General Notes

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
copied from soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 10/7/98 11:43:15 AM, allenk@@pacbell.net writes:

<<Ken, Where in Faris' Plantagenet Ancestry does it give Aelfgar III and Alvarissa Malet? I can't find those pages?>>

If this is _not_ the case, I surely want to know. I do not have a copy at my office, but my notes say the marriages of Aelfgar are found in Faris, TPA, 140:8i, 191:9, 270:9ii, 210:8.  Also Weis, MCS, 4th ed., 12-11. Ist wife Elgiva, d/o Ethelred the Unready, issue: Agatha m 1) Harald 2) Griffith ap Llewelyn, Morkere, Bouchard, Eadwine. Wife 2:  Alvarissa Malet, d/o William Malet and Elise Crispin. Issue: Lucy, m Ivo Talyboys.

Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor/ Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
also from soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 9/30/98 12:38:45 PM, taf2@@po.cwru.edu writes:

<< This little article by Katherine Keats-Rohan summarizes and builds upon a century's worth of progress on the issue.  While the "antecessores" clause is subject to some interpretation, this theory is preferable to the spurious and problematic Crowland charter. >>

I have received some wonderful information, both online and offline on this subject.

I see that everyone is tending to accept that Lucy is not Godiva's granddaughter and I appreciate the reasoning behind it.  Yet, two things puzzle me greatly and pull me away from this modern interpretation. One is the naming patterns in the following generations.

(1) 1 Leofric III --Lord Coventry, Earl Mercia, Leicester 1
b. 0975, of Mercia, England
d. 31 Aug 1057, Bromley, Staffordshire, England
& Godiva --Lady of Lincoln 2
b. abt 0980, of Mercia, England
d. 10 Sep 1067
m. bef 1030
(2) 1a Alfgar III --Earl Mercia* 3
d. 1062
& Alvarissa Malet
(3) 1a Lucy Talboys* 4
& Ivo Talboys --Earl of Anjou 5
(4) 1 William de Tailbois
b. of Lancaster, England
& Margaret Tailbois
(5) 1 Goditha Tailbois/Lancaster & Gilbert de Lancaster --4th Baron Kendal

Notice that Lucy's granddaughter is named Goditha.  Why, if Lucy is not Godiva's granddaughter, would her grandchild be named after Godiva? It is such a common naming pattern. If Lucy's parents were Turold the Sheriff and a daughter of William Malet, as suggested by Katherine Keats-Rohan, there would be no relationship at all with Godiva and no reason for the name to appear in the person of Lucy's granddaughter.  I realize that the name is not spelled the same, but certainly it is the same name.

Neither Lucy's birth date nor death date are known. Leofric d in 1057 at age 85. Godiva died ten years later at age 87. Their son Aelfgar died in 1062, five years before her mother. If Lucy was 15 when she had her first child, she would have been born around  1047. She would have been only 19 at the time of the Conquest.  There are no chronological problems.

_The Complete Peerage_ says: "The link between Lucy and Aelfgar is the manor of Spalding, County Lincoln, which was held by Aelfgar before the Conquest and by Lucy's first husband, Ives Taillebois (in her right), at the time of Domesday. No close family connection between Aelfgar and Lucy is mentioned in any contemporary document, and chronology is opposed to the relationship of father and daughter. Moreover, the only known children of Aelfgar are Edwin, Morcar and Aeldgitha, wife of Harold, and consequently the passing of the manor of Spalding cannot be held to justify the inference that Aelfgar (a) was father of Lucy."

The second thing that bothers me is the land transfers.  It is the basis of the Keats-Rohan argument.  But if Lucy's father was Aelfgar III who married Alvarissa Malet daughter of William Mallet and William married the daughter of Thorold the Sheriff, then the naming patterns are consistent and the land transactions make sense.

Complete Peerage: "Other manors of Thorold which passed to Lucy are Belchford, Scamblesby, Stenigot, Tetney and Donington. (a) Lucy also held Alkborough, (b) which had belonged in the time of the Confessor to William Malet, (c) father of Lucy's uncle Robert Malet. If Lucy's mother was William Malet's daughter, this may have been her maritagium; and the fact that Thorold gave tithes in this place (d) has been advanced as evidence that he was her husband."

Though I accept that the evidence is unclear, I can find no more weight to one argument than the other.

- Ken

Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor/ Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
also from soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 10/7/98 2:32:24 AM, paul@@pblay.force9.co.uk writes:

<<Is he Godiva's brother? Is he Lucy's dad? Is he sheriff of Lincoln and / or Nottingham? Is he related to Hereward's sworn enemy Abbot Thorold of Peterborough? Our main car park in Maidenhead is named after him!  His name (like Godiva's) comes in every conceivable version. >>

There is more than one Thorold. I am willing to accept the traditional view that he was actually Godiva's father and sheriff of Lincoln as recorded by Faris in _The Plantagenet Ancestry_. After all the electrons 'spilled' here and all the ink 'spilled' elsewhere, this is still befuddled.

This is one of the last puzzles I was trying to conclude before actually printing THE ANCESTRY OF ELIZABETH OF YORK.  Marlyn Lewis, the compiler, has kept the ancestry along the traditional lines as recorded by Faris and Turton, i.e, Lucy's father is the son of Leofric and Lady Godiva. Even though some modernists believe that the Leofric connection is invalid, I still tend to think that it makes more sense than the alternatives, therefore I am solving the problem by noting that the connection is disputed and printing the traditional information anyway.

There are several reasons for so doing:

CP: "The link between Lucy and Aelfgar is the manor of Spalding, County Lincoln, which was held by Aelfgar before the Conquest and by Lucy's first husband, Ives Taillebois (in her right), at the time of Domesday. Other manors of Thorold which passed to Lucy are Belchford, Scamblesby, Stenigot, Tetney and Donington. (a) Lucy also held Alkborough, (b) which had belonged in the time of the Confessor to William Malet, (c) father of Lucy's uncle Robert Malet. If Lucy's mother was William Malet's daughter, this may have been her maritagium; and the fact that Thorold gave tithes in this place (d) has been advanced as evidence that he was her husband... the only known children of Aelfgar are Edwin, Morcar and Aeldgitha, wife of Harold, and consequently the passing of the manor of Spalding cannot be held to justify the inference that Aelfgar was father of Lucy. "

The Croyland Charter is dismissed because it is a late or forged charter--not quite contemporary--rewritten by the clergy to justify their possession of lands, as is the case with most forged charters. That does not necessarily mean that the genealogical information is absolutely false, but it does mean "stop, look and listen." Nor does that fact that Lucy was not mentioned as Aelfgar's daughter mean that she was absolutely not his daughter. The only daughter mentioned was Agatha (Aeldgitha) who married Harold II--killed at Hastings and she married a very famous figure. This is neither proof nor disproof that Lucy was her sister.

Regarding the confusion about the Lancasters, it seems that the monks were confused and had the wrong information. "To this the monkish chroniclers have added the fiction that he was the son of Ketel, son of Eldred, son of Ivo Taillebois (Mon Angl iii 553 & Cockersands Cartulary, Chethem Soc (New Series) xxxix 305), whereas he was almost, if not quite, contemporary with Ivo."

Richard Borthwick wrote:  "If Lucy had a son by Ivo, presumably he would have been heir to her lands and thence to the Lancaster family. From what I can recall this is not what happened." An answer may be that the son, William, died before his sister Beatrice. Then he would have been capable of inheriting only a very small (4x8) plot of land.  Beatrice,  married Ribald, the illegitimate son of Eudes. Also, Ivo had at least one--if not more--illegitimate children. William may not have been Lucy's offspring, but still a son of Ivo.

Faris has Aelfgar III married to Alvarissa Malet, daughter of William Malet.  Though Alfgar died in 1061, before the conquest, this marriage could still be valid. Their daughter, according to this reconstruction, was Lucy.

Though this scenario seems to make the most sense to me, it will likely never be proven. Neither will any alternative scenario be proven. For all the revisionist 'ink spilled', and all the trillions of rearranged electrons, no proof is obtainable now or in the future unless the future sees a major archaeological discovery. Therefore, one can let the emotional side have some weight ... and there is an emotional side:

Lady Godiva is one of the most famous of all women in the entire span of history.  The legend of her ride through the village stark naked on a horse has inspired adolescent boys to late night visions for a thousand years.  Each and every one of these boys have become the 'peeping Tom' who could not help but gaze upon that erotic scene.

If Lady Godiva is to remain in the historical record as a Plantagenet ancestor, then the scenario of her family connections cannot--and should not be--summarily discarded. To do so is a disservice to her memory and the fantasies of young boys  throughout the ages.

Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor/ Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION