Rohese, wife of Sir Richard de Lucy, Chief Justiciar of England

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Newsgroup ~

I've posted below four documents which prove that Sir Richard de Lucy's
wife was named Rohese. The documents concern a grant made in 1148/51
by which Sir Richard de Lucy gave 10 shillings annually to the canons
of Holy Trinity, London, for the soul of his wife, Rohese. This grant
was subsequently confirmed by the heirs of Sir Richard's elder son,
Geoffrey de Lucy, and also by Sir Richard's younger son, Godfrey de
Lucy, Bishop of Wincester.

The information below contains additional evidence in support of the
identification of parentage of Sir Richard de Lucy's younger grandson,
Geoffrey de Lucy, found in Complete Peerage under Lucy. In one of the
documents below, Geoffrey's son, Amaury de Lucy, specifically refers to
Sir Richard de Lucy as his great-grandfather. This confirms that
Amaury's father, Geoffrey de Lucy, was a grandchild of Sir Richard de
Lucy as set forth by the editor of Complete Peerage.

John Ravilious earlier posted the evidence that I found which proves
that Rohese de Lucy was the sister of Faramus of Boulogne. For Rohese
of Boulogne's extended ancestry, please see Hal Bradley's great
database at the following web address:

http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=hwbradley&id=I15859&style=TEXT

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Document #1: Ancient Deeds, A.2325.

Undated.

Portion of seal. [Kent]

Grant by Roheisia de Duvr' to the canons of Holy Trinity, London, of
10s. yearly that Richard de Luci her grandfather gave them for the soul
of Roheisia his wife, her grandmother, who is buried in their church,
to be received out of her rent in Niweton [Newington] at the equinox
before Michaelmas, out of the rents first paid. Witnesses: - Oger son
of Oger, Ralph de Adlinges, Michael de Borham, and others (named).
[Reference: Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds in the Public Record
Office 2 (1894): 64].

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Document #2: Ancient Deed, A.2326.

[Kent].

Agreement in the King's Court between P. the prior of Holy Trinity,
London, plaintiff, and Richard de Rivers and Maud his wife,
deforciants, concerning 10s. quit rent which the prior demanded by gift
of Richard de Luci, ancestor of Maud, from their portion in Neweton
[Newington] manor. Richard and Maud, for 40s., acknowledge the said
rent to belong to the said church, to be received yearly at the equinox
before Michaelmas out of the first sums they receive as rent. Monday
the Invention of Holy Cross, 5 Henry III [3 May 1221].

Annexed: (1.) Almaric de Lucy was summoned to answer the prior of Holy
Trinity, London, concerning 110s. arrears of the above rent. By licence
of Court the parties agree, Almaric promising to pay the said rent
yearly in Newton [Newington] manor at Michaelmas, the prior remitting
all arrears except 40s., to be paid half at Midsummer, and half at
Michaelmas next. Extract from Placita de Banco.

(2.) Imperfect copy of the above extract. Easter term, 4 Edward I
[1276].

(3.) Inspeximus by Almaric de Luci of the following grant of Richard de
Luci his great grandfather: - Certificate of Richard de Lucy to T.
archbishop of Canterbury, Walter bishop of Rochester, and all men of
Kent that he has 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, to be received at the
equinox before Michaelmas out of the first sums for rent he receives
from the aforesaid town. Witnesses: - Matilda Queen of England, Earl
Eustace son of the King. [A.D. 1148-1151]. Almaric confirms the above
grant as to the moiety thereof that Roheisia de Doveria his kinswoman
has granted them. Witnesses: - Sirs Robert son of Roger, Richard de
Tani, John de Scalariis, Richard de Rouecestre, William de
Oddingeseles, and others (named). Seal. [Reference: Descriptive
Catalogue of Ancient Deeds in the Public Record Office 2 (1894): 64].

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Document #3:

Ancient Deed, A.2327. [Kent].

Grant in frank almoin by Matilda de Lucy, late the wife of Richard de
Rivers, to Richard, the prior, and the canons of Holy Trinity, London,
of 10s. yearly rent out of the portion of rent belongiong to her in
Niweton [Newington], which she has paid them hitherto according to the
old grant of Sir Richard de Lucy her grandfather. Witnesses: - Sir
Martin, rector of Meresey church, Sir Philip, rector of Bobingewrd,
Thomas de Ryseburgh, clerk, and others (named).

Endorsed: "Niweton, et memorand. quod dominus Arnaldus Saunge tenet
man' de Trasi."

Annexed: Extract from De Banco Roll. John de Tracy and Marjery his
wife are summoned to answer the prior of Holy Trinity, London,
concerning 110s. arrears of a yearly rent of 10s. they owe him. The
prior gives half a marc for licence to agree, whereupon John and
Marjery acknowledge they owe the prior the said 10s. rent to be paid
yearly in their manor of Neunton [Newington], and the prior remits the
damages except 5 marcs. Hilary, 5 Edward I. [1277]. [See De Banco,
Hilary, 5 Edward I., m. 23.]. [Reference: Descriptive Catalogue of
Ancient Deeds in the Public Record Office 2 (1894): 65].

- - - - - - - - - - -
Document #4: Ancient Deeds, A.10846.

Date: 1189-1204

[Kent.]

Confirmation by Godfrey de Luci, bishop of Winchester, to the church of
Holy Trinity, London, and the canons regular there, in perpetual alms,
of 20s. rent which his father gave them from his rent in the town of
Niweton [Newington]. [Reference: Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient
Deeds in the Public Record Office 5 (1906): 55].

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Newsgroup ~

As a followup to my original post, I might note that Rohese of
Boulogne, wife of Sir Richard de Lucy, is specifically called
"grandmother" by Rohese de Dover in one of the four documents I posted
yesterday. Rohese de Dover can readily be identified as one of the
daughters and co-heirs of Geoffrey de Lucy, elder son of Sir Richard de
Lucy. This proves that Rohese of Boulogne was the mother of Sir
Richard de Lucy's elder son, Geoffrey.

Sir Richard de Lucy made his grant for the soul of his wife, Rohese,
sometime in the period, 1148/51, which was after the births of all of
his children. Consequently, this makes it rather clear that Rohese of
Boulogne was the mother of both of his sons, Geoffrey and Godfrey, and
almost certainly all of his daughters. I might add that the given
names, Geoffrey and Godfrey, are both Boulogne family given names.

As such, it is evident that (1) Sir Richard de Lucy's wife was named
Rohese; (2) that she was the mother of his sons, and almost certainly
his daughters; and (3) that Rohese was the sister of Faramus of
Boulogne (as indicated by her son, Godfrey's charter naming Faramus as
his uncle). The onomastic evidence also fits the last conclusion very
well.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
< Dear Newsgroup ~
<
< I've posted below four documents which prove that Sir Richard de
Lucy's
< wife was named Rohese. The documents concern a grant made in 1148/51
< by which Sir Richard de Lucy gave 10 shillings annually to the canons
< of Holy Trinity, London, for the soul of his wife, Rohese. This
grant
< was subsequently confirmed by the heirs of Sir Richard's elder son,
< Geoffrey de Lucy, and also by Sir Richard's younger son, Godfrey de
< Lucy, Bishop of Wincester.
<
< The information below contains additional evidence in support of the
< identification of parentage of Sir Richard de Lucy's younger
grandson,
< Geoffrey de Lucy, found in Complete Peerage under Lucy. In one of
the
< documents below, Geoffrey's son, Amaury de Lucy, specifically refers
to
< Sir Richard de Lucy as his great-grandfather. This confirms that
< Amaury's father, Geoffrey de Lucy, was a grandchild of Sir Richard de

<, Lucy as set forth by the editor of Complete Peerage.

[Ginny Wagner]

Thank you for such great posts, Mr. Richardson. Appreciate the
documentation. I didn't see anything about an uncle in the charters you
posted; thus, I have a question about:

<(3) that Rohese was the sister of Faramus of
Boulogne (as indicated by her son, Godfrey's charter naming Faramus as
his uncle). >

Have you eliminated the possibility that Godfrey had a spouse who had an
uncle Faramus?

In a new vein:

Does anyone have any documentation to show where the surname Lucy came from?
I was tempted at one time to think it came from Luce but now am convinced
that Richard Lucy was a Breton and that the name Lucy came from Lessay or
L'Essay (Exaquium) aka St. Oportuna. Any comment?

Ginny

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/27/05 12:15:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royala...@msn.com writes:

<< Grant by Roheisia de Duvr' to the canons of Holy Trinity, London, of
10s. yearly that Richard de Luci her grandfather gave them for the soul
of Roheisia his wife, her grandmother, who is buried in their church,
to be received out of her rent in Niweton [Newington] at the equinox
before Michaelmas, out of the rents first paid. Witnesses: - Oger son
of Oger, Ralph de Adlinges, Michael de Borham, and others (named).
[Reference: Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds in the Public Record
Office 2 (1894): 64]. >>

Who are the parents of this Rohesia de Duvr ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/27/05 10:45:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royala...@msn.com writes:

<< Rohese de Dover can readily be identified as one of the
daughters and co-heirs of Geoffrey de Lucy, elder son of Sir Richard de
Lucy. This proves that Rohese of Boulogne was the mother of Sir
Richard de Lucy's elder son, Geoffrey. >>

What is this ready identification?
Thanks
Will Johnson

[WJho...@aol.com]

I have added Rohese to www.wikipedia.org

I note that wikipedia states that Richard de Lucy retired to Lesnes Abbey in
Kent where he died and is buried. I had not noted that specificity in this
thread so far.

[butlergrt]

Good Afternoon,
I believe that Rohese, (Rohaise) was the widow of the earl of essex,
daughter of Alberic de Vere, Lord Justiciary,temp Henry I,married 2nd,
Richard de Lucy,Constable of Falaise in Normandy for King Stephen, 1162
appointed Lord Justiciary of England,Henry I, 1172 appointed 2nd time High
Justiciary marching into Scotland with Humphrey de Bohun. Richard De Lucy
had 2 sons, Geoffrey and Herbert, and two daughters, Maude married Walter
fitz Robert, ancestors of the Fitzwalters, and Rohais, his other daughter,
married Fulbert de Dover, Lord of Chilham in Kent.
Data from "The Battle Abbey Roll" vol. II,p.128 and vol III,198-204 by the
Duchess of Cleveland, printed London, by John Murry, Albemarle Street,
1889. Hope this helps.
Best Regards,
Emmett

[butlergrt]

Good Evening again,
It is hard to say, as I understand it, and is written, at least as
recorded in one of my sources, this, in the "Battle Abbey Roll", Richard
de Lucy' had two sons Geoffrey, the heir, did not survive his
father,(Richard), and left an only son who died s.p.: Herbert, the younger
son also had no issue and their sister Rohese(Rohaise) had livery of the
whole barony, tho Maude the other sister appears to have inherited
Angre,(Normandy estates) and the Essex estates.
Battle Abbey Roll, vol.II,p199.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler

[mwelc...@yahoo.com]

Doug

Thank you for these four pieces of evidence. That you supplied.

Mike

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Emmett ~

The information you posted on Sir Richard de Lucy's family is a bit
garbled. While interesting to read, the "Battle Abbey Roll" is not a
very reliable source. I strongly recommend you use other more
reliable sources when compiling your pedigrees for this time period.

Sir Richard de Lucy had five children in all, among them two sons,
Geoffrey and Bishop Godfrey, and one daughter, Maud, wife of Walter
Fitz Robert. Herbert de Lucy and Rohese de Dover were grandchildren of
Sir Richard de Lucy.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Ginny ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

In answer to your question, Sir Richard de Lucy's younger son, Godfrey
de Lucy, was Bishop of Winchester. As a priest, he would have had no
wife. That being the case, Bishop Godfrey's uncle, Faramus of
Boulogne, would necessarily have been the brother of one of Bishop
Godfrey's parents. For various reasons, it is impossible for Sir
Richard de Lucy to have been a brother or half-brother of Faramus of
Boulogne. As such, the connection between Bishop Godfrey de Lucy and
his uncle, Faramus of Boulogne, would necessarily be through Godfrey's
mother, Rohese.

For those so interested, I should mention that there are good
biographies of both Sir Richard de Lucy and his son, Bishop Godfrey de
Lucy, in the older version of the DNB. I have not seen the new version
of the DNB, but I assume their biographies are found in that source as
well.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

Website: www.royalancestry.net"Ginny Wagner" wrote:
< Thank you for such great posts, Mr. Richardson. Appreciate the
< documentation. I didn't see anything about an uncle in the charters
you
< posted; thus, I have a question about:
<
< <(3) that Rohese was the sister of Faramus of
< Boulogne (as indicated by her son, Godfrey's charter naming Faramus
as
< his uncle). >
<
< Have you eliminated the possibility that Godfrey had a spouse who had
an
< uncle Faramus?
<

< Ginny

[Leo van de Pas]

Richardson dismisses the possibility of Richard de Lucy to be either a
brother or half-brother of Faramus and therefor the connection _must be
through Godfrey's mother_
but how? Full brother or half-brother? If half-brother, who is different?
Rohese's father or mother?

It appears there is no proof, only assumption.

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Will ~

Thank you for your good post.

Rohese (or Rose) de Dover was the daughter of Geoffrey de Lucy, by an
unidentified first wife. Geoffey de Lucy in turn was the son and heir
apparent of Sir Richard de Lucy, by his wife, Rohese of Boulogne.

For your interest, I've posted below another document which proves that
Rohese (or Rose) de Dover was a granddaughter of Sir Richard de Lucy.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Online National Archives catalog
(http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).

Document: Duchy of Lancaster 10/63

Lincoln, 1213.

Grant to Rose de Dover of her inheritance from the lands of Richard de
Lucy, her grandfather.

[Ginny Wagner]

Doug said:
<As a priest, he would have had no wife. >

Ginny responded:

Thank you, Doug, for your response to my question. It certainly sounds like
you are very busy handling the book signings and mailings which makes your
participation here on the list even more remarkable.

Ralph Flambard is quite well known as not just a bishop of Durham but as
having 'relations' with Christina of Markyate's aunt and then wishing to
enjoy Christina's favors. And of course, there is the famous story of
Abelard and Heloise with the explanation that they married secretly so that
he could advance in position within the Church -- not that it was illegal --
just frowned upon.

In the 12c, prior to Becket, particularly in England, the appointments to
these powerful positions were more or less by the king rather than results
of piety and adherence to the Word and it would seem that since the
appointments were coming from a secular source these men very well could
have wives prior to the appointments. My ancestor was, in fact, a secular
master prior to being appointed by Henry I though the Gesta says he was
elected as abbot there is really no mention of him in the Gesta as prior or
monk before he appeared in 1119 as elected abbot; the network of kinship
throughout the abbacies and bishoprics is mind-boggling in the twelfth
century as evidenced by reading the Charters from the times.

I've read that the fact that marriage kept appearing and reappearing at
councils meant that it took a long time for doctrinal theory to become
widely practiced.

Thus, although you are quite correct in theory, I'm not willing to accept a
blanket statement of fact about the 12c that no priests were married;
although, in this case you may very well be correct. I'm sure that once you
(or someone else) find the documentation that Rohese was sister or
half-sister to Faramus, we'll all be a bit more knowledgeable. Thank you
once again for your attention. I appreciate your time. ;-) Ginny

[Ginny Wagner]

Doug,

Thank you for the link to Rose de Dover. Isn't it great when the title line
gives so much information? I know you are very busy right now but, can you
easily verify that Walter Lucy, abbot of Battle Abbey was a brother of
Richard and of Robert -- or maybe Robert was their father?

A Robert Lucy is mentioned in Dom David Knowles' The Monastic Order in
England, page 187 footnoted as from Chron. Bell. 65 as being introduced to
the royal circle in Henry I time by his kinsman, Abbot Geoffrey de Gorham of
St. Albans Abbey.

He also mentions on page 277-9 that Walter de Lucy, abbot of Battle from
1139 - 1171 was a brother of Richard Lucy, the celebrated justicar of Henry
II accompanied by a moving story of Walter's death and his brother Richard's
compassion.

Knowles says on page 278 that Walter was originally a monk of Lonle who "had
for some time been living with abbot Geoffrey of St. Albans, a relative, and
through him and through his brother, Richard, had become persona grata with
the king and the court circle" which is also footnoted Chron. Bell. 65.

It would be great to know just what they meant by "kin" back in the twelfth
century! Thanks for any help you can give. Much appreciated. ;-) Ginny

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Leo ~

Please call me Douglas, not by the formal Richardson.

I know you're confused, Leo. I recommend you review the primary
evidence regarding Sir Richard de Lucy and Faramus of Boulogne, and
then get back to me.

For now, I will repeat my statement again: For various reasons, it is
impossible for Richard de Lucy to have been a brother or half-brother
of Faramus of Boulogne. I trust that's clear enough for you.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Webite: www.royalancestry.net

[CED]

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> Dear Leo ~
>
> Please call me Douglas, not by the formal Richardson.
>
> I know you're confused, Leo. I recommend you review the primary
> evidence regarding Sir Richard de Lucy and Faramus of Boulogne, and
> then get back to me.

Dear Mr. Richardson:

I do not find the primary evidence regarding Richard de Lucy and
Faramus of Boulogne in the archives. Could you please post it?

CED

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear CED ~

Please call me Douglas, not by the formal salutation, Mr. Richardson.
We're among friends. What is your first name?

Best always. Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

[CED]

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:

> Richardson dismisses the possibility of Richard de Lucy to be either a
> brother or half-brother of Faramus and therefor the connection _must be
> through Godfrey's mother_
> but how? Full brother or half-brother? If half-brother, who is different?

Leo:

What is the primary evidence that Rohese was the sister of Faramus of
Boulogne?

CED

[CED]

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> Dear CED ~
Dear Mr. Richardson:

I am of the old school in which formalities are maintained; however,I
am known, even to my friends, as CED.

Do did not respond to my request to post primary evidence. To narrow
my request: what is the primary evidence that Rohese, wife of Richard
de Lucy, was the sister of Faramus of Boulogne?

CED

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear CED ~

It is impossible to have a serious discussion with someone who wishes
to hide in the dark.

So, I'll ask again nicely: What is your first name?

And, please call me Douglas, not by the formal salutation, Mr.
Richardson.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:

[Ginny Wagner]

Doug,

Just was looking something up for another purpose and came across a Haskins
Society Journal article entitled The School of Caen Revisited, by David S.
Spear, "In addition, Bayeux was a stronghold for married clergy so that its
associations with the School of Caen would only intensify the School's
reputation outside Normandy as being theologically conservative and morally
suspect. [49]" [fn49] Brooke, Medieval Church and Society, 86; Gleason,
Ecclesiastical History, 23-5. Married clergy are still to be found in
Bayeux in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Francois Neveux, "Trois
villes episcopales de Normandie du XIII au XV siecle, 'Recuiel d'etudes en
hommage a Lucien Musset, Cahier des Annales de Normandie 23 (Caen, 1990),
364.

;-) Ginny

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Ginny ~

Thank you for your good post.

Yes, Walter de Lucy, Abbot of Battle Abbey, was the brother of Sir
Richard de Lucy. Walter and Richard almost certainly had another
brother, Robert de Lucy, of Essex, and a sister, Margaret de Lucy, wife
of William de Chesney (or Cheyne).

I've copied below a charter of William de Chesney which names his wife,
Margaret de Lucy. The use of Margaret's maiden name in this charter
indicates she came from a prominent family. A sister of the Chief
Justiciar of England would fall in that category. Elsewhere, I find
William de Chesney and Richard de Lucy are associated together in the
records of this period.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Charter of William de Chesney (or Cheyne).
Date: Probably 1159-1163. No ancient endorsement.

Tag for seal. Size: 5-5/8 x 3-1/8 inches. Texts: MS-Orig.
Dij/83/2/35. R168.

Grant by William de Chesney to Philip son of William of ten acres of
his demesne in Marston St. Lawrence, Northamptonshire for a yearly
render of Northampton gloves. At Verneuil.

"Willelmus de Caisneto omnibus hominibus et amicis suis Francis et
Anglis tam presentibus quam [future]is salutem. Notum sit uobis me
dedisse et concessisse et hac carta mea confirmasse Philippo filio
Willelmo decem acras de dominio meo in Merstona iuxta croftam sancti
Ebrulfi Tenendas sibi et heredibus suis in feodo et hereditate de me et
de meis heredibus per quasdem chirotechas de Norhamtonia inde michi
annuatim reddendo ad festum sancti Michaelis pro omni seruicio.
Testibus Margareta de Luci uxore mea. Radulfo [de] Caisneto et
Willelmo fratre suo nepotibus meis. Milone de Langetot' et Milone
filio suo. [Johanne filio] Gis'll. Rogero filio Hamelini. Roberto
clerico. Willelmo de parco. Rainnulfo hostiario. Rogero coco.
Ricardo de Mandeuilla. Osberto pistore. Apud Vernolium." [Reference:
C.W. Foster, ed. The Registrum Antiquissimum of the Cathedral Church of
Lincoln (1935): 239-240].

[Ginny Wagner]

Thank you, Doug. Glad that you confirm the three brothers Lucy. Much
appreciated - as well, the bit of additional information that women from
prominent families were listed with their maiden names. What a great list
this is, with so many generously willing to share their knowledge ... ;-)
Ginny

[CED]

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> Dear CED ~

Dear Mr. Richardson,

Were I to give you another name, you would be no better informed about
my identity than you are now. If I were to give you the name on my
birth certificate, of what value to you would it be?

CED has been my pen name for quite some time. I have used it for those
of my writings other than my professional writings, writings which form
the basis of a good reputation and enable me to earn a living. With
your history of abuse, my giving you my name would constitute consent,
leaving me no legal recourse. Of course, some might suggest that you
are attempting to evade my request for primary evidence.

If you check the archives, you will find that you have willingly
corresponded with a number of persons using obvious pen names without
objection. These pen names(or aliases)can be posted if you request
them.

Are you using my use of a pen name as a means of changing the subject?

If you cannot respond to my request for primary evidence regarding
Rohese, wife of Richard de Lucy, and Faramus of Boulogne, I must assume
that you do not have the primary evidence. What is the primary evidence
that Rohese was the sister of Faramus of Boulogne?

Please be assured that I intend no disrespect to you or to the group.

With my best regards,

CED

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

CED wrote:
> Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> > Dear CED ~
>

> Dear Mr. Richardson,

Please call me Douglas, not Mr. Richardson. This is a simple request.

> Were I to give you another name, you would be no better informed about
> my identity than you are now. If I were to give you the name on my
> birth certificate, of what value to you would it be?

Your given name will suffice, not your pen name. This is a simple
request.

> CED has been my pen name for quite some time. I have used it for those
> of my writings other than my professional writings, writings which form
> the basis of a good reputation and enable me to earn a living. With
> your history of abuse, my giving you my name would constitute consent,
> leaving me no legal recourse. Of course, some might suggest that you
> are attempting to evade my request for primary evidence.

We're among friends, CED. You make this sound all so adversarial.

> If you check the archives, you will find that you have willingly
> corresponded with a number of persons using obvious pen names without
> objection. These pen names(or aliases)can be posted if you request
> them.
>
> Are you using my use of a pen name as a means of changing the subject?

No, I'm using the request of your real name to determine if you possess
character and integrity. A person of honor is always willing to state
his name. A person who has something to hide is not. It's that
simple.

If you lack honor, I can not give it to you.

> If you cannot respond to my request for primary evidence regarding
> Rohese, wife of Richard de Lucy, and Faramus of Boulogne, I must assume
> that you do not have the primary evidence. What is the primary evidence
> that Rohese was the sister of Faramus of Boulogne?

You are free to make all of the assumptions you like.

> Please be assured that I intend no disrespect to you or to the group.

If you find my asking you for your real name to be "abusive," then I
suggest you consult a psychiatrist. If you feel the need to hide among
friends, you possess irrational fears that are unwarranted. Your well
being is far more important to me than Richard de Lucy.

[Leo van de Pas]

Here are words but it is not an answer. For various reasons it is impossible
for Richard de Lucy to have been a brother or half-brother of Faramus, and
so _the only solution_ is that Faramus is a full brother of Rohese? The
thought half-siblings is dismissed like that?
Shades of Amy de Gaveston?

[Leo van de Pas]

I have not seen anything giving Faramus full siblings or _paternal_
half-siblings.
I have tried to find the material Douglas Richardson claims was posted by
John Ravilious but so far I have not seen it.

----- Original Message -----
From: "CED" <lees...@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

You're quite welcome, Ginny.

[Leo van de Pas]

In polite French society people used to address each other formally until
they mutually decided to tutoyer each other _allowing_ the other person to
address him/her m ore informally. To demand : I only speak to you if I can
address you by your first name is outrages.

Pandit Nehroe? My foot I call you Jahwaral whether you like it or not And
Prince Charles Your Royal Higness? Not likely. I do do think each person
_can ask_ to be addressed by what they themselves feel comfortable with. And
in polite society others should respect that.

----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 3:17 AM

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Leo ~

This is an English speaking society, not French or Dutch.

You may call me Douglas. Thank you. This is a very simple request.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

[Leo van de Pas]

I think politeness should be universal. CED made it clear that this is how
he prefers to be addressed. So far you have refused to reply to him because
you want to address him as John, Fred anything but CED. How we address
people is of less importance than the content of the reply. The contents, or
explanations, to my requests are still nil in regards to the identification
of Rohese as a Rohese de Boulogne. Is that because you do not have an
answer?

To me it seems you hoped that by blustering your way over the identification
of Rohese as Rohese de Boulogne you will cower others into accepting it.
That is not a collegial thing to do, let alone ethical.

Personally I am so hoping you can establish that Rohese is a _full_ sister
of Faramus as then her descendants have even more interesting ancestors. But
we should not be willing to accept information _because it would be so
nice_.

----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: Whats in a Name? Re: Rohese, wife of Sir Richard de Lucy, Chief
Justiciar of England

[D. Spencer Hines]

Nonsense.

_Reductio ad absurdum_.

Douglas Richardson just doesn't want him to hide behind a pseudonym.

Perfectly Reasonable.....

D. Spencer Hines

""Leo van de Pas"" <leov...@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:00a401c593c2$5e5f2780$0300a8c0@Toshiba...

[D. Spencer Hines]

Nonsense.

Pure and simple.

He's/She's not some alphabet-soup Governmental Agency [FBI, CIA, NSA] --
or POTUS [FDR, JFK, LBJ].

Leo is drifting off into senility.

D. Spencer Hines

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

""Leo van de Pas"" <leov...@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message

news:00bc01c593c5$5360cb60$0300a8c0@Toshiba...

[Peter Stewart]

Hines wrote:

<snip>

> Douglas Richardson just doesn't want him to hide behind a
> pseudonym.
>
> Perfectly Reasonable.....

No, because it is not Richardson's place to decide how another person
should identify himsefl or herself.

Newsgroups like sgm are modern counterparts of 19th-century
institutions in print, such as _Notes and Queries_, where use of actual
or pseudonymous sets of initials by contributors, instead of personal
names and/or surnames, was common. And prefectly reasonable.

Peter Stewart

[CED]

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:

To the Newsgroup:

Mr. Richardson has asked that I address him using his given name.

According to my family customs, one uses a given name for family of
equal generation and younger, school mates, and intimate friends. In
addition, in families having them, servants were addressed by given
name. (My family had no servants; so, I only report this in order to
be more nearly complete.) Mr. Richardson is none of these.

At the university (and I think in most of the academic world), faculty
with a doctorate were addressed by title. Others, unless they were
intimate friends in informal situations, were addressed with
"Mr./Mrs./Ms." Formalities were maintained in public. So, were I to
meet Mr. Richardson on campus, he would be just that, Mr. Richardson.

To ask that another greet or address you in terms more intimate than
exists in fact is to ask that he become a hypocrit, the worst form of
liar. Mr. Richardson has asked that I address him as 'Douglas.' That
I cannot do. He is not my friend. Never has there been a circumstance
in which he can lay a claim as to friendship with me. Therefore, to do
so would be hypocritical.

If Mr. Richardson were to continue to insist on my using intimate
terms, I shall avoid doing so by not addressing him directly. I shall
refer to him in the third person as DR.

As an example of why I cannot consider him to be a friend, I set out
the following from his last posting addressed to me: I wrote--

"> CED has been my pen name for quite some time. I have used it for
those
> of my writings other than my professional writings, writings which form
> the basis of a good reputation and enable me to earn a living. With
> your history of abuse, my giving you my name would constitute consent,
> leaving me no legal recourse."

DR has a long history of using abusive language, as all of this group
should know. He has published some awful language to this group.
Against that I must protect myself. Were he to pry into my background
without my consent and find a means of hurting my reputation, then he
would be subject to legal recourse. I do want to preserve that right.

This DR twisted into:

"If you find my asking you for your real name to be "abusive," then I
suggest you consult a psychiatrist. If you feel the need to hide among
friends, you possess irrational fears that are unwarranted. Your well
being is far more important to me than Richard de Lucy."

How could he think himself a friend when he twists my words thusly?

How does, as he claims, knowing a person's given name help with knowing
of his or her honor or integrity?

DR has willingly and without objection dealt with a number of persons
using aliases, most recently "Solitaire." He himself has used "Uriah
N. Owen."

For the moment I leave this matter; but I shall return later with the
substance of the question originally asked of DR: what is the primary
evidence that Rohese, wife of Richard de Lucy, was the sister of
Faramus of Boulogne?

Most of this group seems to have overlooked the nature of that
evidence. Some in this group are quite knowledgeable about medieval
documents. Nobody has questioned the document itself. What is its date?
Who transcribed it? Who translated it? Who was first to catalogue it?
Could it be that DR wishes to avoid questions about the document by
raising the given name question?

CED

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

CED wrote:

> Mr. Richardson has asked that I address him using his given name.

Yes, this is a very simple request.

> According to my family customs, one uses a given name for family of
> equal generation and younger, school mates, and intimate friends. In
> addition, in families having them, servants were addressed by given
> name. (My family had no servants; so, I only report this in order to
> be more nearly complete.) Mr. Richardson is none of these.

When you feel I merit being called by my first name, get back in touch
with me.
In the meantime, please try to get in touch with yourself.

> At the university (and I think in most of the academic world), faculty
> with a doctorate were addressed by title. Others, unless they were
> intimate friends in informal situations, were addressed with
> "Mr./Mrs./Ms." Formalities were maintained in public. So, were I to
> meet Mr. Richardson on campus, he would be just that, Mr. Richardson.

This isn't the university or a professional relationship. This is
newsgroup soc.genealogy.medieval. We're all friends and equals here,
right? It's very informal.

> To ask that another greet or address you in terms more intimate than
> exists in fact is to ask that he become a hypocrit, the worst form of
> liar. Mr. Richardson has asked that I address him as 'Douglas.' That
> I cannot do. He is not my friend. Never has there been a circumstance
> in which he can lay a claim as to friendship with me. Therefore, to do
> so would be hypocritical.
>
> If Mr. Richardson were to continue to insist on my using intimate
> terms, I shall avoid doing so by not addressing him directly. I shall
> refer to him in the third person as DR.

I don't wish to be DR, Dougie, Dog, hey you, or anything else. I wish
to be called Douglas. It's a simple request. Very simple.

> As an example of why I cannot consider him to be a friend, I set out
> the following from his last posting addressed to me: I wrote--
> "> CED has been my pen name for quite some time. I have used it for
> those
> > of my writings other than my professional writings, writings which form
> > the basis of a good reputation and enable me to earn a living. With
> > your history of abuse, my giving you my name would constitute consent,
> > leaving me no legal recourse."

You can make friends with anyone you wish, or not if you prefer. I
still wish to be called Douglas.

> DR has a long history of using abusive language, as all of this group
> should know. He has published some awful language to this group.
> Against that I must protect myself. Were he to pry into my background
> without my consent and find a means of hurting my reputation, then he
> would be subject to legal recourse. I do want to preserve that right.

If you think my asking you to call me by my first name is "abusive" or
"hurtful to your reputation," you need to see a psychiatrist. Quick.

> This DR twisted into:
> "If you find my asking you for your real name to be "abusive," then I
> suggest you consult a psychiatrist. If you feel the need to hide among
> friends, you possess irrational fears that are unwarranted. Your well
> being is far more important to me than Richard de Lucy."

You have something to hide. It is my observation of your behavior.
That means you lack character and integrity, and probably have some
mental health issues.

> How does, as he claims, knowing a person's given name help with knowing
> of his or her honor or integrity?

A person of honor would readily state his given name. He would also
address another person as he asked to be addressed. You are willing
to do neither. The conclusion is more than obvious.

> DR has willingly and without objection dealt with a number of persons
> using aliases, most recently "Solitaire." He himself has used "Uriah
> N. Owen."

Solitaire and Uriah have not attacked me. You have. When someone
attacks me, I have the right to know the identity of the person.
That's only fair. So, who are you, CED? Revealing your identity is
not "hurtful to your reputation" if you act honorably.

> For the moment I leave this matter; but I shall return later with the
> substance of the question originally asked of DR: what is the primary
> evidence that Rohese, wife of Richard de Lucy, was the sister of
> Faramus of Boulogne?

Yes, by all means, please address these issues. But call me Douglas
when you mention my name. Thanks!

> Most of this group seems to have overlooked the nature of that
> evidence. Some in this group are quite knowledgeable about medieval
> documents. Nobody has questioned the document itself. What is its date?
> Who transcribed it? Who translated it? Who was first to catalogue it?
> Could it be that DR wishes to avoid questions about the document by
> raising the given name question?

The questions are simply endless, aren't they?

> CED

[CED]

Brandon:

Henry IV was a hypocrit, both before and after Paris.

I am not a hypocrit.

My reputation does not not depend upon an answer from DR about the
document; his reputation does. Eventually, we shall know about it.

He uses words lightly, often without regard for their meaning. I once
thought it to be result of his education. Now I am coming to believe
that he uses and misuses words because they have no real meaning to
him -- no intergrity.

To use terms of inimacy in circumstances such as this newsgroup (where
we know very little of each other) is both to degrade the honor and
honesty of the newsgroup and to corrupt the bonds of intimacy. There
are a few in the newsgroup with whom I feel the bonds of intimacy.
Address me as 'Ceddie' if that pleases you.

CED

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

CED wrote:
> Brandon:
>
> Henry IV was a hypocrit, both before and after Paris.
>
> I am not a hypocrit.

How can anyone take you seriously if you won't tell us your name?

> My reputation does not not depend upon an answer from DR about the
> document; his reputation does. Eventually, we shall know about it.

The document speaks for itself. So do I.

> To use terms of inimacy in circumstances such as this newsgroup (where
> we know very little of each other) is both to degrade the honor and
> honesty of the newsgroup and to corrupt the bonds of intimacy. There
> are a few in the newsgroup with whom I feel the bonds of intimacy.
> Address me as 'Ceddie' if that pleases you.

I don't think calling me by my correct given name is a "term of
intimacy." If you think that, CED, you should see a psychiatrist.

Also, calling me by my correct given name, Douglas, will not degrade
the "honor and honesty of the newsgroup." But, hiding your identity
does.

Ceddie is not your real name. What are you hiding?

> CED

[D. Spencer Hines]

Indeed.

Stand & Deliver, CED!

We don't cotton to pogues and poguettes who hide behind pseudonyms or
aliases here.

We figure if a person doesn't even have the courage to sign with his or
her Real Name, we can't put much credence in anything they write above
the pseudonym or alias.

Sock puppets often use pseudonyms or aliases in order to hide their true
identities -- and you may be one of those.

D. Spencer Hines [My Real Name]

<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122662295.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[D. Spencer Hines]

Perhaps "he" is French or Belgian.

DSH

"John Brandon" <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122662526.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| "Ceddie" is quite cute, I think. Cedric the Entertainer goes by that
| name sometimes.
|
| Are you aware that 'hypocrit' is usually spelled with an -e?

[CED]

Brandon:

Yes, when I stop to think about it. My form of dyslexia forces me to
spell by rules I learned when I was young. Putting an 'e' at the end
of the word which sounds like hypocrit changes its sound, by
lengthening the 'i'; so that it would sound like 'hypoceyet.' So if I
type without thinking, I change the spelling of certain words. Sorry
about that.

CED

[CED]

Brandon:

Sorry I turned things around again. Check the last reply to DSH for
that which belongs to you.

CED

PS: When it gets this confusing, I stop for a while.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Indeed.

Actual -- or Calculated -- as a Ruse.

DSH

"John Brandon" <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1122664756....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| Yep, I was thinking there was a slightly foreign aspect to his/her
| writing.

[nor...@lucey.net]

From the Cartulary of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, a charter for Chrishall, Essex indicates that Robert de Lucy was the son of Eustace III, earl of Boulogne. The relationship of Robert to Eustace, and the origin of Robert's jurisdiction over land in Chrishall may be explained by this, including Godfrey de Lucy calling Pharamus de Boulogne avunculus. Robert could be his illegitimate son (Round believes that Ralph and Eustace, sons of the Earl were also illegitimate). Later in another charter Richard de Lucy confirmed the land was granted to the Hospitallers "concessu Roberti de Lucy".

[Hans Vogels]

Op zondag 17 december 2017 14:40:27 UTC+1 schreef nor...@lucey.net:

> From the Cartulary of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, a charter for Chrishall, Essex indicates that Robert de Lucy was the son of Eustace III, earl of Boulogne. The relationship of Robert to Eustace, and the origin of Robert's jurisdiction over land in Chrishall may be explained by this, including Godfrey de Lucy calling Pharamus de Boulogne avunculus. Robert could be his illegitimate son (Round believes that Ralph and Eustace, sons of the Earl were also illegitimate). Later in another charter Richard de Lucy confirmed the land was granted to the Hospitallers "concessu Roberti de Lucy".

What can you tell us more about the Cartulary? Where can it be found, what archive, which inv.number, number of the charter, etc.? Otherwise this information is nothing more than an unverifiable statement.

Hans Vogels

[debib...@gmail.com]

I'm sure most of you know that Richard de Luci founded Lesnes Abbey at Erith as an act of penance for his involvement in the murder of Thomas A Becket, Becket had previously excommunicated him twice. Luci tried to take away the churches right to try monks for crimes insisting they be tried by common law. Luci and Becket became bitter ememies. Becket's murder weighed heavily on Richard afterwards causing him to resign as Chief Justiciar of England and take up the cloth of a monk at Lesnes in 1179. He was only there three months when he died. . But many may not know that his tomb at Lesnes was dug up in the 16thc, smashed and desecrated by treasure hunters. Fortunately the remains and stone tomb were collected up and taken to Marden church in Kent. (Luci had given the endowment of Marden to Lesnes many centuries early) Richard remains at rest there still in the Lady Chapel although the tomb was greatly damaged by a fire in the church in the 18th. There is no inscription to see on the stones but Richard's re-interment is recorded by the church. Any passing relative should visit him and give some respect.
Also
Amery Lucey or Luci of the manor of Newington-Lucies in Kent in 1350 obtained royal permission to erect a tiny wayside chapel at Newington next to their house on the site of a blessed cross that once stood there commemorating St Thomas dismounting his horse outside Newington Lucies (the house was on the A2 Watling Street) and baptising some local children on his way to Canterbury. Naturally miracles were reported at the cross after Beckets murder. The Lucies sort to cash in on the pilgrim trail after Becket was canonised and the cult of Becket took off. Offerings from the chapel were given to support the already failing Lesnes Abbey. The Chapel was dedicated to St Thomas and Blessed Virgin.....Nothing like a few miracles to bring in the punters. Sadly nothing of the cross, Newington-Lucies house or the chapel remains. Hasted noted the house stood until the late 18thc.
I'm local to the area and have an interesting in local history spanning 60 years.

[Peter G. M. Dale]

I was completely unaware of the possible reinternment of Richard. This is fascinating. Can you please share any further details including, if possible, where the reinturnment was recorded and a copy or summary thereof? Many thanks. Cheers, Pete