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
(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
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
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
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
< Dear Douglas,
< Thank you for a good post.
< You still have omitted the possibilty of Faramus being an uncle of
< half-blood. That has to be eliminated as well before Rohese can be
< as Rohese de Boulogne.
< Best wishes as always.
< Leo van de Pas