Countess Lucy

[G . EDWARD ALLEN]

As Farrer pointed out in the quote in my previous post, much ink has
been spilt on this topic. My file on the Countess Lucy has 60 pages of
material, most of which is two pages copied onto one. Since this is alot
of photocopying and a lot of typing, I will endeavor to send precis of
what was said on this matter in these articles.

REG Kirk start his series of articles, "The Countess Lucy: Singular or
Plural," on p. 60 of The Genealogist 4NS.

First, he gives Dugdale's version as given in his Baronage (on film from
the FHC). Lucy is gran-daughter of Leofric, Earl of Mercia, and of
Godiva, her father being Aelfgar. Dugdale gives her three husbands, Ivo
Taillebois, of Anjou, by whom she had no children; Roger de Roumare, by
whom she had William; and Ranulph Meschin, earl of Chester.

He then goes on with a critique. Lucy is supposedly born no later than
1059, if she is Aelfgar's daughter, as that is his date of death. That
she is Aelfgar's daughter is alleged by the monks of Peterborough in the
Chronicle of Peterborough and by the Crowland Ingulf material which will
be questioned. Her marriage date according to these two sources is
either 1072 or 1073. Peter of Blois states Ivo lived until 1114. If this
is so, then Lucy would have been 55 years old and most probably
incapable of being the mother of William de Roumare and the Earl of
Chester. So two Lucys were created, which were the hypotheses of John
Gough Nichols in Annals and Antiquities of Lacock Abbey and the author
of "Additions to Dugdale's Baronage", *Collectanea Topographica et
Genealogica, vii:130 and viii: 156. Other authors also accepted this
hypothesis. According to Kirk, they rely on Peter of Blois assertion
that Ivo and Lucy had an only daughter. They did not note that Peter of
Blois also states that this daughter died in her father's lifetime,
without issue. Stapleton and Nichols have posited a daughter Beatrice,
wife of Ribaud of Middleham. If this material does not cover this issue,
I will later transmit what was printed in The Genealogist on this
matter.

I will leave on this cliff-hanger. In the next issue, I will cover his
objections.

Kay Allen AG all...@pacbell.net

[D. Spencer Hines]

Vide infra.

This is all very interesting, but how about an Executive Summary of your
conclusions, if any, first --- then followed by all the backup data and
proof?

That would be much more straightforward and coherent, n'est-ce pas?

Hines realizes that Allen dearly loves the Agatha Christie School of
Genealogy --- where the denouement will reveal all --- but it's a bit
childish for an experienced genealogical audience sweetheart.

If the butler did it in the pantry with a knife, why not tell us now?

*Au contraire* --- if the final page of this genealogical mystery will
simply be a Scottish verdict of "Not Proven" or "Here Is All the Conflicting
Evidence in A Series of Bushel Baskets, Now Make Up Your Own Mind --- See
How Hard This Is!" --- why not tell us that at the outset.

Cliffhangers are for Agatha Christie novels, not Genealogical Articles.

Fondly,

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas
Illegitimis Non Carborundum
--

D. Spencer Hines --- "I said in 1992 he's a bright young guy in business, I
might put him somewhere and train him to be a middle manager. Right now I
wouldn't have him third shift in a hamburger stand responsible for cleaning
out the sink after everybody had gone home." --- H. Ross Perot, Texas
billionaire, who spent $65 million of his own money in 1992 defeating
President George Herbert Walker Bush and opening the door to President
William Jefferson Clinton. [9/26/98]

G . EDWARD ALLEN wrote in message <36150B...@pacbell.net>...