GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-07 > 1122637889


From: "Leo van de Pas" <>
Subject: Re: Faramus of Boulonge and Richard de Lucy
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:51:29 +1000
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> <1122625131.232481.234900@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <020001c59419$5a323420$0300a8c0@Toshiba> <1122632092.758596.3150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <dcd0ve$aqj$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>


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" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: Faramus of Boulonge and Richard de Lucy


> Douglas Richardson wrote:
>> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

This thread: