Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2008-03 > 1205819059

From: Peter Stewart <>
Subject: Re: Sir Paunettus, kinsman to Edward the Black Prince: Clue to ancestry of Paonet de Ruet?
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
References: <><Cq5Bj.24092$><><> <> <sDqBj.24419$><><> <> <> <> <> <>

On Mar 18, 3:53 pm, wrote:
> On Mar 17, 6:01 pm, Peter Stewart <> wrote:
> > On Mar 18, 11:38 am, wrote:
> <snip>
> > I think the Almighty by 1349 was probably expecting a tad
> > more commitment from families making traditional gifts.
> > > Inasmuch as the Roeulx' family's fortunes seem to have imploded
> > > before the time of Elizabeth Roeulx being granted the prebendary,
> <snip>
> > But did the Le Roeulx family suffer some untold disaster, somehow
> > affecting every living member at once, or did it actually become
> > extinct in 1336? I'm not clear what evidence is relied on to suggest
> > their "fortunes seem to have imploded" rather than that their
> > bloodline simply came to an end, as Kervyn de Lettenhove implied.
> <snip>
> > Peter Stewart
> I don't presume to know what "the Almighty" would or would not have
> expected.

That was to point up the imbalance between one Elizabeth taking a
prebend at Sainte-Waudru in Hainaut compared to another Elizabeth
becoming a nun in England. If these two were related and were
fulfilling a "family tradition" of giving a daughter to religion, as
Alison Weir conjectures, then God might at least expect the girl to be
given and not just loaned.

> But with respect to the last remnants male of the Roeulx family,
> especially Eustace ("Wistaff"?) and Fastre, there appears to be some
> significant selling-off of the family's inheritance, sometimes in
> return for 'usufruct' usage.  They are specifically said to have
> 'disinherited' themselves in some secondary accounts (which I believe
> I asked about in 2005).  Perhaps the properties are not significant
> and I am being unduly influenced by Cook's pronouncement, as stated
> below, but it looks as if the family rather rapidly needed to raise
> cash.

Yes, and it also looks as if their count helped them in order to help
himself - probably not too unusual. But I wouldn't read too much into
"disinherited", as these men appear to have had no heirs amongst them
and to have struck a deal whereby they retained their rights and
revenues for life. So effectively they gave up little beyond the legal
ownership of allods and the pride of holding whatever had come to them
from forefathers in that right, as well as capacity of some relatives
to inherit these Le Roeulx possessions, in return for relief from

The scale of these doesn't appear to suggest a tremendous crash all at
once from wealth to penury. Maybe there had been a series of losses
and borrowings over several generations before them. Does anyone know
of a crusading streak in this family in the 13th century that might
account for expenses beyond their means over a considerable timeframe?

From the numbers of descendants given in Judy's post, it looks as if
there might have been some fairly peeved relatives left after 1336 if
the last brothers were solely responsible for the ruin - aristocratic
wastrels who die in miserable circumstances of their own making are
not usually remembered very fondly by their kin, like the much-
unlamented John, marquess of Bristol and his half-brother Nicholas

Peter Stewart

This thread: