GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2008-03 > 1205821466
Subject: Re: Sir Paunettus, kinsman to Edward the Black Prince: Clue to ancestry of Paonet de Ruet?
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
References: <email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <sDqBj.firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Mar 17, 10:44 pm, Peter Stewart <> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 3:53 pm, wrote:
> > 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.
-- Oh. Humor. As the Vulcan say, it is an odd concept; but one that I
personally enjoy, once I 'get it'.
But I believe the point may be that even if St. Helen's Priory in
London doesn't exactly (or even remotely) equate to St. Waudru's in
Hainault, nomination by royal privilege perhaps might... and that John
of Gaunt financially smoothing the entry to Barking might be getting
even closer. I'm not saying I buy Weir's argument... But I do seem to
recall reading that such royal privileges of nomination and lodgings
were burdensome at the time.
> > 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
--Perhaps you are correct. I wonder what these debts might have been
and how/when they were incurred to necessitate the sell-off in a
Of the last generation, we, per LeJuene, have the following male
*Eustace VI, the heir, who dies childless in 1336;
*Gilles du Roeulx, whose dates may permit his being the father of
Elizabeth @ St. Waudru and who Brook, Manly et al. conjectures may be
identical with the father of Katherine Swynford, with another 2
*Guillaume du Roeulx, of who'm I've not found anything on yet;
*Fastre du Roeulx, already mentioned;
*Huon du Roeulx (of whom we know little, but the name is similar to a
name given by Kervyn de Lettenhove for a relative of Katherine
*Jean du Roeulx (whose grave at St. Fueillien(sp?) is remarked upon in
either LeJeune or Plumet and I think died 1331-ish.
At what point would the family's fortunes have been sufficiently
depleted such that any last possible children of Gilles, Guillaume or
Huon would have suffered? (to say nothing of children of daughters as
well as any non-ecclesiastical male heirs of the previous generation
> 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
--It is this rapid diminution in lands and the cause for it that I am
trying to understand, as well as the relative scale (e.g., how much
did it matter at the time).
--This is also the reason I was looking for a translation of the 7 pg.
doc of recent infamous memory to try to figure out if there was a
legal squabble involving some peeved relatives out there somewhere for
some reason, EVEN IF it had absolutely nothing to do with Katherine
--Also, I thought I had read somewhere that Hainault was not a Salic
state; if this is true, why would Fastre & Huon and Eustace sell-off
inheritance if there were heirs out there somewhere from sisters and
aunts? I was just about to ask if Hainault followed France in this
fashion but then slapped myself in the face with the reminder that
some of these sold-off properties were gained by marriage with what
would seem to be an heiress or two...