GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-11 > 1196492069


From: Douglas Richardson <>
Subject: Re: Sir John de Saint John's cousin, Sir John de Segrave, 2nd Lord Segrave
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:54:29 -0800 (PST)
References: <3b817d58-f3f5-4c5f-81e1-ea39978069f7@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>


Dear Newsgroup ~

As a followup to my original post on the kinship which existed between
Sir John de Saint John and Sir John de Segrave, I've checked further
regarding the Richard de Lucy, who was married to Sir John de Saint
John's grandmother, Godeheut [?Paynel]. This particular member of the
Lucy family is a bit elusive in the records. However, the following
appears to be a reference to him which I found in the book, Rolls of
Arms Henry III, edited by Thomas Daniel Tremlett and Hugh Stanford
London, published 1967 as Harleian Society Publications, Vols.
113-114.

On page 136 which concerns an early roll of arms called Glover's Roll,
Mr. London gives an entry for the arms of Geoffrey de Lucy as follows:

"Geoffrey de Lucy de gules od trois luces d'or.
(a) and (b) Three luces hauriant." END OF QUOTE.

Regarding the identification of this Geoffrey de Lucy, the following
information is provided by Mr. London in his notes:

"Geoffrey de Lucy, of Newington, Kent, d. 1252. His father Geoffrey
d. 1234, and his s. Geoffrey was dead before 5 June 1284. (CP viii.
257.)"

"B IV assigns the same arms to Richard de Lucy, probably brother of
Geoffrey who d. 1234. (CP VIII. 257 n. (c).) Moreover, as B IV draws
on an earlier source than B I and B II it is conceivable that Richard
was the elder s. and died before 1253, Geoffrey then taking the
undifferenced arms. C 134 seems to refer to a different branch." END
OF QUOTE.

The Geoffrey de Lucy whose arms are cited above in Glover's Roll
appears to be the second of six successive men named Geoffrey de
Lucy. This particular Geoffrey de Lucy was the great-grandson and
heir male of Sir Richard de Lucy, the well known Justiciar of England
under King Henry II. This Geoffrey de Lucy first occurs in the
records in 1234 and died in 1252. His wife's name was Nichole, whose
maiden name is not provided by Complete Peerage.

Complete Peerage makes no reference to the Richard de Lucy, living
1242-3, who married Godeheut [?Paynel], widow of William de Saint
John. However, I assume from Mr. London's comments that Mr. London
feels that he was a brother to the first Geoffrey de Lucy who died in
1234. However, given that the first Geoffrey de Lucy is known to have
married in 1207 and given that Richard de Lucy (husband of Godeheut)
may have been having children in the late 1230's or early 1240's, I
would have to place Richard de Lucy as the brother of the second
Geoffrey de Lucy who died in 1252. This reassignment of Richard de
Lucy in the family tree thus makes Richard a contemporary to the
second Geoffrey de Lucy which seems to be the case. It leaves
completely unresolved, however, whether or not this Richard de Lucy
and his wife, Godeheut, may have been the parents of Maud de Lucy,
wife of Sir Nicholas de Segrave, 1st Lord Segrave.

I might further note that Mr. London indicates that the source he
calls B IV includes references to both Richard de Lucy (husband of
Godeheut ?Paynel) and Robert de Saint John (son of Godeheut ?Paynel).
I would assume therefore that B IV dates from c. 1242-1250 time
period.

Regarding the identity of Nichole, wife of the second Geoffrey de
Lucy, Complete Peerage says only that she was a widow when he married
her and that she had Thornton in dower. It cites the following
sources: Calendar Close Rolls, 1234-1237, pg. 339, 1237-1232, pg. 95.

A clue to Nichole de Lucy's first husband, however, is afforded us by
Curia Regis Rolls, vol. 16, which covers the period, 1237-1242. On
page 432, there is a record of an assize which was called to determine
who had the right to present to the church of Coningsby, Lincolnshire,
which the abbot of Hales claimed against William de Cantelowe and
Geoffrey de Lucy and his wife, Nichole. The abbot gave testimiony
that the last person to present to the church was Robert Marmion the
old ["senex] (presumably the Robert Marmion who died in or before
1218). According to the abbot, Robert Marmion presented his son,
William Marmion, to the church. After the presentation was made, the
elder Robert Marmion gave the manor of Coningsby to Robert his [elder]
son, who in turn gave the manor to Hales Abbey.

At this point, William, guardian of Philip Marmion, son and heir of
Robert Marmion [and thus grandson of Robert the old] testified that
Geoffrey de Lucy and Nichole his wife held noithing in Coningsby in
the way of dower. Although no further comment is made regarding
Nichole's claim to the presentation of the church, it seems possible
that she was the widow of the younger Robert Marmion who was Philip
Marmion's father, which Robert allegedly died c.1242. Nichole in fact
is so identified by Gerald Paget as the widow of the younger Robert
Marmion in his massive work, Baronage of England (1957), Family #355.
Mr. Paget gives no source for this identification, however. To
counter this identification of Nichole de Lucy's first husband, I note
that Nichole married her second husband Geoffrey de Lucy before 3 Dec.
1235, whereas Robert Marmion the younger is stated by Paget to have
been living in 1241. If these dates are correct, then Nichole can not
have married the younger Robert Marmion.

That Nichole de Lucy and her husband, Geoffrey de Lucy, were summoned
to appear with William de Cantelowe suggests the possibility to me
that Nichole may herself have been a Cantelowe by birth. This would
make sense as Complete Peerage states that Nichole de Lucy's four Lucy
children were brought up at court, and we know that both William de
Cantelowe, Sr. (died 1239) and William de Cantelowe, Jr. (died 1251)
were stewards of the King's household. Also, I note that Agnes de
Cantelowe, daughter of William de Cantelowe, Jr., married Robert de
Saint John, step-son of Richard de Lucy. So we are brought full
circle back to the same nest of families.

The surname of William, guardian of Philip Marmion, is not given in
the account provided by Curia Regis Rolls. However, it seems likely
to me from the wording of the text that the guardian of Philip Marmion
was William de Cantelowe, who was summoned to appear with Nichole and
Geoffrey de Lucy. If William de Cantelowe was the father of Nichole
de Lucy, and if Nichole was the mother of Philip Marmion, then William
de Cantelow would have been guardian to his own grandson.

If Maud de Lucy, wife of Sir Nicholas de Segrave, was the daughter of
Geoffrey and Nichole de Lucy, and if Nichole de Lucy was the daughter
of William de Cantelowe, Jr. (died 1251) and his wife, Milicent de
Gournay, then John de Saint John would have been a first cousin once
removed to Maud de Lucy's son, Sir John de Segrave. This would
explain the kinship between the Saint John and Segrave families.

The proposed kinship is charted below:

1. Sir William de Cantelowe, died 1251, married 1st, 1215/6, Milicent
de Gournay, Countess of Evreux.
2. Agnes de Cantelowe, married Robert de Saint John, died 1266.
3. Sir John de Saint John, born by 1245, died 1302.

1. William de Cantelowe, died 1251, married 1st, 1215/6, Milicent de
Gournay, Countess of Evreux.
2. Nichole de Cantelowe, married (2nd) by 1235 Geoffrey de Lucy, died
1252.
3. Maud de Lucy, born say 1240/5, married Sir Nicholas de Segrave, 1st
Lord Segrave, died 1295.
4. Sir John de Segrave, 2nd Lord Segrave, born say 1260/5, died 1325.

The above arrangement of the Segrave family would open up a massive
amount of new ancestry for that family. This matter deserves further
study.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah




This thread: