GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-07 > 1122623502


From: "Peter Stewart" <>
Subject: Re: Faramus of Boulonge and Richard de Lucy
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 07:51:42 GMT
References: <1122613035.362377.197770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1122615976.584381.186890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1122616930.706910.119010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1122618380.956568.10310@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <64lGe.65831$oJ.6565@news-server.bigpond.net.au>


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


"Peter Stewart" <> wrote in message
news:64lGe.65831$...
>
> <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > 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
>



This thread: