(too old to reply)
Faramus of Boulonge and Richard de Lucy
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
2005-07-29 19:55:43 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 20:19:06 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 21:01:24 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
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
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
2005-07-29 21:41:20 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
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 22:04:05 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
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
Peter Stewart
2005-07-30 14:10:46 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 08:29:07 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

< Previous Page
Page 2 of 2