Discussion:
Faramus of Boulonge and Richard de Lucy
(too old to reply)
m***@yahoo.com
2005-07-29 04:57:15 UTC
Can anyone tell me when Faramus of Boulogne and Richard de Lucy first
show up in the records.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
2005-07-29 05:46:16 UTC
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Can anyone tell me when Faramus of Boulogne and Richard de Lucy first
show up in the records.
Dear Mike ~

Thank you for your good post. Yes, I can answer that question for you.

Faramus of Boulogne first appears in the records in 1130, when he was
indebted £20 to the Exchequer "pro placitis terre sua tenet et ut
habeat terram suam quam Noverca sua tenet." [Reference: Pipe Roll of 31
Henry I, A.D. 1130].

Richard de Lucy first appears in the records in 1131, as indicated by
the following charter of King Henry I of England:

Date: Feb. 1131. Rouen.

"Notification by Henry I, 'by the grace of God King of the English
and Duke of the Normans' to the Archbishop of Rouen and all of
Normandy: That he has given to SS. Gervase and Protase of Sées, for
the use of the bishop, the fee of Laleu (Alodii) [Orne] which William
Goth held and the King bought from his niece Aveline and her son
Richard de Lucy (Luceio), and they delivered to Robert Earl of
Gloucester. Witnesses: Hugh Archbishop of Rouen, John Bishop of
Lisieux, Audoin Bishop of Évreux; Richard Bishop of Bayeux, John
Bishop of Sées; Robert de Sigillo; Nigel nephew of the Bishop of
Salisbury; Robert Earl of Gloucester, the King's son; William Earl
Warenne; Waleran Count of Meulan; Robert Earl of Leicester; Robert de
la Haie, sewer; Hugh Bigod, sewer; Rabel [de Tancarville] the
chamberlain; Brian Fitz Count, constable; Geoffrey de Clinton."
[Reference: Charles Johnson & H.A. Cronne, Regesta Regum
Anglo-Normannorum 1066-1154 2 (Oxford, 1956): 247].

Richard de Lucy appears to have been the eldest son and heir of his
mother, Aveline. As we see above, his mother, Aveline, was still
living in 1131. Besides Richard de Lucy, Aveline had younger sons,
Walter and probably Robert, and a probable daughter, Margaret.

Faramus of Boulogne, on the other hand, had a step-mother ("noverca")
who presumably just died in 1130.

Given these facts, it is impossible for Richard de Lucy and Faramus of
Boulogne to have had the same mother, as Richard de Lucy's mother,
Aveline, was still living in 1131, whereas Faramus of Boulogne's
step-mother had just died in 1130. They most definitely did not have
the same father.

As for their subsequent history, Sir Richard de Lucy and Faramus of
Boulogne both lived to advanced age. Sir Richard de Lucy died in 1179,
and Faramus of Boulogne lived until 1183/4.

In summary, the two men were almost exact contemporaries to one
another, they being on the stage of history together for almost 50
years. As such, I conclude they were of the same generation and
probably of similar if not identical birthdate. They were neither
brothers or half-brothers.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
2005-07-29 06:02:10 UTC
Douglas Richardson wrote:

<snip>
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
Faramus of Boulogne first appears in the records in 1130, when he was
indebted £20 to the Exchequer "pro placitis terre sua tenet et ut
habeat terram suam quam Noverca sua tenet." [Reference: Pipe Roll of 31
Henry I, A.D. 1130].
<snip>
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
Richard de Lucy appears to have been the eldest son and heir of his
mother, Aveline. As we see above, his mother, Aveline, was still
living in 1131. Besides Richard de Lucy, Aveline had younger sons,
Walter and probably Robert, and a probable daughter, Margaret.
Faramus of Boulogne, on the other hand, had a step-mother ("noverca")
who presumably just died in 1130.
Eh? The pipe roll as quoted above clearly implies that she was still
alive - "tenet" is present tense, and if she was currently holding
lands at the time of the 1130 entry then she wasn't dead. The suit of
Faramus that he might hold her estate would presuambly have other
reasons behind it. Unless you have some better evidence that his
step-mother wasn't Avelina, who was still living in 1131, the case is
yet to be made out that Faramus could not have been a uterine
half-brother of Richard de Lucy.

Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
2005-07-29 06:26:20 UTC
Dear Peter ~

If Faramus of Boulogne's step-mother ("noverca") in 1130 was Aveline de
Lucy, then Aveline's son, Richard de Lucy, would only have been a
step-brother to Faramus, not half-brother as you have it.

In which case, Faramus of Boulogne would not be uncle to Richard de
Lucy's son, Bishop Godfrey de Lucy. Faramus and Bishop Godfrey would
not be related at all.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
Faramus of Boulogne first appears in the records in 1130, when he was
indebted £20 to the Exchequer "pro placitis terre sua tenet et ut
habeat terram suam quam Noverca sua tenet." [Reference: Pipe Roll of 31
Henry I, A.D. 1130].
<snip>
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
Richard de Lucy appears to have been the eldest son and heir of his
mother, Aveline. As we see above, his mother, Aveline, was still
living in 1131. Besides Richard de Lucy, Aveline had younger sons,
Walter and probably Robert, and a probable daughter, Margaret.
Faramus of Boulogne, on the other hand, had a step-mother ("noverca")
who presumably just died in 1130.
Eh? The pipe roll as quoted above clearly implies that she was still
alive - "tenet" is present tense, and if she was currently holding
lands at the time of the 1130 entry then she wasn't dead. The suit of
Faramus that he might hold her estate would presuambly have other
reasons behind it. Unless you have some better evidence that his
step-mother wasn't Avelina, who was still living in 1131, the case is
yet to be made out that Faramus could not have been a uterine
half-brother of Richard de Lucy.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2005-07-29 07:40:50 UTC
<***@msn.com> wrote in message news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Peter ~

If Faramus of Boulogne's step-mother ("noverca") in 1130 was Aveline de
Lucy, then Aveline's son, Richard de Lucy, would only have been a
step-brother to Faramus, not half-brother as you have it.

In which case, Faramus of Boulogne would not be uncle to Richard de
Lucy's son, Bishop Godfrey de Lucy. Faramus and Bishop Godfrey would
not be related at all.

You are quite right about the consequences of the "step-" relationship, as I
carlessly misstated on this aspect, rather than a uterine one.

However, the woman was evidently alive and not dead in 1130 so the conundrum
is not resolved by this.

Is there definite evidence that the term "uncle" could not have been used
loosely to cover a step-uncle, that is a connection not related by blood to
the bishop at all, or that "noverca" could not have been used imprecisely
for that matter? Is it known what term was usually given for "mother-in-law"
in that roll, for instance? It seems likelier that a holding would be
tranferred to a son-in-law than to a step-son. What else is known about the
holdings of Faramus after this time - i.e. did he keep & pass on to his own
issue whatever he had sought in 1130, if this can be identified?

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2005-07-29 07:51:42 UTC
My apologies for any confusion in reading the message below, which I have
now provided with extra chevrons to make it clearer who wrote what.

The settings Richardson uses at times for his posts seem to get in the way
of automatic line markers when quoting in reply. This is not collegial.

Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
Dear Peter ~
If Faramus of Boulogne's step-mother ("noverca") in 1130 was Aveline de
Lucy, then Aveline's son, Richard de Lucy, would only have been a
step-brother to Faramus, not half-brother as you have it.
In which case, Faramus of Boulogne would not be uncle to Richard de
Lucy's son, Bishop Godfrey de Lucy. Faramus and Bishop Godfrey would
not be related at all.
You are quite right about the consequences of the "step-" relationship, as
I carlessly misstated on this aspect, rather than a uterine one.
However, the woman was evidently alive and not dead in 1130 so the
conundrum is not resolved by this.
Is there definite evidence that the term "uncle" could not have been used
loosely to cover a step-uncle, that is a connection not related by blood
to the bishop at all, or that "noverca" could not have been used
imprecisely for that matter? Is it known what term was usually given for
"mother-in-law" in that roll, for instance? It seems likelier that a
holding would be tranferred to a son-in-law than to a step-son. What else
is known about the holdings of Faramus after this time - i.e. did he keep
& pass on to his own issue whatever he had sought in 1130, if this can be
identified?
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
2005-07-29 08:18:51 UTC
Dear Peter ~

Thank you for your good post.

I've only seen the term "avunculus" be used to refer to one's blood
uncle in English records, never a step-relation or an uncle by
marriage. I suppose it is possible that an uncle by marriage might be
called "avunculus" in some stray record, but if so, it must be very
rare indeed. In any event, it is a mute point, as we know that Bishop
Godfrey de Lucy was not married. Thus Faramus of Boulogne could not
possibly be his uncle by marriage. As for "noverca," I understand this
Latin word means "step-mother." I believe it is rendered as such by
Keats-Rohan.

In later periods, c. 1300 and beyond, I find that people occasionally
referred to an uncle by marriage as "uncle", or a nephew by marriage as
"nephew," but this is almost exlusively found in private
correspondence, not in public records. If we assume the pattern was
true in earlier periods (which I suspect would be likely), this would
make it all but certain that Faramus of Boulogne was Bishop Godfrey de
Lucy's blood uncle, as Bishop Godfrey referred to Faramus as his
"avunculus" in a public charter, not a private letter. My own feeling
is that a blood uncle is intended in this case.

As for Faramus of Boulogne's land holdings, I'm aware of what
properties he had by inheritance and also what he held by later grant
of the king. All of these properties passed to his daughter, Sibyl,
wife of Enguerrand de Fiennes, and thence onto her heirs.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by Peter Stewart
Is there definite evidence that the term "uncle" could not have been used
loosely to cover a step-uncle, that is a connection not related by blood to
the bishop at all, or that "noverca" could not have been used imprecisely
for that matter? Is it known what term was usually given for "mother-in-law"
in that roll, for instance? It seems likelier that a holding would be
tranferred to a son-in-law than to a step-son. What else is known about the
holdings of Faramus after this time - i.e. did he keep & pass on to his own
issue whatever he had sought in 1130, if this can be identified?
Peter Stewart
Leo van de Pas
2005-07-29 08:41:49 UTC
Dear Douglas,

Thank you for a good post.

You still have omitted the possibilty of Faramus being an uncle of the
half-blood. That has to be eliminated as well before Rohese can be accepted
as Rohese de Boulogne.

Best wishes as always.
Leo van de Pas


----- Original Message -----
From: <***@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Faramus of Boulonge and Richard de Lucy
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
Dear Peter ~
Thank you for your good post.
I've only seen the term "avunculus" be used to refer to one's blood
uncle in English records, never a step-relation or an uncle by
marriage. I suppose it is possible that an uncle by marriage might be
called "avunculus" in some stray record, but if so, it must be very
rare indeed. In any event, it is a mute point, as we know that Bishop
Godfrey de Lucy was not married. Thus Faramus of Boulogne could not
possibly be his uncle by marriage. As for "noverca," I understand this
Latin word means "step-mother." I believe it is rendered as such by
Keats-Rohan.
In later periods, c. 1300 and beyond, I find that people occasionally
referred to an uncle by marriage as "uncle", or a nephew by marriage as
"nephew," but this is almost exlusively found in private
correspondence, not in public records. If we assume the pattern was
true in earlier periods (which I suspect would be likely), this would
make it all but certain that Faramus of Boulogne was Bishop Godfrey de
Lucy's blood uncle, as Bishop Godfrey referred to Faramus as his
"avunculus" in a public charter, not a private letter. My own feeling
is that a blood uncle is intended in this case.
As for Faramus of Boulogne's land holdings, I'm aware of what
properties he had by inheritance and also what he held by later grant
of the king. All of these properties passed to his daughter, Sibyl,
wife of Enguerrand de Fiennes, and thence onto her heirs.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by Peter Stewart
Is there definite evidence that the term "uncle" could not have been used
loosely to cover a step-uncle, that is a connection not related by blood to
the bishop at all, or that "noverca" could not have been used imprecisely
for that matter? Is it known what term was usually given for
"mother-in-law"
in that roll, for instance? It seems likelier that a holding would be
tranferred to a son-in-law than to a step-son. What else is known about the
holdings of Faramus after this time - i.e. did he keep & pass on to his own
issue whatever he had sought in 1130, if this can be identified?
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
2005-07-29 10:14:52 UTC
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
five factors:

(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
1130.

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
one another.

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

Website: www.royalancestry.net


"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
the
< half-blood. That has to be eliminated as well before Rohese can be
accepted
< as Rohese de Boulogne.
<
< Best wishes as always.
< Leo van de Pas
Chris Phillips
2005-07-29 10:38:20 UTC
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
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.
If Rohese were younger than Faramus, she could still have had a different
_mother_ from Faramus (as we know Faramus had a stepmother), but not a
different _father_.

Chris Phillips
Leo van de Pas
2005-07-29 11:51:30 UTC
Thanks Chris,

This does make it likely that Rohese was a de Boulogne, thanks for pointing
this out. That aspect of her ancestry is the important one. Richardson is
most probably correct in calling her Rohese de Boulogne but the link is
still not fully established.

Leo van de Pas


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <***@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: Faramus of Boulonge and Richard de Lucy
Post by Chris Phillips
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
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.
If Rohese were younger than Faramus, she could still have had a different
_mother_ from Faramus (as we know Faramus had a stepmother), but not a
different _father_.
Chris Phillips
Leo van de Pas
2005-07-29 11:45:02 UTC
This certainly is interesting reading. See below :
----- Original Message -----
From: <***@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: Faramus of Boulonge and Richard de Lucy
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
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.
------This is assuming. Guess work can be productive at times. Faramus'
father William apparently died _before 1130_ which _could_ support Faramus
and Rohese are full siblings. But nothing can be taken for granted,
especially as we do not seem to know who their mother was and don't seem to
have any dates attached to her.. What if William died a long time before
1130 and the mother was quickly remarried and quickly had Rohese. We hear
how in those days husbands were hardly buried and their wives were married
again.
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
(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
1130.
-----The above is still guessing. How can we assume that Godfrey was 20 in
1171?
In those days sometimes religious appointments were made when people were
even younger.

Also in those days girls married very early and 20 may already be regarded
as old for a first child. You think that Rohese's children were born not
earlier than 1135. If Rohese was 15 when she started having children she
could be born about 1120, give or take a year. And Faramus born in or before
1109 can stretch the difference between Faramus and Rohese to ten years and
more. Enough for their mother to have married a different father for Rohese.
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
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.
---------28 would be _very old_ for Rohese and still give six years or more
between Rohese and Faramus, again time for a second.marriage for their
mother and a different father for Rohese.
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
(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.
---------One explanation surely gives room for others. Faramus' grandfather
was an illegitimate uncle of Queen Matilda/Maud. Perhaps Sir Richard de Lucy
had a status of his own warranting acknowledgement, after all he was Chief
Justiciar of England. Not necessarily for being married to a granddaughter
of an illegitimate uncle of the queen.
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
(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
one another.
----------As Sir Richard de Lucy was Chief Justiciar of England he may well
have witnessed many more charters, and he probably witnessed them as Chief
Justice and not because his wife _could be_ a third cousin of Simon de
Senlis.
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
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.
----------Rohese is most likely a close relative of Faramus but there are
options open making it dangerous to be dogmatic. I hope you find something
which will clinch it, but at the moment I think we should still say_ the
jury is out_ as to how they are related.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Chris Phillips
2005-07-29 12:19:42 UTC
Post by Leo van de Pas
------This is assuming. Guess work can be productive at times. Faramus'
father William apparently died _before 1130_ which _could_ support Faramus
and Rohese are full siblings. But nothing can be taken for granted,
especially as we do not seem to know who their mother was and don't seem to
have any dates attached to her.. What if William died a long time before
1130 and the mother was quickly remarried and quickly had Rohese. We hear
how in those days husbands were hardly buried and their wives were married
again.
But if in 1129-30 William is dead and Faramus has a step mother, that means
Faramus's mother must have died _before_ William (so that William could then
remarry to the stepmother). (Unless there was a divorce, of course.)

On this basis, the only way in which Rohese could be a half-sister of
Faramus, sharing only a mother, would be if Rohese was _older_ than Faramus.

Chris Phillips
Leo van de Pas
2005-07-29 12:45:59 UTC
Dear Chris,

I think we can assume Rohese to be younger and being at least a daughter of
William, but the question remains who is her mother? Faramus mother or his
stepmother? We don't know anything about the mother and very little about
the stepmother but that there _was_ a stepmother seems to prevent the
cast-iron conclusion that Faramus and Rohese are full siblings.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <***@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: Faramus of Boulonge and Richard de Lucy
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Post by Leo van de Pas
------This is assuming. Guess work can be productive at times. Faramus'
father William apparently died _before 1130_ which _could_ support
Faramus
Post by Leo van de Pas
and Rohese are full siblings. But nothing can be taken for granted,
especially as we do not seem to know who their mother was and don't seem
to
Post by Leo van de Pas
have any dates attached to her.. What if William died a long time before
1130 and the mother was quickly remarried and quickly had Rohese. We hear
how in those days husbands were hardly buried and their wives were married
again.
But if in 1129-30 William is dead and Faramus has a step mother, that means
Faramus's mother must have died _before_ William (so that William could then
remarry to the stepmother). (Unless there was a divorce, of course.)
On this basis, the only way in which Rohese could be a half-sister of
Faramus, sharing only a mother, would be if Rohese was _older_ than Faramus.
Chris Phillips
Ginny Wagner
2005-07-29 12:18:08 UTC
p. 285 of France Calendar of Documents:

"1158 Abbey "Des (Dames) Blanches" at Mortain, for Cistercian Nuns in
the Diocese of Avranches [Original Charters formerly at
Sous-prefecture of Mortain.][1] [fn1] Now removed to the Archives
Nationales.

AND "Charter of William, count of Mortain, Warenne, and Boulogne
giving and granting, in alms for ever to the nuns of St. Mary of
Mortain, the gift of his father king Stephen in lands and tenants,
with the land of Monfautret.

"Testes: Eustachius cancellarius; Balduinus de Campania; Robertus
Pavo; Robertus filius Fulconis; magister Lucas; Faramus[4]; Fordanus
de Sancta-villa; Stephanus frater ejus; Robertus Avenel; Engelrannus
de Toschet; Hugo frater ejus; Guillelus de Virie; Arnoldus Pavo;
Guillelmus frater comitis. Apud Tenerbrachium. Anno ab incarnatione
Domini MCLVIII.

"[fn4] Trans.: "Faranius." See, for him, Genealogist, XII., 145."



ON page 268 of Robert Bartlett's England Under the Norman and Angevin
Kings,:

"The different kinds of recruits -- feudal and other levies, household
troops, mercenaries -- should not be classified too emphatically into
separate categories. William of Ypres, for example, an illegitimate
cadet of the Flemish comital family is frequently and reasonably
described as the leader of king Stephen's Flemish mercenaries, but
after the king's capture in 1141, command of his household troops was
taken by William, along with Faramus of Boulogne, nephew of the queen,
Matilda.[76] [fn76] J. Hexham, p. 310.

page 111
"The wife of Baldwin of Boulogne, one of the leaders of the crusade,
who died at Marasch in cilicia in October, 1097, was described by the
chronicler Albert of Aachen as 'Baldwin's most noble wife, whom he had
brought from the kingdom of England'; he givers her name as
Godwera.[109][fn109] Albert of Aachen, Historia Hierosolymitana 3.27,
Recueil des historiens des croisades, Historiens occidentaxu (5 vols.;
Paris, 1844-95), vol. 4, p. 358; for discussion of her identity,
William of Tyre, A history of Deeds Done beyond the Sea, tr. E.
A.Babcock and A.C. Krey (2 vols; New York, 1943), vol. I, p. 178 n.20.

p. 112: ...[King Stephen] ... gave what support he could to the
crusading enterprise, even though he was clearly unable to leave his
kingdom in the middle of civil war. His wife, Matilda, who also had
family ties to crusader Jerusalem, being the niece of its first two
rulers, Godfrey de Bouillon and king Baldwin I, was a major patroness
of the crusading orders.

Hope this helps. ;-) Ginny
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
2005-07-29 21:01:13 UTC
Dear Ginny ~

Thanks so much for sharing this information with us. It's good to see
people like you posting such helpful material. Keep up the good work.


Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by Ginny Wagner
"1158 Abbey "Des (Dames) Blanches" at Mortain, for Cistercian Nuns in
the Diocese of Avranches [Original Charters formerly at
Sous-prefecture of Mortain.][1] [fn1] Now removed to the Archives
Nationales.
AND "Charter of William, count of Mortain, Warenne, and Boulogne
giving and granting, in alms for ever to the nuns of St. Mary of
Mortain, the gift of his father king Stephen in lands and tenants,
with the land of Monfautret.
"Testes: Eustachius cancellarius; Balduinus de Campania; Robertus
Pavo; Robertus filius Fulconis; magister Lucas; Faramus[4]; Fordanus
de Sancta-villa; Stephanus frater ejus; Robertus Avenel; Engelrannus
de Toschet; Hugo frater ejus; Guillelus de Virie; Arnoldus Pavo;
Guillelmus frater comitis. Apud Tenerbrachium. Anno ab incarnatione
Domini MCLVIII.
"[fn4] Trans.: "Faranius." See, for him, Genealogist, XII., 145."
ON page 268 of Robert Bartlett's England Under the Norman and Angevin
"The different kinds of recruits -- feudal and other levies, household
troops, mercenaries -- should not be classified too emphatically into
separate categories. William of Ypres, for example, an illegitimate
cadet of the Flemish comital family is frequently and reasonably
described as the leader of king Stephen's Flemish mercenaries, but
after the king's capture in 1141, command of his household troops was
taken by William, along with Faramus of Boulogne, nephew of the queen,
Matilda.[76] [fn76] J. Hexham, p. 310.
page 111
"The wife of Baldwin of Boulogne, one of the leaders of the crusade,
who died at Marasch in cilicia in October, 1097, was described by the
chronicler Albert of Aachen as 'Baldwin's most noble wife, whom he had
brought from the kingdom of England'; he givers her name as
Godwera.[109][fn109] Albert of Aachen, Historia Hierosolymitana 3.27,
Recueil des historiens des croisades, Historiens occidentaxu (5 vols.;
Paris, 1844-95), vol. 4, p. 358; for discussion of her identity,
William of Tyre, A history of Deeds Done beyond the Sea, tr. E.
A.Babcock and A.C. Krey (2 vols; New York, 1943), vol. I, p. 178 n.20.
p. 112: ...[King Stephen] ... gave what support he could to the
crusading enterprise, even though he was clearly unable to leave his
kingdom in the middle of civil war. His wife, Matilda, who also had
family ties to crusader Jerusalem, being the niece of its first two
rulers, Godfrey de Bouillon and king Baldwin I, was a major patroness
of the crusading orders.
Hope this helps. ;-) Ginny
Ginny Wagner
2005-07-29 22:00:05 UTC
Doug said:
<Thanks so much for sharing this information with us.>

Ginny answered:
Welcome. I'll be very glad when I have enough knowledge to make sense
of the disparate (to me) bits of data. After a couple of years of
study and research I can sometimes recognize if something is
appropriate to the subject and even know where to find it -- but how
it fits in is another thing -- right now I'm very happily 'listening'
to the experts discuss the data as they turn it into meaningful
knowledge. ;-) Ginny
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
2005-07-29 22:04:00 UTC
I'm no expert, Ginny. I learn something new every day.

Please continue to post things as you find them.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt :Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
2005-07-29 08:51:30 UTC
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
Dear Peter ~
Thank you for your good post.
I've only seen the term "avunculus" be used to refer to one's blood
uncle in English records, never a step-relation or an uncle by
marriage. I suppose it is possible that an uncle by marriage might be
called "avunculus" in some stray record, but if so, it must be very
rare indeed. In any event, it is a mute point, as we know that Bishop
Godfrey de Lucy was not married. Thus Faramus of Boulogne could not
possibly be his uncle by marriage. As for "noverca," I understand this
Latin word means "step-mother." I believe it is rendered as such by
Keats-Rohan.
"Noverca" means step-mother, but as you know this relationship was very
common in the medieval era - and yet the word is not.

Just as today some people actually refer to their own half-siblings as
"step-" brother or sister when this is not strictly correct, so we must
suppose that officials & scribes sometimes muddled their teminology.

I did not mean to suggest that as a possible step-uncle Faramus was the
bishop's uncle by marriage in the sense of being his non-existant wife's
uncle, but perhaps by way of the remarriage of the bishop's paternal
grandmother to William fitz Geoffrey de Boulogne so that she became
"noverca" to Faramus.
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
In later periods, c. 1300 and beyond, I find that people occasionally
referred to an uncle by marriage as "uncle", or a nephew by marriage as
"nephew," but this is almost exlusively found in private
correspondence, not in public records. If we assume the pattern was
true in earlier periods (which I suspect would be likely), this would
make it all but certain that Faramus of Boulogne was Bishop Godfrey de
Lucy's blood uncle, as Bishop Godfrey referred to Faramus as his
"avunculus" in a public charter, not a private letter. My own feeling
is that a blood uncle is intended in this case.
I wouldn't rule this out by any means. Equally, if "noverca" was used for
mother-in-law then the wife of Faramus could account for the Lucy
connection.

"Avunculus" was a convenient term, like "nepos" then or the adjective
"avuncular" today, that could be applied in public & private documents for
other relationships than the most obvious or strict sense. Again, people did
not have primers at hand for these words. Even in royal diplomas we come
across oddities, so that formality is no guarantee of precision.
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
As for Faramus of Boulogne's land holdings, I'm aware of what
properties he had by inheritance and also what he held by later grant
of the king. All of these properties passed to his daughter, Sibyl,
wife of Enguerrand de Fiennes, and thence onto her heirs.
But does this include a permanent transfer of the holding of his "noverca"
in 1130, that he was to have from that time? If so, how unusual would that
be?

Peter Stewart
A***@aol.com
2005-07-29 10:46:04 UTC
Doug wrote;

<snip>


Faramus of Boulogne, on the other hand, had a step-mother ("noverca")
who presumably just died in 1130.



<snip>

Is this based on DD page 336?

I'm a little confused by Keats-Rohan dating. She states here that "de
Bolonie, Noverca Farami occures in Pipe Roll of 1129/30, and then gives her source
as Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, 50-sr. But Henry I accession was on 5 Aug 1100, so
isn't 31 Hy I the year 5 Aug 1130 - 4 Aug 1131? I see other examples where
Keats-Rohan has taken 31 Hy I to be 1129/30.

regards,
Adrian
Chris Phillips
2005-07-29 11:04:49 UTC
Post by A***@aol.com
I'm a little confused by Keats-Rohan dating. She states here that "de
Bolonie, Noverca Farami occures in Pipe Roll of 1129/30, and then gives her source
as Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, 50-sr. But Henry I accession was on 5 Aug 1100, so
isn't 31 Hy I the year 5 Aug 1130 - 4 Aug 1131? I see other examples where
Keats-Rohan has taken 31 Hy I to be 1129/30.
I think 1129-30 is correct, because the financial year then ran from
Michaelmas to Michaelmas, so the pipe roll that was made up after Michaelmas
31 Henry I (29 September 1130) would cover the financial year Michaelmas
1129-Michaelmas 1130.

Chris Phillips
William Marshall
2005-07-29 12:57:29 UTC
Douglas,

Thank you for posting the charter of King Henry I that first mentioned
Richard de Lucy.

In that charter, it mentioned Aveline (mother of Richard de Lucy) as
the King's niece. Any idea how?

Bill Marshall
***@research.att.com

-----original message-----
Date: 28 Jul 2005 22:46:16 -0700
From: "Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com" <***@msn.com>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Faramus of Boulonge and Richard de Lucy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Can anyone tell me when Faramus of Boulogne and Richard de Lucy first
show up in the records.
Dear Mike ~

Thank you for your good post. Yes, I can answer that question for you.

Faramus of Boulogne first appears in the records in 1130, when he was
indebted €20 to the Exchequer "pro placitis terre sua tenet et ut
habeat terram suam quam Noverca sua tenet." [Reference: Pipe Roll of 31
Henry I, A.D. 1130].

Richard de Lucy first appears in the records in 1131, as indicated by
the following charter of King Henry I of England:

Date: Feb. 1131. Rouen.

"Notification by Henry I, 'by the grace of God King of the English
and Duke of the Normans' to the Archbishop of Rouen and all of
Normandy: That he has given to SS. Gervase and Protase of S€es, for
the use of the bishop, the fee of Laleu (Alodii) [Orne] which William
Goth held and the King bought from his niece Aveline and her son
Richard de Lucy (Luceio), and they delivered to Robert Earl of
Gloucester. Witnesses: Hugh Archbishop of Rouen, John Bishop of
Lisieux, Audoin Bishop of €vreux; Richard Bishop of Bayeux, John
Bishop of S€es; Robert de Sigillo; Nigel nephew of the Bishop of
Salisbury; Robert Earl of Gloucester, the King's son; William Earl
Warenne; Waleran Count of Meulan; Robert Earl of Leicester; Robert de
la Haie, sewer; Hugh Bigod, sewer; Rabel [de Tancarville] the
chamberlain; Brian Fitz Count, constable; Geoffrey de Clinton."
[Reference: Charles Johnson & H.A. Cronne, Regesta Regum
Anglo-Normannorum 1066-1154 2 (Oxford, 1956): 247].

Richard de Lucy appears to have been the eldest son and heir of his
mother, Aveline. As we see above, his mother, Aveline, was still
living in 1131. Besides Richard de Lucy, Aveline had younger sons,
Walter and probably Robert, and a probable daughter, Margaret.

Faramus of Boulogne, on the other hand, had a step-mother ("noverca")
who presumably just died in 1130.

Given these facts, it is impossible for Richard de Lucy and Faramus of
Boulogne to have had the same mother, as Richard de Lucy's mother,
Aveline, was still living in 1131, whereas Faramus of Boulogne's
step-mother had just died in 1130. They most definitely did not have
the same father.

As for their subsequent history, Sir Richard de Lucy and Faramus of
Boulogne both lived to advanced age. Sir Richard de Lucy died in 1179,
and Faramus of Boulogne lived until 1183/4.

In summary, the two men were almost exact contemporaries to one
another, they being on the stage of history together for almost 50
years. As such, I conclude they were of the same generation and
probably of similar if not identical birthdate. They were neither
brothers or half-brothers.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
W***@aol.com
2005-07-29 19:45:26 UTC
In a message dated 7/28/05 11:00:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
***@msn.com writes:

<< Faramus of Boulogne first appears in the records in 1130, when he was
indebted £20 to the Exchequer "pro placitis terre sua tenet et ut
habeat terram suam quam Noverca sua tenet." [Reference: Pipe Roll of 31
Henry I, A.D. 1130]. >>


Ahhhh this then would explain why I have his father dying by 1130.
If Faramus is paying a debt, of, by or for, his stepmother, would this imply
her husband is dead?
Thanks
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
2005-07-29 19:55:37 UTC
Dear Will ~

Yes, you are correct. The 1130 Pipe Roll record makes it clear that
Faramus of Boulogne's father, William of Boulogne, was already dead;
otherwise his father would be the one answering for the debt.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
W***@aol.com
2005-07-29 20:02:08 UTC
In a message dated 7/29/05 3:15:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
***@msn.com writes:

<< 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. >>


How are you deriving a birthyear or such a tight range for Faramus?
Thanks
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
2005-07-29 20:19:00 UTC
Dear Will ~

We don't know exactly when Faramus of Boulogne was born. All we know
is that he was born in or before 1109, as he was of adult age in or
before 1130. It's doubtful he was born much earlier than 1109, as he
lived until 1183/4. He seems to have moved into administrative
positions by 1141, when he was in joint charge of King Stephen's
household during his captivity. Faramus and his brother-in-law,
Richard de Lucy, witnessed a charter of King Stephen at Canterbury at
Christmas 1141 to Geoffrey de Mandeville. My guess is that Faramus of
Boulogne was born say 1105.

As I've indicated in another post, my best guess for a birthdate of
Rohese of Boulogne is c.1110/1115. I've used four independant measures
to indicate this birth range. These measures appear to be consistent
with one another. If correct, then Rohese was a bit younger than her
brother, Faramus.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 7/29/05 3:15:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
<< 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. >>
How are you deriving a birthyear or such a tight range for Faramus?
Thanks
Will Johnson
W***@aol.com
2005-07-29 20:28:53 UTC
In a message dated 7/29/05 5:18:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
***@austin.rr.com writes:

<< ON page 268 of Robert Bartlett's England Under the Norman and Angevin
Kings,:

"The different kinds of recruits -- feudal and other levies, household
troops, mercenaries -- should not be classified too emphatically into
separate categories. William of Ypres, for example, an illegitimate
cadet of the Flemish comital family is frequently and reasonably
described as the leader of king Stephen's Flemish mercenaries, but
after the king's capture in 1141, command of his household troops was
taken by William, along with Faramus of Boulogne, nephew of the queen,
Matilda.[76] [fn76] J. Hexham, p. 310. >>

Now we have to wonder on what basis Faramus is made nephew to Matilda.
Matilda of Boulogne b aft 1100 mar 1125 Stephen, later King of England in 1135

"Living Descendents of Blood Royal" states that Matilda's parents were
Eustache III, Count of Boulogne and Mary of Scotland daughter of King Malcolm III.
And that Eustache and Mary were married 1101/1102

This would not give enough time for a full-sibling of Matilda's to grow-up,
get married, and have Faramus in time for him to be responsible for a debt of
his step-mother's in 1130.

Mary of Scotland's mother Margaret had no obvious ties to Boulogne that I can
see. So is it possible to resolve this? Perhaps there is another Faramus of
Boulogne, who in 1141, would have presumably been rather young, maybe
underage.

Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
2005-07-29 21:41:14 UTC
Dear Will ~

I believe the reference to Faramus of Boulogne being called "nepos" of
Queen Maud comes from one of the ancient chronicles published in the
Rolls Series. The term "nepos" in this time period could mean either
nephew, grandson, or near kinsman. In this case, it was the latter
meaning that was intended by the chronicler. There is no question that
Faramus's paternal grandfather was Geoffrey son of Count Eustache of
Boulogne.

The short end of it is that "nepos" should not be translated as nephew
prior to 1300, unless you have other evidence to confirm the
relationship.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 7/29/05 5:18:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
<< ON page 268 of Robert Bartlett's England Under the Norman and Angevin
"The different kinds of recruits -- feudal and other levies, household
troops, mercenaries -- should not be classified too emphatically into
separate categories. William of Ypres, for example, an illegitimate
cadet of the Flemish comital family is frequently and reasonably
described as the leader of king Stephen's Flemish mercenaries, but
after the king's capture in 1141, command of his household troops was
taken by William, along with Faramus of Boulogne, nephew of the queen,
Matilda.[76] [fn76] J. Hexham, p. 310. >>
Now we have to wonder on what basis Faramus is made nephew to Matilda.
Matilda of Boulogne b aft 1100 mar 1125 Stephen, later King of England in 1135
"Living Descendents of Blood Royal" states that Matilda's parents were
Eustache III, Count of Boulogne and Mary of Scotland daughter of King Malcolm III.
And that Eustache and Mary were married 1101/1102
This would not give enough time for a full-sibling of Matilda's to grow-up,
get married, and have Faramus in time for him to be responsible for a debt of
his step-mother's in 1130.
Mary of Scotland's mother Margaret had no obvious ties to Boulogne that I can
see. So is it possible to resolve this? Perhaps there is another Faramus of
Boulogne, who in 1141, would have presumably been rather young, maybe
underage.
Will Johnson
Peter Stewart
2005-07-29 23:10:46 UTC
<***@msn.com> wrote in message news:***@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

<snip>
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
The short end of it is that "nepos" should not be translated as nephew
prior to 1300, unless you have other evidence to confirm the
relationship.
The classical meaning of "nepos" was "grandson" or simply "descendant", but
the word was used for "nephew" in countless medieval sources over the
centuries before 1300.

Ideally other evidence should be adduced to confirm ANY relationship term -
no matter where it appears or who used it, as even in personal charters
scribes and copyists could have made an error - but of course this is not
always possible.

P{eter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
2005-07-30 08:29:01 UTC
Dear Peter ~

Nice post. Keep up the good work.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
The short end of it is that "nepos" should not be translated as nephew
prior to 1300, unless you have other evidence to confirm the
relationship.
The classical meaning of "nepos" was "grandson" or simply "descendant", but
the word was used for "nephew" in countless medieval sources over the
centuries before 1300.
Ideally other evidence should be adduced to confirm ANY relationship term -
no matter where it appears or who used it, as even in personal charters
scribes and copyists could have made an error - but of course this is not
always possible.
P{eter Stewart
p***@peterdale.com
2012-10-04 04:26:07 UTC
Greetings,

Just a brief note to touch base regarding the parentage of Rohese, wife of Richard de Lucy. I am in the process of reviewing the book (‘Families, Friends and Allies – Boulogne and Politics in Northern France and England, c. 879-1160’, (2004), by Heather J. Tanner [http://history.osu.edu/directory/Tanner87], published by Brill Leiden, Boston) which is an interesting examination of the Boulogne family. Unfortunately, there is still no reference to Rohese’s proposed kinship to Faramus, etc. I would be very interested in learning any new discoveries or interpretations with respect to Rohese’s ancestry and, in particular, information that:

(1) further establishes Rose [de Boulogne]’s parentage; or

(2) excludes alternatives to her being a sibling (at least on the paternal side) of Faramus de Boulogne. Many thanks.

Cheers,

Pete
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
Dear Peter ~
Nice post. Keep up the good work.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by Douglas Richardson ***@msn.com
The short end of it is that "nepos" should not be translated as nephew
prior to 1300, unless you have other evidence to confirm the
relationship.
The classical meaning of "nepos" was "grandson" or simply "descendant", but
the word was used for "nephew" in countless medieval sources over the
centuries before 1300.
Ideally other evidence should be adduced to confirm ANY relationship term -
no matter where it appears or who used it, as even in personal charters
scribes and copyists could have made an error - but of course this is not
always possible.
P{eter Stewart
p***@peterdale.com
2013-12-29 09:30:38 UTC
Greetings,

A belated Merry Christmas. Just another note to touch base regarding the parentage of Rohese, wife of Richard de Lucy. There has been a deficit of new information or discussion regarding her origin for the past few years on this site. I would be very interested in learning any new discoveries or interpretations with respect to Rohese’s ancestry and, in particular, information that:

(1) further establishes Rohese [de Boulogne]’s parentage; or

(2) excludes alternatives to her being a sibling (at least on the paternal side) of Faramus de Boulogne.

I have not yet seen that Rohese is accepted as a daughter of William de Boulogne (father of Faramus) in any academic literature other than Mr. Richardson’s work. I am curious what the conventional academic opinion is on this topic. There certainly does appear to be significant persuasive evidence in favour of Rohese’s Boulogne family ancestry and, to my knowledge, no contradictory evidence. Any evidence, opinions or suggestions for additional research are most welcome.

Cheers,

Pete
p***@peterdale.com
2013-12-29 09:28:52 UTC
Greetings,

A belated Merry Christmas. Just another note to touch base regarding the parentage of Rohese, wife of Richard de Lucy. There has been a deficit of new information or discussion regarding her origin for the past few years on this site. I would be very interested in learning any new discoveries or interpretations with respect to Rohese’s ancestry and, in particular, information that:

(1) further establishes Rohese [de Boulogne]’s parentage; or

(2) excludes alternatives to her being a sibling (at least on the paternal side) of Faramus de Boulogne.

I have not yet seen that Rohese is accepted as a daughter of William de Boulogne (father of Faramus) in any academic literature other than Mr. Richardson’s work. I am curious what the conventional academic opinion is on this topic. There certainly does appear to be significant persuasive evidence in favour of Rohese’s Boulogne family ancestry and, to my knowledge, no contradictory evidence. Any evidence, opinions or suggestions for additional research are most welcome.

Cheers,

Pete
Peter G. M. Dale
2014-06-29 15:05:03 UTC
Greetings,

If it may be of interest, you can find some additional research and information on the children of Richard de Lucy (particularly his daughter Rose - wife of (1st) William de Mounteny and (2nd) Michael Capra) in a new article in the journal Foundations (Volume 6, June 2014) (http://fmg.ac/publications/journal/fnd-6) by Rosie Bevan (with some assistance from myself).

Cheers,

Pete
Peter G. M. Dale
2014-07-11 08:38:29 UTC
Greetings,

Just a brief follow-up to my prior note. I have provided below a copy of the Abstract to the article I referenced FYI. I trust those who are interested will find the article informative.

Cheers,

Pete

"The proposition of this article is that Richard de Lucy, Chief Justice of Henry II, had another daughter named Rose whose existence has fallen into obscurity. She was wife first of William de Mounteny, progenitor of the Mounteny family of Mountnessing, Essex, and secondly of Michael Capra. Rose was also mother of Muriel de Mounteny, who with her husband, Jordan de Bricett, was patron of St Mary's nunnery in Clerkenwell, London."

I note also, that at pp. 17-19 of the article you will find a brief discussion regarding how Richard de Lucy or his wife Rose may have been related to and/or otherwise connected to the de Boulogne family.
Post by p***@peterdale.com
Greetings,
If it may be of interest, you can find some additional research and information on the children of Richard de Lucy (particularly his daughter Rose - wife of (1st) William de Mounteny and (2nd) Michael Capra) in a new article in the journal Foundations (Volume 6, June 2014) (http://fmg.ac/publications/journal/fnd-6) by Rosie Bevan (with some assistance from myself).
Cheers,
Pete
W***@aol.com
2005-07-29 21:34:39 UTC
In a message dated 7/29/05 2:15:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
***@msn.com writes:

<< > after the king's capture in 1141, command of his household troops was
Post by Ginny Wagner
taken by William, along with Faramus of Boulogne, nephew of the queen,
Matilda.[76] [fn76] J. Hexham, p. 310. >>
But how exactly is Faramus a nephew of Queen Matilda ?
Will Johnson
Ginny Wagner
2005-07-29 22:11:51 UTC
Will said:
<But how exactly is Faramus a nephew of Queen Matilda ?>

Ginny replied:
I was hoping someone would have J. Hexham and would be able to look up
the source cited. The bibliography says J. Hexham is: John of
Hexham, Historia, in Simeon, Op. 2, pp. 284-332. Guess it would have
helped if I had given that information to start with! Lol. Bartlett
actually diagrams the Baldwins II thru V but since Baldwin I wasn't
included I didn't try to reproduce it here. ;-) Ginny