Ivo and Lucy Talybois
KHF...@aol.com
In the lack of response to the last posting, I have had to make up my own mind
how to treat the parents or Lucy Talybois, wife of Ivo.
The article I posted last week claims Lucy is not the granddaughter of Lady
Godiva and Leofric. Instead, it claims Lucy's parents were Turold the Sheriff
and a daughter of William Malet. These sources are: "Domesday Book and the
Malets: Patrimony and the Private Histories of Public Lives" published in
Nottingham Medieval Studies xli (1997) pp 13-56.
Also, "The Parentage of Countess Lucy Made Plain,"
http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/research/prosop/PRSPN2.stm
is where the article can be found, it the site still exists.
It is the spurious charter from Crowland Abbey that showed Countess Lucy was
the granddaughter of Leofric and Lady Godiva. Yet, this charter is backed up
by the Peterborough Chronicle.
Rehashing the sources, K. S. B. Keats-Rohan has, in the short article, I
posted a few days ago, rewritten the genealogy. His rewriting hinges on the
use of Latin phrases: "The description of Turold and his wife as antecessores
of Ivo and Lucy may be compared to the usage in a charter in the cartulary of
Mont-Saint-Michel by which the Angevins Hugh Chalibot and his wife confirmed
the grants of her father, who was described as antecessor noster. Other
examples of this phrase show clearly that it was used by a married man to
describe the parent from whom his wife had inherited the property she brought
to the marriage."
To me, this is not proof enough to change the parentage from Lady Godiva's son
and his wife, but a notation that other interpretations can be made from the
source materials would be prudent at this time.
I have yet to read Round's arguments on the subject, but Kay Allen says she
has some copies and has promised to send them by. I can report on that as well
when I have had a chance to digest it.
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor/ Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
_____________________HT COMMUNICATIONS____________________
PO Box 1401 Arvada, CO 80001 USA
Voice: 303-420-4888 Fax: 303-420-4845 e-mail: K...@AOL.com
Homepage: http://members.aol.com/TPConnect/Page2.html
Associated with: Thompson Starr International
[Films ... Representation ... Publishing ... Marketing]
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> The article I posted last week claims Lucy is not the granddaughter of Lady
> Godiva and Leofric. Instead, it claims Lucy's parents were Turold the Sheriff
> and a daughter of William Malet. These sources are: "Domesday Book and the
> Malets: Patrimony and the Private Histories of Public Lives" published in
> Nottingham Medieval Studies xli (1997) pp 13-56.
> Also, "The Parentage of Countess Lucy Made Plain,"
> http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/research/prosop/PRSPN2.stm
> is where the article can be found, it the site still exists.
>
> It is the spurious charter from Crowland Abbey that showed Countess Lucy was
> the granddaughter of Leofric and Lady Godiva. Yet, this charter is backed up
> by the Peterborough Chronicle.
These two may not be independent sources, and the veracity of both of
them has bees questioned.
> Rehashing the sources, K. S. B. Keats-Rohan has, in the short article, I
> posted a few days ago, rewritten the genealogy. His rewriting hinges on the
> use of Latin phrases: "The description of Turold and his wife as antecessores
> of Ivo and Lucy may be compared to the usage in a charter in the cartulary of
> Mont-Saint-Michel by which the Angevins Hugh Chalibot and his wife confirmed
> the grants of her father, who was described as antecessor noster. Other
> examples of this phrase show clearly that it was used by a married man to
> describe the parent from whom his wife had inherited the property she brought
> to the marriage."
This derivation of Lucy was daughter of Turold is not a new idea. Her
derivation from Leofric's family has long since been rejected. (I think
it was Round who first noticed the chronological problems with this
derivation. Some authors have addressed this issue by splitting Lucy
into mother and daughter, but such rewriting of pedigrees to match
problematic sources rarely solve more problems than they create.) This
little article by Katherine Keats-Rohan summarizes and builds upon a
century's worth of progress on the issue. While the "antecessores"
clause is subject to some interpretation, this theory is preferable to
the spurious and problematic Crowland charter.
taf
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 9/30/98 12:38:45 PM, ta...@po.cwru.edu writes:
<< This little article by Katherine Keats-Rohan summarizes and builds upon a
century's worth of progress on the issue. While the "antecessores"
clause is subject to some interpretation, this theory is preferable to
the spurious and problematic Crowland charter. >>
I have received some wonderful information, both online and offline on this
subject.
I see that everyone is tending to accept that Lucy is not Godiva's
granddaughter and I appreciate the reasoning behind it. Yet, two things
puzzle me greatly and pull me away from this modern interpretation. One is the
naming patterns in the following generations.
(1) 1 Leofric III --Lord Coventry, Earl Mercia, Leicester 1
b. 0975, of Mercia, England
d. 31 Aug 1057, Bromley, Staffordshire, England
& Godiva --Lady of Lincoln 2
b. abt 0980, of Mercia, England
d. 10 Sep 1067
m. bef 1030
(2) 1a Alfgar III --Earl Mercia* 3
d. 1062
& Alvarissa Malet
(3) 1a Lucy Talboys* 4
& Ivo Talboys --Earl of Anjou 5
(4) 1 William de Tailbois
b. of Lancaster, England
& Margaret Tailbois
(5) 1 Goditha Tailbois/Lancaster
& Gilbert de Lancaster --4th Baron Kendal
Notice that Lucy's granddaughter is named Goditha. Why, if Lucy is not
Godiva's granddaughter, would her grandchild be named after Godiva? It is such
a common naming pattern. If Lucy's parents were Turold the Sheriff and a
daughter of William Malet, as suggested by Katherine Keats-Rohan, there would
be no relationship at all with Godiva and no reason for the name to appear in
the person of Lucy's granddaughter. I realize that the name is not spelled
the same, but certainly it is the same name.
Neither Lucy's birth date nor death date are known. Leofric d in 1057 at age
85. Godiva died ten years later at age 87. Their son Aelfgar died in 1062,
five years before her mother. If Lucy was 15 when she had her first child, she
would have been born around 1047. She would have been only 19 at the time of
the Conquest. There are no chronological problems.
_The Complete Peerage_ says: "The link between Lucy and Aelfgar is the manor
of Spalding, County Lincoln, which was held by Aelfgar before the Conquest and
by Lucy's first husband, Ives Taillebois (in her right), at the time of
Domesday. No close family connection between Aelfgar and Lucy is mentioned in
any contemporary document, and chronology is opposed to the relationship of
father and daughter. Moreover, the only known children of Aelfgar are Edwin,
Morcar and Aeldgitha, wife of Harold, and consequently the passing of the
manor of Spalding cannot be held to justify the inference that Aelfgar (a) was
father of Lucy."
The second thing that bothers me is the land transfers. It is the basis of
the Keats-Rohan argument. But if Lucy's father was Aelfgar III who married
Alvarissa Malet daughter of William Mallet and William married the daughter of
Thorold the Sheriff, then the naming patterns are consistent and the land
transactions make sense.
Complete Peerage: "Other manors of Thorold which passed to Lucy are Belchford,
Scamblesby, Stenigot, Tetney and Donington. (a) Lucy also held Alkborough, (b)
which had belonged in the time of the Confessor to William Malet, (c) father
of Lucy's uncle Robert Malet. If Lucy's mother was William Malet's daughter,
this may have been her maritagium; and the fact that Thorold gave tithes in
this place (d) has been advanced as evidence that he was her husband."
Though I accept that the evidence is unclear, I can find no more weight to one
argument than the other.
- Ken
Richard Borthwick
Taillebois son of Ivo and Lucy), who married Gilbert of Kendal. Ivo held
Kendal, and one source says that William I (lord of Kendal) known as
Taillebois was by permission of the king allowed to change his name to de
Lancaster [Sanders p.56 note 7 citing *Monasticon*, v, p.249]. But Gilbert
son of Chetell son of Eldred of Workington succeeded Chetell in Kendal who
in turn was successor of Ivo. William I followed his father Gilbert in
Kendal. (1) What evidence is there that (1) Goditha wife of Gilbert was
daughter of William son of Ivo and Lucy? (2) If Lucy had a son by Ivo
presumably he would have been heir to her lands and thence to the Lancaster
family. From what I can recall this is not what happened.
I was under the impression that Lucy only had a daughter, Beatrice, by Ivo
who married Ribald of Middleham (see Keats-Rohan's "Domesday Book and the
Malets: Patrimony and the Private Histories of Public Lives" Table 2) though
Washington and Moriarty (see below) surmise that the only daughter of Ivo
was Christina wife of Chetell. Appendix J in CP VII:743 does not credit Lucy
and Ivo with any offspring (though I may have missed something - small print
& bad eyesight!).
G Washington's paper "The parentage of William de Lancaster, lord of Kendal"
in *Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and
Archeological Society*, LXII (1962), 95-100 incorporates, as Part II, a
section written by G Andrews Moriarty.
Figure 1 [The male lineage according to Sanders et al.]
Eldred, of Workington, Cumberland
|
|
Chetell, of Kendal, Westmorland
|
|
Gilbert, of Kendal m. Goditha
|
|
William I, of Kendal
|
|
William II, of Kendal d.1184
Figure 2 [The Washington/Moriarty reconstrucution]
Eldred, of Workington, Cumberland
|
________________________________|____________________
Chetell m. Christina Goditha m. Gilbert
d.>1120 ?Tallebois
| |
___________|______ _________________|_____________
William Orm m Gunhilda William I m.(1) NN Roger
d.s.p. d.1170
| |
| |
Gospatrick William II m. Helewise
d.>1179 d.1184
Christina in (Fig.2) is suggested as the dau. of Ivo Taillebois and Lucy. In
a charter by William I (Published by Ragg in 1909) he confirms a grant of
his "avunculus" Chetell. Hence Chetell is understood by W & M to be the
brother of Goditha. The value of this charter on this point was apparently
challenged by James Wilson in his *Register of St Bees* (1915). I am in no
position to comment further on the point at issue here.
It is some time since I looked at any original source material on this topic
(late 70's), so I look forward to hearing where things are at with the
descendants of Lucy and Ivo and the current understanding as to how the
pedigree of William I de Lancaster is to be articulated.
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/1/98 2:07:03 AM, rg...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au writes:
<<I was under the impression that Lucy only had a daughter, Beatrice, by Ivo
who married Ribald of Middleham (see Keats-Rohan's "Domesday Book and the
Malets: Patrimony and the Private Histories of Public Lives" Table 2) though
Washington and Moriarty (see below) surmise that the only daughter of Ivo
was Christina wife of Chetell. Appendix J in CP VII:743 does not credit Lucy
and Ivo with any offspring (though I may have missed something - small print
& bad eyesight!).>>
Your obsertvations were most interesting and lead to the need for additional
inquiry. I believe she had two children. 5 gen desc chart from Eldred:
(1) 1 Eldred --1st Baron Kendal, Lord Workington ref1
& Aldgytha 1
(2) 1 Ketel --3rd Baron Kendal ref1
d. abt 1150
& Christiana 2
(3) 1 Gilbert de Lancaster --4th Baron Kendal ref 2
& Goditha Tailbois/Lancaster 2
(4) 1 William de Lancaster --5th Baron Kendal 3, 2
b. abt 1115, of Workington, Coupland.
d. 1170
& Gundred de Warren/Lancaster 4
b. abt 1117, of Surrey, England
d. abt 1166
(5) 1 William de Lancaster --6th Baron Lancaster 5
d. 1184
& Helewise de Stuteville/Lancaster 6
b. abt 1165
d. aft 1226
(5) 2 Ada de Lancaster/Morville 7
b. abt 1134
d. 1 Jan 1191
& Richard de Morville --Constable of Scotland 8
b. abt 1125, of Burgh-by-Sands, Cumberland, England
d. 1189, Lauder, Lauderdale, Scotland
m. 1170
(5) 3 Gilbert de Lancaster --Lord Stainton in Kendal
(3) 2 Orm --Lord Seaton, Camberton, Craysother, Flemingsby
& Gunnilda of Northumberland 9
1. Faris. The Plantagenet Ancestry, 140:8i
2. Faris, The Plantagenet Ancestry, 210:8
3. Royalty for Commoners, by Roderick W. Stuart, p. 24.
4. Ancestors of Deacon Edward Converse, p. 20.
5. Royalty for Commoners, by Roderick W. Stuart, p. 24.
6. Wallop Family, p. 741.
7. Lineage and Ancestry of HRH Prince Charles by Gerald Paget, Vol. I, p. 179.
8. Lineage and Ancestry of HRH Prince Charles by Gerald Paget, Vol. I, p. 179.
9. Ancestors of American Presidents by Gary Boyd Roberts, p. 142.
[The above sources are not the only sources, obvioously.]
Richard Borthwick wrote: "If Lucy had a son by Ivo, presumably he would have
been heir to her lands and thence to the Lancaster family. From what I can
recall this is not what happened."
This is an interesting point of inquiry which I cannot comment on for lack of
knowledge. However, the Lucy/Ivo descendants are listed below:
5 Generations - Desc of Talboys:
(1) 1 Ivo Talboys --Earl of Anjou 1
& Lucy Talboys 2 3
(2) 1 William de Tailbois 4
b. of Lancaster, England
& Margaret Tailbois 4
(3) 1 Goditha Tailbois/Lancaster 3
& Gilbert de Lancaster --4th Baron Kendal 3
(4) 1 William de Lancaster --5th Baron Kendal 5, 3
b. abt 1115, of Workington, Coupland.
d. 1170
& Gundred de Warren/Lancaster 6
b. abt 1117, of Surrey, England
d. abt 1166
(5) 1 William de Lancaster --6th Baron Lancaster 7
d. 1184
& Helewise de Stuteville/Lancaster 8
b. abt 1165
d. aft 1226
(5) 2 Ada de Lancaster/Morville 9
b. abt 1134
d. 1 Jan 1191
& Richard de Morville --Constable of Scotland 10
b. abt 1125, of Burgh-by-Sands, Cumberland, England
d. 1189, Lauder, Lauderdale, Scotland
m. 1170
(5) 3 Gilbert de Lancaster --Lord Stainton in Kendal
(2) 2 Beatrice Talybois 11
& Ribald Talybois --Lord Middleham 12
b. 1050, of Middleham, Yorkshire, England
d. 1121
(3) 1 Ralph Talybois --Lord Middleham 13
& Agatha de Bruce/Talybois 14
b. abt 1110, of Skelton, Yorkshire, England
(4) 1a Robert Taylbois --Lord Middleham* 15
b. abt 1145
& Helewise Glanville/Talybois 16
b. of Coverham, Yorkshire, England
(5) 1 Ranulf FitzRobert --Lord Middleham 17
b. of Middleham, Yorkshire, England
d. bef 7 Dec 1252
& Mary Bigod/FitzRobert 18
b. abt 1205, of Menethorpe, Yorkshire, England
(4) 1b Robert Taylbois --Lord Middleham* 15
b. abt 1145
1. Plantagenet Ancestry by Turton, p. 95.
2. Plantagenet Ancestry by Turton, p. 95.
3. Faris, The Plantagenet Ancestry, 210:8
4. Faris. The Plantagenet Ancestry, 140:8i
5. Royalty for Commoners, by Roderick W. Stuart, p. 24.
6. Ancestors of Deacon Edward Converse, p. 20.
7. Royalty for Commoners, by Roderick W. Stuart, p. 24.
8. Wallop Family, p. 741.
9. Lineage and Ancestry of HRH Prince Charles by Gerald Paget, Vol. I, p. 179.
10. Lineage and Ancestry of HRH Prince Charles by Gerald Paget, Vol. I, p.
179.
11. Plantagenet Ancestry by Turton, p. 123.
12. Plantagenet Ancestry by Turton, p. 123.
13. Plantagenet Ancestry by Turton, p. 123.
14. Plantagenet Ancestry by Turton, p. 123.
15. Plantagenet Ancestry by Turton, p. 123.
16. Plantagenet Ancestry by Turton, p.123.
17. Plantagenet Ancestry by Turton, p. 118.
18. The Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants, by Gary Boyd Roberts, p. 446; Some
Early English Pedigrees, by Vernon M. Norr, p. 25.
Nigel Barker
>
>In a message dated 10/1/98 2:07:03 AM, rg...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au writes:
>
><<I was under the impression that Lucy only had a daughter, Beatrice, by Ivo
>who married Ribald of Middleham (see Keats-Rohan's "Domesday Book and the
>Malets: Patrimony and the Private Histories of Public Lives" Table 2) though
>Washington and Moriarty (see below) surmise that the only daughter of Ivo
>was Christina wife of Chetell. Appendix J in CP VII:743 does not credit Lucy
>and Ivo with any offspring (though I may have missed something - small print
>& bad eyesight!).>>
>
>Your obsertvations were most interesting and lead to the need for additional
>inquiry. I believe she had two children.
I set out some further information which may assist this matter -
another doubtful Charter of a Religeous House, with partisan views, may
be distorting proper genealogy!
>
VICTORIA HISTORY OF LANCASHIRE
VOL I pp35>
.Notes from passage on the family of Lancaster, Barons of Kendal
[The origin of the family is obscure.]
[Small landholder within the Barony of Coupland.]
[Granted land by William Meschine when he was granted his fief by Henry
I.]
"The first recorded member is little mentioned beyond the bare fact that
his name was Gilbert and his wife's name was Godith (Lancs Fines Rec Soc
XXXIX 61). To this the monkish chroniclers have added the fiction that
he was the son of Ketel, son of Eldred, son of Ivo Taillebois (Mon Angl
iii 553 & Cockersands Cartulary, Chethem Soc (New Series) xxxix 305),
whereas he was almost, if not quite, contemporary with Ivo, by whom
Gilbert and his predecessor was probably enffeoffed of those manors
within the Barony of Westmoreland which his descendants, the barons of
Kendal, where chief lords. (Gilbert fitz Reinford & Helewise his wife
confirmed some of Ivo's grants to the Abbey of St. Mary, York (Mon Ang
iii 566))
The connection which existed between the heirs of Ketel, son of Eldred,
namely the Curwens of Workington, and the Lancasters, of whom the former
held several manors in Cumberland and Westmoreland, was probably of
tenure rather than consanguinity. Intimately connected with this subject
is a charter, of which an ancient transcript is preserved at Levens
Hall, by which Roger de Mawbury grants to William son of Gilbert de
Lancaster,in fee and inheritance, "all my land of Lonsdale, and of
Kendal, and Horton in Ribblesdale, to hold by the service of 4 knights
(Reg of Deeds at Levens Hall f79, Lancs Pipe Reg 389). It would be
interesting to discuss the question as to whether this charter
represents an original grant or merely a confirmation of a much older
infeudation.
William son of Gilbert was the first to be enfeoffed of land in
Lancaster. In 1212 he is described as "Willelmus filiuus Gibberti
premus". He is not always described as "de Lancaster" for which it may
be inferred that he was the first of his line to be associated with the
Court and its Lords. The Mon. Chronicle to which allusion has already
been made tells us that he caused himself to be called "de Lancaster" by
the King's Licence, and to be styled before the King in Parliament (sic)
"William de Lancaster, Baron Kendal". The same Chronicle states that he
married Gundreda, formerly Countess of Warwick, whose husband, Roger de
Newburgh, died in 1153.
William de Lancaster died in or after 1170.
Et seq.
--
Nigel Barker
KHF...@aol.com
Nigel Barker seems to have found the root sources for the errors made in the
Countess Lucy genealogy. Turton, Faris and many others all seem to have
reasoned in the same manner that I was reasoning--i.e., noting the name of
Goditha, wife of Gilbert, and then believing the information that the monks
placed in the chronicle (Mon Angl iii 553 & Cockersands Cartulary, Chethem
Soc). This, in turn, led to Lucy being tagged as the granddaughter of
Godiva--especially since the Petersborough Chronicle and the Crowland Charter
verified it and said it was so. However, this reconstruction, though seemingly
sound, was in error. And this discourse has been most fruitful.
In a message dated 10/2/98 1:42:23 AM, ni...@a6law.demon.co.uk writes:
<<"The first recorded member is little mentioned beyond the bare fact that
his name was Gilbert and his wife's name was Godith (Lancs Fines Rec Soc
XXXIX 61). To this the monkish chroniclers have added the fiction that
he was the son of Ketel, son of Eldred, son of Ivo Taillebois (Mon Angl
iii 553 & Cockersands Cartulary, Chethem Soc (New Series) xxxix 305),
whereas he was almost, if not quite, contemporary with Ivo, by whom
Gilbert and his predecessor was probably enffeoffed of those manors
within the Barony of Westmoreland which his descendants, the barons of
Kendal, where chief lords. (Gilbert fitz Reinford & Helewise his wife
confirmed some of Ivo's grants to the Abbey of St. Mary, York (Mon Ang
iii 566)>>
- Ken
Richard Borthwick
>
>In a message dated 10/1/98 2:07:03 AM, rg...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au writes:
>
><<I was under the impression that Lucy only had a daughter, Beatrice, by Ivo
>who married Ribald of Middleham (see Keats-Rohan's "Domesday Book and the
>Malets: Patrimony and the Private Histories of Public Lives" Table 2) though
>Washington and Moriarty (see below) surmise that the only daughter of Ivo
>was Christina wife of Chetell. Appendix J in CP VII:743 does not credit Lucy
>and Ivo with any offspring (though I may have missed something - small print
>& bad eyesight!).>>
>
>Your obsertvations were most interesting and lead to the need for additional
>
>(1) 1 Eldred --1st Baron Kendal, Lord Workington ref1
>& Aldgytha 1
>(2) 1 Ketel --3rd Baron Kendal ref1
> d. abt 1150
>& Christiana 2
>(3) 1 Gilbert de Lancaster --4th Baron Kendal ref 2
>& Goditha Tailbois/Lancaster 2
>(4) 1 William de Lancaster --5th Baron Kendal 3, 2
> b. abt 1115, of Workington, Coupland.
> d. 1170
(I) [(4) 1] was born well before 1115. He would have been old enough to have
had a son who could witness his confirmation and himself to have been of
age. This would push back William (I)'s birth to about 1090. Both William
(I) and William (II) would have been quite old when they died.
> b. abt 1117, of Surrey, England
> d. abt 1166
first husband died 1153 [CP XII/2:362]. William evidently witnessed his
father's confirmation (about 1120/30) to the Hospital of St Peter, York
{Moriarty in Washington's paper (already cited) and he refers to the
printing of the charters to St Peter's in F W Ragg "Charters of St Peter's
Hospital, York" in CW2 ix 237-239. I take it this refers to *Transactions of
the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society* (?
second series) vol. IX].
What is the primary source(s) for the existence of William son of Ivo and
Lucy? Lucy certainly had a son by that name by her second husband. There
have been two speculations that I know of connecting Lucy through her second
or third marriages to Gilbert fitz Roger fitz Reinfrid husband of Helewise
de Lancaster daughter of William (II). I don't know whether either has a
sound basis.
>(3) 1 Goditha Tailbois/Lancaster 3
>& Gilbert de Lancaster --4th Baron Kendal 3
Ditto for Goditha being the daughter of William son of Ivo and Lucy by a
Margaret Tallebois?
>(4) 1 William de Lancaster --5th Baron Kendal 5, 3
> b. abt 1115, of Workington, Coupland.
> d. 1170
If William
>& Gundred de Warren/Lancaster 6
> b. abt 1117, of Surrey, England
> d. abt 1166
>(5) 1 William de Lancaster --6th Baron Lancaster 7
> d. 1184
>& Helewise de Stuteville/Lancaster 8
> b. abt 1165
> d. aft 1226
>(5) 2 Ada de Lancaster/Morville 9
> b. abt 1134
> d. 1 Jan 1191
>& Richard de Morville --Constable of Scotland 10
> b. abt 1125, of Burgh-by-Sands, Cumberland, England
> d. 1189, Lauder, Lauderdale, Scotland
> m. 1170
>(5) 3 Gilbert de Lancaster --Lord Stainton in Kendal
>(2) 2 Beatrice Talybois 11
>& Ribald Talybois --Lord Middleham 12
> b. 1050, of Middleham, Yorkshire, England
> d. 1121
>(3) 1 Ralph Talybois --Lord Middleham 13
>& Agatha de Bruce/Talybois 14
Ralph certainly used the name 'Talybois/Tallebois' but I think neither
Ribald nor Ralph's successors used it. I may be mistaken about this.