General Notes

Godfrey (or Geoffrey), Count of Boulogne, Duke of Lower Lorraine, probably born earlier than the 1061 usually given, at Baisy (?), Brabant, d. Jerusalem 18 July 1100; Domesday tenant 1086 at Carshalton, Surrey; a leader of the First Crusade, elected King of Jerusalem, but took the title of Advocate of the Holy Sepulcher (as Godfrey I); succeeded by his next younger brother Baldwin, Count of Edessa, who became Baldwin I King of Jerusalem, d. 2 Apr 1118, surviving issue, if any, unknown; m. Beatrice de Mandeville, daughter of Geoffrey de Mandeville and aunt of the first Earl of Essex.  (Wagner considers Godfrey, father of William (No. 24), "probably illegitimate" and not identical with the Advocate of the Holy Sepulcher.  [Ancestral Roots]

Note: Leo van de Pas, in a posting to SGM, 14 Nov 1998, states that Godefroy de Boulogne, Lord of Carshalton & husband of Beatrix de Mandeville, according to ES III/4, page 621, is an illegitimate son of Estache II de Boulogne.  ES is probably following the reasoning of "Wagner" mentioned above by AR.  Godfrey de Bouillon [the legitimate son who was Advocate of the Holy Sepulcher], died in Jersaluem and was never married, which is why his brother Baldwin succeeded him in Jerusalem.  Then Kay Allen, AG, responded to Leo by copying the extensive note printed in Ancestral Roots following the above entry, stating that AR had considered Leo/Wagner's argument and refuted it.  Following is the lengthy note in Ancestral Roots, attached to line 158a-23, which Kay Allen had nicely transcribed, which I have extended (Kay had not copied the whole note) and edited:

Note [copied from Ancestral Roots]: Although the Lotharingian name, Godofred, borne by the famous leader of the First Crusade, has been transcribed into English as 'Godfrey', this is etymologically incorrect. The name is, instead, the equivalent of the name which normally appears in contemporary French or Anglo-Norman documents in such forms as "Goisfrid' and "Gauzfrid', the prototypes of modern "Geoffrey'.  ...J. Horace Round (1895, p.256 [no citation given]), citing Domesday references to property held by Goisfrid, son of Count Eustace in right of his wife, daughter of Geoffrey de Mandeville, says that 'Dr. Liebermann asks whether Geoffrey's daughter was not thus 'the first wife, else unknown, of the future King of jerusalem'.' The reference is presumably to the linguistically sophisticated Anglo-Saxonist, Felix Liebermann, who would have made the equation. However, in an article published a year later, on Faramus, grandson of "Goisfrid', Round makes no mention of this identification. He had come to recognize that "Goisfrid' was the equivalent of later Geoffrey and had been informed by his friend, M.V.J. Vaillant, of Boulogne 'that the sons of Eustace are known and that Geoffrey is not among them'. What M. Vaillant should have written was that there was no Godfrey among them. However, Round accepted the testimony of his linguistically naive friend against that of Liebermann and therefore invented a non-existent bastard son, Geoffrey, of Eustace of Boulogne. The truth was later recognized by Joseph Armitage Robinson in his study of the Crispins, and by H.W.C. Davis (1913) who drew attention to the fact that ''Godfrey' of Jerusalem married Beatrice, daughter of Geoffrey de mandeville and aunt of the first Earl of Essex.

While the holdings of Geoffrey de Mandeville were not nearly as great as those of Eustace of Boulogne, he was a very substantial landholder in 11 counties and his daughter a suitable match for "Godfrey" who had already inherited a great deal from his maternal uncle. That De Mandeville would have alienated property in order to give his daughter in marriage to a bastard son of Count Eustace, lacking any substantial prospects, is highly unlikely.

More recently, Johnson and Cronne, good historians but poor linguists, have used Round's article to 'correct' Davis. The true identity of Geoffrey/Godfrey was recognized again by Miss Catherine Morton, who has been in touch with DHK [David H. Kelley] and with Sir Anthony Wagner on this matter. Wagner (1975, p. 253, with an unfortunate misprint) mentions the 'confusion' between 'Godfrey'and 'Geoffrey'. It was there assumed that the confusion was ancient and that Eustace's son Godofred, was genuinely a Godfrey. It should be emphasized that actually the confusion is entirely modern due to the use of 'Godfrey' to transcribe a name which is etymologically 'Geoffrey' (the Germans use 'Gottfried' both for the leader of the first crusade and for Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou--one may regard this either as desirable consistency or doubled error).

Wagner cites the views of Stephen Runciman, a historian of the crusades, pointing out that crusader sources make no suggestion of a wife for "Godfrey' and emphasizing his chastity. However, a wife and child left in England would not necessarily have been known to such sources, nor was there anything notable in a Crusader leaving a wife behind, though certainly noteworthy if he brought a wife with him. Runciman's further suggestion that 'Godfrey' might have made some sort of 'morganatic alliance must be rejected. The concept is completely foreign to the period, save, perhaps, among the Welsh and would, in any case, hardly apply to a marriage of 'Godfrey/Geoffrey' with Beatrice de Mandeville, of a family whose status was fully comparable to his own. It is extremely unlikely that 'maritagium', the term used for Goisfrid's marriage, would be applied to a union which was in any way irregular.  Runciman is looking back from the days of 'Godfrey's' greatness, rather than realistically appraising the situation at the time of his marriage.

The child left by "Godfrey" in England was William de Boulogne, bearer of one of the oldest English surnames, for William was neither Count of Boulogne nor from Boulogne.  He should appear with some frequency in the English records, for his son, Faramus, held extensive estates in widely separated parts of England (Somerset, Surrey, Essex, Oxford, Buckinghamshire, Suffolk, probably Kent and Northumberland).  William appears as a witness to a document of 1106 and in a couple of later documents.  Perhaps he is a still-unrecognized William Fitz-Geoffrey of other documents.
..." David Humiston Kelley was the author of this line.