|
|
| Changed: 29 Nov 2002 17:12:09 |
| |
 | Spouses & Children |  | |
| | |
 | |  |
|
| |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
|
| |
|
| |
| Notes | | |
| | |
| | |
|
| |
Individual:
---------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
copied from soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup:
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 10/7/98 11:43:15 AM, allenk@pacbell.net writes:
<>
If this is _not_ the case, I surely want to know. I do not have a copy at my office, but my notes say the marriages of Aelfgar are found in Faris,TPA, 140:8i, 191:9, 270:9ii, 210:8. Also Weis, MCS, 4th ed., 12-11. Istwife Elgiva, d/o Ethelred the Unready, issue: Agatha m 1) Harald 2)Griffith ap Llewelyn, Morkere, Bouchard, Eadwine. Wife 2: AlvarissaMalet, d/o William Malet and Elise Crispin. Issue: Lucy, m Ivo Talyboys.
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor/ Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
also from soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup:
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 9/30/98 12:38:45 PM, taf2@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 ispreferable 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 thingspuzzle me greatly and pull me away from this modern interpretation. Oneis 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 issuch a common naming pattern. If Lucy's parents were Turold the Sheriffand a daughter of William Malet, as suggested by Katherine Keats-Rohan,there would be no relationship at all with Godiva and no reason for thename to appear in the person of Lucy's granddaughter. I realize that thename 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 in1062, five years before her mother. If Lucy was 15 when she had her firstchild, she would have been born around 1047. She would have been only 19at 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 theConquest and by Lucy's first husband, Ives Taillebois (in her right), atthe time of Domesday. No close family connection between Aelfgar and Lucyis mentioned in any contemporary document, and chronology is opposed tothe relationship of father and daughter. Moreover, the only knownchildren of Aelfgar are Edwin, Morcar and Aeldgitha, wife of Harold, andconsequently the passing of the manor of Spalding cannot be held tojustify 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 whomarried Alvarissa Malet daughter of William Mallet and William marriedthe daughter of Thorold the Sheriff, then the naming patterns areconsistent 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 heldAlkborough, (b) which had belonged in the time of the Confessor toWilliam Malet, (c) father of Lucy's uncle Robert Malet. If Lucy's motherwas William Malet's daughter, this may have been her maritagium; and thefact that Thorold gave tithes in this place (d) has been advanced asevidence 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
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor/ Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
also from soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup:
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 10/7/98 2:32:24 AM, paul@pblay.force9.co.uk writes:
<>
There is more than one Thorold. I am willing to accept the traditional view that he was actually Godiva's father and sheriff of Lincoln asrecorded by Faris in _The Plantagenet Ancestry_. After all the electrons'spilled' here and all the ink 'spilled' elsewhere, this is stillbefuddled.
This is one of the last puzzles I was trying to conclude before actually printing THE ANCESTRY OF ELIZABETH OF YORK. Marlyn Lewis, the compiler,has kept the ancestry along the traditional lines as recorded by Farisand Turton, i.e, Lucy's father is the son of Leofric and Lady Godiva.Even though some modernists believe that the Leofric connection isinvalid, I still tend to think that it makes more sense than thealternatives, therefore I am solving the problem by noting that theconnection is disputed and printing the traditional information anyway.
There are several reasons for so doing:
CP: "The link between Lucy and Aelfgar is the manor of Spalding, County Lincoln, which was held by Aelfgar before the Conquest and by Lucy'sfirst husband, Ives Taillebois (in her right), at the time of Domesday.Other manors of Thorold which passed to Lucy are Belchford, Scamblesby,Stenigot, Tetney and Donington. (a) Lucy also held Alkborough, (b) whichhad belonged in the time of the Confessor to William Malet, (c) father ofLucy'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 tithesin this place (d) has been advanced as evidence that he was herhusband... the only known children of Aelfgar are Edwin, Morcar andAeldgitha, wife of Harold, and consequently the passing of the manor ofSpalding cannot be held to justify the inference that Aelfgar was fatherof Lucy. "
The Croyland Charter is dismissed because it is a late or forged charter--not quite contemporary--rewritten by the clergy to justify theirpossession of lands, as is the case with most forged charters. That doesnot necessarily mean that the genealogical information is absolutelyfalse, but it does mean "stop, look and listen." Nor does that fact thatLucy was not mentioned as Aelfgar's daughter mean that she was absolutelynot his daughter. The only daughter mentioned was Agatha (Aeldgitha) whomarried Harold II--killed at Hastings and she married a very famousfigure. This is neither proof nor disproof that Lucy was her sister.
Regarding the confusion about the Lancasters, it seems that the monks were confused and had the wrong information. "To this the monkishchroniclers have added the fiction that he was the son of Ketel, son ofEldred, 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."
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 whatI can recall this is not what happened." An answer may be that the son,William, died before his sister Beatrice. Then he would have been capableof inheriting only a very small (4x8) plot of land. Beatrice, marriedRibald, the illegitimate son of Eudes. Also, Ivo had at least one--if notmore--illegitimate children. William may not have been Lucy's offspring,but still a son of Ivo.
Faris has Aelfgar III married to Alvarissa Malet, daughter of William Malet. Though Alfgar died in 1061, before the conquest, this marriagecould still be valid. Their daughter, according to this reconstruction,was Lucy.
Though this scenario seems to make the most sense to me, it will likely never be proven. Neither will any alternative scenario be proven. For allthe revisionist 'ink spilled', and all the trillions of rearrangedelectrons, no proof is obtainable now or in the future unless the futuresees a major archaeological discovery. Therefore, one can let theemotional side have some weight ... and there is an emotional side:
Lady Godiva is one of the most famous of all women in the entire span of history. The legend of her ride through the village stark naked on ahorse has inspired adolescent boys to late night visions for a thousandyears. Each and every one of these boys have become the 'peeping Tom'who could not help but gaze upon that erotic scene.
If Lady Godiva is to remain in the historical record as a Plantagenet ancestor, then the scenario of her family connections cannot--and shouldnot be--summarily discarded. To do so is a disservice to her memory andthe fantasies of young boys throughout the ages.
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor/ Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
copied from soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup:
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 10/7/98 11:43:15 AM, allenk@pacbell.net writes:
<>
If this is _not_ the case, I surely want to know. I do not have a copy at my office, but my notes say the marriages of Aelfgar are found in Faris,TPA, 140:8i, 191:9, 270:9ii, 210:8. Also Weis, MCS, 4th ed., 12-11. Istwife Elgiva, d/o Ethelred the Unready, issue: Agatha m 1) Harald 2)Griffith ap Llewelyn, Morkere, Bouchard, Eadwine. Wife 2: AlvarissaMalet, d/o William Malet and Elise Crispin. Issue: Lucy, m Ivo Talyboys.
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor/ Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
also from soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup:
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 9/30/98 12:38:45 PM, taf2@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 ispreferable 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 thingspuzzle me greatly and pull me away from this modern interpretation. Oneis 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 issuch a common naming pattern. If Lucy's parents were Turold the Sheriffand a daughter of William Malet, as suggested by Katherine Keats-Rohan,there would be no relationship at all with Godiva and no reason for thename to appear in the person of Lucy's granddaughter. I realize that thename 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 in1062, five years before her mother. If Lucy was 15 when she had her firstchild, she would have been born around 1047. She would have been only 19at 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 theConquest and by Lucy's first husband, Ives Taillebois (in her right), atthe time of Domesday. No close family connection between Aelfgar and Lucyis mentioned in any contemporary document, and chronology is opposed tothe relationship of father and daughter. Moreover, the only knownchildren of Aelfgar are Edwin, Morcar and Aeldgitha, wife of Harold, andconsequently the passing of the manor of Spalding cannot be held tojustify 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 whomarried Alvarissa Malet daughter of William Mallet and William marriedthe daughter of Thorold the Sheriff, then the naming patterns areconsistent 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 heldAlkborough, (b) which had belonged in the time of the Confessor toWilliam Malet, (c) father of Lucy's uncle Robert Malet. If Lucy's motherwas William Malet's daughter, this may have been her maritagium; and thefact that Thorold gave tithes in this place (d) has been advanced asevidence 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
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor/ Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
also from soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup:
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 10/7/98 2:32:24 AM, paul@pblay.force9.co.uk writes:
<>
There is more than one Thorold. I am willing to accept the traditional view that he was actually Godiva's father and sheriff of Lincoln asrecorded by Faris in _The Plantagenet Ancestry_. After all the electrons'spilled' here and all the ink 'spilled' elsewhere, this is stillbefuddled.
This is one of the last puzzles I was trying to conclude before actually printing THE ANCESTRY OF ELIZABETH OF YORK. Marlyn Lewis, the compiler,has kept the ancestry along the traditional lines as recorded by Farisand Turton, i.e, Lucy's father is the son of Leofric and Lady Godiva.Even though some modernists believe that the Leofric connection isinvalid, I still tend to think that it makes more sense than thealternatives, therefore I am solving the problem by noting that theconnection is disputed and printing the traditional information anyway.
There are several reasons for so doing:
CP: "The link between Lucy and Aelfgar is the manor of Spalding, County Lincoln, which was held by Aelfgar before the Conquest and by Lucy'sfirst husband, Ives Taillebois (in her right), at the time of Domesday.Other manors of Thorold which passed to Lucy are Belchford, Scamblesby,Stenigot, Tetney and Donington. (a) Lucy also held Alkborough, (b) whichhad belonged in the time of the Confessor to William Malet, (c) father ofLucy'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 tithesin this place (d) has been advanced as evidence that he was herhusband... the only known children of Aelfgar are Edwin, Morcar andAeldgitha, wife of Harold, and consequently the passing of the manor ofSpalding cannot be held to justify the inference that Aelfgar was fatherof Lucy. "
The Croyland Charter is dismissed because it is a late or forged charter--not quite contemporary--rewritten by the clergy to justify theirpossession of lands, as is the case with most forged charters. That doesnot necessarily mean that the genealogical information is absolutelyfalse, but it does mean "stop, look and listen." Nor does that fact thatLucy was not mentioned as Aelfgar's daughter mean that she was absolutelynot his daughter. The only daughter mentioned was Agatha (Aeldgitha) whomarried Harold II--killed at Hastings and she married a very famousfigure. This is neither proof nor disproof that Lucy was her sister.
Regarding the confusion about the Lancasters, it seems that the monks were confused and had the wrong information. "To this the monkishchroniclers have added the fiction that he was the son of Ketel, son ofEldred, 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."
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 whatI can recall this is not what happened." An answer may be that the son,William, died before his sister Beatrice. Then he would have been capableof inheriting only a very small (4x8) plot of land. Beatrice, marriedRibald, the illegitimate son of Eudes. Also, Ivo had at least one--if notmore--illegitimate children. William may not have been Lucy's offspring,but still a son of Ivo.
Faris has Aelfgar III married to Alvarissa Malet, daughter of William Malet. Though Alfgar died in 1061, before the conquest, this marriagecould still be valid. Their daughter, according to this reconstruction,was Lucy.
Though this scenario seems to make the most sense to me, it will likely never be proven. Neither will any alternative scenario be proven. For allthe revisionist 'ink spilled', and all the trillions of rearrangedelectrons, no proof is obtainable now or in the future unless the futuresees a major archaeological discovery. Therefore, one can let theemotional side have some weight ... and there is an emotional side:
Lady Godiva is one of the most famous of all women in the entire span of history. The legend of her ride through the village stark naked on ahorse has inspired adolescent boys to late night visions for a thousandyears. Each and every one of these boys have become the 'peeping Tom'who could not help but gaze upon that erotic scene.
If Lady Godiva is to remain in the historical record as a Plantagenet ancestor, then the scenario of her family connections cannot--and shouldnot be--summarily discarded. To do so is a disservice to her memory andthe fantasies of young boys throughout the ages.
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor/ Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
|
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
|
| |
|
| |
| SmartMatches | | |
| | |
| | |
|
| |
Individuals from other files that are believed to be the same person:
Click the  icon to see a SmartMatch in side-by-side windows.
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
|
| |
|
|
|
