.
I've only seen the term "avunculus" be used to refer to one's blood
uncle in English records, never a step-relation or an uncle by
marriage. I suppose it is possible that an uncle by marriage might be
called "avunculus" in some stray record, but if so, it must be very
rare indeed. In any event, it is a mute point, as we know that Bishop
Godfrey de Lucy was not married. Thus Faramus of Boulogne could not
possibly be his uncle by marriage. As for "noverca," I understand this
Latin word means "step-mother." I believe it is rendered as such by
Keats-Rohan.
In later periods, c. 1300 and beyond, I find that people occasionally
referred to an uncle by marriage as "uncle", or a nephew by marriage as
"nephew," but this is almost exlusively found in private
correspondence, not in public records. If we assume the pattern was
true in earlier periods (which I suspect would be likely), this would
make it all but certain that Faramus of Boulogne was Bishop Godfrey de
Lucy's blood uncle, as Bishop Godfrey referred to Faramus as his
"avunculus" in a public charter, not a private letter. My own feeling
is that a blood uncle is intended in this case.
As for Faramus of Boulogne's land holdings, I'm aware of what
properties he had by inheritance and also what he held by later grant
of the king. All of these properties passed to his daughter, Sibyl,
wife of Enguerrand de Fiennes, and thence onto her heirs.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Leo van de Pas
Thank you for a good post.
You still have omitted the possibilty of Faramus being an uncle of the
half-blood. That has to be eliminated as well before Rohese can be accepted
as Rohese de Boulogne.
Best wishes as always.
Leo van de Pas
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122625131.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Peter ~
>
> Thank you for your good post.
>
> I've only seen the term "avunculus" be used to refer to one's blood
> uncle in English records, never a step-relation or an uncle by
> marriage. I suppose it is possible that an uncle by marriage might be
> called "avunculus" in some stray record, but if so, it must be very
> rare indeed. In any event, it is a mute point, as we know that Bishop
> Godfrey de Lucy was not married. Thus Faramus of Boulogne could not
> possibly be his uncle by marriage. As for "noverca," I understand this
> Latin word means "step-mother." I believe it is rendered as such by
> Keats-Rohan.
"Noverca" means step-mother, but as you know this relationship was very
common in the medieval era - and yet the word is not.
Just as today some people actually refer to their own half-siblings as
"step-" brother or sister when this is not strictly correct, so we must
suppose that officials & scribes sometimes muddled their teminology.
I did not mean to suggest that as a possible step-uncle Faramus was the
bishop's uncle by marriage in the sense of being his non-existant wife's
uncle, but perhaps by way of the remarriage of the bishop's paternal
grandmother to William fitz Geoffrey de Boulogne so that she became
"noverca" to Faramus.
> In later periods, c. 1300 and beyond, I find that people occasionally
> referred to an uncle by marriage as "uncle", or a nephew by marriage as
> "nephew," but this is almost exlusively found in private
> correspondence, not in public records. If we assume the pattern was
> true in earlier periods (which I suspect would be likely), this would
> make it all but certain that Faramus of Boulogne was Bishop Godfrey de
> Lucy's blood uncle, as Bishop Godfrey referred to Faramus as his
> "avunculus" in a public charter, not a private letter. My own feeling
> is that a blood uncle is intended in this case.
I wouldn't rule this out by any means. Equally, if "noverca" was used for
mother-in-law then the wife of Faramus could account for the Lucy
connection.
"Avunculus" was a convenient term, like "nepos" then or the adjective
"avuncular" today, that could be applied in public & private documents for
other relationships than the most obvious or strict sense. Again, people did
not have primers at hand for these words. Even in royal diplomas we come
across oddities, so that formality is no guarantee of precision.
> As for Faramus of Boulogne's land holdings, I'm aware of what
> properties he had by inheritance and also what he held by later grant
> of the king. All of these properties passed to his daughter, Sibyl,
> wife of Enguerrand de Fiennes, and thence onto her heirs.
But does this include a permanent transfer of the holding of his "noverca"
in 1130, that he was to have from that time? If so, how unusual would that
be?
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I think the possibility that Faramus of Boulogne was uncle of the
half-blood to Bishop Godfrey de Lucy can be eliminated on the basis of
five factors:
(1st) As I indicated in an earlier post, Faramus of Boulogne and Sir
Richard de Lucy appear to have been the same approximate age as each
other, if not an identical age. In this time period, first wives were
usually two or three years within the age of their husband. If so,
then it is a likely assumption that Sir Richard de Lucy's only known
wife, Rohese, was extremely close in age to Faramus of Boulogne, and
thus not likely to have been a half-sibling to him.
(2nd) The first record I have of Sir Richard and Rohese's younger son,
Bishop Godfrey de Lucy, is 1171, when he was appointed Dean of St
Martin le Grand, London. Such appointments were often made when a
young priest was about 20. If so, then we might assume Godfrey was
born about 1151. My impression is that Godfrey was Rohese's youngest
surviving child. Assuming Rohese had Godfrey when she was about 40, it
would place her birth at about 1110, which would fall in the same
approximate time period as the likely birth of Faramus of Boulogne. As
best I can tell, Rohese's older children were born no earlier than
1135. This would suggest Rohese was born say 1115, which would make
her a bit younger than Faramus. Again, these indications suggest to us
that Rohese de Lucy was either the same age or a bit younger than her
brother, Faramus. If so, she would necessarily have to be his full
sister. Based on the various dates of her children and grandchildren,
it is not likely that Rohese was born earlier than 1110. We know that
Faramus of Boulogne was born in or before 1109, as he was of age in
1130.
One chronological fact available to us is the birthdate of Sir Richard
and Rohese's grandson and heir, Herbert de Lucy, who we know was born
about 1171. Providing 28 years for two generations between Herbert and
his grandmother, Rohese, would indicate a birthdate for Rohese of 1115.
This fits the other chronological evidence quite nicely.
(3rd) Richard de Lucy and his wife, Rohese, named sons, Geoffrey and
Godfrey, both of which names were Boulogne family names. The name
Geoffrey was certainly common enough, but Godfrey was much more rare in
England in this time period. As such, the appearance of Godfrey as a
given name among Richard and Rohese's children is very good ononomastic
evidence that Rohese was a member of the Boulogne family.
(4th) Sometime in the period, 1135-1152, Sir Richard de Lucy received
Chipping Ongar, Crishall, Roding, and Stanford Rivers, Essex by gift of
King Stephen and his wife, Queen Maud. This gift was later confirmed
by their son and heir, William, Count of Boulogne, in 1153-1154.
Round identified Ongar Castle as the probably being the English
residence of the earlier Counts of Boulogne. If Sir Richard de Lucy's
wife was a member of the Boulogne family, it would explain why he
received such an important property by grant of King Stephen and Queen
Maud. Queen Maud was the heiress of Boulogne, and thus closely related
to Sir Richard de Lucy's wife, Rohese. If Rohese was a uterine
half-sibling to Faramus of Boulogne, there would be no tie between
Rohese and Queen Maud.
(5th) In 1152-1153 I find that Sir Richard de Lucy witnessed a
charter of Simon de Senlis, Earl of Northampton. Earl Simon was a
descendant of the Boulogne family through his ancestress, Judith of
Lens. Thus, Earl Simon and Sir Richard de Lucy's wife were near kin to
one another.
I'm certain that other points could be made with further study, but I
believe the ones I've cited above are the most pertinent factors at the
present time. I'm satisfied based on the chronology, if nothing else,
that Rohese, wife of Sir Richard de Lucy, was the same age or younger
than her brother, Faramus of Boulogne. The rest of the evidence merely
confirms this fact.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Chris Phillips
> Again, these indications suggest to us
> that Rohese de Lucy was either the same age or a bit younger than her
> brother, Faramus. If so, she would necessarily have to be his full
> sister.
If Rohese were younger than Faramus, she could still have had a different
_mother_ from Faramus (as we know Faramus had a stepmother), but not a
different _father_.
Chris Phillips
ADRIANC...@aol.com
Doug wrote;
<snip>
Faramus of Boulogne, on the other hand, had a step-mother ("noverca")
who presumably just died in 1130.
<snip>
Is this based on DD page 336?
I'm a little confused by Keats-Rohan dating. She states here that "de
Bolonie, Noverca Farami occures in Pipe Roll of 1129/30, and then gives her source
as Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, 50-sr. But Henry I accession was on 5 Aug 1100, so
isn't 31 Hy I the year 5 Aug 1130 - 4 Aug 1131? I see other examples where
Keats-Rohan has taken 31 Hy I to be 1129/30.
regards,
Adrian
Chris Phillips
> I'm a little confused by Keats-Rohan dating. She states here that "de
> Bolonie, Noverca Farami occures in Pipe Roll of 1129/30, and then gives
her source
> as Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, 50-sr. But Henry I accession was on 5 Aug 1100,
so
> isn't 31 Hy I the year 5 Aug 1130 - 4 Aug 1131? I see other examples
where
> Keats-Rohan has taken 31 Hy I to be 1129/30.
I think 1129-30 is correct, because the financial year then ran from
Michaelmas to Michaelmas, so the pipe roll that was made up after Michaelmas
31 Henry I (29 September 1130) would cover the financial year Michaelmas
1129-Michaelmas 1130.
Chris Phillips
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: Faramus of Boulonge and Richard de Lucy
> Dear Leo ~
>
> I think the possibility that Faramus of Boulogne was uncle of the
> half-blood to Bishop Godfrey de Lucy can be eliminated on the basis of
> five factors:
>
> (1st) As I indicated in an earlier post, Faramus of Boulogne and Sir
> Richard de Lucy appear to have been the same approximate age as each
> other, if not an identical age. In this time period, first wives were
> usually two or three years within the age of their husband. If so,
> then it is a likely assumption that Sir Richard de Lucy's only known
> wife, Rohese, was extremely close in age to Faramus of Boulogne, and
> thus not likely to have been a half-sibling to him.
------This is assuming. Guess work can be productive at times. Faramus'
father William apparently died _before 1130_ which _could_ support Faramus
and Rohese are full siblings. But nothing can be taken for granted,
especially as we do not seem to know who their mother was and don't seem to
have any dates attached to her.. What if William died a long time before
1130 and the mother was quickly remarried and quickly had Rohese. We hear
how in those days husbands were hardly buried and their wives were married
again.
>
> (2nd) The first record I have of Sir Richard and Rohese's younger son,
> Bishop Godfrey de Lucy, is 1171, when he was appointed Dean of St
> Martin le Grand, London. Such appointments were often made when a
> young priest was about 20. If so, then we might assume Godfrey was
> born about 1151. My impression is that Godfrey was Rohese's youngest
> surviving child. Assuming Rohese had Godfrey when she was about 40, it
> would place her birth at about 1110, which would fall in the same
> approximate time period as the likely birth of Faramus of Boulogne. As
> best I can tell, Rohese's older children were born no earlier than
> 1135. This would suggest Rohese was born say 1115, which would make
> her a bit younger than Faramus. Again, these indications suggest to us
> that Rohese de Lucy was either the same age or a bit younger than her
> brother, Faramus. If so, she would necessarily have to be his full
> sister. Based on the various dates of her children and grandchildren,
> it is not likely that Rohese was born earlier than 1110. We know that
> Faramus of Boulogne was born in or before 1109, as he was of age in
> 1130.
-----The above is still guessing. How can we assume that Godfrey was 20 in
1171?
In those days sometimes religious appointments were made when people were
even younger.
Also in those days girls married very early and 20 may already be regarded
as old for a first child. You think that Rohese's children were born not
earlier than 1135. If Rohese was 15 when she started having children she
could be born about 1120, give or take a year. And Faramus born in or before
1109 can stretch the difference between Faramus and Rohese to ten years and
more. Enough for their mother to have married a different father for Rohese.
>
> One chronological fact available to us is the birthdate of Sir Richard
> and Rohese's grandson and heir, Herbert de Lucy, who we know was born
> about 1171. Providing 28 years for two generations between Herbert and
> his grandmother, Rohese, would indicate a birthdate for Rohese of 1115.
> This fits the other chronological evidence quite nicely.
---------28 would be _very old_ for Rohese and still give six years or more
between Rohese and Faramus, again time for a second.marriage for their
mother and a different father for Rohese.
>
> (3rd) Richard de Lucy and his wife, Rohese, named sons, Geoffrey and
> Godfrey, both of which names were Boulogne family names. The name
> Geoffrey was certainly common enough, but Godfrey was much more rare in
> England in this time period. As such, the appearance of Godfrey as a
> given name among Richard and Rohese's children is very good ononomastic
> evidence that Rohese was a member of the Boulogne family.
>
> (4th) Sometime in the period, 1135-1152, Sir Richard de Lucy received
> Chipping Ongar, Crishall, Roding, and Stanford Rivers, Essex by gift of
> King Stephen and his wife, Queen Maud. This gift was later confirmed
> by their son and heir, William, Count of Boulogne, in 1153-1154.
> Round identified Ongar Castle as the probably being the English
> residence of the earlier Counts of Boulogne. If Sir Richard de Lucy's
> wife was a member of the Boulogne family, it would explain why he
> received such an important property by grant of King Stephen and Queen
> Maud. Queen Maud was the heiress of Boulogne, and thus closely related
> to Sir Richard de Lucy's wife, Rohese. If Rohese was a uterine
> half-sibling to Faramus of Boulogne, there would be no tie between
> Rohese and Queen Maud.
---------One explanation surely gives room for others. Faramus' grandfather
was an illegitimate uncle of Queen Matilda/Maud. Perhaps Sir Richard de Lucy
had a status of his own warranting acknowledgement, after all he was Chief
Justiciar of England. Not necessarily for being married to a granddaughter
of an illegitimate uncle of the queen.
>
> (5th) In 1152-1153 I find that Sir Richard de Lucy witnessed a
> charter of Simon de Senlis, Earl of Northampton. Earl Simon was a
> descendant of the Boulogne family through his ancestress, Judith of
> Lens. Thus, Earl Simon and Sir Richard de Lucy's wife were near kin to
> one another.
----------As Sir Richard de Lucy was Chief Justiciar of England he may well
have witnessed many more charters, and he probably witnessed them as Chief
Justice and not because his wife _could be_ a third cousin of Simon de
Senlis.
>
> I'm certain that other points could be made with further study, but I
> believe the ones I've cited above are the most pertinent factors at the
> present time. I'm satisfied based on the chronology, if nothing else,
> that Rohese, wife of Sir Richard de Lucy, was the same age or younger
> than her brother, Faramus of Boulogne. The rest of the evidence merely
> confirms this fact.
----------Rohese is most likely a close relative of Faramus but there are
options open making it dangerous to be dogmatic. I hope you find something
which will clinch it, but at the moment I think we should still say_ the
jury is out_ as to how they are related.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Leo van de Pas
This does make it likely that Rohese was a de Boulogne, thanks for pointing
this out. That aspect of her ancestry is the important one. Richardson is
most probably correct in calling her Rohese de Boulogne but the link is
still not fully established.
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: Faramus of Boulonge and Richard de Lucy
Ginny Wagner
"1158 Abbey "Des (Dames) Blanches" at Mortain, for Cistercian Nuns in
the Diocese of Avranches [Original Charters formerly at
Sous-prefecture of Mortain.][1] [fn1] Now removed to the Archives
Nationales.
AND "Charter of William, count of Mortain, Warenne, and Boulogne
giving and granting, in alms for ever to the nuns of St. Mary of
Mortain, the gift of his father king Stephen in lands and tenants,
with the land of Monfautret.
"Testes: Eustachius cancellarius; Balduinus de Campania; Robertus
Pavo; Robertus filius Fulconis; magister Lucas; Faramus[4]; Fordanus
de Sancta-villa; Stephanus frater ejus; Robertus Avenel; Engelrannus
de Toschet; Hugo frater ejus; Guillelus de Virie; Arnoldus Pavo;
Guillelmus frater comitis. Apud Tenerbrachium. Anno ab incarnatione
Domini MCLVIII.
"[fn4] Trans.: "Faranius." See, for him, Genealogist, XII., 145."
ON page 268 of Robert Bartlett's England Under the Norman and Angevin
Kings,:
"The different kinds of recruits -- feudal and other levies, household
troops, mercenaries -- should not be classified too emphatically into
separate categories. William of Ypres, for example, an illegitimate
cadet of the Flemish comital family is frequently and reasonably
described as the leader of king Stephen's Flemish mercenaries, but
after the king's capture in 1141, command of his household troops was
taken by William, along with Faramus of Boulogne, nephew of the queen,
Matilda.[76] [fn76] J. Hexham, p. 310.
page 111
"The wife of Baldwin of Boulogne, one of the leaders of the crusade,
who died at Marasch in cilicia in October, 1097, was described by the
chronicler Albert of Aachen as 'Baldwin's most noble wife, whom he had
brought from the kingdom of England'; he givers her name as
Godwera.[109][fn109] Albert of Aachen, Historia Hierosolymitana 3.27,
Recueil des historiens des croisades, Historiens occidentaxu (5 vols.;
Paris, 1844-95), vol. 4, p. 358; for discussion of her identity,
William of Tyre, A history of Deeds Done beyond the Sea, tr. E.
A.Babcock and A.C. Krey (2 vols; New York, 1943), vol. I, p. 178 n.20.
p. 112: ...[King Stephen] ... gave what support he could to the
crusading enterprise, even though he was clearly unable to leave his
kingdom in the middle of civil war. His wife, Matilda, who also had
family ties to crusader Jerusalem, being the niece of its first two
rulers, Godfrey de Bouillon and king Baldwin I, was a major patroness
of the crusading orders.
Hope this helps. ;-) Ginny
Chris Phillips
> father William apparently died _before 1130_ which _could_ support
Faramus
> and Rohese are full siblings. But nothing can be taken for granted,
> especially as we do not seem to know who their mother was and don't seem
to
> have any dates attached to her.. What if William died a long time before
> 1130 and the mother was quickly remarried and quickly had Rohese. We hear
> how in those days husbands were hardly buried and their wives were married
> again.
But if in 1129-30 William is dead and Faramus has a step mother, that means
Faramus's mother must have died _before_ William (so that William could then
remarry to the stepmother). (Unless there was a divorce, of course.)
On this basis, the only way in which Rohese could be a half-sister of
Faramus, sharing only a mother, would be if Rohese was _older_ than Faramus.
Chris Phillips
Leo van de Pas
I think we can assume Rohese to be younger and being at least a daughter of
William, but the question remains who is her mother? Faramus mother or his
stepmother? We don't know anything about the mother and very little about
the stepmother but that there _was_ a stepmother seems to prevent the
cast-iron conclusion that Faramus and Rohese are full siblings.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: Faramus of Boulonge and Richard de Lucy
William Marshall
Thank you for posting the charter of King Henry I that first mentioned
Richard de Lucy.
In that charter, it mentioned Aveline (mother of Richard de Lucy) as
the King's niece. Any idea how?
Bill Marshall
w...@research.att.com
-----original message-----
Date: 28 Jul 2005 22:46:16 -0700
From: "Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com" <royala...@msn.com>
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <1122615976.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Faramus of Boulonge and Richard de Lucy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
mwelc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Can anyone tell me when Faramus of Boulogne and Richard de Lucy first
> show up in the records.
Dear Mike ~
Thank you for your good post. Yes, I can answer that question for you.
Faramus of Boulogne first appears in the records in 1130, when he was
indebted €20 to the Exchequer "pro placitis terre sua tenet et ut
habeat terram suam quam Noverca sua tenet." [Reference: Pipe Roll of 31
Henry I, A.D. 1130].
Richard de Lucy first appears in the records in 1131, as indicated by
the following charter of King Henry I of England:
Date: Feb. 1131. Rouen.
"Notification by Henry I, 'by the grace of God King of the English
and Duke of the Normans' to the Archbishop of Rouen and all of
Normandy: That he has given to SS. Gervase and Protase of S€es, for
the use of the bishop, the fee of Laleu (Alodii) [Orne] which William
Goth held and the King bought from his niece Aveline and her son
Richard de Lucy (Luceio), and they delivered to Robert Earl of
Gloucester. Witnesses: Hugh Archbishop of Rouen, John Bishop of
Lisieux, Audoin Bishop of €vreux; Richard Bishop of Bayeux, John
Bishop of S€es; Robert de Sigillo; Nigel nephew of the Bishop of
Salisbury; Robert Earl of Gloucester, the King's son; William Earl
Warenne; Waleran Count of Meulan; Robert Earl of Leicester; Robert de
la Haie, sewer; Hugh Bigod, sewer; Rabel [de Tancarville] the
chamberlain; Brian Fitz Count, constable; Geoffrey de Clinton."
[Reference: Charles Johnson & H.A. Cronne, Regesta Regum
Anglo-Normannorum 1066-1154 2 (Oxford, 1956): 247].
Richard de Lucy appears to have been the eldest son and heir of his
mother, Aveline. As we see above, his mother, Aveline, was still
living in 1131. Besides Richard de Lucy, Aveline had younger sons,
Walter and probably Robert, and a probable daughter, Margaret.
Faramus of Boulogne, on the other hand, had a step-mother ("noverca")
who presumably just died in 1130.
Given these facts, it is impossible for Richard de Lucy and Faramus of
Boulogne to have had the same mother, as Richard de Lucy's mother,
Aveline, was still living in 1131, whereas Faramus of Boulogne's
step-mother had just died in 1130. They most definitely did not have
the same father.
As for their subsequent history, Sir Richard de Lucy and Faramus of
Boulogne both lived to advanced age. Sir Richard de Lucy died in 1179,
and Faramus of Boulogne lived until 1183/4.
In summary, the two men were almost exact contemporaries to one
another, they being on the stage of history together for almost 50
years. As such, I conclude they were of the same generation and
probably of similar if not identical birthdate. They were neither
brothers or half-brothers.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<< Faramus of Boulogne first appears in the records in 1130, when he was
indebted £20 to the Exchequer "pro placitis terre sua tenet et ut
habeat terram suam quam Noverca sua tenet." [Reference: Pipe Roll of 31
Henry I, A.D. 1130]. >>
Ahhhh this then would explain why I have his father dying by 1130.
If Faramus is paying a debt, of, by or for, his stepmother, would this imply
her husband is dead?
Thanks
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Yes, you are correct. The 1130 Pipe Roll record makes it clear that
Faramus of Boulogne's father, William of Boulogne, was already dead;
otherwise his father would be the one answering for the debt.
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<< Assuming Rohese had Godfrey when she was about 40, it
would place her birth at about 1110, which would fall in the same
approximate time period as the likely birth of Faramus of Boulogne. >>
How are you deriving a birthyear or such a tight range for Faramus?
Thanks
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
We don't know exactly when Faramus of Boulogne was born. All we know
is that he was born in or before 1109, as he was of adult age in or
before 1130. It's doubtful he was born much earlier than 1109, as he
lived until 1183/4. He seems to have moved into administrative
positions by 1141, when he was in joint charge of King Stephen's
household during his captivity. Faramus and his brother-in-law,
Richard de Lucy, witnessed a charter of King Stephen at Canterbury at
Christmas 1141 to Geoffrey de Mandeville. My guess is that Faramus of
Boulogne was born say 1105.
As I've indicated in another post, my best guess for a birthdate of
Rohese of Boulogne is c.1110/1115. I've used four independant measures
to indicate this birth range. These measures appear to be consistent
with one another. If correct, then Rohese was a bit younger than her
brother, Faramus.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
WJho...@aol.com
ginny...@austin.rr.com writes:
<< ON page 268 of Robert Bartlett's England Under the Norman and Angevin
Kings,:
"The different kinds of recruits -- feudal and other levies, household
troops, mercenaries -- should not be classified too emphatically into
separate categories. William of Ypres, for example, an illegitimate
cadet of the Flemish comital family is frequently and reasonably
described as the leader of king Stephen's Flemish mercenaries, but
after the king's capture in 1141, command of his household troops was
taken by William, along with Faramus of Boulogne, nephew of the queen,
Matilda.[76] [fn76] J. Hexham, p. 310. >>
Now we have to wonder on what basis Faramus is made nephew to Matilda.
Matilda of Boulogne b aft 1100 mar 1125 Stephen, later King of England in 1135
"Living Descendents of Blood Royal" states that Matilda's parents were
Eustache III, Count of Boulogne and Mary of Scotland daughter of King Malcolm III.
And that Eustache and Mary were married 1101/1102
This would not give enough time for a full-sibling of Matilda's to grow-up,
get married, and have Faramus in time for him to be responsible for a debt of
his step-mother's in 1130.
Mary of Scotland's mother Margaret had no obvious ties to Boulogne that I can
see. So is it possible to resolve this? Perhaps there is another Faramus of
Boulogne, who in 1141, would have presumably been rather young, maybe
underage.
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thanks so much for sharing this information with us. It's good to see
people like you posting such helpful material. Keep up the good work.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<< > after the king's capture in 1141, command of his household troops was
> taken by William, along with Faramus of Boulogne, nephew of the queen,
> Matilda.[76] [fn76] J. Hexham, p. 310. >>
But how exactly is Faramus a nephew of Queen Matilda ?
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I believe the reference to Faramus of Boulogne being called "nepos" of
Queen Maud comes from one of the ancient chronicles published in the
Rolls Series. The term "nepos" in this time period could mean either
nephew, grandson, or near kinsman. In this case, it was the latter
meaning that was intended by the chronicler. There is no question that
Faramus's paternal grandfather was Geoffrey son of Count Eustache of
Boulogne.
The short end of it is that "nepos" should not be translated as nephew
prior to 1300, unless you have other evidence to confirm the
relationship.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Ginny Wagner
<Thanks so much for sharing this information with us.>
Ginny answered:
Welcome. I'll be very glad when I have enough knowledge to make sense
of the disparate (to me) bits of data. After a couple of years of
study and research I can sometimes recognize if something is
appropriate to the subject and even know where to find it -- but how
it fits in is another thing -- right now I'm very happily 'listening'
to the experts discuss the data as they turn it into meaningful
knowledge. ;-) Ginny
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Please continue to post things as you find them.
Ginny Wagner
<But how exactly is Faramus a nephew of Queen Matilda ?>
Ginny replied:
I was hoping someone would have J. Hexham and would be able to look up
the source cited. The bibliography says J. Hexham is: John of
Hexham, Historia, in Simeon, Op. 2, pp. 284-332. Guess it would have
helped if I had given that information to start with! Lol. Bartlett
actually diagrams the Baldwins II thru V but since Baldwin I wasn't
included I didn't try to reproduce it here. ;-) Ginny
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122673274.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> The short end of it is that "nepos" should not be translated as nephew
> prior to 1300, unless you have other evidence to confirm the
> relationship.
The classical meaning of "nepos" was "grandson" or simply "descendant", but
the word was used for "nephew" in countless medieval sources over the
centuries before 1300.
Ideally other evidence should be adduced to confirm ANY relationship term -
no matter where it appears or who used it, as even in personal charters
scribes and copyists could have made an error - but of course this is not
always possible.
P{eter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Nice post. Keep up the good work.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
pd...@peterdale.com
Just a brief note to touch base regarding the parentage of Rohese, wife of Richard de Lucy. I am in the process of reviewing 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) which is an interesting examination of the Boulogne family. Unfortunately, there is still no reference to Rohese’s proposed kinship to Faramus, etc. I would be very interested in learning any new discoveries or interpretations with respect to Rohese’s ancestry and, in particular, information that:
(1) further establishes Rose [de Boulogne]’s parentage; or
(2) excludes alternatives to her being a sibling (at least on the paternal side) of Faramus de Boulogne. Many thanks.
Cheers,
Pete
pd...@peterdale.com
A belated Merry Christmas. Just another note to touch base regarding the parentage of Rohese, wife of Richard de Lucy. There has been a deficit of new information or discussion regarding her origin for the past few years on this site. I would be very interested in learning any new discoveries or interpretations with respect to Rohese’s ancestry and, in particular, information that:
(1) further establishes Rohese [de Boulogne]’s parentage; or
(2) excludes alternatives to her being a sibling (at least on the paternal side) of Faramus de Boulogne.
Cheers,
Pete
pd...@peterdale.com
A belated Merry Christmas. Just another note to touch base regarding the parentage of Rohese, wife of Richard de Lucy. There has been a deficit of new information or discussion regarding her origin for the past few years on this site. I would be very interested in learning any new discoveries or interpretations with respect to Rohese’s ancestry and, in particular, information that:
(1) further establishes Rohese [de Boulogne]’s parentage; or
(2) excludes alternatives to her being a sibling (at least on the paternal side) of Faramus de Boulogne.
Peter G. M. Dale
If it may be of interest, you can find some additional research and information on the children of Richard de Lucy (particularly his daughter Rose - wife of (1st) William de Mounteny and (2nd) Michael Capra) in a new article in the journal Foundations (Volume 6, June 2014) (http://fmg.ac/publications/journal/fnd-6) by Rosie Bevan (with some assistance from myself).
Cheers,
Pete
Peter G. M. Dale
Just a brief follow-up to my prior note. I have provided below a copy of the Abstract to the article I referenced FYI. I trust those who are interested will find the article informative.
Cheers,
Pete
"The proposition of this article is that Richard de Lucy, Chief Justice of Henry II, had another daughter named Rose whose existence has fallen into obscurity. She was wife first of William de Mounteny, progenitor of the Mounteny family of Mountnessing, Essex, and secondly of Michael Capra. Rose was also mother of Muriel de Mounteny, who with her husband, Jordan de Bricett, was patron of St Mary's nunnery in Clerkenwell, London."
I note also, that at pp. 17-19 of the article you will find a brief discussion regarding how Richard de Lucy or his wife Rose may have been related to and/or otherwise connected to the de Boulogne family.
Peter G. M. Dale
Mr. Chris Phillips has kindly provided me with the following information regarding the two Richard de Lucy documents that reference the purchase of property from Richard's mother Aveline by King Henry I which was owned previously by Avenine's uncle/grandfather (?) William "Goth":
"I've just downloaded a PDF containing the photos from the Bibliotheque Nationale website.
I think it's a bit more interesting than might have been expected. In the first document the name is just written Goth, with no indication of an abbreviation. But in the second, where Haskins [PGMD Note: 'Harvard Historical Studies - published under the direction of the Department of History', Volume XXIV, 'Norman Institutions', (1918), by Charles Homer Haskins, Cambridge/Harvard University Press, London, Appendix F. - Unpublished Charters of Henry I - pp. 299-302] prints Ghot, the manuscript has [?]hor. I suspect the first character may be an attempt to copy something that couldn't be read. In the margin is a note correcting it to Goth, presumably based on the previous document. So Haskins seems to have followed the correction, but retained the position of the h.
I'm not sure what to make of that. The second original document was presumably based on the first, but as we have only second-generation copies of them it's not clear which version has been mistranscribed (except that the name occurs twice in the first document, so perhaps that's more likely to have been correctly transcribed).
So I think it would be interesting to see the other version from the departmental archives of Orne..."
I have requested that Mr. Phillips please review the Orne documents. I'm pleased to share a copy of the Bibliotheque Nationale documents with those who may be interested. I am also interested to learn any further thoughts or interpretations regarding this matter. For context, it is a theory that, perhaps, the reference to "Goth/Ghot" is actually a reference to an abbreviation of "Gorron/Gorham" (as in Geoffrey de Gorham) or to another yet unidentified name - whether abbreviated or not. Thank you.
Cheers,
Pete
Peter G. M. Dale
Yesterday Chris Phillips forwarded me a copy of the Richard de Lucy charter from Orne (via Alencon). Unfortunately, the crucial word (the last name of Richard de Lucy's mother's "uncle") is marked as illegible! This seems strange in light of the other transcript and the published version. The identity of William "Goth" or "Ghot" remains, in my mind, a mystery.
Cheers,
Pete
Peter G. M. Dale
> Greetings,
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
> https://solutionslaw.sharefile.com/d-s7aebc94100c466e9
Peter G. M. Dale
Cheers,
Pete
https://solutionslaw.sharefile.com/d-s192ecf0832b4db2a
Peter G. M. Dale
Cheers,
Pete
https://solutionslaw.sharefile.com/d-s192ecf0832b4db2a
Peter G. M. Dale
I have set out below some thoughts that have occurred to me over the past few weeks regarding Richard de Lucy and his family. What set me on the path to pondering the issues below is the manner in which the conventional genealogies of the Mounteney family repeatedly conflate members of the family named Robert and Arnold. Further, I considered how both the Wroth and Pleshy genealogies were muddled and premised on a series of unlikely suppositions and, in both cases, multiple invented ancestors.
While I am by no means committed to the below propositions, and for the purposes of some “out of the box” contemplation only, I propose for your consideration the following propositions:
Propositions
[1] There were two Richards de Lucys - Richard de Lucy (the senior) (hereafter, “Richard (I)”) and his son Richard de Lucy (d. 1179) the Chief Justiciar of England (hereafter, “Richard (II)”). Richard (I), apparently, died prior to 1131 when Richard (II) is mentioned with his mother Aveline in two charters of Henry II (see - ‘Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum 1066-1154’, (1956), Vol. II, Regesta Henrici Primi 1100-1135, edited by Charles Johnson and H. A. Cronne, pp. 247, 249 - https://archive.org/stream/regestaregumangl02grea#page/n7/mode/2up); ‘Harvard Historical Studies’, Volume XXIV, ‘Norman Institutions’, (1918), by Charles Homer Haskins, Appendix F. – Unpublished Charters of Henry I - pp. 299-302).
[2] There are no additional changes required to the currently accepted biography and chronology of Richard (II). I have reviewed my notes and considered the chronology of Richard (II)’s life and I do not see where it make sense to insert another Richard except for an earlier Richard (I). All of Richard (II)’s life events appear consistent with his currently accepted biography.
[3] Richard (I) was the individual referenced holding property in Cornwall c. 1120-23 and was also the recipient of some or all of the land grants from Henry I which were later held by Richard (II) and his kin.
Reasons for the Propositions
I have struggled with the following issues in the currently accepted history of the Lucy family which contemplates only Richard (II):
[A] The very elderly age Richard (II) would have been at the time of his death as necessitated by him holding property in Cornwall c. 1120-23 (see - ‘The Records of Merton Priory in the County of Surrey’, (1898), by Alfred Heales, pp. 8-9 - https://archive.org/stream/recordsofmertonp00heal/recordsofmertonp00heal_djvu.txt; ‘Bernard, the King’s Scribe’ in the journal ‘The English Historical Review’, No. LV., July 1899, by J. H. Round - http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/content/XIV/LV/417.citation). Richard (II)’s birth and marriage dates are reverse engineered from the fact that it is known that his granddaughter Muriel de Mounteney (daughter of Richard (II)’s daughter Rose and husband William de Mounteney) had 4 children prior to her becoming a widow (her husband was Jorden de Bricet) in c. 1161. From this date, a birthdate range of c. 1090-1105 seems most likely for Richard’s birth with his marriage c. 1110-20. The 1090 and 1105 dates for his birth seems likely to be outside dates given that he died in 1179 and Muriel de Mounteney’s dating. If Richard (I) rather than Richard (II) held the Cornwall property in 1120-23 it permits Richard (II) to have been born c. 1100-1105, married c. 1120 and died 1179 aged 74-79. This is approximately 10 years younger than the age one may have expected Richard (II) to have been if he had accomplished something of note to warrant the acquisition of the Cornwall property, i.e. born c. 1090-1100 (and aged 23-33 when the Cornwall property was acquired) and, thus, aged 79-89 at death.
I note further that the dates for the Cornwall property are simply the dates upon which it is referenced in the Records of Merton Priory. Richard (I) may have held the fees mentioned considerably prior to said dates;
[B] The description of the manner in which Richard (II) held property of the old feoffment c. 1166, “And of these knights’ fees the ancestors of the said Richard are said to have performed ward at Dover” (see - ‘The Red Book of the Exchequer’, (1965), Part I, edited by Hubert Hall, pp. 351-52; ‘Liber Niger, Volume I’, (1774), by William Worcester, edited by Thomas Hearne, pp. 234-35, Charter of Richard de Lucy - https://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#v=snippet&q=%22de%20luci%22&f=false). For example, the Libor Feodorum - Part I 1212, p. 131, states (as roughly translated by me) “Henry I gave Richard de Lucy Diss, but they do not know how or by what service. They do not know even whether it was given to him as his inheritance or given to him for his service.” (see - http://www.melocki.org.uk/liber/PartI_1212.html). In addition, it appears to me that certain, if not all, of the Norfolk and Suffolk knights fees were, to the extent known, held from the Conquest by the Crown in demesne prior to being given to Richard (I) or Richard (II). Thus, by extension, who would have been providing ward service at Dover as an “ancestor” of Richard (II) unless they were previously held by one of his ancestors or another holder of said property whose identity remains unknown?
[C] The challenge in reconciling Richard (II)’s mother Aveline being involved in a land transaction with archbishop William Corbeil (1123-1136) concerning property in Newington, Kent ("and a half sulung of the fee of Richard de Luci of the acquisition of the said archbishop [William] from Avelina mother of the said Richard de Luci in (de) Newentone") which was confirmed (by King John and later kings) as a gift to Minster in Sheppey from the fee of Richard de Lucy, acquired by archbishop William through Aveline, Richard's mother (see - Rot Chartarum, vol. 1, part 1, p. 148 - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-9UsAQAAMAAJ; Monasticon, vol. 2, p. 50 - http://www.monasticmatrix.org/MatrixBooks/Dugdale/Volume2/Dugdale-Monasticon%20(Vol.%202%20Part%20003%20Shepey).pdf; Calendar of Charter Rolls, vol. 4, p. 112 - https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.30000086172677;view=1up;seq=134). I believe this land transaction would make more sense if Aveline had held dower rights in the property transferred and it had been, by extension, acquired by Richard (I) (at least the property that was transferred).
[D] Richard (II) makes the following statements in the ‘The Chronicle of Battle Abbey’, (1980), edited and translated by Eleanor Searle: (i) p. 179, “I say that this church should be elevated to the highest rank by you and by all us Normans. For there the most noble King William, by Gods’ grace, and with the aid of our kin, won that by which you hold the crown of England at this very moment in hereditary right, and by which we all have been enriched with great wealth.”; and (ii) p. 183, “This church should be famously praised by you, lord king, and by all us Normans, for it was there that the famous King William, by the will of God, and by the aid and counsel of our kinsmen, defeated his enemies who had thought to steal his realm of England and his crown.” and “As for us, it is by virtue of gifts conferred by William, and by succeeding to our kin, that we possess great estates and riches. Wherefore, my lord, most excellent of kings, all this gathering of Norman nobles asks with fervent prayers that your royal severity maintain that abbey, as the emblem of your and our triumph, in its proper privileges and exemptions against all its enemies, and above all against the stratagems of the English!”
Curiously, I also note the following two passages, the import of which, remains uncertain to me: (a) p. 193, “Henry of Essex said [to bishop Hilary of Chichester], ‘If this is true [the excommunication of abbot Walter by bishop Hilary], it establishes that after King Stephen’s death you did something you would never have dared to do had he been living, for it would not have been to your interest. What our lord may do here now is up to his right and his power.’”; and (b) p. 201, “[Thomas Becket speaking] ‘You assert that he was excommunicated by you [bishop Hilary]. This seems very strange to him and all his friends, for it is quite certain that you did not dare to do such a presumptuous thing to him in the time of King Stephen. What you may have done in the time of this our present lord king he knows nothing of.”
The above passages seem to suggest that Richard (II) inherited property in England post the Conquest.
[E] The charter of Earl Reginald dated c. 1161-66 states with respect to Truro, Cornwall that he confirms privileges of free burgesses of Truro which ‘they had in the time of Richard de Lucy’. This seems to make more sense if it is referring to Richard (I) v. Richard (II) who was still alive when the statement was made (see – Truro Borough - BTRU/1 - http://crocat.cornwall.gov.uk/DServe/dserve.exe?dsqIni=Dserve.ini&dsqApp=Archive&dsqDb=Catalog&dsqCmd=show.tcl&dsqSearch=(RefNo==%27BTRU%2F1%27)))
Challenges to the Propositions
I do note, however, the following points that mitigate against the above propositions:
[I] Richard (I) requires the acceptance of an individual for whom there is no explicitly corroborating evidence.
[II] The life events of Richard (II), and the evidence related thereto, permit same to conflate with one distinct individual, albeit one who was quite elderly upon his expiry in 1179.
[III] The ‘The Chronicle of Battle Abbey’ states the following with respect to abbot Walter, brother of Richard (II): (i) pp. 141-43, “At the beginning of the year 1139, immediately after Christmas, at Canterbury, King Stephen, guided by the counsel of his queen and the legate Alberic, and also by certain barons of his realm, granted Battle abbey to a foreign monk from Lonlay in Normandy: one Walter, brother of a very powerful baron of the realm, Richard, surnamed ‘de Luci’.[1] This Walter was a man esteemed for his great intelligence and wisdom, for the distinction of his eloquence, and for his scholarly and wordly wit. He had for some time been staying in England with his kinsman Geoffrey, abbot of St. Albans and he had attracted the royal attention and the favour of the magnates through the assiduity of his brother.
[1] It is probably anachronistic to call Richard de Luci prepotens as early as 1139. He was still beginning his long career in royal administration. Regesta, iii, p. xxi. West, Justiciar, pp. 24-5.”; and
(ii) p. 169, [in connection with the dispute between Hilary, bishop of Chichester, and Walter, abbot of Battle Abbey, John, dean of the church of Chichester, states to Walter] “‘… Let your reverence realize that a person of your great authority, nobility, and most polished learning should accept advice, and give us a modest and satisfactory answer. Be in no doubt that our humility will listen with favour and kindliness to soft speech from you, but we will manfully refute everything polysyllabic and bombastic. Still, we know that the natural high-mindedness of your people is not given to vain shows of pride, but bows before the force of patience and reason.’[1]
[1] This may refer to his family or to his Norman origins. Walter had been born and brought up in Normandy. Even earlier, the distinction could be made among the Anglo-Normans, between themselves and men of Norman gens. Downer, Leges Henrici Primi, pp. 43-4.”
The above statements imply that abbot Walter was of Norman origin and do not seem to contemplate an earlier or other connection to England.
I very much welcome any thoughts or analysis with respect to the above.
Cheers,
Pete
peter...@yahoo.ca
Peter G. M. Dale
I have set out below a copy of some Lucy-Boulogne notes which I posted earlier. These notes are meant as a discussion piece rather than purporting to establish any genealogical facts, which remain elusive. As always, I encourage and welcome any comments, criticisms or suggestions for further research – whether privately by e-mail (pdale(at)peterdale(dot)com) or via this forum. Thank you.
Cheers,
Pete
Arguments for a Sibling or Close Relationship between Sir Richard de Lucy’s wife Rose and Pharamus de Boulogne:
1. Godfrey de Lucy, son of Richard de Lucy, referred to Pharamus as his “uncle” in a charter confirmation [1].
2. There is nothing that is known about Richard de Lucy’s family that suggests he is the point of relationship to Pharamus, i.e. they do not appear to have shared the same mother. At a close to contemporaneous time c. 1130/31 Richard is referenced in charters of Henry II with his mother Aveline [2] whereas Pharamus is referenced in the Pipe Rolls in connection with his deceased step-mother [3]. There is, however, some debate regarding whether Pharamus’ step-mother was still alive. Unfortunately, a review of the original Pipe Roll evidence does not clarify this matter. The identity of Richard's father remains unknown. Presumably, Richard’s family originated in Luce in Normandy v. Boulogne (which, in any event, I would have expected to have been a more prominent name to possess). Richard's family (i.e. his mother’s) known landholdings were not Boulogne related. Richard held 19 knights’ fees in Normandy c. 1172. The property he owned of the old feoffment identified in the Black Book of the Exchequer was not held of the Honour of Boulogne [4].
3. Richard's (and presumably his wife Rose's - as there are no other wives identified in existing records) children were named: Geoffrey (a common name but may be named after Rose's proposed great-grandfather Geoffrey I de Mandeville, grandfather of the 1st Earl of Essex, or Rose’s proposed grandfather Geoffrey de Boulogne), Godfrey (a less common and clearly Boulogne family name, i.e. Godfrey of the 1st Crusade – Rose’s proposed great-uncle), Reginald, Rose (after her mother), Matilda (a very common name but still a Boulogne family name, i.e. Queen Matilda wife of King Stephen), Aveline (after Richard's mother) and Alice. Of course there may have been additional children that either did not survive to adulthood and/or are not included in the surviving written record.
4. Richard’s wife Rose died sometime before Queen Matilda’s death in 1152. Queen Matilda and her son and heir, Eustace, witnessed a notification by Richard that he had, “granted to the canons of Holy Trinity, London, in frank almoin, 20s. yearly rent from Niweton [Newington] for the soul of Roheis his wife, who is buried in their church…” (see A.2326 - http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64260) [5]. Having no personal interest in Newington, Matilda and Eustace may have witnessed Richard’s charter as patrons of Holy Trinity, but also, possibly, because of familial ties. Apart from the year of her immediate succession as queen, when she witnessed around 15 charters, Matilda only witnessed three to four charters per year, so her attestation of Richard’s charter may be considered significant [6].
5. I reviewed ‘Families, Friends and Allies – Boulogne and Politics in Northern France and England, c. 879-1160’, (2004), by Heather J. Tanner. In its list of charters by William de Boulogne, son of King Stephen (pp. 319-24), I saw only 3 gifts of land to individuals (as opposed to religious institutions) being to Richard de Lucy and Pharamus (and to Ragniald castellan of Lille & his wife Matilda.
6. The Boulogne family favoured St. Martin le Grand in London. Godfrey de Lucy, son of Richard and Rose, was Dean of that institution [7] prior to becoming the Bishop of Winchester (1189-1204).
7. Richard de Lucy’s younger brother Robert was married to Emma de Sackville whose father Robert was the Steward of the English lands of the Counts of Boulogne. Robert de Lucy also held Honour of Boulogne property including Chrishall, Essex under Richard de Lucy [8].
Arguments Against a Sibling or Close Relationship
1. The identity of both Richard de Lucy’s father and Pharamus’ mother remains unknown. This leaves room for other possibilities for the “uncle” relationship between Godfrey de Lucy and Pharamus. In addition, the relationship may have been via a sister or half-sister of Richard or his wife Rose or, alternatively, a relationship not yet speculated, i.e. not a blood relationship.
2. Richard and Pharamus did not witness each other’s charters.
3. There is no conventionally established maritagium of Boulogne family land in Richard’s land holdings. The Boulogne family property that he held appears to have been acquired later.
4. Pharamus employed different family names from Richard and Rose.
Who is Richard de Boulogne and is he Related to the Lucy Family
1. J. H. Round in Geoffrey de Mandeville proposed that a Richard de Boulogne may be a brother of Pharamus [9].
2. Richard de Boulogne (d. c. 1139-47, a canon at St. Martin le Grand, London, and father of Robert and Bernard de Boulogne, both likewise canons at St. Martin le Grand) [9A] and Richard de Lucy both witnessed a number of charters of Queen Matilda in both France and England [10].
3. Pharamus witnessed a charter of Queen Matilda to the Abbey of Clairmarais [10A]. Richard de Lucy and Richard de Boulogne both likewise witnessed charters of Queen Matilda to this abbey [10]
4. Eustace de Boulogne, cleric, (‘Eustachio clerico de Bol.’) and Richard de Boulogne, cleric, (‘Ricardo clerico de Balon’) witnessed Richard de Lucy’s charter granting the church of Lesnes to Holy Trinity Priory Aldgate (“HTPA”) and a ‘Robert the Clerk’ (Rob'o Cl'ico.), possibly the son of Richard de Boulogne (who was, like his father, a canon at St. Martin le Grand [9A]), witnessed Richard de Lucy’s charter granting 20 shillings rent in Newington, Kent annually to HTPA in memory of his wife Rose [10B].
5. Richard de Boulogne held property in Witham and Chrishall, Essex and elsewhere of the Honour of Boulogne [11].
6. A Baldwin de Boulogne [9A] and his brother Eustace witnessed Queen Matilda’s grant of the church of Witham to St. Martin le Grand, London. It is proposed that Eustace is a previously identified brother of Pharamus [12] and Baldwin is a proposed brother of them both. Note that Richard de Lucy also witnessed said grant [13].
7. Richard de Lucy was granted Chrishall, among other properties of the Honour of Boulogne, by King Stephen (charter unknown) which was later confirmed by his son William [14].
Notes:
[1] ‘English Episcopal Acta III – Canterbury 1193-1205’, (1986), edited by C. R. Cheney and Eric John, #545, p. 201-02.
[2] ‘Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum 1066-1154’, (1956), Vol. II, Regesta Henrici Primi 1100-1135, edited by Charles Johnson and H. A. Cronne, pp. 247, 249.
(source: https://archive.org/stream/regestaregumangl02grea#page/n7/mode/2up)
[3] Pipe Roll Society NS57, pp. 38-40.
[4] ‘The Red Book of the Exchequer, Volume 2’, (1896, 2012), edited by Hubert Hall, p. 639.
(source: http://books.google.ca/books?id=MLlEMZifkF4C&pg=PA639&lpg=PA639&dq=%22de+lusceio%22&source=bl&ots=C_PcvR-IQ6&sig=PKRjP_yX0c58H2yo9t1TCqbcQSo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vDSHVPTiOYSZyASCo4DoBQ&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22de%20lusceio%22&f=false)
‘Liber Niger, Volume I’, (1774), by William Worcester, edited by Thomas Hearne, pp. 234-35, Charter of Richard de Lucy.
(source: https://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#v=snippet&q=%22de%20luci%22&f=false)
[5] Lansdowne 203, f. 19v., Number 5 (c. between March 14, 1148 and May 3, 1152).
[6] ‘Families, Friends and Allies – Boulogne and Politics in Northern France and England, c. 879-1160’, (2004), by Heather J. Tanner, ch. 5, p. 208, fn. 123.
(source: http://books.google.ca/books?id=ytfCmK2xGaAC&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=%22matilda+witnessed+fifteen+charters%22&source=bl&ots=OeTGZGOaZC&sig=XdTY8i3_Ynrb_AN5v5YWCVPcbxs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tuX5ULbMM6TS2AX2joGQDg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22matilda%20witnessed%20fifteen%20charters%22&f=false)
[7] Colleges: St Martin le Grand, Pages 555-566, A History of the County of London: Volume 1, London Within the Bars, Westminster and Southwark. Originally published by Victoria County History, London, 1909. (source: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/london/vol1/pp555-566)
[8] (http://deeds.library.utoronto.ca/charters/00880212), (http://deeds.library.utoronto.ca/charters/00880214), (http://deeds.library.utoronto.ca/charters/00880215), (http://deeds.library.utoronto.ca/charters/00880213), (http://deeds.library.utoronto.ca/charters/00880219)
Note, notwithstanding the proposed dating above, there is no evidence identified to date which supports Robert de Lucy holding Chrishall, Essex in a period prior to it being granted to his brother Richard de Lucy.
‘Liber Niger, Volume I’, (1774), by William Worcester, edited by Thomas Hearne, pp. 389-90.
(source: https://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#v=snippet&q=%22de%20luci%22&f=false)
[9] ‘Geoffrey de Mandeville, A Study of the Anarchy’, (1892), by J. H. Round, p. 120.
(source: https://archive.org/stream/cu31924027915812/cu31924027915812_djvu.txt)
[9A] ‘Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum 1066-1154’, (1968), Vol. III, Regesta Regis Stephani AC Mathildis Imperatricis AC Gaufridi et Henrici Ducum Normannorum, 1135-1154, edited by H. A. Cronne and R. H. C. Davis, pp. xi-xii (Baldwin, Richard and Robert).
[10] ‘Registrum Roffense: or, A Collection of Antient Records, Charters, and Instruments of Divers Kinds’, (1769), by John Thorpe, pp. 325, 327.
‘Flanders’, Pages 481-505, Calendar of Documents Preserved in France 918-1206. Originally published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1899.
(source: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/france/918-1206/pp481-505)
The ‘Chartae galliae’ (http://www.cn-telma.fr/chartae-galliae/index/) website has the following entries, among others, under the search terms “de luci” for the period up to 1180: (source: http://www.cn-telma.fr/chartae-galliae/charte201158/), (source: http://www.cn-telma.fr/chartae-galliae/charte212355/)
‘Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum 1066-1154’, (1968), Vol. III, Regesta Regis Stephani AC Mathildis Imperatricis AC Gaufridi et Henrici Ducum Normannorum, 1135-1154, edited by H. A. Cronne and R. H. C. Davis, provides the following references to certain individuals named ‘de Boulogne’ – Baldwin (clerk), Eustace (brother of Baldwin), Faramus, Richard (clerk, canon at St. Martin le Grand, London, father of Robert, d. c. 1139-47), Robert (son of Richard, canon at St. Martin le Grand, London) and Bosoher: pp. xi-xii (Baldwin, Richard and Robert), pp. 9-10 (Richard and Richard de Luci), p. 44 (Richard and Baldwin), pp. 72-73 (Richard and Richard de Lucy), p. 87 (Richard), pp. 97-99 (Faramus and Richard de Lucy), pp. 102-03 (Faramus and Richard de Lucy), p. 110 (Robert), pp. 152-53 (Richard), pp. 195-96 (Richard), p. 198 (Robert son of Richard), p. 199 (Richard), p. 200 (Richard, Baldwin and his brother Eustace and Richard de Lucy), pp. 204-205 (Richard, Robert and Boshoher).
‘University of Toronto Libraries, Deeds – Documents of Early England Data Set’, provides the following charters referencing Robert de Boulogne and a Bernard de Boulogne: (source: http://deeds.library.utoronto.ca/charters/02420076), (source: http://deeds.library.utoronto.ca/charters/02420078)
[10A] ‘Faramus of Boulogne’, (1896), by J. H. Round, from ‘The Genealogist’, n. s. xii, p. 147, fn. 2.
‘L’Abbaye de Clairmarais d’apres ses archives’, (1864) by Henri de Laplane, pp. 315-16.
(source: https://ia802606.us.archive.org/8/items/bub_gb_9M-bb29X70sC/bub_gb_9M-bb29X70sC.pdf)
[10B] Cartae Antiquae Rolls 11-20, no 403.
[11] See ‘Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum 1066-1154’, (1968), Vol. III, Regesta Regis Stephani AC Mathildis Imperatricis AC Gaufridi et Henrici Ducum Normannorum, 1135-1154, edited by H. A. Cronne and R. H. C. Davis, charters #539, 541 and 553, in footnote #10 above.
[12] ‘Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, Medieval Lands – A prosopography of medieval European noble and royal families, NORTHERN FRANCE, nobility’.
(source: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/NORTHERN%20FRANCE.htm#_Toc336929867)
‘Monasticon Anglicanum: A New Edition’, Vol. 6 – Part II, by John Caley, Sir Henry Ellis and Rev. Bulkeley Bandinel. – ‘Monasticon Anglicanum: A History of the Abbies and other Monasteries…in England and Wales’, (1846), Vol. 6 – Part II, p. 1017.
[13] See ‘Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum 1066-1154’, (1968), Vol. III, Regesta Regis Stephani AC Mathildis Imperatricis AC Gaufridi et Henrici Ducum Normannorum, 1135-1154, edited by H. A. Cronne and R. H. C. Davis, charter #541, in footnote #10 above.
[14] Charter for Richard de Lucy, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, vol. 3, no 569.
‘Early Yorkshire Charters’, Volume 8: The Honour of Warenne, (1949, 2013), edited by William Farrer and Charles Travis Clay, pp. 47-49, Appendix C. Charters of William son of King Stephen, Fourth Earl of Warenne.
(source: https://books.google.ca/books?id=pgjiZ8TuSVUC&pg=PA47&dq=%22de+luci%22+%22faramus%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPzejXuvzOAhWG7IMKHSoJAMAQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q&f=false)