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:
 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‘Harvard Historical Studies’, Volume XXIV, ‘Norman Institutions’, (1918), by Charles Homer Haskins, Appendix F. – Unpublished Charters of Henry I - pp. 299-302).
 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.
 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’. 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.
 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.’
 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.