Geoffrey de Lucy
(-)

 

Family Links

Spouses/Children:
Unknown

Geoffrey de Lucy

  • Marriage: Unknown

bullet  Information about this person:

• From Gen-Medieval Archives: Maud de Lucy, wife of Nicholas de Segrave. 193
From: Dcrdcr4<dcrdcr4@aol.com >
Subject: Maud de Lucy, wife of Nicholas de Segrave
Date: 17 Feb 1999 17:27:08 GMT

Maud de Lucy
, wife of Nicholas de Segrave, is identified as a Lucy in an old Segrave family pedigree, presumably the one Hap refers to in the Chaucombe Priory. Unfortunately, her parentage is not stated in the document. However, since the rest of the pedigree appears to be sound, there is no reason to suppose that she was not in fact a Lucy as claimed. She was evidently the daughter of Geoffrey de Lucy, a male line descendant of Richard de Lucy the Justiciar. There is some evidence to support a Lucy connection. As I recall, Maud's eldest son went on a Crusade with one of the many Geoffrey de Lucy's. Also, I've discovered that Maud's younger son held property in Essex under a Lucy family that descends from Robert de Lucy, brother of the Justiciar. My guess is that this property was probably Maud's maritagium and that she settled it on her younger son. Just how the Essex property was subinfeuded to the junior branch of the family, I have no idea.

I hope that helps! Sincerely, Douglas Richardson

• From Gen-Medieval Archives: Possible Ancestry of Maud de Lucy, Wife of Nicholas de Segrave. 193
From: Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com>
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)

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


Comments
My New Mexico Roots & Native Roots - My New Mexico Roots - My link to the New England Pilgrim settlers & their link to a Web of English Ancestors
© Nancy López



Home | Table of Contents | Surnames | Name List

This Web Page was Updated 2 Mar 2009