GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-07 > 1122574652


From: "CED" <>
Subject: Re: Rohese, wife of Sir Richard de Lucy, Chief Justiciar of England
Date: 28 Jul 2005 11:17:32 -0700
References: <1122485600.891575.105220@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <GCEILMENLHOGHNKOOPOOGENFFMAA.ginnywagner@austin.rr.com> <1122535195.126691.220750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <000301c5934e$e30bca20$0300a8c0@Toshiba> <1122566768.305417.178530@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1122567258.634628.84770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1122568293.367176.119190@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1122569034.597428.8340@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1122571027.771814.44500@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <1122571027.771814.44500@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>


Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear CED ~

Dear Mr. Richardson,

Were I to give you another name, you would be no better informed about
my identity than you are now. If I were to give you the name on my
birth certificate, of what value to you would it be?

CED has been my pen name for quite some time. I have used it for those
of my writings other than my professional writings, writings which form
the basis of a good reputation and enable me to earn a living. With
your history of abuse, my giving you my name would constitute consent,
leaving me no legal recourse. Of course, some might suggest that you
are attempting to evade my request for primary evidence.

If you check the archives, you will find that you have willingly
corresponded with a number of persons using obvious pen names without
objection. These pen names(or aliases)can be posted if you request
them.

Are you using my use of a pen name as a means of changing the subject?

If you cannot respond to my request for primary evidence regarding
Rohese, wife of Richard de Lucy, and Faramus of Boulogne, I must assume
that you do not have the primary evidence. What is the primary evidence
that Rohese was the sister of Faramus of Boulogne?

Please be assured that I intend no disrespect to you or to the group.

With my best regards,

CED




>
> It is impossible to have a serious discussion with someone who wishes
> to hide in the dark.
>
> So, I'll ask again nicely: What is your first name?
>
> And, please call me Douglas, not by the formal salutation, Mr.
> Richardson.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> Website: www.royalancestry.net
>
> CED wrote:
> > Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > > Dear CED ~
> > Dear Mr. Richardson:
> >
> > I am of the old school in which formalities are maintained; however,I
> > am known, even to my friends, as CED.
> >
> > Do did not respond to my request to post primary evidence. To narrow
> > my request: what is the primary evidence that Rohese, wife of Richard
> > de Lucy, was the sister of Faramus of Boulogne?
> >
> > CED
> >
> > >
> > > Please call me Douglas, not by the formal salutation, Mr. Richardson.
> > > We're among friends. What is your first name?
> > >
> > > Best always. Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> > >
> > > Website: www.royalancestry.net
> > >
> > > CED wrote:
> > > > Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > > > > Dear Leo ~
> > > > >
> > > > > Please call me Douglas, not by the formal Richardson.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know you're confused, Leo. I recommend you review the primary
> > > > > evidence regarding Sir Richard de Lucy and Faramus of Boulogne, and
> > > > > then get back to me.
> > > >
> > > > Dear Mr. Richardson:
> > > >
> > > > I do not find the primary evidence regarding Richard de Lucy and
> > > > Faramus of Boulogne in the archives. Could you please post it?
> > > >
> > > > CED
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > For now, I will repeat my statement again: For various reasons, it is
> > > > > impossible for Richard de Lucy to have been a brother or half-brother
> > > > > of Faramus of Boulogne. I trust that's clear enough for you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> > > > >
> > > > > Webite: www.royalancestry.net
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Leo van de Pas" wrote:
> > > > > > Richardson dismisses the possibility of Richard de Lucy to be either a
> > > > > > brother or half-brother of Faramus and therefor the connection _must be
> > > > > > through Godfrey's mother_
> > > > > > but how? Full brother or half-brother? If half-brother, who is different?
> > > > > > Rohese's father or mother?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It appears there is no proof, only assumption.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: <>
> > > > > > To: <>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 6:01 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Rohese, wife of Sir Richard de Lucy, Chief Justiciar of England
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear Ginny ~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In answer to your question, Sir Richard de Lucy's younger son, Godfrey
> > > > > > > de Lucy, was Bishop of Winchester. As a priest, he would have had no
> > > > > > > wife. That being the case, Bishop Godfrey's uncle, Faramus of
> > > > > > > Boulogne, would necessarily have been the brother of one of Bishop
> > > > > > > Godfrey's parents. For various reasons, it is impossible for Sir
> > > > > > > Richard de Lucy to have been a brother or half-brother of Faramus of
> > > > > > > Boulogne. As such, the connection between Bishop Godfrey de Lucy and
> > > > > > > his uncle, Faramus of Boulogne, would necessarily be through Godfrey's
> > > > > > > mother, Rohese.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For those so interested, I should mention that there are good
> > > > > > > biographies of both Sir Richard de Lucy and his son, Bishop Godfrey de
> > > > > > > Lucy, in the older version of the DNB. I have not seen the new version
> > > > > > > of the DNB, but I assume their biographies are found in that source as
> > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Website: www.royalancestry.net
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Website: www.royalancestry.net"Ginny Wagner" wrote:
> > > > > > > < Thank you for such great posts, Mr. Richardson. Appreciate the
> > > > > > > < documentation. I didn't see anything about an uncle in the charters
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > < posted; thus, I have a question about:
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > < <(3) that Rohese was the sister of Faramus of
> > > > > > > < Boulogne (as indicated by her son, Godfrey's charter naming Faramus
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > < his uncle). >
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > < Have you eliminated the possibility that Godfrey had a spouse who had
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > < uncle Faramus?
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > < Ginny
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >


This thread: