GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1998-07 > 0899452770


From: Reedpcgen< >
Subject: Re: (---) FitzEustace, father of John de Lacy?
Date: 3 Jul 1998 07:59:30 GMT


Wightman is ignorant of a number of connections concerning this family, so I
don't necessarily trust him.

The question is, what is the father of John called in almost contemporary
charters, such as those involving the Lisours, and those where John confirms
the gifts of his ancestors? Is there actually documentary evidence that John's
father was ever called Robert? If not, I see no reason to interject the name
Robert into this fray. The name Richard did occur in this family. Robert did
not. I think the problem is that no document made during his lifetime calls him
Richard, as he may have predeceased his father, Eustace Fitz John, and
definitely predeceased his step-father, Robert FitzCount, who succeeded as
constable in right of his wife (Agnes FitzNeel/Nigel). Richard was dead by
1163. John was constable by 1166 according to the Pipe Roll [PR 12 Hen. II,
51].

WILLIAM FARRER states [Honours and Knights Fees 2:201] that John the Constable
"attested a charter of Robert de Ros, as 'JOHN SON OF RICHARD SON OF EUSTACE'
during the period 1147-53" [emphasis mine], citing Chartul. of Rievaux, 22.
That might have been while Richard was still alive, and contemporary enough for
me (as long as there is no reason to believe it was spurious). So again,
unless there is SOME document which calls him Robert, I see no reason not to
call him Richard. We might refer to him, then, as 'Richard (not Robert)
FitzEustace' to help correct the error.

William de Vescy definitely stated he had a [half?] brother named Richard. See
EYC 2:407 (no. 1110), "for the health of the soul of Richard and Geoffrey his
brothers, and for the welfare of Agnes, his father's wife...." [William's
mother was Beatrice.] And there is no question that Eustace FitzJohn was John
the Constable's grandfather, as John calls "Eustachii filii Johannis avi mei et
uxoris illius Agnetis, avie mee". Lewis C. Lloyd and Doris Stenton also state
that John's father was Richard FitzEustace [Sir Christopher Hatton's Book of
Seals, nos. 515n, 517, 519.]

There are accounts in Dugdale's Mon. Angl., aside from Early Yorkshire
Charters, and though Clay edited parts, it was William Farrer who edited the
early volumes. I have just copied quite a bit of material on these antecessors
of the second Lacy line, the family of FitzNeel/FitzNigel, and the Constables
of Flamborough, and will make one or two long posts sometime this weekened
after I have time to get it all together.

pcr

P. S. Didn't Round, in the article you cited (Trans. Essex Arch. Soc., NS
3:248) satisfactorily show that Richard FitzEustace was definitely NOT father
of Roger FitzRichard of Warkworth? [I won't have access to article until
Monday.]

This thread: