c s 
 
 429 
 K57 
 1889 
 MAIN 
 
 THE 
 
 Countess Lucy 
 
 MHMiNHMillil 
 

 ^^i^'''^^ 
 
 
"b 
 
 ^y 
 
/i • ^-^ / 
 
 THE 
 
 COUNTESS LUCY: 
 
 SINGULAR OR PLURAL f 
 
 A CONTRIBUTION TO THE " QENEALOCJIST " FOR APRIL, 
 JULY, AND OCTOBER, 1888 ; 
 
 WITH A POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 R. E. G. KIRK. 
 
 EXETER : 
 PRINTED BY WILLIAM POLLARD & Co., NORTH STREET. 
 
 1889. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2008 with funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/countesslucysingOOki rl<rich 
 

 THE COUNTESS LUCY: 
 
 SINGULAR OR FLURAL? 
 By R. E. G. KIRK. 
 
 Of the many emendations of Dugdale's Baronage which, in default 
 of a revision of the whole work, have been attempted by more recent 
 writers, one of the most important and interesting deals Avith the 
 history and relationships of the reputed Anglo-Saxon heiress, Lucy, 
 who is said to have been Countess of Lincoln in her own right, and 
 who was certainly Countess of Chester by marriage. Dugdale, following 
 his authorities, makes out that there was only one lady of this name, and 
 does not give her the former title. The emendators, on the contrary, 
 suggest that there were in reality two ladies named Lucy, mother and 
 daughter, and heiresses in succession to the earldom of Lincoln, But as 
 the arguments on which they founded their conclusion can be proved 
 to be entirely fallacious, it appeared desirable to reinvestigate the mat- 
 ter, for, on their own showing, they have unjustifiably resorted to the 
 literary barbarity of dividing a lady in halves, to suit the purely imaginary 
 exigencies of a pedigree. Fresh evidence on both sides of the question 
 is forthcoming, and I need not here anticipate the result of the inquiry, 
 further than by remarking that neither Dugdale nor his critics have given 
 a correct or even a coherent account of the real history of the lady or 
 ladies in question, and that I propose to offer what I hope will be a final 
 solution of the problem. It has been found necessary to review the early 
 history of the Earldoms of Chester and Lincoln, and so much light on 
 the origin of the latter earldom has been obtained, that many misappre- 
 hensions and erroneous deductions from its few known facts can at length 
 be rectified. 
 
 Dugdale's information on the subject is given under the heads of 
 "Earls of Mercia," "Romara," "Earls of Chester," and "Earls of 
 Lincoln " ; and is based on Ordericus Vitalis and other early chroniclers, 
 including the work which goes by the name of Tngulph of Croyland, 
 and the continuation thereof by Peter of Blois, and also on a Genealogy 
 of Earl Leofric contained in a MS. of Florence of Worcester. For his 
 genealogical particulars he relies to a large extent on the last three 
 authorities, if they may be so called ; but the Croyland chronicles, as is 
 well known, are very untrustworthy, and the facts they record are almost 
 undistinguishable from the confused mass of wrong inference and pure 
 fiction with which they abound. The Genealogy is also very inaccurate, 
 and obviously based on Ingulph and his continuator.^ On the main 
 question before us, however, the statements of Ingulph and the Genealogy 
 are supported by the independent testimony of the registers of Spalding 
 
 ^ Both the Genealogy and Peter of Blois make Earl William de Roumare to be 
 elder brother of Roger Fit? Gerold ; an error not likely to have ^een made by in- 
 dependent writers, 
 
 167 
 
2 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 priory, two of which aro quoted in the old edition of Diigdale's Mon- 
 (Vatican, and another in the new edition ; but some of the charters 
 wliich have the most important bearing on the matter are omitted from 
 both (Mlitions. That these registers are worthy of the utmost credit 
 Avill be proved by reference to royal charters, and has indeed been 
 admitted by the emendators, who frequently refer to them, and have 
 taken the trouble twice to print from one of them a charter which is 
 apparently of much less importance than those I have alluded to, The 
 Monasticon also makes quotations from the Chronicle of Peterborough, 
 which supports Ingulph and the Genealogy both as to the parentage and 
 as to the unity of Lucy. 
 
 It is impossible, therefore, to reject ofF-hand any portion of the history 
 or tradition in question. The only course we can take is to endeavour 
 to distinguish the true from the false, by applying the test of a com- 
 parison of the authorities above mentioned with the authentic records of 
 the realm. 
 
 Dugdale^s version. 
 
 The old story is briefly as follows. Lucy was the grand-daughter of 
 Leofric, Earl of Mercia, and of the famous Countess Godiva, the former 
 of whom died in 1057, " in a good old age," while the latter survived the 
 Conquest. Algar, or iElfgar, Lucy's father, was created Earl of the 
 East Saxons, and on Leofric's death became Earl of Mercia.^ He twice 
 rebelled against Edward the Confessor, and was twice banished or out- 
 lawed, but each time restored to favour, on the second occasion with the 
 gentle aid of an invasion by his son-in-law Griffith, King of [N"orth 
 Wales, and by "the Norway fleet." He died soon after, in 1059, 
 probably of no great age, as he survived his father only a few years. 
 Lucy's two brothers were Edwin, Earl of Mercia, and Morcar, or Mor- 
 kcre, Earl of Iforthumbria. Her sister Algitha or Edgiva, was married 
 firstly to Griffith, above named, 2 and secondly to King Harold. 
 
 Earls Edwin and Morcar were almost the only English nobles who 
 were permitted by the Conqueror to retain their dignities and possess- 
 ions, but these were subsequently forfeited by their rebellion ; Edwin 
 in the result being killed, and Morcar imprisoned.^ Yet as Dugdale in 
 several places refers to Lucy's inheritance, we are left to infer that she 
 Avas allowed to succeed to the possessions of her brothers, as their sister 
 and heiress, or, ignoring her brothers, to the possessions of her father as 
 his daughter and heir. Earl Leofric's Genealogy positively states that 
 she "obtained the paternal lands." 
 
 Dugdale's authorities then go on to describe, with sundry circumstan- 
 tial details, how she was married three times, her husbands being (1) 
 
 ^ Algai-'s wife was named Alveva, or ^Ifgif u. Both she and Godiva survived the 
 Conquest, as Domesday shows. See Mr. Freeman's " Norman Conquest," ii, 629. 
 
 ^ This fact is, without any good reason, denied by the editor of Bohn's translation 
 of Ordericus VitaUs. 
 
 ^ The latter remained in prison all his life, with the exception of a short interval, 
 according to Ordericus Vi talis, Florence of Worcester, Roger Hoveden, &c. But 
 Ingulph and the Peterborough Chronicle say that both brothers were killed by 
 the treachery of their own followers ; the Chronicle adding that King William, greatly 
 paouruing their death, gave their sister Lucy with their lands to Taillebois, 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. 3 
 
 Ivo Taillebois of Anjou, (2) Eoger^ Fitz Gerold de Eoumare, and (3) 
 Eanulph Meschiu do Briquessart or de Bayeux, Earl of Chester. 
 
 V>y her first husband she is not stated by Dugdalc to have had any 
 children. He seems to liave relied on Earl Leofric's Genealogy, which 
 asserts that they had none. By her second husband she is 'said to 
 have had 'William de Roumare, son and heir of Roger, and who 
 afterwards became Earl of Lincoln. By her third husband she is 
 further stated to have had Ranulph,- who was created Earl of Chester, 
 William, said to have been Earl of Cambridge, and two daughters. 
 
 Iler last husband surrendered her inheritance to Henry I, in exchange 
 for the earldom of Chester, and died in 1129. After his death, she 
 paid the King a large sum of money for livery of " her father's lands," 
 and a still larger fine that she should not be compelled "to marry 
 again " for the space of five years. -^ 
 
 Truly this is a remarkable story, and the lady must have been 
 possessed of groat force of character to have maintained the position 
 of an independent heiress till the end of a protracted life, in spite of 
 the forfeiture of her brothers, almost the last representatives of the 
 deposed English nobility, and her marriage to three Norman husbands, 
 the first of whom might well have regarded himself as possessed in his 
 own light, under the grant which would in such case bo made 
 by the Conqueror. For, although her inheritance Avas alienated by her 
 third husband, she was able to pay a largo sum of money apparently 
 for its re-purchase ; and although, if the story be true, she was at 
 least seventy years of age at the date of her last husband's death, 
 she was still considered to be liable to be married for a fourth time, 
 if the King should so choose ; to avoid which fate she preferred to pay 
 a very substantial fine.'* 
 
 The proposed emendation. 
 
 But, if the dates given were correct, it is evident that this story would 
 be open to serious objection. In the first place, Lucy was born not 
 later than 1059, if that were the date of Earl Algar's death, and if she 
 were his daughter, as alleged by the monks of Peterborough and Croy- 
 land. The date of her marriage to Ivo Taillebois, was 1072, according 
 to Ingulph, or 1073, according to the Chronicle of Peterborough. 
 
 There is good evidence that Ivo survived King William I, and Peter 
 of Blois appears to state that he lived till 1114, though Peter's 
 chronology is not very clear, and this date was not adopted by 
 Dugdale. If Ivo died in that year, and left a widow, she would have 
 been at least fifty-five years of age before she could have married again 
 and consequently it would be " physically impossible," to use the words 
 of the emendators, that she could have been mother of the children of 
 Roger Fitz Gerold and Ranulph Meschin. 
 
 ^ Some have insisted that this is a mistake for Robei-t Fitz Gerold, the name given 
 in Domesday, but it appears that Robert had a brother and heir named Roger, and 
 that it was Roger who married Lucy. 
 
 * " Wilham Ranulph " in Ord. Vit. seems to be an error, and not an early example 
 of a double name, as Mr. Freeman suggests. This Ranulph was called " Gernons." 
 
 3 Pipe Roll, 31 Henry I. 
 
 * When Dugdale wrote, the Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I, was supposed to be of the 
 5th year of Stephen, or about ten years later than its real date j but this did not 
 excite his suspicion. 
 
4 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 These considerations induced tlie Eev. W. L, Bowles and Mr. John 
 Gough Nichols, authors of the "Annals and Antiquities of Lacock 
 Abbey," published in 1835, to question the possibility of all these 
 events having belonged to the history of one and the same lady. 
 Accepting the date of 1114, as the date of Ivo's death, and discarding 
 Peter of Blois' connecting stateniejit, that she bewailed Ivo's death with 
 only " moderate lamentations " (modico plcm.du), and married again little 
 more than a month after, they boldly, for the first time, ventured to 
 suggest that there must have been two Countesses and heiresses of the 
 name of Lucy, mother and daughter. To the first lady they assign Ivo 
 as husband, and to the second lady, Koger and Kanulph ; and they 
 assume 1141 to have been the date of the second Lucy's death.^ Tliis 
 makes matters run smoothly, but the dates on which they relied are very 
 questionable. 
 
 The theory originated by Messrs. Bowles and Nichols has been 
 adopted by several later Avriters, namely, by the author of "Additions 
 to Dugdale's Baronage," contained in the " Collectanea Topographica et 
 Genealogica," vii. 130, and viii. 156, published in 1841-3; by the late 
 IMr. Thomas Stapleton, in his valuable edition of the Norman Pipe 
 Eolls, vol. ii, published in 1844 ;'2 by the writer — probably tlie late 
 Mr. J. G. Nichols — of an elaborate but misleading account of the Earl- 
 dom of Lincoln, contained in the first volume of the " Topographer and 
 Genealogist," published in 1846 ; by the editor of the Pipe Koils for 
 Cumberland, &c., 1847 ; by Mr. John Hodgson Hinde in the Archaeo- 
 logical Journal (1859), xvi, 230 ; and partially by Mr. W. S. Ellis in 
 his " Antiquities of Heraldry," published in 1869.^ It has also been 
 thoroughly endorsed by Mr. Freeman, who considers the original 
 version to be an exploded myth, as noticed in the last number of the 
 Genealogist, Avhere Mr. Round accepts the proposed emendation, 
 though it does not appear to have commended itself to so great an 
 authority as Mr. Eyton.^ 
 
 The evidence chiefly relied upon by the emendators is the statement of 
 Peter of Blois, that Ivo and Lucy had "an only daughter, nobly espoused " 
 (tmica eorumfiUa, sjjonso nobili tradita) ; but they did not notice that Peter 
 says this daughter died in Ivo's lifetime, and without issue. Staple- 
 ton and Nichols also endeavour to prove, perhaps satisfactorily, that Ivo 
 had a daughter Beatrice, wife of Riband, Lord of Middleham, brother of 
 Alan, Earl of Richmond, whose son Ralph and grandson Riband took the 
 name of Taillebois ; and they triumphantly print a charter from a 
 register of Spalding, showing that " the Countess Lucy " had a daughter 
 named Matilda, who was wife of Hugh, brother of Ranulph Meschin ; ^ 
 but they produce no positive authority, good, bad, or indifferent, for 
 
 ^ Their assumption is based on a uiisappreliension, as will be seen. 
 
 * Stapleton was in fact the originator of the new theory, as Bowles and Nichols 
 profess to base it upon information received from him. 
 
 ^ Mr. Ellis inconsistently omits Ivo from the number of the supposed second- 
 Lucy's husbands, but still makes lier to be daughter of Earl Algar. His chief 
 argument, however, promises to be very useful, and will be discussed further on. 
 
 ■* An account of this controversy is given in a letter by Mr. Round to the Academy, 
 10th December, 1887. He there more correctly admits that this is still an open 
 question. 
 
 f See abstracts of Charters, 'post, No. 24. 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. S 
 
 stating tliat Ivo and Lucy had a daughter named Lucy. Yet on such 
 slender and self-contradictory premises, these writers inclined to the 
 opinion that there may have been three daughters and coheiresses of 
 " the first Lucy " to the earldom of Lincoln. This suggestion, though sup- 
 ported by much learned argument, makes confusion worse confounded. 
 
 Objections to the double-Lucy tlieory. 
 
 I^one of the emendators, except Mr. Hodgson Hinde, remarked that 
 the evidence as to the alleged parentage of Lucy is very slight, and open 
 to grave suspicion. But at present I do not propose to go into that 
 branch of the subject, becaiise it Avill be necessary to discuss, at greater 
 length than INIr. Hinde has done, the question whether Lucy was an 
 heiress ; which settled, it will be easier to decide as to her parentage. 
 That question may not indeed really affect the argument from dates. 
 Even supposing that she was not the daughter of Earl Algar, it can 
 scarcely be imagined that the wife of a man who came over with the 
 Conqueror was born at a later date than that of Algar's death. Eor the 
 present, therefore, meeting the original emendators on their own ground, 
 I proceed to state the objections to the reasons which induced them to 
 launch the double-Lucy tlieory. 
 
 Eirst, as to dates. Earl Algar did not die so early as 1059. Mr. 
 Freeman considers that he died between 1062 and 1065 ;i and the 
 Erench editor of Ordericus Vitalis assigns 1063 as the date of his death.^ 
 
 There is no doubt that the date of 1114 first attracted the notice 
 of the emendators, and it is singular that, although they themselves 
 afterwards pointed out that Ivo's death really took place before 1100, 
 as appears by a charter of William Kufus, addressed to Eoger Eitz 
 Gerold,^ obviously in his capacity as lord of Spalding and husband 
 of Lucy, nevertheless they did not think it right to question the theory 
 which they had so rashly adopted. It is clear that, taking 1093 as 
 about the date of Ivo's death, Lucy Taillebois may well have been the 
 mother of William de Roumare, who succeeded his father before 1119, 
 for he is described as " son and heir " of Roger Eitz Gerold in that year, 
 when he assisted King Henry I in defeating the King of Erance at 
 Bremule.^ We have not the slightest evidence of the dates of Roger's 
 death and the marriage of Lucy to Ranulph Meschin, and therefore it 
 is difficult to pronounce an opinion as to the remainder of the assumed 
 physical impossibility.^ Eor all we know to the contrary, this last 
 marriage may also have taken place before 1100, and probably did, as it 
 may be inferred that Roger did not live long after coming into possession 
 of the immense estates previously enjoyed by Ivo, from the fact that so 
 little is known about him.^ N. 
 
 1 "Norman Conquest," ii, 469, 631. 
 
 " Edition of the Soc. de I'Hist. de France, ii, 119, note. 
 
 '^ See abstracts of Charters, po&t, No. 7. 
 
 * Ordericus Vitalis. 
 
 8 It might be supposed that Ranulph Gernons, the eldest of the children of the 
 third marriage, was considerably younger than his half-brother, William de Roumare 
 judging from the account given of the former's escape from Lincoln Castle in 1141 ; 
 but they both died in the same year, 1153. 
 
 « The Genealogy alleges that the third marriage took place in the reign of Stephen, 
 a palpable error of date which is disregarded by both Dugdale and his opponents. 
 
6 THE COtfNTESS LtJCY. 
 
 Then, with regard to tho meagre evidence produced by the emendators: 
 it is utterly insuificient to show that Ivo and Lucy had a daughter named 
 Lucy. Their proofs as to Beatrice rest on a charter of Ivo's, to 
 which Kibaud his son-in-law {goner) is a witness, and on a charter 
 of Eibaud, brother of Earl Alan, who therein mentions Beatrice his 
 wife ; and that the " son-in-law " and Earl Alan's brother were the 
 same is shown by another charter of the same Ribaud, which mentions 
 " Ivo ;" but it is not certain that Beatrice was also the daughter of 
 Lucy._ 
 
 It is necessary to note that Beatrice is said to have had a daughter, 
 who was wife of a certain Gilbert ; and that an attempt has been made 
 to identify this daughter with Rohese, niece of Ranulph Gernons, Earl 
 of Chester, Avho was married to Gilbert de Gant in 1141, and Avho is 
 supposed to have inherited " a share " of the earldom of Lincoln. But 
 after careful consideration of the evidence, I am quite unable to say 
 anything in support of this view of the matter. 
 
 Thus the only good piece of evidence yet before us is the Spalding 
 charter, which mentions Matilda, daughter of the Countess Lucy, 
 and if nothing more definite could be discovered, we should be 
 driven to the conclusion that Matilda was the sole daughter of Ivo 
 and Lucy. Consequently all the elaborate arguments of Mr. Nichols 
 as to the descent of the respective " shares " of the earldom of Lincoln, 
 which he assumes to have been held in coparcenery by the representatives 
 of Lucy, Beatrice, and Matilda, rest upon very sandy foundations. 
 
 But the emendators did not call attention to the evidence in support 
 of the original story which is furnished by the charters of the Countess 
 Lucy herself, as recorded in the registers of Spalding priory. It 
 was certainly their duty to have done so, seeing that they carefully 
 examined the transcript of one of the manuscripts, and made extracts 
 therefrom to suit their theory. Two of these registers are quoted 
 in the old edition of the Monasticon,^ and the greater portion of 
 another is transcribed in Cole's MS. No. 43 (Addit. 5844), and quoted 
 in the new edition of the same work. Of these charters, and of all 
 others that I have been able to find relating to Thorold the Sheriff, 
 Lucy, and her three husbands, it will be convenient to give a concise 
 description in this place. For the present, however, the reader need 
 peruse only Nos. 2, 4, 18, 19, 29, and 43. The rest will be referred to 
 later on. This is, I believe, the first attempt which has been made to 
 bring them together. 
 
 Abstracts of Charters, 
 
 1. Charter of Thorold (the Sheriff) to St. Nicholas and the monks of Spalding, 
 granting tithes in Tetenay, Alkebarge, Normanby, Beltisford, and Scamelisby. (The 
 
 ^ Dngdale twice visited Spalding, in 1648 and 1659, and on both occasions made 
 extracts from registers, then in the possession of John Oldfield, Esquiie, lord of the 
 manor. On the former occasion, he saw a " vetus apograiihum," and on the latter 
 a " registrum." These two MSS. were still at Spalding in Tanner's time. A chronicle 
 and a register of that priory were preserved at (-'aius College, Cambridge, according to 
 Tanner, and Top. and Gen., ii, 107, but only the former now remains in the library 
 of that college, according to its catalogue. Possibly it was from the latter that Cole 
 transcribed, but his original was then in private hands. There is also another but 
 different register among the Harleiau MSS., No. 742. 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. 7 
 
 text of this charter is not set out, but its purport is stated as above.) — Spalding 
 register ; Cole's MS. p. 144 ; Monastkon, iii, 215.^ 
 
 2. Charter of Ivo Taillebois to the monks of St. Mary's, York, and Stephen the 
 Abbot, for the souls of himself and his wife Lucy, and of his father and mother, 
 granting various lands in Kirkby-Stephen, Wyntun, Ku-kby-Kendale, Eversham, 
 Kirkby- Lonsdale, Hutton, Bethone, Burton, Clepeam, &c. Witnesses: Lucy, his wife, 
 Ribaud, his son-in-law,^ Ralph Taillebois, &c. (1088-1112.)— Register of St. Mary's, 
 York ; Monasticon, iii, 553. 
 
 3. Charter of William (I), King of the English, addressed to R. Bishop of Lincoln, 
 &c., and granting that Ivo Taillebois may give the manor of Spalding to St. Nicholas 
 of Angers, but so that the church situate in the same manor and its servants may have 
 the manor ; and they shall have it before or after Ivo's death, as he shall please. 
 Witnesses : William, Bishop of Durham (1080-95) ; William, the Chancellor 
 (1083-90), &c. Dated at How. In the rubric Ivo is called " first husband of Lucy 
 the Countess." — Spalding register, f. 12a ; Cole's MS. p. 145 ; Moiiasticon, iii, 216. 
 
 4. Grant by Ivo Taillebois to the church of St. Nicholas of Angers, of the church 
 of Spalding, with a carucate of land there, for the souls of King William and Matilda 
 his wife, of himself and his wife Lucy, and his (or their) ancestors, to wit, Thorold 
 and his wife,^ on condition that " the monks of St. Nicholas ' ' should acknowledge this 
 as the first gift.* The abbot and monks of Angers granted to the monks of Spalding 
 the tithes (where, not stated) which Thorold and his [men] had given to St. Nicholas. 
 Ivo made this " convention " with Natalis the abbot and the monks of Angei-s, at 
 Gloucester, in 1085, with the consent of King William, by the testimony of Remigius, 
 Bishop of Lincoln (1072-92), William, Bishop of Durham, and others, including " Ivo 
 the Knight." (The text of this charter is not set out, but its purport is stated as 
 above.) — Spalding register, f. 12a ; Cole's MS. p. 146 ; Monasticon, iii, 216. 
 
 5. Charter of William (I), King of the English, confirming to St. Nicholas and his 
 monks the gift of the manor of Spalding made to them by Ivo Taleboys. With 
 attestations of confirmation by William II and Henry I. Witnesses : Robert 
 (Remigius ? 1072-92), Bishop of Lincoln ; William, Bishop of Durham, &c. — Spalding 
 register ; Monasticon, iii, 217. 
 
 6. Charter of Ivo Taillebois to Ihe monks of Spalding, after the death of William, 
 King of the English, for the souls of King William and Matilda his wife, granting the 
 tithe of the toll and saltpans of Spalding, an aqueduct called Westlade, witli a 
 fisherman, 2000 eels from his own fisheries, the tithe of sea-fish in all his land, and 
 other tithes, &c. He also gave " a rustic " in each of the following places, to keep the 
 monks' tithes there— Teteney, Alcobar, Normanby, Bolingbroc, and Beltisford ; and 
 a sheepfold in Spalding, &c. — Witnesses : Thomas, Archbishop of York ; Remigius, 
 Bishop of Lincoln ; Robert, Bishop of Hereford ; Wido de Credon, &c. (This does not 
 
 ' The Spalding registers do not contain the foundation charter of the cell at 
 Spalding. Ingidph professes to quote the full text of a charter by "Thorold de 
 Bukenhale " to the monks of Croyland, granting the manor of Spalding for the 
 foundation of a cell there. This is said to have been made in the presence of 
 Thorold's lord, Leofric, Earl of " Leicester," and Countess Godiva, the Earl's wife, 
 and with the consent of his lord and kinsman {cognati) the Earl Algar, their eldest 
 son and heir. It is dated at " Leicester " (probably meaning Chester), 1051. Ingulph's 
 charters are admitted to be as untrustworthy as his narrative, and therefore I do not 
 venture to place it in the text. It is however certain that the monks of Croyland 
 had an estate in Spalding at the time of Domesday, which also shows that Thorold 
 the Sheriff had granted to them the manor of Bukenhale. 
 
 - In the same Register there is a charter by Ribaud, lord of Middleham, brother of 
 the Earl (Ahn, Earl of Richmond), for the souls of Alan the Earl, Beatrice, his 
 (Ribaud's) wife, &c. 
 
 3 This passage is misquoted by Dugdale, as noticed by Mr. Freeman, who remarks 
 that " the expressions are odd." The actual words are : " Pro sui ipsius et conjugis 
 sue Lucie, et antecessorum suorum, Toraldi scilicet uxorisque ejus, requie." This 
 better leading is also given in a cartulary of Angers, quoted by Nichols, though he 
 does not observe that we thus obtain a notice of Thorold's wife, hitherto overlooked. 
 
 * The compiler of the Spalding register considered that the eifect of this was to 
 " exclude in a certain manner the gift formerly made by Thorold." (Cole's MS. 
 p. 1440 
 
8 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 mention Lucy.)— Spalding register, f. 12b and f. 392b ; Cole's MS. p. 147 and p. 433 ; 
 Harl. MS. 742, f. 257b ; Monastioon, iii, 217. 
 
 7. Charter of King William (II), addressed to R. the Bishop and Roger FitzGerold, 
 and to all his barons in Liucolnshirc, commanding that the men of Spalding shall 
 render to the monks of Spalding their farm and rent, as in the time of Ivo Taillebois, 
 &o. Osbern the Sherifl and Colgrin^ are enjoined not to intermeddle. — Spalding 
 register, f. 89a ; Cole's MS. p. 220. 
 
 8. Charter of Riband, brother of Alan the Earl, to St. Nicholas of Spalding, 
 gi-anting the church of GjDton, for the souls of King William, Alan the Earl, Ivo, and 
 himself, and all his (suorum) ancestors, " xv annis antequam manerium cum filia sua 
 Gilberto dedisset ; et sic habuerunt monachi tempore Ribaudi illam ecclesiam multis 
 annis qui in Spalding morabantur.^ Testibus, Hervico filio Ribaudi, et aliis." — 
 Spalding register, f. 414a ; Cole's MS. p. 449. 
 
 9. Charter of Ranulj^h Meschin to Stephen, the abbot, and the convent of St. Mary 
 of York, addressed to Richerius, Sheriff of Carlisle, and to all his men, French and 
 English, who dwell in " the power of Carlisle ; " granting the manor which is called 
 Wederhal, ^vith the lands appertaining thereto, for the souls of King Henry, the 
 donor's father and mother, himself and his wife Lucy. Witnesses : Osbert the 
 Sheriff, Walteof son of Cospatric the Earl, Fornus son of Sigulfus, Chetellus son of 
 Ectredus, &c. — Wetherall register, in the library of CarKsle Cathedral ; Monasticon, 
 iii, 583.3 
 
 10. Charter of Ranulph Meschin to St. Mary and St. Coustantine of Wederhale 
 and the monks there, of the sluiceage and pond of the fishery and mill of Wederhale, 
 
 which has been made and established in the land of Chorkeby. Witnesses : • 
 
 Meschin, William the archdeacon, Odard, &c. — Wetherall register, f. 7 ; Monasticon, 
 iii, 583.4 
 
 11. Charter of King Henry (I) to Richard the abbot and the convent of St. Mary 
 of York, confirming the churches of Appelby, to wit, St. Michael and St. La^vrence, 
 with their lands and tithes, and the tithes of the demesne of Meubrun and of 
 Salchild, granted to them, as the charter of Ranulph Meschin testifies. Dated at 
 Reading, and addressed to Thurstan, Archbishop of York (1114-1140), and all 
 the icing's lieges and ministers of Westmerland and Cumberland. — Ibid. p. 8 ; 
 Monasticon, iii, 585 (also 553). 
 
 12. Charter of King Henry (I), addressed to Robert, Bishop of Lincoln, and 
 Wig[ot] the Shei-iff, and commanding that the monks of Spalding shall have their 
 wood appertaining to " the manor," as they best had it in the time of the King's 
 father and brother, and in the time of Ivo and Thorold ; and they shall also have 
 their marsh. Witness, Nigel de Albini, at Woodstock.— Spalding register (Harleian 
 MS. 742), f. 9. 
 
 13. Charter of King Henry (I), addressed to "the abbot of Croyland, Geoffrey," 
 and commanding him to permit the monks of St. Mary and St. Nicholas of Spalding 
 " to hold their customs in marshes and in houses," as the same shall be divided on 
 their oath by lawful and aged men ; otherwise Ranulph Meschin, Godfrey Ridel, 
 Alan de Lincoln, and Pigot shall do right therein, '• so that I may hear no further 
 complaint." — Spalding register, f. 39b; Cole's MS. p. 221. 
 
 14. Charter of King Henry (I), addressed to R. the Bishop, 0. the Sheriff, R. 
 Meschin, and his barons and ministers of Lincolnshire, and commanding that " the 
 land of St. Nicholas, of Wilinton," shall be in peace, and quit from pleas and plaints, 
 except murder and larceny, and [from] hocgeld, &c.— Spalding register, f. 90b ; 
 Cole's MS. p. 222. 
 
 15. Charter of Ranulph, Earl of Chester, and Lucy his wife, to the monks of St. 
 
 ^ Colgi-in, the reeve of Spalding, is mentioned in the fictitious charter of Thorold 
 of Bukenhale. He could hardly be the same as " Colegrim," who had large 
 possessions in Lincolnshire according to Domesday. 
 
 ^ It is obvious that these last clauses could not have formed part of the chai-ter, 
 though they appear to do so. 
 
 3 An attested memorandum in the same register states that the gift of Wetherall 
 was made in the year when St. Mary's Abbey was founded, " 1086," or rather 10S8. 
 But the charter above abstracted was evidently made after 1100. See Introduction 
 to Pipe Rolls for Cumberland. &c., p. xviii. 
 
 * Ranulph Meschin appears to have made other grants to this monastery. See 
 Monasticon, iii, 553, 585. 
 
THE COUNTESS LirCY. 9 
 
 Nicholas of Spalding, granting the churches of Beltisford, Soamelisbi, and Mintingea 
 for the souls of their fathers and mothers and all their ancestors, with the consent of 
 Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln (1123-47). — Spalding register, f. 389a ; Cole's MS, 
 p. 429. See also p. 446. 
 
 16. Charter of Henry (I), King of the English, to the monks of Spalding, at the 
 request of Ranulph, Earl of Chester, and Lucy the Countess, confirming their gift of 
 the churches of Beltesford, Scamelisbi, and Minting. — Spalding register, f. 89b 
 and f. 389b ; Cole's MS. p. 220 and p. 430. 
 
 17. Charter of King Henry (I) to Geoffrey the abbot (1131-2) and the monks of 
 St. Mary of York, confirming the sluiceage and pond of the fishery and mill of 
 Wederhale, in the land of Chorkeby, as it was established there in the time when 
 Ranulph, Earl of Chester, had the honor of Carlisle, and in the time of Weslutbuid, 
 &c. Dated at Windsor, and addressed to the Archbishop of York and to the King's 
 barons and lieges, French and English, of Yorkshire and Carlisle, — Transcript of the 
 Wetherall register, p. 7 ; Monasticon, iii, 585 (also 553). 
 
 18. Charter of Lucy, Countess of Chester, to the same monks, granting tithes in 
 Beltesford, Scamelesbi, Stenighou, Normanbi, Tetenei, Donington, and Hautebarge, 
 for the soul of Ivo Taitlebois, " my husband " (domini mei),^ and for the souls of her 
 ancestors. — Spalding register, f. 391b ; Cole's MS. p. 432. 
 
 19. Charter of Lucy, Countess of Chester, to the same monks, granting the manor 
 of Spalding as freely as " I held " (tenui) it in the time of Ivo Taillebois, Roger Fitz 
 Ceroid, and Earl Ranulph, for the souls of "myself, my father and mother (not 
 named), my husbands (dominorum meorum), and my relatives." — Spalding register, 
 f. 13a and f. 135b ; Cole's MS. p. 147 and p. 250 ; Monasticon, iii, 217. See also p. 
 328 of Cole's MS. 
 
 20. Inspeximus by Oliver, Bishop of Lincoln, of a former inspeximus by Bishop 
 Robert of a charter by Reinfrid de Bretevill and Alured his son to the monks of 
 Spalding, granting tithes in Glentham, "with the consent of Ranulph, Earl of 
 Chester, and Lucy the Countess, his wife." Also of the foregoing charter of Lucy, 
 Countess of Chester, for the soul of her husband, Ivo Taillebois. Dated 1284. — 
 Spalding register, f. 405b ; Cole's MS. p. 441, 
 
 21. Inspeximus by Oliver, Bishop of Lincoln, of divers charters, including the 
 foregoing charter of Lucy, Countess of Chester, for the soul of her husband, Ivo 
 Taillebois. Dated 1284,— Spalding register ; f. 392a ; Cole's MS. p. 432, 
 
 22. Bull of Pope Alexander III., confirming various gifts to the priory of Spalding, 
 including the tithes given by Lucy the Countess.^ Dated 1177. — Spalding register, 
 f. 282a ; Cole's MS. p, 321 ; Monasticon, iii, 218. 
 
 23. Charter of Robert Fitz Wate {filius Wate) of Kirketon to John Fitz Gilbert of 
 Cibesey, releasing his right in a moiety of a mill and piece of land in Cibecey, with 
 meadow, &c. " To have and to hold in chief of the Lady Countess of Bolingbroc and 
 her heirs, in fee and inheritance ; " doing service therefor to the said Countess and 
 her heirs, sc, forty pence for all service. (No date. Witnesses' names obscure.) — 
 Duchy of Lancaster Cowcher-book, ii, f. 279, No. 109. 
 
 24. Inspeximus by Oliver, Bishop of Lincoln, of a charter of " Hugh, brother of 
 Ranulph, Earl of Chester, and Matilda his wife, daughter of the Countess Lucy," 
 granting to the monks of Spalding part of the tithes of their manor of Calnosbeie 
 
 ^ There can be no doubt that " dominus " here means husband. Compare the 
 charter of " Rohese, wife of Gilbert, Earl of Ijincoln," wherein she mentions the land 
 which her husband {doniinus meus) gave her in dower, (Harleian Charters, 50 
 F. 32.) 
 
 ^ Her charter is not recited. The Bull also confirms a gift by Pikot, son of 
 Colswain de Lincoln, whose charter is quoted in Cole's MS. p. 450, and in the 
 Monasticon, iii, 218. It mentions his wife Beatrice, his grandson (nepos) Richard, his 
 grand-daughter (neptis) Cecilia, aud " the rest of his family," all of whom were 
 admitted into the fraternity of the monastery. It grants tithes in Sutton and 
 Lutton, and is dated Sunday, 14th May, 1111, at three o'clock in the afternoon. 
 " Reg." Huardus, grandson of Osbert the Sheriff, was one of the witnesses. As to 
 Colswain, see above. No. 24. There are other charters in this register and in Harl. 
 MS. 742, and also in the Duchy Cowcher-book, vol. ii, which show that Pichot sou of 
 Colswain had a grandson named Richard de Haia, son of Robert de Haia, It may 
 be necessary to notice these n^ore fully hereafter, 
 
10 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 (Candlesby), The inspeximus is dated 1284. — Spalding register, f. 416a ; Cole's MS., 
 p. 451.1 
 
 2.5. Charter of Ranulph Junior, Earl of Chester, confirming to the monks of 
 Spalding the churches of Lindesei, Beltisford, Scamelisbi, and Mintinges, as given 
 them Ranulph, Earl of Chester, his father, and Lucy the Countess, his mother, who 
 liad also obtained a confirmation of their gift under the seal of King Henrj'. 
 Witnesses : William de Roumare, " my brother," and others. — Spalding register, f. 
 389a ; Cole's MS. p. 429. 
 
 26. Charter of William de Roumare, to " Robert, grandson (nepoti) of the 
 Countess,"^ granting the land of Ivo and Colsnenus, uncles of the said Robert, 
 in fee and inheritance, and by the service of a fourth part of one knight's fee. 
 '•■ And this I grant to him for the soul of my mother, and for the service 
 which the same Robert did (or has done) to my mother." (1135-52.) — Duchy of 
 Lancaster "Grants in boxes," A. 69. 
 
 27. Confirmation of the preceding by William de Roumare, grandson of the donor, 
 in favour of Robert, son of Robert, grandson of the Countess. (1152-88). — Ibid. 
 A. 69a. 
 
 28. Charter of William the Roumare, Earl of Lincoln, to the prior and monks of 
 St. Nicholas of Spalding, granting all the land of Spalding, as " Jjucy, my mother," 
 granted and gave it to them in almoign, with all liberties which "my mother " gave 
 them. This is addressed to Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln (1123-47). — Spalding 
 register, f. 13a ; Cole's MS. p. 147. See also p. 328. 
 
 29. Charter of William de Roumare, grandson (ncpos) of "William the Earl de 
 Roumare," to the same prior and monks, confirming the grant of the church and 
 manor of Spalding made by " Lucy, Countess of Chester, mother of William the Earl 
 ie Roumare," with all liberties " with which she best and most freely held (tenuit) 
 in the time of Ivo Tailboys, and Roger Fitz Ceroid, and Earl Ranulph." — Ibid. f. 
 13b, and p. 148.' 
 
 30. Charter of " William de Roumare, the Earl," and William his grandson and 
 heir, to the monks of Spalding, addressed to Robert, Bishop of Lincoln, and granting 
 a moiety of the church of Kelis, viz. that part which Robert the priest possessed, he 
 having given up the hereditary right which he had therein for his life ; and also a 
 toft in Bolingbroc, and a man in Cibesey named Bonna, with half a bovate of land 
 and all the family, and another toft in the same vill, &c. for " the souls of us and of 
 our predecessors, to wit, my father and mother, and of William my son." Witnesses: 
 Herbert, prior of Spalding ; Hacon the dean; Richard de Leke, dean. — Spalding 
 register, f. 384a ; Cole's M3. p. 423 ; Harl. MS. 742, f. 257. 
 
 31. Charter of " William de Roumare, the Earl," and William his grandson (wepos) 
 and heir, to the monks of Spalding, granting the church of Bolingbroc, for the souls 
 of " myself, my father and mother, and my predecessors, and of William my son :" to 
 hold the said church with all his laud and men in Bolingbroc and Kirkeby. Witnesses : 
 Philip, abbot of Revesbi ; Robert (sic, for Herbert), prior of Spalding ; Hacon, dean 
 of Holand. Addressed to Robert, IBishop of Lincoln (1147-67). The Earl's arms are 
 sketched in the margin. — Spalding register, f. 381b ; Cole's MS. p. 421. 
 
 32. Inspeximus by Oliver, Bishop of Lincoln of the preceding charter. (Two 
 copies.)— /itd. f. 374a and f. 381b ; p. 416 and p. 422. 
 
 33. Charter of " William the Earl de Roumare " to the monks of Spalding, granting 
 for the souls of his father and his mother, and his son William, the service of Lam- 
 bert de Multon for that land which he held of the Earl in Mithingbi, which the Earl 
 
 ^ This Charter is printed by both Stapleton (ii, clvii) and Nichols {Top. and Gen. i, 
 303), but they omit the inspeximus clauses of Bishop Oliver, which impart an 
 additioniil air of genuineness to the register. There is a bungle as to the important 
 word " daughter," but nothing else can be made of it, the words being "fil' filie." 
 By an obvious oversight, Stapleton calls Matilda " daughter-in-law " of the Countess 
 Lucy. 
 
 " Nepos may be translated either grandson or nephew, but in these charters I have 
 iisually found it to mean grandson. The charter does not indicate that the 
 Countess here mentioned was Lucy, though Mr. Freeman assumes this. The dates 
 given at the end of this and other Duchy charters are those assigned to them 
 in the 35th Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records. 
 
 ^ Nos. 27, 29, and 36 are probably out of order, but are placed as above for 
 convenience of reference. 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. 11 
 
 gave him for the laud held by him of the Earl in Eevisbi, &c.— Spalding register 
 (Harleian MS. 742), f. 94^. 
 
 3*. Charter of William de Roumare, Earl of Lincoln, "William his son, and Hadewisa 
 hiR wife, to the monks of Rivaux (Rievalle), granting for the foundation of an abbey- 
 fat Revesby] for " our souls, and the souls of our fathers and mothers, and of all our 
 ancestors," all the land of Revesbi, Thoresbi, and Schithesbi. As "this land" was not 
 of his own demesne, he gives to the owners thereof, in exchange, other lands in 
 Minigesbi, Austercales, Chirchebi, Eastercales, Hagnebi, Sticcenaria, and Sticcefordia. 
 —From an old copy formerly in the possession of Sir Henry Spelman ; Monasticon, 
 iii, 454. 
 
 35. Charter by the same three persons to the monks of St. Lawrence of Revesby. 
 Witnesses : Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln, and many others. — Ibid. 
 
 86. Charter by the same to the same. — Ibid. 
 
 37. Charter of William de Roumare, grandson and heir of "William the Earl," to 
 the same, mentioning {inter alia) the land which his grandfather had in Sticheneia. — 
 Ex armaria Comitis de Lindsey apud Grimsthorp ; Monasticon, iii, 454.^ 
 
 38. Charter of King Stephen to Rauulph (Gernons), Earl of Chester, granting him 
 the castle and city of Lincoln till the King restore him his land in Normandy, and 
 all his castles ; whereupon he may fortify one of his towers of Lincoln castle, and 
 hold that tower till the King restore to him Tickhill castle ; and then the tower (sic) 
 and city of Lincoln shall remain to the King; " et dicto Comiti remanebit turris 
 sua, quam mater .tua firmavit, cum constabulatione castelli Lincoln' et Lincolneshir', 
 hereditario jure." The King also grants him sundrj'' castles and lands, and the honor 
 of Lancaster, &c. — Duchy of Lancaster records, Div. 25, A. 9 ; Dugdale's Baronage, 
 i, 39." 
 
 39. Charter of Henry, Duke of Normandy, granting to Ranulph (Gernons), Earl of 
 Chester, and Viscount of Avranches, all his inheritance in Normandy and in England, 
 particulars of which are set out, including all the honor of Eye (Eia), as fully as 
 Robert Malet, his mother's uncle, ever held it ; and the fee of Alan of Lincoln, his 
 mother's uncle. Witnesses [on the part of Duke Henry] : William, the Chancellor, 
 R. Earl of Cornwall, and others ; and on the part of Earl Ranulph : William, Earl 
 of Lincoln, and others. Dated at Devizes [1152]. The borders of the original are 
 ornamented with lines of red and gold . — Cottonian Charters, xvii, 2; Duchy of 
 Lancaster Cowcher-book, ii, 476b ; Rymer, i, 16 ; Baronage, i, 39. 
 
 40. Charter of Hugh, Earl of Chester (1153-1180), to the monks of Spalding, 
 confirming the tithes in Beltisford, &c., given by his ancestors, viz. : "Thorold the 
 Sheriff, and Lucy the Countess, and Ranulph the Earl, my grandfather, and my 
 father."-Spalding register, f. 391b; Cole's MS. p. 432. 
 
 41. Charter of Ranulph (Blundvill), Earl of Chester, to the monks of Revesby, 
 confirming the gifts of William, Earl of Lincoln, William, his son, and William, his 
 grandson. Witnesses : David, the Earl, brother of the King of Scotland, &c. — Ex 
 armario, dsc. (as in No. 36.) 
 
 42. Charter of Ranulph (Blundvill), Earl of Chester and Lincoln, to the same 
 monks, confirming all the donations which " Lucy, formerly Countess of Chester," 
 had made to them, to wit, the church and manor of Spalding, &c., according to her 
 charter and the charter of confirmation of William de Roumare, his (Ranulph's) pre- 
 decessor (see No. 29). Witnesses : Sir Walter, abbot of Chester, Sir William de 
 Vernon, Justiciary of Chester, &c. — Spalding register, f. 13b. ; Cole's MS., p. 148 ; 
 Monasticon, iii, 217. 
 
 43. Charter of King Edward 111, confirming numerous royal and other charters to 
 the priory of Spalding. Among others, he inspects the charter of Henry I, above 
 referred to (No. 12). Also the charter of Lucy, Countess of Chester, granting the 
 manor of Spalding as amply as she held it {tenui) in the time of Ivo de Thallebos, and 
 Roger FitzGerold, and Earl Ranulph, as above (No. 19), but with more witnesses, 
 viz., prior Martin of Pontefract, Ilbert de Lacey, Richard de Foliot, Jurdan and 
 
 ^ The four preceding charters to Revesby were confirmed by Richard I, as appears 
 in the Charter Roll of 2 Edw. Ill, No. 12 ; but he does not call the first William 
 " Earl of Lincoln." This confirmation includes common of pasture of the whole 
 marsh appertaining to the soke of Bolingbroke. 
 
 '•* Dugdale quotes from Glover, who appears to have seen the original, then in 
 Pontefract castle ; but there is now only an abstract of it among the Duchy records, 
 as above. It is not in the " Great Cowchei-." 
 
12 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 Paganus his brothers, &c. Also the charter of Ranulph, Earl of Chester and Lincoln, 
 as above (No. 41). Also a charter of Henry de Lucy, Earl of Lincoln, 3 Edw. IL He 
 also confirms the grant which William de Roumare, formerly Earl of Lincoln, made 
 by his deed [scriftum) of all the land and libei-ties which Lucy his mother had granted 
 to them (No. 28) ; also the confirmation by William de Roumare, grandson of the 
 same William, formerly Earl (No. 29) ; and the confirmation by Alesia de Lacy, 
 daughter and heiress of Henry de Lacy, formerly Earl of Lincoln. Finally, he 
 ratifies all the foregoing and many other gifts made to the priory, "as tlie said 
 charters fully testify." Dated 16th February. — Charter Roll, 4 Edw. IH, ITo. 95 ; 
 Spalding register, f. 102a ; Cole's MS. p. 234. 
 
 44. Letters Patent of King Edward IV, inspecting and confirming the preceding 
 charter of Edward III, and subsequent royal charters. — Patent Roll, 2 Edw. IV, 
 part 4, m. 20-29. 
 
 45. Letters Patent of King Henry VIII, inspecting and confirming the preceding 
 letters patent of Edward IV. — Confirmation Roll, 1 Henry VIII, part 7, No. 8. 
 
 Besides the charters, there are sundry incidental references in the 
 manuscript transcribed by Cole which deserve notice. Several rubrics 
 speak of Ivo Taillebois as " first husband of the Countess Lucy." At 
 f. 406a, it is stated that the prior of Spalding used to receive tithes 
 from the iJ^orthalle in Normanby and the demesnes appertaining thereto, 
 which had formerly belonged to " Lucy the Countess," long after whose 
 death WilHam de Vernon, a Norman, held it. The same manor is also 
 stated to have been held at a later date of the Earl of Lincoln as of the 
 honor of Bolingbroke. 
 
 The genuineness of the Spalding registers. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the monastery of St. Nicholas of Angers 
 and its cell of Spalding received most extensive grants of lands in 
 Spalding and elsewhere. When the Domesday survey was taken, the 
 township of Spalding comprised a manor belonging to Ivo Taillebois, a 
 manor belonging to Wido de Credon,^ and a " berewick " belonging to 
 St. Guthlac of Croyland. All these estates subsequently came into the 
 possession of the cell of Spalding and its superior abbey, as appears in 
 Testa de Nevill, which states that the cell and the abbey possessed all 
 the twelve carucates of land of which the township consisted. It is, 
 therefore, obvious that there once existed sundry deeds of gift to these 
 monasteries, and it would be difficult to believe that the transcripts of 
 them contained in the registers are wholly spurious, even if they were 
 totally uncorroborated. 
 
 But the trustworthiness of these registers is beyond cavil. Many of 
 the charters recorded in them are also recorded in tlie Charter, Patent, 
 and Confirmation Rolls, which contain the royal charters of inspeximus 
 of numerous deeds of gift to Spalding, some of which are noticed above, 
 but most are omitted from the collection because they do not relate to 
 the matter in hand. This fact has never yet been recognised, and should 
 suffice to check any disposition to reject these manuscripts with the 
 fashionable but usually undeserved sneer at "monkish historians." As 
 a rule, the cartularies of monasteries are worthy of great respect ; cer- 
 tainly of greater than is due to any specidations we may choose to 
 indulge in at this distance of time. At any rate it is advisable to attend 
 
 1 The name was afterwards spelt Creon, Croun, Crohun, &c. A Maurice de Creon 
 was a monk of Croyland in the time of Abbot Robert. See Duchy of Lancaster 
 Cowcber-book, ii, 256. 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. 13 
 
 to whatever evidence they afford before attempting to settle any con- 
 troversy ; which lias not been done in this case. 
 
 Cole speaks (p. 141) of the manuscript from which he transcribed as 
 '* a most noble register " of 442 folios ; and his quotations from the fly- 
 leaves show that it had been several times admitted as evidence in courts 
 of law. It is true that Cole makes some severe remarks (pp. 421, 422) 
 on the occasional verbal inaccuracies of the compiler of that register, and 
 seems to be justified in so doing ;^ but if there were two Lucys, the 
 compiler must have taken infinite pains in editing the text throughout 
 from the point of view that there was only one Lucy, and in that 
 respect his solicitude is really marvellous ; for he has not confined him- 
 self, if such were the case, to bestowing and changing titles and definitions, 
 but has attended even to delicate nuances of expression. Cole's 
 voluminous notes show that he himself had no suspicion of the existence 
 of two ladies bearing the same name, though he replies to a possible 
 objection on the score of abnormal longevity, by suggesting that Lucy 
 may have been no more than sixty-four years of age in 1129 (p. 147). 
 
 The collection of Lucy charters which I have made is not however 
 confined to those recorded in the Spalding registers ; it comprises all I 
 could readily discover among the records of the Crown and of the Duchy 
 of Lancaster, in the British Museum, and in Dugdale's Monasticon. It 
 will have been observed that, in one of the Duchy Cowcher-books, the 
 hitherto unnoticed title of "Countess of Bolingbroke" occurs. That this 
 was probably intended for Lucy is evident from Testa de Nevill, which 
 mentions her feveral times by that description. The same title occurs at 
 a later date, in an Inquisition of 37 Henry III (No. 18). As it will be 
 necessary to deal with this new aspect of the subject separately, I need 
 not give fuller particulars here ; but I mention these facts in order to 
 complete my task of endeavouring to bring together every available 
 reference to Lucy. 
 
 I now propose, with the aid of the evidence thus collected, and of 
 some of the arguments furnished by the emendators, to state all that 
 can be said in favour of the existence of only one Lucy. 
 
 The evidence for one Lucy. 
 It will have been remarked that in the second and fourth of the 
 charters above abstracted, Lucy is called simply the wife of Ivo Taille- 
 bois, without any title whatever, whereas in others the description is 
 " Lucy, Countess of Chester," varied by the more familiar appellation 
 of " the Countess Lucy." This discrepancy did not attract the notice 
 of the emendators. As they take no account of it, the inference is that 
 they considered Ivo's wife to have been Countess of Chester by descent, 
 and therefore were not startled by the eighteenth charter, whereby Lucy, 
 Countess of Chester, makes provision for the soul of her deceased husband, 
 Ivo Taillebois. But it can be shown that Lucy did not obtain that title 
 till 1120, when Ranulph Meschin was created Earl of Chester in his 
 own right ; whence it would follow that she was married to the first and 
 the last of the three husbands who have been usually assigned to her, 
 and of course to the second of them ; and that there could not have 
 
 1 See also Cole's separate index to vol. 43, under the head of " Inaccuracies 
 of MSS." 
 
14 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 been two successive Countesses Lucy. Moreover, in the nineteenth 
 charter, the widow of Earl Kanulph speaks of her husbands in the 
 pku'al; and as in a previous clause she mentions Ivo Taillebois, Roger 
 FitzGerold, and Ranulph Meschin in due order, and says she herself had 
 held Spalding in their lifetimes, it must be inferred that she was widow 
 of all three. As the testimony of these charters has hitherto been 
 persistently ignored, it will be well to prevent this happening in 
 future by setting them out at full length, with the reasons for their 
 having been disregarded. 
 
 Lncij's first charter. 
 The text of the first charter of the Countess Lucy may be translated 
 as follows. 
 
 " To all sons of holy mother Church, sia well present as to come, Lucy, Countess of 
 Chester, greeting. Know all of you, that I, Lucy the Countess, in my free power, 
 have given and granted, and by this my present charter have confirmed, to God and 
 St. Mary and St. Nicholas of Spalding, and to the monks there serving God, for the 
 soul of my Lord {Domini)^ Ivo Talbos, and for the health of my soul and [of those] of 
 my ancestors and heirs, in pure and perpetual almoign, all tithes and obventions of my 
 demesne, to wit, of corn, of stock, [and] of my herds in the vill of Beltisford, and in 
 the vill of Scamelisbi, and in Stenighou, and in Normanbi, and in Tetenei, and in 
 Donington, and in Hautebarge, wheresoever they may be within the metes and hmits 
 of the parishes of the aforesaid vills, or by whomsoever they may or shall be held. 
 These being witnesses : Gilbert de Lacey, Richard de Foliot, Jordan and Payn his 
 brothers, and others." 
 
 No doubt the critics saw this charter, as it is referred to in the index 
 to Cole's MS., but were hoodwinked by the fact that Dugdale affects 
 to trace the "Earls of Chester before the Conquest," among whom 
 he includes Earl Algar. The sole authority he quotes is the discredited 
 Ingulph. Henry of Huntingdon and Bartholomew Cotton seem to 
 be the only other chroniclers who describe Algar as " Consul Cestriae," 
 the former word being equivalent to '* Comes " ; and they also speak of 
 the " consulatus Cestriae." But the title of Earl of Chester has been 
 ascribed to Algar in so many ancient pedigrees and county histories, that 
 no one thought of questioning the use of the title of Countess of 
 Chester by his alleged daughter, Lucy, wife of Ivo Taillebois. 
 
 In the third Report of the Lords' Committee on the Dignity of a Peer 
 of the Realm, it is assumed that Anglo-Saxon Earls had an official 
 dignity only, and not an hereditary honour ; but in the " Topographer 
 and Genealogist " (i, 4), there are some remarks on the probable existence 
 of Anglo-Saxon earldoms, in fact, if not in name. It seems however to 
 be admitted on all hands that no Anglo-Saxon ealdorman or earl used as 
 a title the name of the county where his lands were situate, or in which 
 he exercised jurisdiction. This view is confirmed by Domesday, whicii 
 contains many references to Earls Algar, Edwin, and Morcar, but never 
 gives them any further title. As to Earl Algar, if he had any territorial 
 title at all, it would appear to have been that of Earl of Mercia, of which 
 province Lincoln, not Chester, seems to have been the capital ; ^ and in 
 
 ' See the note to charter No. 18, ante. 
 
 * See Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, i, 250. Henry of Huntingdon says the city 
 of Lincoln and the province of Lindsey belonged to the Kingdom of Mercia. William 
 of Malmesbury (140, 141) includes both Cheshire and Lincoln in Mercia. Some 
 writers call Algar " Earl of Leicester " also, but this seems to be a misreading of 
 " Legacestria," which means Chester, for " Legrecestria,'' which means Leicester, 
 (Cf. R. Hoveden, i, 103, 116.) 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. 15 
 
 fact his lands lay in many counties. Certainly there is nothing to show 
 that he was ever called Earl of Chester, though doubtless he had lands in 
 Cheshire, as his son Edwin is returned in Domesday as having held 
 lands there. As to Lucy's reputed brothers, apparently the only authority 
 for connecting one of them with the earldom of Chester is the Visitation 
 of Cheshire in 1580, which describes Edwin as Earl of March (Mercia ?), 
 Chester, and Lincoln. Besides his lands in Cheshire, he had many 
 others elsewhere, and it is very doubtful if he bore the title in question. 
 Lastly, Earl Morcar was called Earl of Northumbria, which included all 
 the northern counties. Thus Lucy could not have been, or been known 
 as, Countess of Chester by descent. 
 
 Moreover, as William I is said to have given the title of Earl of 
 Chester, with Earl Edwin's lands in Cheshire, to Gherbod, the Fleming, 
 at the Conquest, and, upon that noble's departure to Flanders, to have 
 conferred the same on Hugh Lupus d'Avranches, William's own nephew, 
 who was succeeded by his son Richard, it is inconceivable that Lucy 
 should have used it, even if it had belonged to her ancestors ; although 
 .there is little to show that Gherbod, Hugh,^ or Richard used the name of 
 the county as a title of honour. Indeed the names of counties do not 
 seem to have been in general use in connexion with similar titles even 
 so late as the reign of Henry I.^ 
 
 Not, it is obvious, did Lucy derive the title in question from Ivo 
 Taillebois or Roger FitzGerold ; and even Ranulph Meschin was not 
 created Earl of Chester till many years after his marriage, as we have 
 seen. Consequently it must be inferred that Lucy never used the title 
 of Countess of Chester before 1120. 
 
 It is true that none of the emendators have actually insisted on 
 the possible claim of Lucy Taillebois to be called by this title, but 
 they have never repudiated it as they ought to have done ; and in 
 repudiating it, they ought further to have stated how they squared the 
 first of Lucy's charters with their view that there were two ladies of 
 that name. Objection may perhaps be taken that this charter is not 
 mentioned in the confirmation by King Edward IIT, but the same re- 
 mark holds good with respect to the two charters of Ivo (N"os. 4 and 6), 
 and the charter of Hugh and Matilda (No. 24). It should be 
 noticed that there are two copies of a confirmation of the charter in 
 question by Oliver, Bishop of Lincoln (Nos, 20, 21). As it related to 
 tithes, the Bishop's confirmation was possibly considered sufficient ; and 
 the same may be said of Hugh and Matilda's charter. Ivo's gift of 
 a carucate of land in Spalding was no doubt superseded l)y Lucy's 
 ampler donation, which next requires attention. With regard to his 
 grant of tithes, if he were tenant for life only, it is easy to understand 
 why it was not confirmed either by Edward III or by the Bishop. 
 
 ^ One instance of the use of the full title by Hugh occurs in a charter of William 
 I, to which he was a witness, and which confirmed to the monks of Coventry all the 
 gifts made by " Leofric the Earl." (Addit. Charters, 11,205.) In his charter to 
 these monks, Leofric calls himself merely " Comes," but a later prior, in quoting this 
 charter, adds " Cestrise." {Monasticon, iii, 190.) 
 
 ^ See the Lincolnshire Survey, wherein Richard is called " Earl " simply, throughout. 
 
16 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 Lucy's second Charter. 
 The second charter of Lucy is printed by Dugdale, and it is surprising 
 that its testimony has been so long overlooked ; but this may have been 
 due to a misprint, which, though slight, wholly obscures the sense. 
 For this reason, doubtless, its chief point is missed in the Introduction 
 to the " Pipe Rolls for Cumberland," which I presume was written by 
 Mr. Hodgson Hinde ; but he admits that even the mere reference to the 
 three husbands is almost svifficient to show that Lucy was wife to them 
 all (pp. xvii, xviii). The charter may be translated as follows : 
 
 " In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, be it known to all men present 
 and to come, that I, Lucy, Countess of Chester, give and grant to the church and 
 monks of St. Nicholas of Spallingis, the manor of Spallingis, \vith soc and sac, and 
 thol and ' them,' with all its customs, and with the liberties with which I best and most 
 freely held (tenui) in the time of Ivo Thallebos, and Roger Fitz Ceroid, and the Earl 
 Raniilph, in almoigii of my soul, for the redemption of the soul of my father and of 
 my mother, and of my lords [dominorum) and relatives. Wherefore I will that they 
 shall hold well and in peace, with all its appendages. Witnes3[es] : Prior Martin of 
 Pont«fract, and Ilbert de Lacey, Kichard de Foliot, Jurdan and Payn his brothers, 
 Hugh Fitz Gilbert, William de Semervilla (sic), Richard Fitz Guobolt, Guy de 
 Russedene, Peter Fitz Bugard, Ralph de Wevervill, Richard Russel." 
 
 For "tenui" Dugdale misreads "tenuit," which makes nonsense. 
 There can be no doubt that the Countess said, and meant to say, " I 
 held." On this crucial point the Spalding registers are supported by 
 Edward Ill's charter of confirmation, from which the foregoing trans- 
 lation is derived, and in which, before setting out the text of Lucy's 
 charter, the King positively states that he had inspected it. Moreover 
 Edward Ill's charter was inspected by Edward IV, who doubtless saw 
 the original charter of his predecessor, and did not quote from the enrol- 
 ment, the accuracy of which is thus confirmed. Henry VIII in like 
 manner inspected the letters patent of Edward IV. Lucy's charter is also 
 supported by the charter of her great-grandson, William de Roumare (No. 
 29), who states that she held Spalding " in the time " of Ivo, Roger, and 
 Ranulph. What more any one can want in the way of corroboration it 
 is difficult to conceive, and it would be very surprising if any argument, 
 however potent, should enable its propounders to go behind this testi- 
 mony.* 
 
 Was Lucy heiress to Earl Algar ? 
 
 It is very remarkable that both of Lucy's charters point to the fact of 
 her having been an heiress. In the first she makes a gift in her " free 
 power " after her husband's death, and in the second she conveys lands 
 which she herself had held in the lifetimes of her three husbands. These 
 expressions could not have been used by a widow who held lands only in 
 
 *Since the first part of this paper was printed, I have seen Cole's transcript of the 
 Croyland register, Addit. MS. 5845, where he gives the names of the previous 
 owners of that register and of the Spalding register. They were both formerly in the 
 possession of John Oldfield, Esquire, and afterwards of Maurice Johnson, Esquire, of 
 Spalding. Dugdale states that the MSS. which he saw were then in the possession of 
 John Oldfield, lord of Spalding. Thus it is clear that the Spalding MS. from which Cole 
 transcribed was identical with one of those which Dugdale quoted from, and that 
 these were not different MSS. as I imagined. The possessor in Cole's time was about to 
 sell it. (See Top. and Gen. ii., 107.) Where it is now, I have not ascertained. It 
 is to be hoped that some Lincolnshire society will publish it, if accessible. 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. 17 
 
 dower. Was she therefore heiress to Earl Algar, as all aged by the monks 
 of Croyland and Peterborough 1 Here the suggestions of the emendators 
 seem to promise us great assistance. I may have misjudged them as to 
 their views about the earldom of Chester, but there is no mistaking the 
 fact that they insist witli great pertinacity that "the second Lucy" was 
 Countess of Lincoln in her own right, in succession to lier supposed 
 mother "the first Lucy." They did not however see that if an hereditary 
 claim to the earldom of Lincoln were proved, that very fact would 
 go far to establish the existence cf only one Lucy. 
 
 Let us at first take the most favorable view of this proposition. At the 
 date of Domesday the lands formerly of Earls Algar, Edwin, and Morcar 
 in Lincolnshire were partly in the Crown, which is noticeable, and partly 
 in the possession of several distinct owners, ecclesiastical and lay, whose 
 names, except that of Ivo Taillebois, do not concern us ; and it may be 
 for this reason that, not having possession of the lands, she did not use 
 the title of Countess of Lincoln in the lives of Ivo and Eoger. She herself 
 is not mentioned in Domesday, and on referring to the survey of the 
 lands of Ivo Taillebois, we find that out of all the lands which had 
 belonged to the three English Earls in Lincolnshire, Ivo was in possession 
 of Spalding only. By the Croyland and Peterborough chroniclers, Ivo 
 is called Count or Earl of Anjou, without any reason. It is true he came 
 over from Anjou, and the " Topographer and Genealogist" suggests that 
 he was called Earl in right of his Avife. But he is not called Earl of 
 Lincoln, or even Earl simply, in either volume of Domesday, nor in any 
 of the charters ; and he appears never to have borne that title. Nor is 
 there anything to show that Eoger FitzGerold had it. 
 
 Mr. Hodgson Hinde refers to the distribution of the lands in question 
 " amongst a host of Norman adventurers," but he did not observe that 
 many of the lands of the three Earls remained in the CroAvn till after 
 Domesday was compiled. It seems therefore possible that Lucy ob- 
 tained possession of the lands of her alleged ancestors described under 
 the head of " Terra Kegis" in Lincoln and other counties, and with them 
 the earldom of Lincoln, after the deaths of Ivo and Roger, and on or 
 before her marriage with Ranulph Meschin ; and this would be either 
 by the King's gratuitous favour, or on payment of a fine. Thus the 
 positive allegation of Stapleton and Nichols that Ranulph Meschin 
 became Earl of Lincoln " in right of his wife Lucia " would at first 
 sight appear to be probably well founded. They do not use this 
 argument, or indeed any argument, in support of their allegation, but 
 merely rely on the fact that in the Survey or List of Tenants in Lincoln- 
 shire (made before 1120), over the name of " Ranulphus Mischinus" 
 is written, " Comes Lincolniae," in two places.^ They were also no 
 doubt biassed by the fact that this title, like that of Chester, is alleged 
 in ancient pedigrees to have belonged to Earl Algar. 
 
 That the actual possession of the lands of Lucy's inheritance carried 
 with it the title, might also be inferred from the fact that William de 
 Roumare, who about 1122 regained such possession in part, is known to 
 have borne the title of Earl of Lincoln. It might also be suggested that 
 
 ^ Either by accident or design, the references to this title are not given in the index 
 to Mr. Qreenstreet's excellent edition of the Survey. 
 
18 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 when, after the death of Ranulph, the Countess Lncy paid a fine for 
 livery of lier father's lands,^ slie obtained such portions of them as were 
 not restored by Henry 1. to William de Roumare. Thus all the state- 
 ments contained in the monastic chronicles and registers, with regard to 
 this reputed noble heiress and her inheritance, might be considered to 
 tally well with the authentic records. 
 
 We should therefore be bound to come to the conclusion, on the 
 showing of the emendators themselves, that there was only one Countess 
 Lucy, and that she was heiress to Earl Algar ; and some years ago I 
 actually came to that conclusion on no other grounds. It would then be 
 easy, if necessary, to deal with the possible, though not proved, physical 
 difficulty of the question in a different manner to that first suggested by 
 the authors of the " Annals of Lacock Abbey." 
 
 I^ow the emendators unconsciously offer a solution of their own difficulty 
 which again would lead to the conclusion that there was only one Lucy, 
 by asserting that a later Countess of Lincoln, named Rohese, inherited 
 the earldom in her own right, ^ If this were so, Lucy would have had 
 an only son or daughter, to whom Rohese in her turn would have been 
 sole daughter, and perhaps heiress, unless that son or daughter died 
 in" the lifetime of Lucy, in which case Rohese would be grand-daughter 
 and direct heiress to the Countess. Possibly therefore Rohese was the 
 daughter of Matilda, before referred to, who was daughter of Countess 
 Lucy, and wife of Hugh FitzRanulph, a younger brother of Ranulph 
 iRfeschin, Earl of Chester. In that case, to suit the theory of inheritance, 
 Matilda ought to have been Lucy's sole daughter. This view is endorsed, 
 from an heraldic point of view, by Mr. W. S. Ellis. -^ 
 
 If these relationships were positively made out, we should easily be 
 able to establish the existence of only one Lucy, and the alleged physical 
 impossibility would finally disappear, for the other cnildren assigned to 
 Lucy could have been only her step-sons and step-daughters. First of all, 
 Beatrice, Avife of Ribaud, would be explained to be the daughter of Ivo 
 by a former wife. William de Roumare would also be Roger's son by 
 another unknoAvn lady, and in a similar way Ranulph Gernons and the 
 other children of Ranulph Meschin could be disposed of.* 
 
 The only objection to this solution would be, that Lucy is several 
 times called " mother " of William de Roumare and of Ranulph Gemons ; 
 but it might not be insuperable, and " step-mother " would be understood. 
 
 ^ It is true that Stapletou (ii, cliii) makes out this " father " to have been Ivo 
 Taillebdis, but in so doing he spoils his own argument that the second Lucy was 
 beiiess to the earldom of Lincoln, for he nowhere shows that Ivo was Earl. No 
 doubt he was of opinion that " the first Lucy " was Countess in her own right ; but even 
 HO, he should have explained how a title, not assumed by her husband, was assumed 
 by her son-in-law, as he alleges. 
 
 '^ They really feucgest that she inherited a share of the earldom, but I have been 
 unable to discover anything in support of the view that the earldom was divided into 
 " shares " among several heiresses or their descendants. 
 
 ' "Antiquities of Heraldry," p. 186. 
 
 * Strangely enoufih, it is stated in the Visitation of Cheshire in 1580, and in Banks, 
 that llanulph Meschin's (first) wife was Maud, daughter of Aubrey de Vere. If there 
 were any foundatitn for this statement, we might at once have conchided that 
 Lucy was Ranulph's second wife, and that he had his four children by Maud de Vere. 
 It may be as well to state that I have made no inquiiy as to the three youngest of 
 these four children. 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. l9 
 
 In like manner Gernons speaks of William as his " brother " and not as 
 his " half-brother." William would be further considered to have claimed 
 his step-mother's lands, unwarrantably perhaps, but his claim would have 
 been thought to be quite as good as Ranulph's right to dispose of 
 Matilda's inheritance. The " might " used by William in support of 
 his claim would in those days be respected even more than his " right," 
 or want of it. 
 
 If the maitor rested here, a re-consideration of the proposed emendation 
 of Dugdale might at once be demanded with every probability that 
 the original account would be restored to its pristine splendours, save and 
 except the slight modifications Avhich have just been suggested. 
 
 But the end is not yet ; we are not out of the wood. Though the 
 evidence as to the unity of Lucy is all that can be desired, it is equally 
 certain that the arguments derived from the emendators are untenable. 
 On looking at the original manuscript of the Lincolnshire Survey, I find 
 that it affords no proof that Ranulph Meschin was Earl of Lincoln in 
 right of his wife, or otherwise. The words " Comes Lincolnise " are 
 interpolated by a hand of at least two centuries later than the date of the 
 Survey, and are capable of a different interpretation to that which has 
 been put upon them by Stapleton and Nichols, as will be presently 
 shown ; and I have looked in vain for any other evidence of this title 
 having been used by Meschin. The same Survey also shows that he 
 did not obtain any of the lands of the Anglo-Saxon Eark in Lincoln- 
 shire described under the head of " Terra Kegis " in Domesday. Thus 
 it is clear that Lucy was not heiress to Earl Algar, nor Countess of 
 Lincoln, and that Rohese was not Countess of Lincoln in her own right.^ 
 As however it is absolutely requisite to prove that Ivo's wife was an 
 heiress before her unity can be established, the question cannot yet be 
 considered to be finally settled. Indeed, the argument against her having 
 been an heiress at all is much stronger than has been supposed. 
 
 A neio argument for two L/mys. 
 
 Although we are led to the conclusion, after an attentive study of all 
 the direct evidence, that Lucy, wife of Ivo Taillebois, was identical with 
 Lucy, Countess of Chester, there is indirect evidence of the highest 
 authority which, without making the faintest allusion to the lady or 
 ladies in question, appears to demonstrate beyond the possibility of 
 dispute that these were two different ladies. 
 
 The monks of Croyland and Peterborough assert that " the inheritance,' 
 so often referred to, descended to Lucy, wife of Ivo, from her father, 
 Earl Algar. The original emendators admit this, but consider that " the 
 second Lucy " in her turn was heiress to the same possessions. But as 
 every attempt to prove that Lucy Taillebois was heiress to Earl Algar has 
 utterly failed, it now becomes necessary to attend to an important argu- 
 ment in favour of the existence of two Lucys, which has to some extent 
 
 ^ Dugdale did not altogether escape this heresj', for he sa5'B that Ranulph Blundvill 
 had some claim to the Earldom of Lincoln in right of his great-grandmother, the 
 Countess Lucy. (Baronage, i, 43). 
 
20 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 been indicated by Mr. Hodgson Hinde.^ He points out that William de 
 Kouinarc, Lucy's son, was in possession of some of the fees which had 
 previously been held by Ivo Taillebois, as appears by a comparison of 
 Testa de Kevill Avith Domesday. Of course this could not have been 
 the case unless William's mother were an heiress. These premises being 
 taken for granted, it is certain both that Ivo's wife was not an heiress, 
 and tliat tlie wife of Roger Fitz Gerold wa-s an heiress ; and for this 
 reason they must have been two different persons, the latter being Ivo's 
 daughter. 
 
 The argument propounded by Mr. Hinde is capable of being made 
 much more forcible by a further comparison of Domesday with another 
 record. 
 
 On looking more closely at the Lincolnshire Survey, I lind that 
 Ranulph Meschin is returned as holding lands in forty-five places in 
 Lincolnshire, besides many others of which the localities are not 
 specified. The question then arises, how did Ranulph acquire these 
 lands. Were they his own, or did he obtain them with his wife ] On 
 this question Domesday sheds a brilliant light. It shows that lands 
 in all these places, with a few doubtful exceptions, had formerly 
 belonged to Ivo Taillebois ; and Testa de Nevill further shows that lands 
 in at least fifteen of the same places belonged at a later period to ** Earl 
 William de Roumare."^ 
 
 The following is a list of the forty-five places just referred to as 
 belonging to Ranulph Meschin ; the letter T. showing which of them 
 belonged to Ivo Taillebois, and the letter R. which of them are known 
 to have afterwards come to William de Roumare, Earl of Lincoha. 
 
 Alsebi (T. E.),^ Beniguorda (T. R.), Bliburc (T.), Brochesbi (T.), 
 Broclesbi (T. R.), Buligtun (T.), Crochesbi (T. R.), Clachesbi (T. R.), 
 Caburn (T.), Cucualt (T.), Chelebi (T.), Dunestal (T.), Chintorp (T. R.), 
 Edlingtuna (T.). Glentheim (T.), Parva Grimesbi (T.), Hibaldeston (T.), 
 Houton (T. R.), Humberstein (T.), Haltun (T.), Humbi (T.), Haburc 
 (T.), Helchingtuna,* Irebi (T. R.), Lopingheham (T.), Parva Linberg 
 (T R.), Ludeford (T. R.), Nordmanabi (T. R.), Neosum (T. R.), Ounebi 
 (T.), Ouresbi,^ Ormesbi (T.), Redburn (T.), Rainelestorp,^ Scottun (T.), 
 Strutebi (T. R.), Torgrimbi (T. R.), Tatenai(T.), Tirnesco (T.), Toresweia 
 (J. R.), Vada or Wada (T.), Wiflingham (T.), Wihum (T.? R.), Waletun 
 (T.), Westletebi (T.). 
 
 Even this long list does not exhaust the possessions of Ranulph 
 
 ' Pipe Rolls for Cumberland, &c., p. xviii ; Archceological Journal, xvi, 230. 
 
 2 The Index to Testa de Nevill is very faulty. It omits the following references ; 
 " Lincoln,' Comitissa," 322^', 396'^, 397^, 397^, and many references to the Earls of 
 Lincoln and Chester; Bolingbroc, Comitissa de, 330*', 331, 331**; "Humor,' Comes 
 Will's de," 347** ; Bolinbroc, honor de, 313 passim, 322^ 323 ; Line', Alanus de, 339, 
 347**. These I noticed accidentally. It also gives a reference to Ivo Taillebois, 
 " 397," which should be 393 ; and omits Cecilia Taillebois, 354*', and uxor Ivonis 
 Talleboys, 39L 
 
 ^ Walesbi and Otesbi (T.) ; Halesbi (R.) 
 
 * I do not find this in Domesday, which however mentions " Hechintune," but not 
 as belonging to Taillebois. 
 
 * Qu. same as Otesbi (T.) and Otteby (R.) Both Otesbi and Ouresbi were in 
 Walescroft Wapentake, according to the Line. Survey, p. 10. 
 
 * Qu. same as Gamelstorp (T.) 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. 2l 
 
 Meschin. He held 79 carucates and 6 bovates of land in Bolinbroc Wapen- 
 take, and 47 carucates and 3 bovates of land in Clieiretre (Gartree) 
 Wapentake, according to the Lincolnshire Survey. Referring once more 
 to Domesday, it appears that Ivo had held the manor of Bolinbroc, 
 with its soke, whicli included seventeen townships, all probably in 
 the Wapentake of Bolingbroke ; and also the manor of Beltesford with 
 its soke, which included eleven townships, all apparently in Gartree 
 Wapentake. These manors and sokes are evidently identical with the 
 lands of Ranulph in the same two Wapentakes. 
 
 The Lincolnshire Survey is not however a complete survey of the 
 county, or rather of Lindsay, as it does not notice four other manors 
 which liad belonged to Ivo, namely: .Archintone, with its soke in four 
 townships^ ; Brezbi and Sapretone, with soke in four townships ;- Ber- 
 tune and Torp in Bergebi, with soke in two townships ; and Spal- 
 linge, i.e. Spalding, with its berewick and soke in seven townships.^ 
 Ivo also held lands, mostly of small extent, in Cleia, Summcrtebi, 
 Mortune, Siraitone, Alchebarge, Saxebi, and Chevelinghou. The last 
 named is evidently the same as Kilingholm,* which belonged to William 
 de Roumare. It must be assumed that these four manors and other 
 lands of Ivo either belonged to Ranulph or were in the Crown, as it is 
 very improbable tliat, being comparatively few, they could have been both 
 assigned to a coheiress, and omitted from the survey. 
 
 Thus it is evident that Ranulph Meschin succeeded to Ivo's lands in 
 nearly a hundred places in Lincolnshire. It is true that in many of these 
 townships there were other manors and estates than those held by Ivo, 
 and that the lord of a manor in such a township could not say " I am 
 lord of all I survey." I^^evertheless the coincidence of tenure which has 
 been pointed out occurs in so many instances that it cannot be accidental, 
 and a more minute comparison of the quantities of land held by Ivo and 
 Ranulph respectively could hardly lead to any other result.^ 
 
 ' Two of these, Grimesbi and Clacbesbi, are probably the same as Parva Grimesbi 
 and Clachesbi, mentioned in the foregoing Ust. 
 
 '"' William de Roumare had lands in Hundintone, Barkeston, and Systan (Testa, 
 p. 323), which were in the manor of Brezbi and Sapretone when Domesday was 
 written. 
 
 * John Capgrave and Heniy Knyghton state that in 10 Henry I., 1109, the King 
 gave " his royal vill of Spaldyng" to the Bishop of Lincoln, in recompense for that part 
 of his see which was then transferred to the new see of Ely. This cannot be reconciled 
 with Testa de Nevill, which shows that the lords of the three manors of Spalding gave 
 all their lands there to monasteries. On inspectmg the enrolment of the charter of 
 Henry I. in the " Carta; Antiqua) "' of Chancery, 1 find that what he really gave was 
 the vill of Spalduic (i.e. Spaldwick) " in the territory of Huntingdon," and that this 
 vill is not described as a royal vill, but as having previously belonged to the monastery 
 of Ely. 
 
 ■* " Bilingholm " in the printed edition of Testa de Nevill. 
 
 ^ Such a comparison has, in fact, already been made by Mr. Eyton, in Addit. MS. 
 31,941, fi*. 92, 93 ; from which it appears that the coincidence above noticed extends 
 in most cases even to the cpiantities of land possessed by Ivo and Ranulph in 
 each township. The MS. in question contains comparative tables of Domesday, the 
 Lincolnshire Survey, and Testa de Nevill, and clearly shows that Ranulph succeeded 
 Ivo. There is also a digest of the Line. Survey in Addit. MS. 31, 940, where Mr. 
 Eyton gives Ivo Tailboys as " the Domesday coiTclative of R. Meschin." Mr. Eyton 
 did not reject the double-Lucy theory, as I supposed ; for in another MS. (31,929, 
 f. 69b), he says : " Modern enquiry .... has well ascertained that Ranulf le Mes- 
 
2^ THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 Here then is a formidable piece of indirect evidence in favour of the 
 existence of two Lucys ; for it has already been proved that Ivo's Avife 
 was not heiress to Earl Algar, or to his sons, and no one has even hinted 
 that she succeeded to these vast estates as heiress to any one else ; cer- 
 tainly, judging from Domesday alone, she did not bring to Ivo all the 
 lands of which he was in possession, since they were previously in the 
 occupation of many different owners. Consequently, if she married again 
 after his death, she could not have conveyed his lands to her subsequent 
 husband or husbands. It is equally out of the question that Ranulph 
 himself could have been heir to Ivo, Hence it would follow that 
 Ranulph obtained these vast possessions with Lucy his wife ; and the 
 further necessary deduction is, that the latter was daughter and heir of 
 Ivo Taillebois, and it seems to be irresistible. Or, to put it another 
 way, it is impossible that Ranulph's wife could have previously 
 been the wife of Ivo, as alleged. At length we have some authority, 
 which was wanting before, for assuming that there were two Lucys, 
 mother and daughter. 
 
 It would, however, be very surprising if the exceedingly good evidence 
 which has been produced, and which proves that there was only one 
 Lucy, should be negatived by any argument, no matter how forcible. 
 Before admitting the necessity for such a conclusion, it is incumbent on 
 us to inquire whether other reasons are not to be found for believing that 
 Lucy Taillebois was an heiress, and whether the argument for the existence 
 of two Lucys is quite so conclusive as it appears to be. Let us take the 
 latter of these points first. 
 
 Objections to the veic argument. 
 
 That Meschin succeeded to the whole of Taillebois' possessions in Lin- 
 colnshire has been proved with tolerable certainty, and therefore his wife 
 must have been sole heiress to them. To put the matter in a nutshell, 
 they were one undivided inheritance. This being so, how can the pro- 
 position that there was a "second Lucy" be reconciled with the ap- 
 parently sound conclusion of the emendators, that Ivo had a daughter 
 named Beatrice, wife of Riband, Lord of Middleham ?i Whether Beatrice 
 was also the daughter of Lucy is immaterial, if Ivo possessed these 
 lands in his own right, for she would have had an equal claim with his 
 supposed daughter Lucy, even allowiug that Ivo may have had two wives. 
 Conversely, if Ivo's wife was an heiress, it is not necessary to imagine 
 that Ivo and Lucy had a daughter named Lucy, and it is also intelligible 
 why Beatrice did not come in for a share of these estates. Even if 
 Beatrice died before Ivo, it is known that she had a daughter,^ who ought to 
 have succeeded to a portion of them, if she were co -heiress with the 
 imaginaij " second Lucy." 
 
 chin's wife was daughter and coheir, if not sole heir, of Ivo Taillebois ; " and on f. 70 
 he adds : " Lucia, wife of Ivo Talboys, was daughter of William Malet. She brought 
 to her husband certain lands of her father's Lincolnshire fief. She leas not an 
 heiress." 
 
 ^ See Charter No. 2, and note ; and also the Pedigree of Tailbois piinted in the 
 Genealogist, new series, iii, 3L 
 
 2 See Charter, No. 8. 
 
THE COUNTESS LTJCT. 25 
 
 Moreover, in the Register of St. Mary's Abbey of York, and in the 
 Register of Cokersand Abbey, there are copies of a genealogy, which 
 states that Ivo Taillebois had a son named Eltred, who had a son named 
 Ketel, who had a son named Gilbert FitzKetel, &c.^ Mr. Hodgson 
 fTinde speaks of this as " a fictitious pedigree," which incorrectly traces 
 the genealogy of William de Lancaster from Ivo Taillebois, adding, "an 
 ignorant monk has joined their names as links in one pedigree." If 
 Mr, Hinde's objection rests only upon the supposed discovery that Ivo 
 had a daughter and heiress named Lucy, this pedigree may not be far 
 wrong after all ; but to decide this point would require more attention to 
 the history of the barony of Kendal than I am able to give at present. 
 I merely wish to point out that Ivo not only had a daughter, Beatrice, 
 but may even have had a son ; so that the argument in favour of the 
 double-Lucy theory is evidently very unsound. Leaving Eltred out of 
 consideration, it seems incontrovertible that Ivo's daughter Beatrice 
 did not succeed to any of his estates in Lincolnshire, nor apparently to 
 those which he had iu other counties ; and therefore it is certain that 
 Ivo's wife must have been an heiress, and that on her' death she 
 conveyed her estates to her second and third husbands, Beatrice having 
 no claim to a share of them. 
 
 It may however be as well to notice that, according to Mr. Hinde,^ 
 the barony of Kendal in Westmoreland formed part of the district of 
 Amounderness, which was in the Crown at the date of Domesday, and 
 thit the same barony was afterwards in the possession of Ivo Taillebois, 
 in proof of which assertion reference is made to charter No. 2 ; but on 
 Ivo's death that barony " passed into other hands," while his Lincoln 
 estates went to (or rather with) Lucy. If this view be correct, the barony 
 of Kendal belonged to Ivo in his own right, and descended to his next 
 heir, who was neither Lucy nor Beatrice, but may have been Eltred, 
 though this is doubtful.^ 
 
 On the other hand, Mr. Hinde asserts that the barony of Appleby 
 belonged to Ivo, and descended from Ivo to Ranulph Meschin, as he 
 infers from charter No. 2, and from a charter of Henry II to St. Mary's 
 Abbey, York.* If so, this barony formed part of Lucy's inheritance, and 
 passed by the same title as her estates in the county of Lincoln ; but the 
 evidence is very slight. 
 
 ^ In Dr. Whitaker's Eichmondshire, it is objected that these being Saxon names, 
 it is not likely that Eltred and Ketel were descendants of a Norman (ii, 290). 
 
 *Pipe Kolls, Cumb., p. xliii ; ArchteoL Journal, xvi, 231. 
 
 ^ Chetel son of Ectred (sic.) is witness to a charter of Meschin (No. 9). Ketel son 
 of Eltreth seems to liave had lands both iu Cumberland and Westmoreland, judging 
 from the charter of Henry II., noticed below. 
 
 * This charter has been accidentally omitted from the " Abstracts " on p. 72 ante, 
 where it should have been noticed as follows: — 
 
 46. Confirmation by Edward III of a charter of William II, and of three charters 
 of Henry II, to the abbey of St. Mary of York. One of Henry II's charters recites 
 numerous gifts to the abbey — inter alia : by Ribald, of lauds iu Richmond, &c. ; by 
 Picot "iu Lincoln," of the church of St. Peter; by Ivo Taillebois, of lands in 
 ClaxtuH, and of the churches of Kii'kby- Stephen, Wiuton, Kirkby in Kendal, Betbum 
 Burton, and Claj)ham, with their lands, including the vill of Hotonrof and the land 
 of Haverbek, and tithes ; by Colegrim, of lands in Belton; by Picot son of Colswain 
 " in Lincoln," of certain lands ; by Randulph Meschin, of the manor and church 
 of Wederhal, with the mill, fishery, woods, &c., the chapel of Warthwyk, the 
 
24 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 Another fact which tells against Ivo having possessed the Lincolnshire 
 estates in his own right is the fact, already noticed, that neither of his 
 charters to Spalding Priory was confirmed by Edward III, though there 
 are early confirmations of his gift by William I and William II before the 
 date of Lucy's final charter. His first gift consisted of the church of 
 Spalding, with only one carucate of land there, whereas Lucy's subse- 
 quent gift comprised the whole manor of Spalding. It may, however, be 
 objected that Ivo had obtained a licence from William I to convey ' ' the 
 manor," and that the same King afterwards confirmed the manor to the 
 priory, 1 but the licence states that the grantees were to have it before or 
 after Ivo's death, as he should please. When, therefore, the confirmation 
 of William I speaks of the manor, it doubtless means the reversion. The 
 monks did not really obtain the whole manor till it was granted them by 
 the Countess Lucy many years after, when she stated that she had held it 
 during the lives of Ivo, Roger, and Ranulph. If she had held it only in 
 dower, it would not have been in her power nor would it have been 
 necessary for her to make such a grant as she did. Her grant was 
 afterwards confirmed by Edward III, but Ivo's was not. This again 
 seems to show that Spalding belonged to her rather than to her 
 husband. 
 
 Ivo's second charter to Spalding granted certain tithes there, and if this 
 was a grant in perpetuity, it is difficult to understand why it was not 
 confirmed by later Bishops of Lincoln, as other grants of tithes were ; it 
 must rather be presumed that he was tenant for life only, and that his 
 grant terminated at his death.^ 
 
 Thus there are very clear indications that Ivo Taillebois was not 
 possessed of the Lincolnshire estates in his own right, and this being the 
 case, it is unnecessary to suppose that they passed to a daughter and 
 heir, as his widow may equally well have been capable of transferring 
 them to FitzGerold and Meschin. This authorises us in proceeding to 
 inquire whether there are any more positive indications that Lucy was an 
 heiress, and if so, to whom. 
 
 Lucy heiress to Tliorold the Sheriff. 
 
 It has already been remarked that Lucy's own charters certainly 
 point to the fact of her having been an heiress ; but there is no authentic 
 record which shows from whom she inherited. The compiler of the 
 Spalding register states that she was heiress to Thorold the Sheriff, 
 
 land called the Chamber of St. Constantine, lauds in Corceby, the river Eden over 
 against Corceby, &c.; by Eandulph Meschin, of the churches of Apelby, viz., St. Michael 
 and St. Lawrence, with their lands, and the tithes of the demesnes of the same vdl ; 
 by Ketel son of Eltreth, of the churches f)f Morland and Wirchintun, with lands ; 
 by William Meschin and Ralph his son, of pos.se.ssions in Chirkebibeceoch, St. Bega, 
 and Ananderdale, &c. Witnesses to Henry IPs charter above quoted : T. Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, Henrj' Bishop of Winchester, lleinald Earl of Cornwall, &c , at Wudestoc. 
 Edward Ill's confirmation is dated 14th December in his 4th yeai-. — Harl. MS. 236, 
 f. 6 b ; Charter Roll, 4 Edw. Ill, No. 14 ; Monasticon, iii, 546. 
 
 The printed version gives only one of the charters of Henry II, and that inaccurately. 
 
 1 See Charters, Nos. 3 and 5. 
 
 ^ Possibly, however, the priory, being in possession of the whole manor, did not 
 require a confirmatiou of the grant of tithes. 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. 25 
 
 relying apparently on inferences drawn from the charters which he tran- 
 scribed, for he produces no evidence in support of his allegation, nor does 
 he give any particulars as to the extent of the estates which he supposed 
 Lucy to have inherited. Let us see whether he is more reliable than the 
 monks of Croyland. Possibly he had some tradition to guide him, but if 
 he relied solely on the charters before him, his mode of reasoning is not 
 difficult to follow. 
 
 Ivo's first charter to Spalding mentions the tithes which had been 
 given by " Thorold and his men " to St. Nicholas, without stating the 
 place or places where those tithes were to be received ; and he professes 
 to supersede Thorold's grant by his own. Now the Spalding monk 
 assumes that those tithes were situate in Tetenay, Alkebarge, Normanby, 
 Beltesford, and Scamelesbi, and although according to a later charter 
 (No. 18) they appear to have been first given by Lucy, yet a still later 
 charter (No. 40), by Hugh, Earl of Chester, distinctly recognises that 
 some of them at least had been given by his ancestor, " Thorold the 
 Sherifi"," who was, therefore, Ivo's predecessor, as all these places are 
 returned in Domesday as belonging to Ivo. It is moreover clear that 
 Spalding itself had belonged to Thorold before it belonged to Ivo, and 
 that Thorold himself had made a grant, probably of lands, if not of tithes 
 there. This is evident from charter No. 12, which states that the monks 
 had held the wood of that manor in the time of Thorold. The editors of 
 the new edition of Dugdale's Monasticon were clearly of opinion that 
 Lucy inherited Spalding from Thorold, but do not explain how this view 
 can be made to tally with Domesday. Mr. Hinde was of the same 
 opinion, and got over the difficulty by supposing a gift from Earl Algar to 
 Thorold ; but this guess is both improbable and superfluous. 
 
 The evidence above quoted is very slight, but it certainly amounts to 
 this, that some of the lands belonging to Ivo Taillebois had previously 
 belonged to Thorold the Sheriff" ; and if some, then all. For it has 
 already been proved that all the estates returned under the name of Ivo 
 Taillebois in Domesday, and under the name of Ranulph Meschin, in the 
 Lincolnshire Survey, were one inheritance ; and if it once be conceded 
 that Lucy was an heiress, and brought any portion of these estates to 
 Ivo, and if it further be allowed that there was only one Lucy, it follows 
 that the whole of them had previously belonged to the person, whoever he 
 was, to whom Lucy was heiress ; and there seems to be no reason to 
 doubt that her predecessor in title was Thorold. It may, therefore, be 
 assumed that if Domesday had been compiled immediately . after the 
 Conquest, instead of twenty years later, we should have seen the name 
 of " Thorold the Sheriff" where that of Ivo Taillebois now stands.^ In 
 fact, the former has been almost totally eclipsed by the latter, and it is 
 requisite to pursue a kind of scientific method of observation in ordar to 
 ascertain his position in the genealogical firmament. Hitherto he has 
 been thought to be one of the lesser lights, and doubts have existed even as 
 to his proper location, but the mental vision, assisted by the telescopic 
 powers of a laborious examination, is now able to discern that his 
 
 ^ Mr. J. R. Planche, in " The Conqueror and his Companions," very properly 
 comments on the necessity of bearing in mind the length of time which intervened 
 between the Conquest and the compilation of Domesday. 
 
26 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 " magnitude " is not inferior to that of the man by whom his fame 
 has been so long obscured. 
 
 This reasoning is apparently supported by the fact that an Earl of 
 Chester at a later period (Hugh Kevelioc) is returned as owing the King 
 twenty marks for " the fee of Thorold the Sheriif," as stated in the Pipe 
 Roll of 11 Henry II. In reality he paid only 100s. id., the rest of the 
 sum having been pardoned by the King. The amount paid being so 
 small, it is clear that the fee here referred to could not have been the 
 whole of Thorold's estates ; indeed, the great bulk of them had then 
 doubtless long been in the possession of William de Roumare, grandson 
 of William, Earl of Lincoln, Hence this entry on the Pipe Roll may 
 require some elucidation, but, as it stands, it is certainly not unfavourable 
 to the view which I have ventured to propound. ^ 
 
 Was Lucy daughter of Uarl Algar 1 
 
 It has now been proved that Lucy was not heiress to Earl Algar, but 
 rather to Thorold the Sheriff, yet it remains to be seen whether she may 
 not after all have been daughter of the former. The chronicle of 
 Peterborough indeed states that Thorold was "uncle" to Lucy, daughter of 
 Algar ; and the Spalding registers describe Thorold merely as " ancestor " 
 of the Countess, though they make no mention of Earl Algar, or of Earl 
 Leofric, as they would surely have done if these Earls had been the 
 direct ancestors of Lucy, The statement that Algar was her father, 
 therefore, rests solely on th^ authority of the chronicles of Croyland and 
 Peterborough ; and the silence of the Spalding registers on this point is 
 all the more remarkable because the same chronicles further allege that 
 Thorold was brother-german to the Countess Godiva, and cousin to Earl 
 Algar. Still the statements that Lucy was daughter to Algar and niece to 
 Thorold are not actually contradictory, and it is necessary to see what can 
 be said in their favour. 
 
 Because Ordericus Vitalis mentions that Earl Algar had two sons, 
 Edwin and Morcar, and " one daughter," Queen Edgiva, it has been 
 argued^ that Lucy could not have been his daughter, but Ordericus' 
 knowledge in this respect was evidently imperfect, as he states that 
 Countess Godiva was the wife of Algar. If he could make such a 
 mistake, it may be presumed that he would not have been aware of 
 the two famous sons, or of the equally famous daughter, but for the 
 prominent part they played in the history of the time, and that if Lucy 
 were young and unmarried at the Conquest, he would not be likely to 
 hear of her, as it is obvious that he had no particular information about 
 the family .3 
 
 The little that is known about the early history of Lucy Taillebois 
 connects her in a special manner with Spalding, which was certainly 
 one of the manors of Earl Algar. If she were his daughter,, her 
 childhood must have been passed amid scenes of great commotion, conse- 
 
 * This reference was pointed out by Mr. Round in a letter to the Academy, 21st 
 April 1888 ; but he makes no suggestion as to its real meaning. 
 
 ''' Introduction to Pipe Rolls for Cumberland, p. xvii. 
 
 ^ There is some evidence that Algar had yet another son named Burchard. See 
 Freeman's Norman Conquest, i, 630 ; and ElUs's Introduction to Domesday, i, 325. 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. 27 
 
 quent on Algar's two rebellions, one before and the other after hia 
 succession to Earl Leofric. After the second rebellion, it would seem 
 that Earl Algar did not recover possession of all the estates which he had 
 forfeited, and that those which were not restored to him remained in 
 Edward the Confessor's hands till 1066. This is shown in Domesday, 
 where many lands are said to have been held by him, and not by his son 
 Edwin or his son Morcar, previously to the occupation of those lands by 
 Normans. Among the lands thus returned as having been held by Earl 
 Algar, was the manor of Spalding, which was the only portion of his lands 
 that came to Ivo Taillebois, or rather to Thorold the Sheriff. ^ This may, 
 however, lend some countenance to the tradition that Lucy obtained "the 
 paternal lands." Whether Spalding was the principal seat of Earl Algar 
 is very doubtful, but Ivo and Lucy appear to have resided there, as may 
 be gathered from William I's charter (No. 4). Ivo granted the manor 
 to the priory, but retained the power of living in it during his life ; 
 at leaet, so it may be inferred. Certainly Ivo and Lucy showed much 
 partiality for the place, and Ingulph states that during Ivo's banishment in 
 the reign of William liufus, Lucy kept her court at Spalding. Whatever 
 may be the exact amount of truth in this assertion, it may at least be 
 assumed that the manor-house there was at one time her favourite 
 residence. Such a fact would live long in the traditions of the locality, 
 even taking it that " Ingulph " was not written till the latter half of the 
 twelfth century. And there seems to be no reason to doubt the statement 
 that both Ivo and Lucy were buried there. ^ 
 
 Nothing more can be said in favour of Algar's paternity of Lucy, 
 unless he can be identified with the *' father " who is mentioned in the 
 Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I, and whose lands Lucy then purchased. It has 
 been proved that " the earldom," whether of Lincoln or of Chester, did 
 not descend from Earl Algar or his sons to Lucy Taillebois, and that 
 she did not acquire their lands before the date of the Lincolnshire 
 Survey ; but may she not, in 31 Henry I, have acquired such of their 
 lands as are described under the head of *• Terra Regis " in Domesday ? 
 Here again it is necessary to compare Domesday with the Lincolnshire 
 Suri-eij and Testa de NeoilL Domesday states that the following manors 
 were then in the Ciown, viz. : Tite, Luctone, Gadeuai with soke, and 
 Fleot, formerly of Earl Algar ; Chirchetone, with soke in many places, 
 formerly of Earl Edwin ; and Cherchebi, with soke, Cnime, Bodebi, 
 Wellingoure, Basingeham, and Castre and Humendone with soke, for- 
 merly of Earl Morcar. As none of these estates are mentioned in the 
 Lincolnshire Survey, it may be inferred that they then still remained in 
 the Crown, and also that this Survey did not deal with Crown pro- 
 perty. But Testa de Nevlll shows that most, if not all of them, were 
 afterwards in possession of the Earls of Albemarle, and formed part of the 
 honor of Lancaster. The Duchy of Lancaster records further show that 
 
 ^ Among the names of the former holders of Ivo's lands, the name of Alwin 
 frequently occurs ; and it is to be noted that in another part of Domesday 
 (Cambridgeshire;, " Alwin, the man or tenant {homo) of Earl Algar," is mentioned. 
 But so many Alwins occur in Domesday that identification in this case is impossible, 
 and it would be too much to assume that the Alwin of Lincolnshire may have been 
 merely tenant to Algar. 
 
 * Monasiicon, iii, 214, quoting from Gough. 
 
v/ 
 
 28 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 most of these estates afterwards belonged to the Duchj'^ ; but it is clear 
 that they descended through Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, the second son 
 of King Henry III, who married the heiress of the Earls of Albemarle, 
 and that they never formed part of the honor of Bolingbroke, which 
 / appears to have come into the Duchy from the Countess Lucy, through 
 her descendants the Earls of Chester and Lincohi.^ 
 
 It is thus evident that the Countess Lucy did not acquire these estates 
 when she purchased the lands of her " father " in 81 Henry I ; and 
 therefore it is certain that Earl Algar was not her parent. This fact con- 
 firms the conclusion previously amved at, that she was not Countess of 
 Lincoln in her own right, and did not convey that Earldom to any of her 
 husbands. 
 
 Lucy dauffhter of Thorold the Sliefi'if. 
 
 Who then was the father of this lady ? The Spalding registers refer to 
 Thorold the Sheriff as if he were a distant relative to Lucy, and the 
 Peterborough chronicle calls him her uncle, but it is more probable that 
 he was her father, as the following considerations will show. 
 
 The Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I does not specify " the lands of her father " 
 for which Lucy paid a large sum of money, not for their *' livery," as has 
 been supposed, but rather for their re-purchase. Having inquired, as we 
 were bound to do, whether these lands had belonged to Algar, and having 
 found that they did not, are we not now justified in supposing that they 
 had belonged to Thorold ? It has been seen that Meschin surrendered the 
 lands of Lucy's inheritance, i.e. the estates of Thorold, in exchange for 
 the earldom of Chester, and that William de Roumare, in 1122, succeeded 
 in obtaining '* a great part " of them from Henry L It may, therefore, be 
 conjectured that what Lucy purchased after Meschin's death was the 
 remainder of the lands which had not been restored to William. All the 
 authorities are agreed upon this point. There is, however, nothing to 
 show where the purchased lands were situate ; but knowing what we 
 now know, we can readily guess the name of one of the manors. 
 
 It has been proved that Lucy was not Countess of Lincoln before 
 her marriage to Ranulph Meschin, in spite of all assertions to the 
 contrary ; and as there are sundry references to her as " Countess 
 of Bolingbroke," it may be inferred that she did not use the latter title till 
 after Meschin's death, when she appears to have adopted it in preference 
 to her proper title of Countess of Chester.^ Doubtless she derived it from 
 the manor of Bolingbroke, which had belonged to Thorold, and was one 
 of the estates surrendered by Meschin, but probably not one of those 
 which were restored to William de Roumare ; and this she could hardly 
 have done unless she had acquired the manor in question as a portion of 
 the " lands of her father " in 31 Henry I. 
 
 Therefore it may be assumed on good grounds that the Countess Lucy 
 was daughter of Thorold the Sheriff. 
 
 This suggestion is novel, but it agrees with all the authentic evidence. 
 
 ' Hundred Rolls, Lincoln, i, 270, 271, 383, 384. A "manor of Chircheton "was 
 granted by King Stephen to William, Earl of Lincoln (Duchy Cowcher, ii, 445) ; 
 but Testa de NeviU shows that part of Chircheton belonged to the honor of Lancaster. 
 
 * See especially Testa de NeviU, p. 313. 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. 29 
 
 Dugdale considered the " father," mentioned in 81 Henry I, to be Earl 
 Algar ; while Stapleton, Nichols, and Hinde made out to their own 
 satisfaction that he was Ivo Taillebois ; but neither of those views is 
 consistent with the known facts. 
 
 The alleged parental relationship of Earl Algar to Lucy has thus been 
 finally disproved, and there seems to be nothing to show that she was 
 even distantly related to him. But there is frequently some foundation, 
 however slight, for the inaccuracies of local historians. Thorold, for 
 instance, is wrongly called " uncle " to Lucy, probably because the writer 
 knew that she had an uncle, or rather two uncles, from whom she or her 
 son inherited, as will be seen. 
 
 Lucy's mother is mentioned in two of the charters (Nos. 4 and 19), and 
 it will not perhaps now be difficult to ascertain who she was ; but it will 
 be better to leave this point until we come to treat of Lucy's parents and 
 uncles. 
 
 Building on the sound basis that Lucy was daughter and heiress to 
 Thorold the Sheriff, and wife successively to Ivo Taillebois, Roger 
 FitzGerold, and Ranulph Meschin, and using the solid materials which 
 have been gathered in the course of this inquiry, thanks in a great 
 measure to the labours of modern antiquaries, but rejecting some of 
 their theories, together with the fabulous portions of the story as told by 
 certain monastic writers, I shall endeavour to establish the true facts in 
 the history of the lady whose individuality is now beyond dispute, and 
 also of her relatives by birth and marriage. We seem to be in a fair 
 way to wipe off the reproach of Mr. Freeman, that this family has 
 ever been the sport of genealogists ; but, as may be imagined, it will 
 go hard with his own well meant efforts in that direction, and especially 
 with the wonderful pedigrees of the Malet family which have been 
 recently put forward by Mr. Arthur Malet. It will also be necessary to 
 rehabilitate the early history of the Earldom of Lincoln, which is 
 remarkable not only for the meagreness of its facts, but for the vast 
 amount of misspent ingenuity with which those few facts have been 
 distorted. 
 
 To replace the speculations which have been based on the false views 
 respecting the duality of the Countess, it will be necessary to propose 
 others which, it is hoped, will prove to be much better founded. ^ After 
 the explanations which have been given in the preceding portions of this 
 paper, it will be needless to account in every case for the differences 
 between the new views and the old ones, or even to refute the latter ; 
 but all suggestions which seem still to be of service will be readily adopted. 
 It is proposed in the first place, to treat of the Countess's ancestors, then 
 of her husbands, and lastly of herself. 
 
 The Family of Lincoln. 
 
 According to the charter of Henry, Duke of Normandy,^ Countess 
 Lucy had two uncles, Eobert Malet and Alan de Lincoln, whose fees 
 
 * For a summary of the results obtained frcm the double-Lucy theory, see Mr. 
 Freeman's " Norman Conquest," iii, 776 seq. (2nd edit.). See also Sir Alexander 
 Malet's translation of Wace^ and Mr. Arthur Malet's " Notices of an English Branch 
 of the Malet Family." 
 
 - See Abstracts of Charters, No. 39, 
 
30 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 were granted to her son, Ranulph Gernons. It can be shown with some 
 certainty that Robert Malet was brother of the Countess's mother, and 
 hence it is almost equally certain that Alan de Lincoln was brother of 
 her father, Thorold. This obvious inference did not fall in with the 
 modern theories, but there is very little against it.^ The family of 
 Lincoln therefore first demands attention. 
 
 The account given by Dugdale of this family is very unsatisfactory. 
 He commences with Alan de Lincoln, and says a few words about Alan's 
 daughters ; then he goes on to speak of Alfred de Lincoln as a con- 
 temporary of Alan, and o Alfred's son Robert, as if the latter inherited 
 from his father. But this Robert and his descendants were settled in 
 Dorset, and had no part of Alfred's large possessions in Lincolnshire. ^ 
 
 The fees possessed by Alan de Lincoln are described in the Lindsey 
 Survey, and on comparing them with the fees of Alfred de Lincoln 
 described in Domesday, it becomes evident that they were identical, and 
 that Alan was heir to Alfred. Stapleton considered Alan to have been 
 brother and heir to Alfred,^ but Mr. Freeman shows that ho was son and 
 heir, as a brother could not have succeeded, because Alfred certainly had 
 a son named Robert.* 
 
 Both Dugdale and Stapleton were influenced by the fact that Alan de 
 Lincoln appears to have been present at a Council held at London in 
 1082, according to a charter of the Bishop of Durham to the monks 
 there ; and this certainly is a knotty point. '^ Dugdale says Alan attended 
 as a Baron, but he had not succeeded Alfred at that date, and if it is 
 necessary to suppose this, " Alan " must be an error for " Alfred." If 
 not, and if this was the same Alan who is mentioned in the Lindsey 
 Survey, and in the Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I, he must have been a mere 
 youth in 1082. He may however have been a different person altogether, 
 as the surname of Lincoln was not uncommon, and seems to have been 
 borne by several distinct families.^ 
 
 ' Stapleton supposed that Robert and Alan were half-brothers, the former being 
 son of William Malet by Hesilia Crispin, and the latter son of Hesilia by another 
 husband. See also Top. and Gen., i, 15. But in that case Lucy's son could not 
 have inherited from both, as Hesilia was not an heiress. 
 
 ^ Alfred de Lincoln had no estates in Dorset in 1086, but apparently acquired 
 some afterwards, and settled them on Robert, for a gift by Alfred de Lincoln and 
 Robert his son to the priory of Montaeute of the land of QilUngham and the land of 
 Brugia in Dorset, is recorded in the Mowusticon, v, 167. Now several estates in Gil- 
 lingham are returned in Domesday, one of them belonging to the Crown, but none to 
 Alfred. Robert had a son Alfred de Lincoln, who was followed by others of the same 
 name. (Dugdale's Baronage, i, 412 ; Testa de NevUl.) It is noteworthy that Robert 
 de Haia, also a great landowner in Lincoln, and a successor to Colswain de Lincoln, 
 made a grant to the same priory of Montaeute. 
 
 3 Mr. Eyton'believed that Ivo Taillebois, Alfred, and Alan were brothers. (Addit. 
 MS. 31, 929, f. 68).b 
 
 * Ordericus Vitalis mentions " Rodbertus Alveredi de Lincolia filius " as holding 
 the castle of Wareham against Stephen in 1138; and both Alan and Robert occur 
 in the Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I. 
 
 * The name is certainly " Alano " in the Laud MS., Misc. 748, Bodleian Library, as 
 I am informed. 
 
 * Wigod of Lincoln was witness to a charter of Edward the Confessor to Ramsey 
 abbey ; possibly an ancestor of Alfred de Lincoln. (Charter Roll, 8 Edw. Ill, m. 29.) 
 Wigot de Lincoln occurs as a landowner in the Lindsey Survey, which also has 
 several references to " Wigot " simply. Wigot, Sheiiff of Lincoln (temp. Hen. I), is 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. 31 
 
 The fees possessed by Alfred de Lincoln in Lincolnshire* and Bedford- 
 shire are set out at great length in Domesday, which also has a reference 
 to one " Alveredus nepos Turoldi." In the dearth of information relative 
 to Thorold the Sheriff, this reference has been eagerly seized upon by 
 Stapleton, Nichols, Mr. Freeman, and Mr. Malet to prove that he was 
 uncle to " Aluredus de Lincole," But though Domesday might perhaps 
 give two different descriptions of the same person, it is now impossible to 
 accept that view, for if Thorold was brother to Alan de Lincoln, as he 
 seems to have been, it follows that he was son to Alfred de Lincoln. 
 
 Thus we obtain a pedigree which is vastly different to any which has 
 hitherto been put forward ; but to make it complete and acceptable it 
 seems necessary to adopt one or two suggestions which have been made 
 by Mr. Freeman. He supposes that Colswain, whose fees are described 
 in Domesday, was also son of Alfred de Lincoln, and something may be 
 said in favour of this view, though the reasons he gives for it are not 
 conclusive. He further suggests that Alfred had Colswain before 
 the Conquest, and Alan de Lincoln and Robert de Lincoln after the 
 Conquest. If we add Thorold to the list of Alfred's children before 
 the Conquest, we may get rid of the difficult question, how was it that 
 Alan rather than Thorold succeeded Alfred ? For it may well be that 
 Alfred married a second time after the Conquest, with a Norman lady, and 
 that his estates were entailed on her issue, and descended to her son Alan, 
 because Alfred's sons by his first wife were already sufficiently provided 
 for. Indeed it seems to have been part of the policy of the early 
 Norman kings to prevent their vassals from becoming too powerful, by 
 regulating successions in this manner." 
 
 The furtjier question naturally arises — what position did this family 
 occupy before the Conquest, and how did three members of it, a father 
 and two sons, acquire such large territories 1 It is clear that these were 
 not in their possession before the Conquest, and it might well have been 
 doubted if they were of Anglo-Saxon origin, were it not for their names f 
 but when we find the name of Colegrim also among the tenants in cajnte, 
 it is evident that it was not unusual for William I to bestow lands on 
 Anglo-Saxons,* There are two references to Alfred de Lincoln in Domes- 
 mentioned in the Spalding Registers, Addit. MS. 5844, ff. 220, 234, and Harl. MS. 
 742, f. 9. Martin son of Ulf de Lincoln (1120-30) is mentioned in the Ramsey 
 Chronicle. Richard de Lincoln, son of Osbert the Sheriff, and William grandson or 
 nephew (nepos) of the same Osbert occur in the Lindsey Survey. As to Osberfc, see 
 abstracts of Charters, ante, Nos. 6, 7, 14, and 22 (note), and Addit. MS. 5844, ff. 222, 
 223. He had a brother named Ralph the Canon (Lindsey Survey). Acardus de 
 Lincoln was witness to a charter of Ralph de Bayeux to the abbey of Newhouse. 
 Joel de Lincoln is mentioned in Leland's Collectanea. Alanus filius Johelli Line,' 
 Ancha de Lincol,' Outi de Line,' as well as Robert de Line' and Alur' de Line,' occur 
 in the Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I. John de Lincoln was witness to a charter (temp. 
 Ric. I ?) of Nichola de Haya, a descendant of Colswain. (Close Roll, 11 Edw. II, No. 72 ; 
 Monasticon, vi, 1116.) A few Lincolns of later date occur in the Harleian Charters. 
 
 ^ " Lincole, Aluredus de. Line, 357^," is omitted from Ellis's list of Tenants in capite. 
 
 ^ Thus Meschin had to give up the lordship of Carlisle and the estates of his wife 
 in Lincolnshire, before succeeding to the Earldom of Chester. 
 
 ^ Thorold's name might however have been Norman. 
 
 * On this subject Mr. Freeman remarks, " The examples of Thurkill of Warwick, 
 Wiggod of Wallingford, and Colswegen himself show that it was perfectly possible for 
 an Englishman to keep a large estate, to have Norman tenants, and, unhappily, to 
 receive the forfeited estates of other Englishmen." {Norm. Conq. iii, 780; 2nd edit.) 
 
32 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 day which at first sight seem to show that he was " an Englishman," and 
 the person desiderated by Mr. Malet at the head of his pedigree. Under 
 the head of " The Land of Alfred de Lincoln " in Bedfordshire, p. 215'', 
 'is the following entry : 
 
 "(M.) Alfred de Lincoln holds three hides in Wimeutone, and Glen (holds) of 
 him. It (the manor) is worth 40 shillings ; when he received it, 50 shillings ; in the 
 time of King Edward, 60 shillings. Godwin Fraupold held this manor, and could sell 
 it. With these three hides Alfred reclaims upon Walter the Fleming half a hide, of 
 which he (Walter) unjustly disseised him, as the men of the Hundred bear witness 
 thereof ; for his (Alfred'^) ancestor was seised thereof in the time of King Edward, and 
 the same Alfred was afterwards seised. With this land the same Alfred further re- 
 claims upon the Bishop of Coubmces a wood of 100 hogs, whu'h his ancestor had in the 
 time of Kiny Edioard, but the Bishop disseised him unjustly, as the men of the 
 Hundred testify. " 
 
 Again, under the head of " Claims in Kesteven," p. 337^ the following 
 note occurs : 
 
 " Alfred de Lincoln claims one carucate of land in Quedhaveringe upon Alan the 
 Earl. The men of Hoilant agree in favour of the same Alfred, because it was also of 
 his ancestor, and he himself was seised thereof in the time of Earl Ralph ."^ 
 
 These entries appear to imply that Alfred was an Anglo-Saxon by 
 birth, and that his ancestors held lands, to which he had some claim, 
 yet it is clear that his lands in Domesday did not belong to any one 
 Anglo-Saxon owner, whom we might have looked upon as his father.^ 
 Indeed he seems to have obtained his lands in precisely the same way 
 as he would have done if he had been a Norman adventurer, but the 
 grant was probably made to him in consideration of his marriage with a 
 Norman lady; and Thorold and Colswain would seem to have acquired 
 their possessions in the same manner. Besides, many other' entries in 
 Domesday clearly prove that the Survey uses the word " antecessor " in 
 the sense of " predecessor," or previous occupier ; and in most if not in all 
 cases there was no relationship between the tenant in the time of King 
 William and the tenant in the time of King Edward. 
 
 It may be objected that Alan de Lincoln seems to have lived to almost 
 as late a date as Lucy his niece ; but this objection has been met by 
 supposing that Alfred married a Norman lady, and that Alan was her 
 son ; and as Thorold seems to have married about 1066, there is no 
 reason why the uncle should be much, if any, older than the niece ; 
 this being, in fact, a not uncommon occurrence. The date when Alan 
 succeeded Alfred is uncertain, but Alfred may have lived till the beginning 
 of the reign of Henry I, as the name of Alfred de Lincoln occurs among 
 
 1 Ralph Waher or Guader, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk. (Ellis, i, 471.) 
 * There are many references to " Alfred " and " Thorold," simply, in Domes- 
 day, both as tenants in the time of Edward the Confessor, and as undertenants 
 at Domesday, in many counties, including Lincoln; but it seems difficult to identify 
 any of them with Alfred de Lincoln and Thorold the Sheriff. It is perhaps 
 only a coincidence that Winterburne in Dorset belonged to an " Alfred " t.R.E., 
 and at a later period to an Alfred de Lincoln, a descendant of Robert, before 
 mentioned. "Alfred the Sheriff" held Lulvorde in Dorset, t.R.E. Robert's de- 
 scendants held large possessions in that county, but these had mostly not belonged 
 to " Alfred." Yet it is to be remarked that Alfred de Lincoln afterwards acquired 
 estates in Dorset, which would be quite intelligible if he had originally belonged to 
 that county. 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. 33 
 
 thft witnesses to a charter of that King to the abbey of Rheims, dated at 
 Tamwortii, apparently between the years 1102 and 1107. ^ 
 
 In spite of the grant of Alan's fee to Ranulph Gernons, Earl of 
 Chester, it does not appear that the Earl obtained it. It is hard to see 
 how the grant came to be made. Alan in fact had a daughter, and even 
 if she were passed over, the fee would be more likely to go to his brother 
 Robert than to his niece Lucy. Alan's daughter Margaret married 
 Ranulph de Bayeux, as may be inferred from the Pipe Roll, 31 Henry I, 
 and Testa de Nevill, and as is positively stated in the charters to the 
 abbey of Newhou^e. Margaret subsequently separated from her husband, 
 having vowed chastity in the chapter of Linct)ln. Their son Hugh de 
 Bayeux speaks of Alan de Lincoln as his grandfather. Hugh had a 
 brother Alan and a brother William.^ But it would be out of place to 
 treat of Alan's descendants. ^ 
 
 With regard to Colswain, a charter before referred to * shows that he 
 bore the surname of " de Lincoln," a fact not before noticed, and which 
 greatly supports Mr. Freeman's argument ; and both Colswain's and 
 Thorold's descendants claimed the constableship of Lincoln castle, as will 
 be seen. 
 
 Colswain had a son named Picot, whose wife was named Beatrice, 
 and whose son or son-in-law was Robert de Haia. This is evident from 
 the charters before quoted, and also on comparing Domesday with the 
 Lindsey Survey.^ In Testa de Nevill their barony is described as the 
 honor of Haia or Haya, which must not be confounded with the honor 
 of Eye, frequently spelt Heia, Haia, and Heya. 
 
 Robert de Haia's wife was Muriel, who may have been daughter and 
 heiress to Picot. They had a son Richard de Haia, a son Ralph de Haia 
 (called " senior "), and a daughter Cecily. Richard succeeded Robert in 
 this Barony, His wife was named Matilda, and Nichola, his daughter 
 
 ^ Patent Roll, 6 Edw. Ill, p. 1, m. 8 ; Monasticon, vi, 1043, from the original at 
 Rheims. If this may be relied on, the Lindsey Survey was not compiled before 1102. 
 
 ^ Monasticon, vi, 865, 886 ; Lindsey Survey ; the Black Book, Hearne, p. 275 ; the 
 Red Book, ff. 54, 63, 64, 791^, 218 ; Pipe Rolls, 31 Henry I, Henry II, &c. Among 
 the charters to Newhouse is one relating to Lucy, which has been omitted from the 
 abstracts on p. 70, viz. 
 
 29a. Charter of William, Earl of Lincoln, addressed to Alexander, Bishop of Lin- 
 coln, and confirming gifts to the abbey of Newhouse, for the souls of his father (Roger 
 Fitz Gerold) and mother (Lucy) ; Hadewisa the Countess being one of the witnesses. 
 
 * It may however be noted that Dugdale makes Alan to have had two daughters, 
 Margaret, wife of Ranulph de Bayeux, and .... wife of Humfrey d'Albini ; but 
 the entries in the Pipe Roll appear to mean that Alan had a daughter, who was 
 married first to Humfrey, and afterwards to Ranulph; that he had given part of his fee 
 to her on her first marriage ; and that Ranulph paid a fine for possession of the land 
 of Humfrey d'Albini. Alan de Lincoln may however have had more than one daughter. 
 Testa de Nevill and Mr. Eyton's MS. (Addit. 31, 941, f. 94) show that Richard de 
 Sanford, Hugh de Bayeux, and others were successors to Alan de Lincoln about 1210, 
 and John de Bayeux and others about 1243. For the fees of John de Bayoes, see the 
 Feodary of Lincolnshire, Chapter House Miscell. Books, B. 3'^, p. 11. 
 
 * No. 22 ; see also No. 46, p. 138. 
 
 ' See Abstracts of Charters, No . 22, with note, and No. 46. A Colswain is also 
 mentioned in charter No. 26, as uncle to Robert, "grandson (or nephew) of the 
 Countess" (qu. which Countess?); but he could hardly have been the same as 
 Colswain de Lincoln, whose lands could not have been bestowed by William de 
 Roumare ; nor was the Ivo mentioned in that document the same as Ivo Taillebois. 
 Mr. Freeman and Mr. Malet, however, build much upon it. 
 
34 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 and heiress, was married to Gerard de Camville. A Geofliey de Haya 
 also occurs.^ 
 
 Here we have an important Lincolnshire pedigree from the Conquest 
 to the reign of King John, which I believe has never before been worked 
 out, and which cannot fail to be of interest even if the parentage of 
 Colswain should prove to have been other than is above suggested. 
 
 Thorold the Sherif, Baron of Spalding. 
 
 Having done something to clear up the history of the mysterious 
 family of Lincoln, we may now turn our attention to that member of it 
 with whom we are more particularly concerned. 
 
 The name of Thorold, as Mr. Freeman points out, was of Scandinavian 
 origin, and was in use both in Normandy and England, but he says " we 
 may assume Thorold was an Englishman. "^ This he wrote without 
 knowing that Thorold did not receive his large estates till after the 
 Conquest, which fact might be taken to indicate that he was a Norman ; 
 but if Thorold was the son of Alfred de Lincoln, and if Alfred was 
 English, as above suggested, Mr. Freeman is right.^ Still, Thorold was 
 not an imposing personage in the pre-Norman time, as hitherto believed. 
 
 The chroniclers of Peterborough and Croyland were evidently of 
 opinion that Thorold was an Anglo-Saxon landed proprietor, ; other- 
 wise they would hardly have alleged that Thorold gave a manor in 
 Spalding to the monks of Croyland so early as the year 1051 or 1052, 
 to be converted into a cell ; and thus it is certain that the charter of 
 " Thorold de Bukenhale," as set out by Ingulph, is an unmitigated 
 forgery.* 
 
 ^ These particulars are derived from Domesday, the Lindsey Survey, Harl. MS. 742, 
 £f. 219, 219»> ; JHonasticon, i, 968 (old edit.) ; v, 167 ; vi, 916, 1116, 1117 ; the Black 
 Book (Heame) ; the Bed Book, S. 54, 63, 64^ 71^ 79^ 114, 139, 160^, 210 ; Pipe 
 Rolls, Henry II ; Duchy of Lancaster Cowchers, ii, 254, 476, 480, 482, 486. The 
 account of the barony of " Haye " given by Dugdale (i, 597) says nothing about 
 Robert de Haia's succession to Colswain and Picot's barony in Lincolnshire, but start* 
 with Henry I's grant to him of the honor of Halnac in Sussex. Dugdale makes out 
 that Richard had two other daughters besides Nichola, but does not give their names. 
 In a charter Richard mentions his " nepos " Reginald de Maisnil. Lady Nichola had 
 a daughter and heiress named Idonia, who married William Lungespe, Earl of Salis- 
 bury. (Feodary of Lincolnshire, as before, p. 11.) The great grand-daughter of this 
 Earl, Margaret Lungespe, became the wife of Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, a des- 
 cendant of the Countess Lucy, and thus the families of Thorold and Colswain became 
 once more united. 
 
 * Norm. Conq., 2nd edit., iii, 776, 781 . 
 
 * It might also have been argued that an Anglo-Saxon would hardly have given 
 tithes to the monastery of Angers, as Thorold seems to have done : hence Nichols' 
 surmise that Thorold, as well as Ivo, came over from Anjou. The name of Turold 
 occurs among the witnesses tc a charter of William, Duke of Normandy in 1060, and 
 this man might have been supposed to be identical with " the Sheriff," especially as 
 his name is joined with that of " Ricardus le Vicomte." (D'Anisy, Extrait den 
 Charles &a, i, 247.) But even before the Conquest it was possible for a grant of 
 property in England to be made to a Norman abbey ; thus we find that the abbey of 
 Rheims had the church of Lapley &c. in the time of Edward the Confessor. [Mon- 
 asticon, vi, 1043.) 
 
 ■• Thorold is made to convey a manor-house in Spalding with the consent of his 
 " lord and kinsman" Earl Algar in 1051. It is true that the monks had an estate in 
 Spalding at the date of Domesday, but Algar was the previous owner of the chief 
 manor there, and he would have been the person, at the date alleged, to have given 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. 35 
 
 It would be useless now to discuss the assertion of the Peterborough 
 chronicler that Thorold was brother-german to the Countess Godiva. ^ If 
 we are on the right track, they could not possibly have belonged to the 
 same generation. The chronicler seems to have made a bad guess, founded 
 on the equally wrong notion that Earl Algar was father of Lucy; and 
 the latter notion rested merely on the imperfect knowledge that Algar 
 was lord of Spalding, and that Lucy brought that manor to Ivo at her 
 marriage. 
 
 There is only one reference to " Thorold the Sheriff " in Domesday, 
 under the head of Bukenhale, which he gave to Croyland abbey for his 
 soul. Other references to the name of " Thorold " have been tortured in 
 order to make them lend some countenance to the various impossible 
 conjectures which have been ventured on the subject, but to no purpose.^ 
 This fact furnishes an additional argument for the accuracy of the con- 
 clusions which have been come to ; for it is obvious that our Thorold 
 must have been a man of considerable property, and it may be asked, , 
 where is the description of his lands in Domesday if they are not 
 described under the head of " The Land of Ivo Taillgeboscf 
 
 For this and other weighty reasons which have been given, it is certain 
 that all the lands which were afterwards returned as being in the hands of 
 Ivo Taillebois and Ranulph Meschin, had originally belonged to Thorold 
 the Sheriff. It would take up too much space to set them out fully, but 
 some idea of their names and extent has already been given. ^ At what 
 precise date these lands were given him by the Conqueror is not stated ; 
 nor do we know whether it was entirely due to his marriage with a 
 Norman lady. As Alfred and Colswain also obtained large possessions, 
 it is possible that, although they were Anglo-Saxons, they had all three 
 in some way favoured William's cause, and that they shared the spoil 
 as if they were Normans. 
 
 A few estates in Norfolk are also returned in Domesday as belonging to 
 Ivo Taillebois, but they are not found to have been afterwards in the 
 
 the " berewick " in Spalding to Croyland Abbey. Ingulph indeed alludes to a charter 
 made by Earl Algar, but the grant was more probably made by .Thorold after the 
 Conquest. The surname of " de Bukenhale " was given to Thorold without authority, 
 and in ignorance of his having held lands in many other places. Another estate in 
 Spalding had belonged to one Alestan, t. R.E. 
 
 ^ Mr. Freeman has endeavoured to make something of this statement, but it would 
 take too long to discuss his solution. {N.C iii, 779, 2nd edit.) 
 
 * " Alveredus nepos Turoldi" has already been disposed of. One of Ivo's estates 
 in Ludesford, a small one, is said to have belonged to " Thorold," t. R.E. ; but it is 
 doubtful whether he was the Sheriff. The name of " Turaldus de Gretevill " occurs in 
 the description of the city of Lincoln (f. 336), as noticed by Stapleton ; but Mr. 
 Freeman considers that he was not the same as Thorold the Sheriff ; possibly he was 
 father to Reinfrid de Bretevill {sic), who, with his son Alfred, is mentioned in 
 charter No. 20. Mr. Eyton says that Gretevill was not a Norman name, but a 
 Norman reading of " Greetwell," which place is in the county of Lincoln. (Addit. 
 MS. 31,929, f. 68^.) Possibly the real name was Breteuil, which frequently occurs 
 in Ord. Vit. 
 
 ' It may be added that the manor called Archintone belonging to Taillebois is 
 obviously the same as Helchintuna, which belonged to Meschin; the modern spelling 
 being Elkington (see pp. 135, 136, ante) ; and that Meschin must have had Ivo's 
 estate in Alchebarge, for Hautebarge (Aulkborough) subsequently belonged to William 
 de Roumare (the third), who made a gift there for the sou) of Alice his wife. (HarL 
 MS. 742, f. 269^). See also post, as to Spalding having belonged to Meschin. 
 
36 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 tenure of Thorold's descendants ; so they may have either belonged to 
 Ivo in his own right, or have been surrendered by Meschin in 1120, and 
 never restored. ^ 
 
 All that is known of Thorold's history is that he gave lands in 
 Bukenhale to Croyland Abbey, and lands and tithes in Spalding and 
 other places to the abbey of Angers, -^ for the support of the coll of 
 Spalding, of which he appears to have been the founder. Whether he 
 at first filled the cell with monks from Croyland is uncertain, but this 
 may have been the case, if the writer of Ingulph's chronicle can be 
 trusted upon a point about which he may well have had some tradition. 
 But this could have been only a temporary arrangement, as Th irold 
 made his original gifts to St. Nicholas of Angers, according to charter 
 No. 4, so that Spalding was from the first a cell to that abbey. 
 
 From his surname it has been inferred that Thorold was Sherifif of the 
 county of Lincoln, and, if so, he probably held the office for some years. 
 He may have been succeeded in that office as well as in his lands by 
 Ivo Taillebois, for Mr. Eyton gives some reasons for supposing that the 
 latter was Sheriff of Lincolnshire in 1086.^ 
 
 The date of Thorold's death is not stated, but it took place not later 
 than the year 1085 ; he may have died some years before, leaving 
 his daughter Lucy a minor and unmarried. He was certainly dead 
 when Domesday was taken, and at the date of Ivo's charter in 1085. 
 He evidently died at an early age, since his daughter survived 
 him perhaps more than fifty years. There are two subsequent references 
 to him, one in Pipe Koll, 31 Henry I, when his daughter paid a fine for 
 his lands, and the other in Pipe Roll, 11 Henry II, when his great- 
 grandson Hugh, Earl of Chester, paid a fine for his " fee," or rather 
 for some estates which had not been restored to his grandmother, 
 Countess Lucy. 
 
 Such indeed appears to be the true explanation of the obscure entry on 
 the latter Pipe Roll, for on the death of Earl Hugh in 1181, the King 
 assigned to " Bertra " his widow, as dower, the manors of Beltesford, 
 Hemingeby, and Dunington. * Now the manor of Beltesford, with 
 soke in Hemingeby, Dunington, and other places, had belonged to 
 
 1 If Ivo possessed the barony of Appleby, and it afterwards went to Meschin, as 
 supposed by Mr. Hodgson Hinde, it must have been part of Lucy's inheritance, and 
 therefore belonged to Thorold. But Mr. Hinde states elsewhere that "the barony of 
 Appleby was included in the grant to Ranulph de Meschines of the earldom of 
 Carlisle." This was more probably the case, and therefore the barony never belonged 
 to Thorold or to Ivo, but Meschin had it in his own right, and not in right of his 
 wife. Mr. Eyton considered Meschin to have succeeded Ivo in Cumberland and 
 Westmorland as well as in Lincoln, but there is no warrant for this supposition ; 
 otherwise Thorold would have been " Lord of Cumberland," which is impossible, 
 according to the account given of that lordship by Mr. Hinde, for Thorold died before 
 it was established. 
 
 2 See charters Nos. 1, 4, 6, 12, 40. In support of the argument on p. 140, it should 
 be remarked that Ivo's second charter (No. 6) gives the names of five places where 
 the monks already had tithes, viz., Teteney, Alcofcar, Norman by, Bolingbroc, and 
 Beltisford. These places are doubtless referred to in Ivo's first charter, which speaks 
 of the tithes given by Thorold and his men ; and therefore they had all belonged to 
 Thorold, which is a most imjiortant fact. 
 
 3 Addit. MS. 31,929, f. 70. 
 
 * Baronage, i, 41, from Eotvlus de Dominabus et Pudlis. 
 
THE COtJNTESS LUCY. 37 
 
 Thorold, and it was evidently not restored either to William de Roum;vre 
 about 1122, or to the Countess Lucy in 1130, as Earl Hugh could not 
 possibly have inherited it. In one of the Duchy Cowchers there is a 
 charter by Ranulph (Gernons), Earl of Chester, granting a yearly rent 
 out of his manor of Beltesford (1147-1153). He must have obtained the 
 manor from the King by purchase, and the entry on the Pipe Roll of 
 11 Henry II refers either to the settlement of that account, or to the 
 purchase of some other portion of the property by Earl Hugh. Thus the 
 entry in the Pipe Roll of 11 Henry II is fully accounted for, and at the 
 same time the theory that Thorold was the previous owner of all Ivo's 
 estates, is confirmed. ^ 
 
 In fact, every fresh item of information tends to justify the effort 
 which has been made to restore Thorold to his proper i»osition as one of 
 " the greater barons " of the kingdom. 
 
 ThoroMs wife. 
 
 Thorold's wife is mentioned in two of the charters,* but no particu- 
 lars as to her paientage or even as to her name are given. Here we 
 obtain great assistance from a suggestion by Stapleton, who pointed out 
 that the manor of Aulkborough, which is returned in Domesday as belong- 
 ing to Ivo, is there stated to have previously belonged to WiUiam Malot. 
 Stapleton shrewdly remarks that this severance from Malet's barony 
 could only have been effected in his lifetime by a gift in frank marriage 
 with a daughter. As Mr. Eyton says, this suggestion is made " in Mr. 
 Stapleton's best manner," and it is only his method of applying it that is 
 at fault. He regarded the passage in question as indicating that she was 
 the wife of Ivo Taillebois. This we know to have been impossible, but 
 the suggestion is none the less valuable. It can now be used to prove 
 that Thorold's wife was the daughter of William Malet ; and this conclu- 
 sion is supported by the fact that at a later date Robert Malet, William's 
 son, is called " uncle " of the Countess Lucy, Thorold's daughter. 
 
 The marriage between Thorold and Malet's daughter probably took 
 place just before or soon after the Conquest, for if it had taken place long 
 previously to that event, the gift in frank marriage would have consisted 
 of lands in Normandy, and would hardly have been added to after 
 Malet's settlement in England.^ 
 
 ^ Possibly Earl Hugh acquired some of Thorold's lands in Halton. See a grant 
 by Bretteya, Countess of Chester, of half a fee in Halton. (Duchy Grants in boxes, 
 A. 74.) The distinction between the fees belonging to the barony of Chester in 
 Lincoln and those belonging to the barony of Bolingbroke was long kept up, even after 
 the whole of the latter barony came to Ranulph Blundvill as heir both to Earl Hugh 
 and to William de Roumare. See Feodary of Lincoln, as before, pp. 1 and 14. 
 
 2 Nos. 4 and 19. 
 
 2 There is some probability that Thorold's wife was Beatrice, the sister of Robert 
 Malet, who is mentioned in the cartulary of the priory of Eye (Dugdale's Monasticon, 
 iii, 401, 404, 405 ; Addit. MS. 8177, ff. 100, 101, 109, 111, 114, 130^ 131i>) ; but a 
 charter of Henry I. speaks of her as the wife of "William de Archis," who may how- 
 ever have been her second husband. According to the Lindsey Survey, " William de 
 Arcis " held lands in Bcallabi, Redbume, Hibaldestow, and Gameltorp ; and as 
 Thorold had lands in all those places, it may be that William held them in right of 
 his wife, she having had them in dower ; but if so, she did not possess the whole of 
 those estates, for Meschin is also returned as holding lands in all of them except 
 Scallabi ; besides, Osbern de Arcis, William's predecessor, had lands in Scallebi and 
 Bedbume in 1086. 
 
38 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 The Malet family. 
 
 It will naturally be asked whether the discoveries made in tlie course 
 of this inquiry throw any light on the question why William Malet is 
 described by Guy of Amiens as " partly Norman, partly English. "^ To 
 this it may be replied that his daughter seems to have married an 
 Englishman, a fact not before known ; and it may be worth while to 
 remove a misapprehension as to the rest of Malet's description by the 
 same writer. He is called "compater Heraldi," which Mr. Freeman 
 takes to mean that he and Harold were godfathers to the same child ; but 
 the real meaning of the words surely is, that William Malet was god- 
 father to Harold himself. Thus he may well have been regarded as 
 •' partly English," by relationship and by sympathy, if not by birth ; 
 and it was peculiarly appropriate that the burial of Harold's body should 
 be committed to him. 
 
 Mons.Le Prevost, in a note to Mons. Pluquet's edition of Wace, is 
 puzzled to know why William of Poitiers uses the word concessit in 
 speaking of the delivery by the Conqueror of Harold's body to Malet for 
 burial, as it implies a demand on Malet's part, for which he, the 
 annotator, could see no cause arising from "rapports particuliers." This 
 difl&culty is removed by the interpretation above proposed, which further 
 promises some aid towards a clear understanding of the conflicting accounts 
 of the burials by Malet and by Harold's mother. Malet has been looked 
 upon as being merely the official executor of a stern mandate, but in 
 granting the body to him, the Conqueror really made a concession to the 
 dead hero's mother, whose wishes Malet would be sure to consult. 
 
 There seems to be nothing to prove that William's mother was 
 English, a point on which Mr. Freeman insists, or that he was related to 
 Harold's father or mother. But it may be questioned whether he would 
 have formed an intimate friendship with Earl Godwin, and stood godfather 
 to the Earl's child, unless there were some such relationship as Mr. Freeman 
 imagines. That he Avas a personage of great consequence is evidenced by 
 the vastness of the territories which were granted to him in England. 
 Sir Alexander Malet, in his translation of Wace, adopts the suggestion 
 of modern genealogists that Earl Algar married a sister of William Malet, 
 but gives no proof.^ 
 
 On William's death at the siege of York by the Danes in 1069,^ his 
 possessions descended to his son Robert Malet, about whom something 
 has already been said. They were situate in Norfolk, Suflfblk, Essex, 
 Lincoln, and other counties, only three of his manors being in the county 
 of Lincoln, namely, Wellebrune, Bergebi, and Sechebroc. These are not 
 mentioned in the Lindsey Survey, but they are described in Testa de 
 Nevill as forming part of " the honor of Eye," which was the title given 
 to the barony of Malet, the castle of Eye, in Suflblk, being its caput. 
 
 ' Freeman, iii, 466 (1st ed.) ; iii, 776 (2nd ed.) WDliam's wife Hesilia (Crispin) is 
 mentioned in a charter of Robert Malet to Eye priory, but Mr. Freeman seems to deny 
 that relationship (iii, 776). A gift by William Malet to the abbey of Bee is referred 
 to in the Monasticon. 
 
 '* Pp. 268-9. See also Top. and Oen. i, 15. 
 
 ' Stapleton's Nonnan Pipe Rolls, ii, cliii 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. 39 
 
 They were probably seized with the honor by Henry I, and, being in the 
 Crown, are not noticed in the Survey. ^ 
 
 Robert had a brother named Gilbert, and in the cartulary of Eye is 
 recorded a charter, whereby their sister Beatrice makes provision for their 
 souls as if she were their heir, which might also be inferred from the 
 charter granting to Gernons the fee of his great-uncle ; but I have made 
 no inquiry in that direction.^ It may however be observed that, according 
 to Testa de Nevill, Gernons did not obtain any of Robert Malet's lands, 
 as Henry II kept the honor of Eye in his own hands for more than 
 thirty years. 
 
 Ivo Taillehois. 
 
 The ancestors of the Countess having been ascertained as far as is at 
 present possible, we may now go on to put together the information 
 relating to her three husbands. 
 
 The lands in Lincolnshire which are returned under the name of Ivo 
 Taillebois were not given to him at the Conquest, as has always been 
 taken for granted, but he really obtained them by his marriage with 
 Lucy, daughter of Thorold the 8heriflf. Some writers^ call him 
 nephew of William the Conqueror ; and a rubric in the Spalding register 
 alleges that lie came over with William. If he took part in the invasion, 
 he would have received large rewards ; but Domesday mentions only a 
 few other estates in Norfolk, besides those in Lincoln, as belonging to 
 him, and these may also have been Thorold's, His charter to St. 
 Mary's, York, however, shows that he had lands in several places in 
 Westmorland,* which Mr, Hodgson Hinde describes as the barony of 
 Kendal. These he doubtless possessed in his own right The same 
 charter mentions his father and mother, but does not give their names. 
 
 From his charter to St. Nicholas of Angers it has been inferred that he 
 came from Anjou, but he thereby merely enlarged a previous gift by his 
 father-in-law, Thorold, so that the inference is not well founded. Ingulph 
 calls him Count of Anjou ; but Nichols has shown that he could not 
 have borne that title, and in this paper it has been further shown that 
 he was never •' Earl of Lincoln," as has been supposed.^ 
 
 The date of 1072 or 1073 has been assigned to his marriage with 
 Lucy, under the mistaken idea that she succeeded Earls Edwin and 
 Morcar, and was given with their lands to Ivo ; but if Thorold did not 
 
 ' See Testa de Nevill, p. 296, where there is a condee but apparently not quite an 
 accurate account of the history of the honor of Eye. Among other things it states 
 that Henry I seized the honor and kept it for seven years, and then granted it to 
 Earl Stephen his nephew, who held it for 22 years while he was King and Earl. 
 According to this, Henry I seized the honor about 1125, but the Lindsey Survey was 
 compiled before that date. 
 
 * Robert Malet occurs as witness to charters of Henry I. (Mon. i, 161, 437, old 
 edit.) Ralph Malet and Walter Malet are mentioned in the Lindsey Survey, but 
 were probably descendants of Durand Malet Mr. Arthur Malet professes to trace 
 down the male descendants of Robert and Gilbert for many generations. See also the 
 Roll of Battle Abbey, by Burke, p. 73. 
 
 » Allen's Lincolnshire, i, 278 ; Cole's MS. 43 (Addit 6844), p. 139 ; &c. 
 
 * Not Yorkshire, as in Top. and Oen., i, 12. 
 
 * Ingulph appears to say that Ivo was a candidate for the earldom of Northampton 
 and Hnntingdon on the death of Earl Waltheof. His story that Ivo was taken 
 prisoner in 1071, by Hereward, while defending Thorold, abbot of Peterborough, it 
 very apocryphal. 
 
40 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 marry till about the time of the Conquest, as is probable, the marriage 
 of Ivo and Lucy would not take place till after 1080 ; but as Ivo was 
 in possession of Thorold's lands in 1085,^ it certainly took place before 
 that date. 
 
 The charter to Angers (No. 4) speaks of " Thorold and his wife" as 
 Ivo's ancestors, but this may mean only that they were his predecessors 
 in title, the word being used here with the same meaning as in Domes- 
 day. Mr. Eyton indeed, referring to this very charter, explains the 
 word " ancestors " in this sense. ^ 
 
 It has been suggested (p. 142) that the manor of Spalding was the 
 chief residence of Ivo and Lucy. It was in fact more than a manor ; 
 there was a castle, known in modern times as Taillebois' Castle. This 
 name was no doubt correctly given to it, for it must have been built before 
 Ranulph Meschin's surrender ; and after Lucy's final grant of the manor 
 to the priory, it would be allowed to fall into decay.^ 
 
 Mr. Eyton notes that Ivo claimed a mansion in Lincoln city formerly 
 belonging to Stori, the Saxon lord of the great manors of Beltesford and 
 Bolingbroc ; that Ivo was on a royal commission concerning the rights of 
 Ely abbey about the year 1079 ; and that Ivo attested a charter of 
 William II about 1090. He gives some reasons for believing that Ivo 
 was Sheriff of Lincoln in 1086. He also makes some remarks on 
 Ingulph's account of Ivo's rebellion and his banishment by "William 11.'^ 
 
 Ivo was living at the date of the fire at Croyland, 1091, according to 
 Ingulph. He probably died about the year 1093. Peter of Blois 
 appears to assign the date of 1114 as the date of his death, but William 
 II's charter (No. 7) shows that he was dead before 1100.^ 
 
 The question whether Ivo had a son named Ethelred or Eltred, who 
 begat Ketel, &c., has already been dealt with, though not settled. If he 
 had, it seems clear that Eltred was not the son of Lucy, as otherwise he 
 would have had a better claim than William de Roumare to recover his 
 mother's inheritance.® 
 
 ^ See charter No. 4, and Domesday. 
 
 * Addit. MS. 31,929, f. 70. The mention of Thorold's wife as an " ancestor " 
 shows that she brought Thorold some property, doubtless the manor of Aulkborough. 
 
 ' Allen's Lincolnshire, i, 293, gives particulars as to its remains in the last century. 
 " The building of castles began late in the Conqueror's reign." (Lecture by Mr. J. 
 H. Parker ; Transactions of the Essex Archseol. Society, iv, 286.) 
 
 * Addit. MS. 31,929, ff. 69'', 70. It has been seen that a few of Ivo's lands did 
 not apparently come to Meschin. Some of them may have been retained by the 
 King on his restoration to favour after his rebellion. But the Lindsey survey com- 
 prises only part of the county, and for this reason Spalding, which is in Holland, is 
 not returned among Meschin's lands in that Survey. It is indeed certain that Mes- 
 chin had Spalding, for Lucy's second charter says she held it his lifetime. 
 
 ® Gough alleges that Ivo was buried at Spalding in 1104. An " Ivo Taillebosc " is 
 mentioned in a charter by the Princess Cecily, youngest daughter of William I, 
 abbess of Caen, who is supposed to have filled that office from 1113 to 1127 ; but 
 there seems to be some question as to these dates, and besides, this Ivo may not have 
 been the same person as the Ivo of Domesday. (See an article by Thomas Stapleton 
 in the Archscol. Journal, iii, 20-22, 26, referred to in Mr. Eyton 's MSS.) The land of 
 William Taillebois in Lincolnshire is described in Domesday. He may have been a 
 brother or near relative of the Ivo of Domesday, and father of the Ivo referred to by 
 the Princess Cecily. 
 
 * The land of "Edric," son of Ketel, was granted by Henry I to Walter de 
 Gloucester (1115-23). — Duchy of Lane, Royal Chai-ters. 
 
THE COUNTESS LUGY. 41 
 
 It has been shown that Ivo had a daughter Beatrice, wife of Riband, 
 Lord of Middleham, whose descendants are set out by Whittaker, and 
 in the " Pedigree of Taiibois" before quoted ; but she was evidently not 
 the daughter of Lucy. She was in fact married and had a grown-up 
 son before Ivo's death, according to charter No. 2,^ and hence it may 
 be inferred that she was Ivo's daughter by a previous wife. She was 
 not the " only daughter, nobly espoused," who is said by Peter of Blois 
 to have been the issue of Ivo and Lucy, for she did not die childless, 
 as Peter alleges of Lucy's daughter. Peter may therefore refer to 
 Matilda, daughter of Countess Lucy, mentioned in charter No. 24, and 
 who would also be daughter of Ivo in case Peter is correct. Of course 
 it is possible that Matilda was daughter of Roger FitzGerold ; but it is 
 more probable that she was Ivo's daughter, because she married Hugh, 
 brother of her mother's third husband, thus becoming sister-in-law to her 
 own mother, and therefore it is necessary to put the date of her birth as 
 early as may be. 
 
 Beatrice's eldest son, Ralph, and it is said other sons, adopted the 
 surname of Taillebois, probably because Ivo had no male descendants, 
 and to keep up the name.^ 
 
 A word or two as to Ivo's relations with Croyland. That abbey had 
 lands in Spalding at the date of Domesday, though Ingulph alleges that 
 its monks were expelled from Spalding priory as early as 1074. It is 
 clear, however, that the abbey did not possess those lands at the date of 
 Testa de Nevill, and therefore it is possible that the accoant of Ivo's 
 seizure of them is true.^ Under what pretence Ivo acted may, perhaps, 
 be ascertained from a careful review of the facts. There seems to be no 
 doubt that Thorold made a gift to the abbey of Angers, as well as to the 
 abbey of Croyland. This may have caused some dispute, in which Ivo 
 took the part of the former, and the more especially as Croyland 
 was a Saxon foundation. 
 
 Roger FitzGerold de Roumare. 
 Roger FitzGerold appears to have been son or brother and heir of 
 Robert FitzGerold,* who is returned as having lands in Hants, Berks, 
 "Wilts, Dorset, and Somerset, at the date of Domesday, but none in 
 Lincolnshire. He married Lucy, daughter of Thorold the Sheriff, and 
 widow of Ivo Taillebois, and succeeded in her right to her father's 
 numerous possessions in Lincolnshire, and, perhaps, to a few in Norfolk. 
 Their marriage took place probably soon after Ivo's death.^ He is 
 
 ' It mentions Ribaud, Ivo's son-in-law, and Ralph Taillebois, probably Ribaud's 
 son ; and it appears to be of later date than No. 4. 
 
 " This Ralph was witness to one of Ivo's charters, and a charter of William I, in 
 favour of the abbey of St. Alban's, is addressed to him. (Matthew Paris, vi, 33.) 
 Several persons of the name of Taillebois are mentioned by D'Anisy. 
 
 * Various charges are brought by the Croyland monks against Ivo ; among others, 
 he is said to have cut off the tails and ears of their cattle. Truly there is nothing 
 new under the sun ! (Ingulph, 71.) 
 
 ^ Stapleton calls him " brother " of Robert ; Norman Pipe Rolls, ii, cliii. Robert 
 FitzGerold was present at the Council held in London in 1082. 
 
 * There seems to be now no reason why the story that Lucy mourned Ivo with 
 only moderate lamentations, and married again within a month after his death, 
 " must fall to the ground ... as historical, or rather poetical embellishment," aa 
 suggested in the " Annals of Lacock" (p. 71). As great disparity in age must have 
 exis ted between Ivo and Lucy, there may be some truth in the story. 
 
is THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 evidently addressed as Lord of Spalding and husband of Lucy in a 
 charter of William Rufus (No. 7), that is, before 1100. He had no 
 title of nobility above that of baron. 
 
 Roger and Lucy had issue William de Roumare, who afterwards bore 
 the title of Earl of Lincoln. 
 
 The date of Roger's death is unknown. His "son and heir" William 
 is mentioned under the date of 1118, by Ordericus Vitalis, It seems 
 probable that William came of age just before that date, having been a 
 Tiiinor when his father died.i There are everal references to Roger in 
 the charters of his son. 
 
 Ranulph Meschin de Bayeux. 
 
 Ranulph de Briquessart, Viscount of Bayeux, is not mentioned in 
 Domesday, and therefore he had no estates in England. 2 His son 
 Ranulph Meschin, however, became Lord of Carlisle, but probably not 
 till the reign of Henry I, and the grant included the barony of Appleby. ^ 
 He is by some writers called Earl of Carlisle, but no such title is given 
 him in the Lindsey Survey. 
 
 Meschin married Lucy, widow of Roger FitzGerold, probably about 
 the year 1100, the marriage being referred to by Ordericus Vitalis.* 
 Apparently he had no lands of his own in Lincolnshire before his 
 marriage, but his brother, William Meschin, is returned as holding lands 
 in that county.^ 
 
 The lands which Ranulph received with his wife are described in the 
 Lindssy Survey, and were practically co-extensive with those formerly 
 belonging to Ivo Taillebois. That he did not become Earl of Lincoln by 
 marrying Lucy, as alleged by Stapleton and Nichols, is patent to every 
 one who inspects the original Survey. The words ** Comes Line," on 
 
 •A long account of the family of Roumare is given in the " Annala of Lacock " 
 by Bowles and Nichols. 
 
 2 He was one of the Norman nobles who conspired against William the Bastard on 
 his accession to the Duchy of Normandy. (Archseol. Journal, xvi, 229, quoting William 
 of Poitiers.) His wife Mahald and his eldest son Richard are mentioned in the Liber 
 Vita of Durham. (Ibid.) 
 
 * See Introduction to Pipe Rolls for Cumberland, &c., p. xv, and ArchsBol. Journal, 
 vol. xvi, p. 230 ; and a note by Mr. Luard to Matthew Paris, Chron. Majora, ii, 8. 
 Mr. Luard considers that Ranulph's surname was "de Meschines," or "de Messina," 
 and the compiler of the Spalding Register calls him "de Messynes " (p. 117); 
 but in all authentic records it is written Mischinus, Meschinus, or Meschin. Some 
 recent writers use the form " le Meschin," but there is apparently no authority for 
 the article. Wherever the Latin form is not found, "Meschin " simply is written. 
 The proper spelling would perhaps be Mesquin. (See Cotgrave.) The word means 
 "young," or "junior," and was used to distinguish the person bearing it from an 
 elder person of the same family. 
 
 * Their eldest son Ranulph (Gemons) was bom before 1109, for he was of age before 
 1130, as remarked by Stapleton, ii, cliv. They are said to have had three other 
 children, viz., William, who is called Earl of Cambridge, Alice, or Adehza, wife of 
 Richard FitzGilbert, ancestor of the Clares, Earls of Gloucester and Hertford, and 
 Agnes, wife of Robert de Grandmesnil. Dugdale ; Banks, i, 210 ; Top. and Gen., i, 17. 
 
 ' Possibly Ranulph surrendered these to William on marrying Lucy . It is hard 
 to learn to whom William's lands belonged in Domesday. They may have belonged 
 partly to Durand Malet and partly to William le Blund. As to William being 
 brother to Ranulph, see Top. and Gen., i, 302. William Meschin and his son Ralph 
 [de Bayeux ?] are mentioned in charter No. 46, p. 139. Hugh Fitz-Ranulph, another 
 brother of R. Meschin, is mentioned in charter No. 24, and in Pipe Roll, 31 Henry I. 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. '4S 
 
 which they rely, do not form part of the text, but are written over his 
 name in only two places out of many, and at a date long subsequent to the 
 compilation ; in fact, the handwriting of the annotations is of as late a 
 period as the fourteenth century. The annotator had little or no better 
 means of ascertaining the real titles of Ranulph Meschin than we have at 
 present. Having, as I believe, exhausted all those means, I am unable to 
 produce any evidence that Ranulph Meschin was known as Earl of 
 Lincoln. But did the annotator really mean to imply that Meschin was 
 Earl of Lincoln 1 By comparison with similar annotations it is evident 
 that he did not, but that he was referring to an Earl of Lincoln of his 
 own time, or a little earlier, probably to Henry de Lacy, who possessed 
 Bolingbroke and Halton, over which names the words " Comes Line." are 
 written. 1 
 
 It cannot therefore be supposed that the original compiler of the 
 Lindsey Survey erred in omitting to give the title of Earl to Ranulph 
 Meschin. That he would have inserted it, if due, may be inferred from 
 the fact that he rightly calls Meschin's cousin " Earl Richard," in describ- 
 ing the latter's large possessions in the county. There is therefore no 
 authority for the notion that Ranulph Meschin was Earl of Lincoln 
 before he became Earl of Chester. 
 
 It may be surmised that the reason why no Earl of Lincoln was 
 created probably was, that after the rebellion of Earls Edwin and 
 Morcar their lands in Lincolnshire partly remained in the Crown, and 
 Were partly granted away in small portions to sundry persons. If Earl 
 Edwin had lived, we should probably have found him described as Earl 
 of Lincoln. He would no longer have been called Earl of Mercia, as the 
 Norman idea, though not at all well defined, seems to have been tha:} 
 there should be an Earl to each county, or to two counties at most, 
 whereas the Anglo-Saxon Earls of the eleventh century, especially those 
 with whom we have been dealing, had much wider jurisdictions, which 
 may be more appropriately described as duchies than as earldoms. The 
 word " ducatus," from which " duchy " is derived, is indeed frequently 
 used by the chroniclers to describe the dominion of those Earls, just as 
 the word " dux " was used interchangeably with " comes " to indicate 
 their personal status. 
 
 But, after all, is it certain that there was no Earl of Lincoln, in fact, 
 
 ^ Among the Duchy of Lancaster Records, and also in L6chaud^ d'Anisy's " Extrait 
 des Chartes " &c., there are numerous charters by and relating to " Ranulph, Earl of 
 Chester." ' A few of these relate to Ranulph Meschin, and a few more to his son 
 Ranulph Gernons, but most of them refer to Ranulph Blundvill, grandson of Qernons. 
 There are also many other charters in which "Ranulph, Earl of Chester and Lincoln,"' 
 is mentioned ; and although the dates of some of these last is uncertain, owing to the 
 obscurity of the names of the witnesses, it may with confidence be alleged that none 
 of them relate to Meschin or Gernons, but all to Blundvill. I have been unable to 
 find any instance of the application of the double title, " Chester and Lincoln," to the 
 two former. Special reference may be made to the charter of Henry I to Ranulph 
 Gernons, " Earl of Chester," (Royal Charters, Duchy of Lancaster), and to a charter of 
 Ranulph (Gernons), " Earl of Chester," (Duchy of Lancaster, Grants in boxes, A. 65), 
 as showing that this Earl was not known by the double appellation. Yet it has been 
 alleged that he transferred his "share of the earldom " of Lincoln to Gilbert de Gant 
 on the marriage of Gilbert with his niece, Rohese. In a charter recorded in the 
 Spalding register he calls himself " Ranulph junior, Earl of Chester ;" his brother, 
 William de Roumare, being one of the witnesses. 
 
44 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 if not in name, after the death of Earl Edwin ? We have disposed of the 
 imaginary claims of Taillebois and FitzGerold, and shown that Meschin 
 did not use this title before he became P^arl of Chester. But may not Hugh 
 Lupus have been Earl of Lincoln as well as of Chester ? Domesday 
 (p. 336''), contains the following references to " the Earl " under the 
 head of Lincolnshire. 
 
 " In the time of King Edward, the city of Lincoln used to render to 
 the King 20Z. and to the Earl lOl.; noio it renders lOOZ. by tale between 
 the King and the Earl." 
 
 " The customs {consuetvdines) of the King and of the Earl in Sudlincolie 
 render 28Z.; in Norttreding, 2il. ; in Westreding, 12Z.; in Sudtreding, 15L" 
 
 ** Each hundred pays 8Z, Twelve hundreds amend to the King, and 
 six to the Earl." 
 
 " If any man shall be outlawed for any offence by the King and by the 
 Earl and by the men of the shire (mcecomitatus), no one but the King 
 shall be able to give him peace." 
 
 Now surely some one must havre been Earl of Lincoln at that time. 
 It so happens that among the tenants in capite in the county, there were 
 two Earls, viz., "Earl Alan" (of Richmond and Britany) and "Earl 
 Hugh " (of Chester). The former's lauds were the more extensive, but 
 the latter's possessions are described as being in " Nort Treding," " Sud 
 Treding," &c., which seems to identify him with " the Earl " above 
 mentioned.! 
 
 All authorities have however agreed in calling Hugh Lupus " Earl of 
 Chfster," and no one seems to have suggested that he may also have 
 been Earl of Lincoln, as he well may have been. His predecessors, the 
 Saxon Earls, are frequently described as Earls of Chester and Lincoln, as 
 we have seen, but without any good authority. The Lincolnshire Survey 
 also speaks of his son " Earl Richard " without any further title, as if he 
 were Earl of that county ; while Earl Alan's successor is distinguished 
 therein as "Stephen, Earl of Britany." Moreover, Ran ulph Blundvill, 
 a descendant of the Earls Hugh and Richard, finally assumed the double 
 title of " Earl of Chester and Lincoln," and alleged a claim to " the third 
 penny " of the county of Lincoln, in right o^his ancestors, formerly Earls 
 of Lincoln. In one record the third penny is said to have belonged to him 
 "ex parte R, Comitis patris (proavi 1) sui."' It has usually been assumed 
 that he claimed as a descendant of the Countess Lucy; but the explanation 
 just offered appears to be much more worthy of acceptance. Possibly 
 Blundvill had two strings to his bow, for he married Constance of Britany, 
 who was heiress to a descendant of Earls Alan and Stephen.^ 
 
 Therefore when, in 1 1 20, on the death of Earl Richard, who perished 
 with his wife in the ill-fated " White Ship," without leaving any issue, 
 Ranulph Meschin was permitted to succeed him, it may be inferred that 
 he became not only Earl of Chester, as is usually stated, but also Earl of 
 
 * Domesday, pp. 349 a, b. 
 
 2 Close Rolls, 1 Hen. Ill, p. SOS^'. If " R." be an error for " H.," the argument 
 is equally good, for Earl Hugh Cyvelioc certainly inherited nothing from William de 
 Roumare, Earl of Lincoln. See also 2 and 4 Hen. Ill, pp. 351% 355^ 355^, 438a. 
 
 ^ He was also heir to the last WilUam de Koumare, whose grandfather was caUed 
 Earl of Lincoln, though there seems to be some doubt as, to his creation, and Gilbert 
 de Gant was Earl of Lincoln at the same time. 
 
THE COUNTESS LITCY. 45 
 
 Lincoln. But the assertion already made, that he never used or was 
 known by the latter title, still holds good. He was not allowed to 
 succeed to the earldom altogether as a matter of right, but he had to 
 offer a large sum of money, to be paid by instalments, the last of which 
 was paid by his son in 31 Henry I.^ At the same time he is said to 
 have surrendered the lordship or earldom of Carlisle ; but he did not 
 give up all his possessions in Cumberland, for his son Ranulph Gernons 
 granted lands in Calder, Egremont, and other places in that county tv. 
 the monastery of Calder.^ He also surrendered his wife's estates ir 
 Lincolnshire, though he had no right to do so, as they were the inheri- 
 tance of his stepson. It is, however, presumable that he did not act 
 from choice, but from necessity, as the surrender was doubtless insisted 
 on by the King, who would naturally consider it dangerous to allow one 
 subject to possess three such vast patrimonies. 
 
 The Countess L/ucy. 
 
 It remains to summarise the facts relating to the principal figure in 
 this genealogy. 
 
 Lucy was the sole daughter and heiress of Thorold the Sheriff, a fact 
 which was unknown to the writer of " Ingulph," and has remained in 
 obscurity ever since. She was bom about 1067, and was married to 
 her first husband Ivo Taillebois about 1083, to her second husband, 
 Roger FitzGerold de Roumare about 1093, and to her third husband 
 Ranulph Meschin about 1100. She succeeded to no title above that of 
 a baroness, in which degree she remained during the whole of her first 
 and second, and part of her third nuptials. She did not attain the 
 degree of Countess until her third husband became Earl of Chester in 
 1120, unless it can be shown that he was previously Earl of Carlisle! 
 
 In order to obtain the earldom of Chester, which had escheated to the 
 Crown by the death of his cousin Richard d'Avranches, Ranulph Meschin 
 surrendered to the King the lands of " his wife's inheritance ;" but her 
 son and heir apparent, William de Roumare, laid claim to those lands, 
 and failing to obtain them he went in great wrath to ^Normandy, where 
 he made war on the King to such purpose that he was allowed two years 
 later to succeed to " a great part of his right. "^ On the death of Ranulph, 
 according to the Pipe RoU of 31 Henry I, Lucy paid the King a large 
 sum for the restoration of her father's possessions,^ which would doubtless 
 mean such part of them as had not already been restored to William, 
 though not the whole residue, as her son Earl Ranulph and her grandson 
 Earl Hugh afterwards obtained a still further portion or portions. She 
 also agreed to pay the King 500 marks, besides other sums to the Queen 
 and others, for exemption from being compelled to re-marry for the period 
 of five years. At the same time her son Ranulph, Earl of Chester, 
 agreed to pay the King 500 marks for the agreement which the King 
 had made between him and his mother concerning her dower. 
 
 The charters describe Lucy either as ." Countess of Chester," or simply 
 as "the Countess."^ It appears that she was also called "the Countess 
 
 1 See Pipe Roll. 
 
 ' Monasticon, v. 339 . 
 
 ' Ordericas Vitalis ; Dugdale's Baronage . 
 
 * The note to this passage in the printed edition is obviously incorrect. 
 
 5 See ante, Noa. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 23, 25, 40, 42, 43. 
 
46 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 of Bolingbroke," which title occurs five times in Testa de Nevill, where 
 it is stated that she gave large benefactions to the priory of Spalding, 
 viz., 8 carucates and 5 bovates of land in Pincebec, 8 carucates and 5 
 bovates of land in Spalding, 5 carucates of land in "Weston, and 2^ 
 carucates of land in Moleton ; and that she also made a donation of 3| 
 carucates of land in Moleton to the abbey of Angers ( ? ). These lands, 
 except those in SpaldiDg, at the date of Testa de Nevill, are stated to 
 have been held of the honor of Bolingbroke. 
 
 During the lifetime of Ivo, she and her hu-sband made the castle of 
 Spalding their chief abode, and Ingulph says she kept her court there 
 during Ivo's banishment by William Rufus; but it was given up by 
 Meschin to the King in 1120. From her second charter, after Meschin's 
 death, it may be inferred that Spalding was one of the estates of her father 
 which she re-purchased in 1130, as otherwise she could not have given 
 the charter. 1 Between 1120, when Meschin made the surrender, and 
 1129, when he died, the castle and manor were doubtless in the Crown ; 
 and during the same interval Lucy resided with her husband at Chester. 2 
 As on recovering Spalding she gave it up to the priory, it may be conjectured 
 that she removed to Bolingbroke and made that her principal residence : 
 whence the title last mentioned. The Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I states that 
 she had agreed to pay the King 100 marks for the privilege of administering 
 justice in her court among her tenants {homines), doubtless at Bolingbroke. 
 Many later documents among the Duchy records show that her son 
 William de Roumare, who afterwards bore the title of Earl of Lincoln, 
 also made Bolingbroke his residence, and the seat of his earldom j but 
 how he acquired the earldom remains to be seen. It is asserted in 
 Allen's Lincolnshire, on the authority of a Harleian manuscript, that he 
 built the castle there. ^ 
 
 It may, perhaps, be said that the title of " Countess of Bolingbroke " 
 points to Lucy having been Countess of Lincoln rather than Countess of 
 Chester, but " the Earl of Tutbury," in Staffordshire, was really Earl of 
 Derby, though it is true that "the Earl of Arundel " was Earl of Sussex.* 
 And it has been shown that the title of Earl was originally used without 
 any reference to the name of a county. In agreement with this custom, 
 the charters before recited prove that Lucy was mostly called "the 
 Countess;" and as she evidently lived in state at Bolingbroke after 1130, 
 it is easy to understand how she came by the appellation.^ 
 
 ^ This afiFords an additional confirmation of the assumption that Thorold was her 
 father, and the gifts above mentioned further prove her to have been an heiress. 
 
 ^ Baronage, i, 37. 
 
 3 Allen, ii, 102 ; Harl. MS. 6829, p. 162. 
 
 * Top. aiid Gen., i, 6 ; quoting Dugdale's Preface. See, also, Lords' Report on the 
 Dignity of a Peer, &c., pp. 407-9. 
 
 " Even if the objection that Bolingbroke was not in Cheshire were valid, it has 
 been anticipated by the suggestion that Meschin may have been Earl of Chester and 
 Lincoln, and therefore his widow might have adopted a title from any place in either 
 county. The only authority, a very bad one, for calling Lucy " Countess of Lincoln," is 
 a copy of an epitaph at Revesby on William de Roumare, in which he is called "William 
 de Roumare, son of Lucy, Countess of Lincoln, founder of Clyve monastery." An- 
 other epitaph speaks of " William de Roumare, Earl of Lincoln, founder of Revesby." 
 "Annals of Lacock," 78. Nichols, however, considers that the former epitaph relates 
 to the grandson of Earl William, and that the words " Lucy, Countess of Lincoln," were 
 inserted at a later date by some one who was ignorant of the true facts. I may 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 47 
 
 In an old abstract of a charter of King Stephen to Ranulph Gernons, 
 it is stated that some of the towers of Lincoln castle belonged to him, 
 and that his mother had fortified one of those towers, to which, with the 
 constableship of the castle and " Lincolnshire," his hereditary right was 
 thereby acknowledged.^ From this and other references to Lincoln 
 castle in connexion with Gernons, it is inferred by Stapleton and Nichols 
 that Gernons was necessarily Earl pf Lincoln, but other records show 
 the fallacy of this supposition. 
 
 Several charters in one of the Duchy of Lancaster Cowcher-books 
 prove that *' the constableship of Lincolnshire," " the wardenship of 
 Lincoln castle," and " the barony of Eye " or " Haia," always went 
 together. They belonged successively to Robert de Haia (temp. Hen. I, 
 and Stephen ?), Richard de Haia (temp. Hen. II), and Nichola, wife of 
 Gerard de Camville (temp. Ric. I.)^ 
 
 Although Henry II, in a charter, professes to grant the constableship 
 to Richard de Haia, yet a charter of Richard I recognises that his father 
 Robert de Haya had held it.^ Richard de Haia and Matilda his wife 
 granted to the abbey of Blancheland the vill of Cambringeham, " et el 
 baile castelli Linconiae ; " and this grant 'vas confirmed by " Nichola de 
 Haya," daughter of Richard de Haya, in her widowhood. Richard of 
 Devizes (De rebus gestis Ric, I) says : 
 
 " Gerardus de Cam villa, homo factiosus et fidei prodigus, homagium fecerat Johanni 
 Comiti, fratri Regis, de castello Lincolniae, cujus cuatodia ad hereditatem Nicholaa3, 
 uxoris ejusdem Gerardi, spectare dinoacitur, sed sub rege." 
 
 Thus it would seem that the constableship of Lincoln castle was held 
 jointly by the heirs of Thorold and Colswain, and that it had no 
 connexion with the earldom of Lincoln. The castle was indeed a royal 
 
 further suggest that the writer of the epitaph probably knew that there was a 
 William, Earl of Lincoln, and jumped to the conclusion that his mother "the 
 Countess " also took her title from the name of that county only. Or he may 
 have known that later Countesses of Lincoln were sometimes known as Countesses of 
 Bolingbroke. See Inquisitions p.m. 37 Hen. Ill, No. 18, and Duchy Charters. 
 Hence charter No. 23, abstracted above, may relate to one of these, and not to liucy. 
 
 ^ Duchy of Lane. Records, Div. 25, A. 9. See Annals of Lacock, 74, and Stapleton, 
 ii, clvi. William of Malmesbury speaks of Gernons and his castle of Lincoln, p. 739. 
 
 * Duchy Cowohers, ii, 476, 480, 482. These people were the descendants of 
 Colswain de Lincoln, and the barony of Eye belonged to Robert Malet ; so it 
 might be inferred that they, like Lucy and her son, were descended from Malet, 
 perhaps by the marriage of Colswain with another daughter of William Malet, and 
 that Robert Malet had held the constableship of Lincoln castle ; but there is no pJoof 
 of this, and besides it is clear that the barony of Haia, which belonged to the 
 descendants of Colswain, was totally distinct from the barony of Eye, which belonged 
 to the Malets, though the latter name is often spelt Haia or Heya. From what place 
 named Hay or Haye Robert and Richard derived their names, I have not ascertained; 
 they may have taken it from Eye, and if so, there were two baronies of that name. 
 The name of Eye has also had an unfortunate tendency to become confused with 
 another place whose name at first sight is quite different, namely, Hythe in Kent, 
 because both Eye and Hythe were frequently spelt "Heya," the latter being once 
 even spelt" Eya." Thus it has arisen that both towns lay claim to a charter of King 
 John to the burgesses of " Heya," but no doubt that charter belongs to Hythe, as I 
 pointed out to Mr. Jeaffreson. (See Historical MSS. Reports, x, part iv, p. 515.) 
 
 ^ Duchy Cowchers, ii, 476, 482, and Duchy Royal Charters. In the same way 
 Duke Richard in 1189 granted to Gerard de Camville his wife's heritage, with the 
 constableship of Lincoln Castle, 
 
48 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 castle, having been built by William I. in 1068,^ and had always be- 
 longed to the Crown. In 19 Edw. I, the " wardenship " of the castle 
 belonged to Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln,^ and on his death in 4 Edw 
 II, the " constableship " was returned among his possessions.^ He was a 
 descendant of Lucy and Gernons, and as he married Margaret de 
 Longespee, a descendant of Idonia, daughter and heir of Nichola above 
 mentioned, and wife of William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, he would 
 have a double claim to the offices in question. 
 
 The year 1141 was assigned by Bowles and Nichols^ as the date of 
 Lucy's death, apparently under the impression that Rohese, Gernon's 
 niece, had some claim to the earldom, as a descendant of " the first Lucy," 
 and in that year succeeded " the second Lucy," and conveyed it to Gilbert 
 de Gant by marriage.^ But there is no foundation for this idea. Lucy's 
 eldest son, William de Roumare, would of course be her next heir. 
 Gough however alleges that Lucy was buried at Spalding in 1141, but he 
 gives no authority for the assertion,^ and it cannot well be relied on, as 
 -the rest of his statement is incorrect as the date of Ivo's burial. 
 
 Here it is necessary to pause. It would be very instructive to go on 
 and shew how the new lights we have obtained bear upon the later 
 history of the Countess Lucy's descendants, and of the earldom of 
 Lincoln ; but this may well be left to another occasion. I believe I have 
 succeeded in rejoining the dissevered portions of the history of the 
 Countess, and restored her to her integrity after she had been treated by 
 all modern antiquaries as two personages for more than fifty years. 
 This alone would have been worth the doing, but it will have been 
 seen that many other questions turn upon the question whether there 
 was one Lucy or two. Thus the question as to her being an heiress could 
 not have been settled without ascertaining the identity of the wife of 
 Taillebois with the wife of Meschin ; and the settlement of this question 
 in its turn led to the reinstatement of Thorold, the discovery of her real 
 parentage, and the elucidation of numerous disputed points in the 
 pedigrees of the Earls of Mercia, Chester, and Lincoln, and of the 
 families of Lincoln, Malet, and Roumare. Besides, many doubtful asser- 
 tions and theories have been put to the test. 
 
 From a topographical point of view this inquiry has also been 
 profitable. Something has been done to clear up the early history of 
 large portions of the counties of Lincoln, Cheshire, Westmorland, 
 Cumberland, Norfolk, Suff'olk, and Dorset, and of the baronies or honors 
 of Spalding, Bolingbroke, Chester, Lancaster (in Lincoln),^ Eye, Haye, 
 Carlisle, Kendal, and Appleby. Sundry incidental matters have also 
 been dealt with from new points of view. 
 
 1 Ordericus Vitalis, ii, 185 (ed. 1833). 
 
 2 Duchy Cowchers, ii, 486. 
 
 ^ Inq. p. m. of that year, No. 51. 
 
 * Pp. 65, 74 ; on p. 72 they give the date as 1148, but this must be a misprint. 
 
 * In the Tap. and Oen., i, 17, Nichols writes as follows : " It appears that King 
 Stephen, after the death of the Countess Lucia, granted investiture of the dignity to 
 her two sons by her several husbands, as coparceners." 
 
 * Addit. to Camden, ed. 1789, ii, 238. 
 
 ' As to this, see the Feodary of Lincoln, p. 12. 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. 49 
 
 I therefore hope that this paper will not be considered to be of undue 
 length ; on the contrary, it may be expected that some of the subjects 
 which have here been dealt witli in a cursory manner will bo thought 
 worthy of much more extended dissertations. 
 
 Before concluding, it is worth while to point out one or two lessons 
 which have been learnt in surmounting the difficulties of this inquiry. 
 One is, that numerous charters, royal and other, of very early dates, are 
 recorded in monastic registers, but are not enrolled among the 
 public records, and that the transcripts of them are passably accurate. 
 Many charters of the Norman Kings exist only in such registers, and are 
 not to be found in the Cartai Antiquae, nor in subsequent confirmations 
 on the Charter KoUs and the Patent Kolls. They are frequently of 
 historical interest, or at least are of great value to the general historian, 
 as well as to the local antiquary, and it is much to be desired that a 
 complete collection should be formed of all charters of the first six 
 Kings after the Conquest, whether existing in the rolls of Chancery or 
 in the registers of monasteries. 
 
 It has been ascertained that " Ingulph " and Peter of Blois are not 
 utterly unreliable. They were quite correct as to the three husbands of 
 Lucy, although their statement has been scouted as ridiculous. They 
 seem also to have known that she was an Englishwoman by descent, and 
 a great heiress, but they wrongly jumped to the conclusion that she was 
 the daughter of Earl Algar. They were further probably right as to Ivo 
 and Lucy having had an only daughter. But the charters of Ingulph are 
 evidently mere inventions. 
 
 It would be well to utter a word of caution against accepting the text 
 of documents quoted in Dugdale's Momxsticon without verification. 
 Wherever they have been tested, they have been found to be most 
 inaccurate, and the editors of the second edition seem to have done very 
 little in the way of correction. The error in the printed version of Lucy's 
 second charter consists only of the addition of the letter t to the word 
 tenul, but it was sufficient to mislead all writers on the subject. This 
 however is nothing to the flagrant errors which are to be found on almost 
 every page.^ 
 
 Lastly, the ill fate of the emendation under discussion demonstrates 
 that the time has not yet come for attempting a general revision of the 
 old or compiling a new Baronage of England. If all the evidence had 
 been readily accessible, the emeudators would never have advanced their 
 unfortunate speculations. Until therefore much more is done to facilitate 
 original research, even the most learned emendations of Dugdale will 
 often stand in need of reamendment. 
 
 N.B. — A few misprints in the present paper require coiTection. On p. 65, note 1, for 
 7, read 8 ; p. 68, No. 18, for same monks, read monks of Spalding ; p. 69, note l,/o?* 
 24, read 26 ; p. 70, note \,for 36, read 37 ; p. 70, No. 38, /or the tower {sic) and city, 
 read the tower and the city ; p. 71, No, 41, for 36, read 37 ; p. 74, note 1, add Simeon 
 of Durham; p. 138, last line, /o?* slight, read unsatisfactory; p. 140, line 28, /or is 
 very, read may seem, and see p. 159, note 3; p. 141, line 26, /or cousin, read kinsman, 
 and see p. 66, note 2. 
 
 ^ For a very marvellous specimen of misquotation the reader is refen-ed to a passage 
 touching a later Ivo Taillebois in vol. iii, p. 553, which should be compared with the 
 original entry in Testa de Nevill, p. 393. Among other things, " Kex I." {i.e. Rex 
 Johannes) is converted into " Rex primus (t.e. Willelmus Conqusestor)." 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. 51 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 Since the foregoing pages were printed, some further particulars 
 have come to hand relative to several matters which, though incidental 
 to the main purpose of this paper, are of great importance. 
 
 The Lincoln Family. — Pirst of all, Mr. Thomas Bond has kindly- 
 called my attention to his addenda to the last edition of Hutchins' 
 Borset (i, 609, 718, 719), where it is shown that "the family of 
 De Lincoln succeeded to most of the lands of the wife of Hugh Pitz 
 Grip," whose large possessions in Dorset are described in Domesday 
 (p. 83 b). This is proved by a comparison of that record with the 
 Black Book of the Exchequer and Testa de NeviU. 
 
 But the question at once occurs — when and how did this succession 
 take place ? In reply, reference is made to a charter of King Henry I. 
 in 1106, confirming a gift by Alfredus de Nicola (Lincoln) to the 
 monastery of Tewkesbury^ of "two hides of Purbeck, and one hide, 
 with two tithes." 2 Henry 11. confirmed the same gift in the same 
 words, which are not very precise. There is, however, a confirmation by 
 Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, in 1109, in which the tithes are described 
 as follows: "duas decimas de elemosina Aelfredi de Nichola, vidlt. 
 decimam de Tachetona et de la Harpine."^ Thereupon further 
 reference is made to Domesday (p. 84), to show that Pitz Grip's widow 
 had estates in Herpere and Tacatone ; and to this I may add that she 
 is also returned as holding two carucates in the "Hundred of 
 Porbiche," under William de Braiose (p. 82). 
 
 The important inference has been drawn from the above facts that 
 Alfred de Lincoln, "the favoured Englishman," as Mr. Preeman calls 
 him, married the widow of Hugh Pitz Grip, and thus obtained all her 
 estates, but the evidence refers to only a few of them, and some 
 corroboration is desirable. We know that Alfred possessed estates 
 in Gillingham and Brugia, as I have stated at p. 153, but these 
 did not belong to "the wealthy widow." ^ Moreover, in the new 
 edition of Hutchins, Mr. Bond has given a nimiber of interesting 
 particulars relative to East Holme, where there was a cell to the 
 priory of Montacute ; and he presumes this cell to have been founded 
 by Alfred de Lincoln, because the monks were bound to pray for 
 Alfred's soul. Now East Holme did not belong to the widow 
 Pitz Grip, nor were the monks bound to pray for her, as they would 
 have been if she had joined in the grant. 
 
 In the Black Book (Hearne, p. 88) there is a list of the knights 
 who held fees of Glastonbury Abbey in the time of King Henry 
 I, including "Aluredus Senior de Lincoln," who held five knights' 
 fees. These may have belonged to the widow, for in Domesday she 
 
 ^ The mouks removed from Cranborne in Dorset to Tewkesbury in Gloucester, in 
 1102 ; so it seems probable that Alfred made his gift before that removal, and while 
 they were located at the former place. 
 
 ^ Monasticon, ii, 66 ; Patent Roll, 10 Hemy IV, part 2, m. 16 (not 5, as in Diigdale). 
 
 2 Monasticon, ii, 69, 70 ; MS. Cotton. Cleop. A. vii, f. 74b. 
 
 * She had an estate at Briga or Brigam ; but the King and his Thanes had estates 
 both at Qelingeham and Brige. 
 
52 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 is returned as holding Odiete and part of Adford, in Dorset, of that 
 abbey ; but an Aluredus is also returned as holding part of Adford, 
 in Dorset, and Sapeswich, in Somerset, of the same abbey ; so that 
 it is not safe to assume that Alfred de Lincoln became tenant to the 
 abbey in right of his wife. Thus the only fact which would corroborate 
 the inference above referred to cannot be thoroughly relied on, as 
 there is apparently nothing to show that Alfred held any of her other 
 estates, except those above mentioned. In the reign of Henry II. the 
 fees of Alfred Senior belonged to " Alfredus," who was doubtless the 
 son of Robert de Lincoln, son of Alfred Senior. 
 
 It seems quite certain that Alfred de Lincoln after 1086 acquired 
 estates in Dorset by other means than by the supposed marriage, 
 and why not Tachetona and La Harpine? His eldest son Alan 
 would be entitled at law to succeed to any estates acquired by pur- 
 chase, or by royal grant, but his charter to Montacute priory (see 
 p. 153 ante) shows that it was his son Robert who joined Mm in 
 the gift, and therefore it would seem that Robert had some claim to 
 these estates. 
 
 Consequently it is still an open question whether the Lincoln family 
 acquired the lands of Fitz Grip's widow by the marriage of Alfred 
 with that lady, or by some other means. Mr. Eyton, however, in his 
 " Key to Domesday, Dorset" (p. 78), adopts the former view without 
 any qualification, and without giving any authority, and he boldly 
 calls Alfred "her second husband." Such an assertion ought not to 
 have been made in such an offhand manner. If, after all, it should 
 prove to be true, then Alfred set a precedent to his granddaughter the 
 Countess Lucy by marrying three times, for it has been plausibly 
 shown that he twice married before 1086; and in that case Robert 
 may have been the son of his third wife. 
 
 A forcible reason in support of this view is given by Mr. Bond, who 
 informs me that he is strongly of opinion that Alfred married the 
 widow, because "it is pretty certain that so wealthy an heiress would 
 not have been allowed to end her days without a second husband, and 
 if she had one, who so likely as Alured de Lincoln, whose posterity is 
 foimd in possession of so large a portion, if not the whole, of her 
 barony?" The only alternative is, that she died without issue, where- 
 upon her estates were granted to Alfred. For my own part, I think 
 the balance of probabilities is in favour of the marriage. 
 
 In the same work, Mr. Eji;on calls Alfred " an Anjoviu," but gives 
 no reason for the appellation. We know from his Lincoln MSS. that 
 he was of opinion that Ivo Taillebois, Alfred de Lincoln, and Alan 
 were brothers, and that Ivo came from Anjou, but both these ideas 
 have been shown to be groundless (see pp. 154, 163). 
 
 Still it may be remarked that the name of " Alveredus" was not so 
 imdoubtedly Anglo-Saxon as Mr. Freeman supposes. In the charter 
 of Richard II, Duke of Normandy, to the monastery of Fecamp, about 
 the year 1001, the name of "Alveredus Vicecomes" occurs among the 
 NoiTuan Viscounts who attest it.^ The same name was not uncommon 
 in Nonnandy after the Conquest, and is translated " Auvre" by modern 
 
 ^ Cartulaire de la Basse Noiinandie, by Lechaude D'Anisy, ii, 209. (MS. at the 
 Public Record Office.) 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. 53 
 
 French writers. ^ It is curious that, judging from the Domesday lists, 
 the name of Alfred does not appear to have been so popular in England 
 as mi^t have been expected. It is significant, however, that one of 
 the charters of Henry I. and the charter of the Bishop of Salisbury 
 give the Anglo-Saxon form of the name, ^Ifredus, as above. These 
 spellings by Norman scribes may be regarded as satisfactorily con- 
 firming the view that Alfred was " an Englishman." 
 
 In parting with Alfred de Lincoln, I should like to state my im- 
 pression that he lived from about 1020 to 1105. The charters of 1106 
 and 1109 contain the last dated notices of him, but do not show that 
 he was then living, though the Liber Niger proves that he lived till at 
 least the beginning of the reign of Henry I. ^ 
 
 The Malet Family. — It is worth noting that the French editor 
 (Mons. Le Prevost) of Ordericus Vitahs inclines to the belief that 
 William Malet may have been "established in England previously to 
 the conquest" (ii, 151). His son Robert Malet, like Alfred de lincoln, 
 was a tenant of Glastonbury Abbey in the reign of Henry I. to the 
 extent of ten knights' fees, in which he was succeeded by another 
 William Malet, temp. Hen. II. This William was witness to a charter 
 dated after 1154, and quoted by D'Anisy (ii, 388). 
 
 Ralph Taillehois. — The person to whom William I's writ was directed 
 (see p. 164, note 5), was not the son of Beatrice, but the Ralph who is 
 mentioned in Domesday as the late holder of lands in Herts, Bucks, 
 Cambridge and Bedford, some of which remained in his widow's hands, 
 others in his daughter's. This makes it all the more certain that the 
 Ralph mentioned in Ivo's charter (1088-93 ?) was the son of Beatrice. 
 
 Roger Fitz GeroU. — This baron was a witness to a charter of King 
 William (II ?) to the abbey of Tewkesbury, recited in the Patent Roll 
 of 10 Henry lY. Mr. Eyton, in the work above quoted (p. 76), 
 considers Roger to have been elder brother of Robert Fitz Gerold, 
 and that they were both brothers of Edward de Sarisberie. The first 
 portion at least of this conjecture is clearly incorrect. 
 
 De Haia or De la Jffaye. — The close connexion between this family 
 and the Lincolns is further evidenced by two charters of Henry I. to 
 Tewkesbury in 1100 and 1106,^ which mention grants by Rodbertus 
 de la Haya to that abbey along with those of Alfred de Lincoln ; 
 Robert Malet being a witness to the former charter. Richard de la 
 Haye was witness to a charter of Henry, Duke of Normandy, abstrac- 
 ted by D'Anisy (i, 362), who also refers to several others of this name. 
 It may be suspected that the surname was a Norman one. In the 
 Liber Niger (pp. 80, 81) Aluredus de Lincolnia (junior), in 12 
 Henry II, returns Sanson de Lincolnia and WHlelmus de Haia among 
 his knights. 
 
 ^ See D'Anisy's Extrait des Chartes &c., and the French edition of " Ordericus," 
 Auvre is not the same as Aubrey, the Latin form of which is Albericus. 
 
 * To the list of early members of the Lincoln family given on p. 154, note 4 (line 2), 
 may be added Norman de Lincolia, who held a church in the borough of Derby, • as 
 stated in Domesday, p. 280. It should be further noticed that Aluredus de Lincole 
 held one small estate and claimed another in Rutland (p. 293 b), but not as an under- 
 tenant, though he is included in Ellis's third list. Sanson de Lincolnia is twice 
 mentioned as an undertenant of a later Alfred de Lincoln in Dorset in 12 Henry II 
 (Liber Niger, pp. 80, 81, Hearne.) 
 
 3 Patent RoU, 10 Hen. IV, part 2, m. 16. 
 
54 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 Ranulph Meschin and Colder Abbey. — Relying on the Monasticon 
 (v, 339), I suggested (p. 168) that Ranulph Gernons possessed lands in 
 Cumberland, and gave some of them to Calder Abbey. There was 
 some doubt about the matter, as the charter professes to be made by 
 Ranulph Meschin, though the abbey is alleged to have been founded 
 in 1134, five years after the death of Ranulph Meschin, Earl of 
 Chester ; and the editors of the Monasticon professed to settle this 
 difficulty by supposing the gift to have been made by the Earl's son. 
 But it has at length been more satisfactorily dealt with by the 
 Rev. A. G. Loftie, in his recent History of the Abbey (pp. 44, 45), 
 where it is suggested that the lands in question were really given by 
 " Ranulphus Meschinus filius "Willelmi fiHi Raniilphi," who is men- 
 tioned in charters to St. Bees' Priory. I presume this Ranulph to have 
 been the same person as Ranulph de Bayeux, who was nephew of 
 Ranulph Meschin, Earl of Chester, and married Margaret, daughter 
 of Alan de Lincoln (see pp. 156, 157, 166 ante). There is therefore 
 no reason to suppose that Earl Ranulph the first retained any of his 
 Cumberland property after 1120. 
 
 Castles and jEarldoms. — The following extract from Blomefield's 
 "Norfolk" (ix, 60) wiU help to explain how it was that the Countess 
 Lucy came to build one of the towers of Lincoln Castle. 
 
 " Sir Richard de Wodehouse, son of Sir William, lived in the reign of Edward III, 
 and was Lord of Rydon, and by virtue of this lordship, etc., held of the Castle of 
 Rising, was obliged to maintain a tower of that castle, called Wodehouse's tower, and 
 paid a sum of money yearly for castle-guard.'' 
 
 In like mannner, the Countess would hold all or some of her 
 manors under the olaligation of maintaining one or more of the towers 
 of Lincoln Castle ; and her father Thorold doubtless held by the same 
 tenure. Cols wain may have had to maintain other towers. 
 
 It has been shown negatively that Earls did not take the names of 
 counties as titles immediately after the Conquest. On consideration, 
 I think we are justified in proceeding beyond a mere negation, and in 
 alleging positively that they took their titles from the castles where 
 they resided. Instances have been given, but I was prevented from 
 arriving at a definite conclusion by the fact that Hugh Lupus, in a 
 charter referred to on p. 74, calls himself Earl of Chester. But that 
 is not really an exception to the rule. He did not take his title from 
 from the coimty, but from the castle of Chester. Had he resided at 
 any other place in the county, he would doubtless have been known 
 by the name of that place. 
 
 I trust these additional notes will help to make the original paper 
 more complete.^ 
 
 R. E. G. Kirk. 
 27, Chancery Lane, London, 
 December, 1888. 
 
 ^ A few verbal corrections may be offered. P. 155, 1. 8, a/i!cr Thorold add or Colswain; 
 p. 159, notes, 1. 4, /or Possibly read More likely ; p. 160, 1. 28, after inherited it add 
 from them, though his father possessed it before him ; p. 161, at end of note 1, add 
 but none in HibaJdestow or Gameltorp, which is very important ; p. 163, 1. 10, after 
 right add though he may not have obtained them till after 1086 ; p. 167, 1. 5, for 
 therefore read consequently ; p. 167, 1. 12,/or probably read doubtless ; p, 172, 1. 15, 
 for pedigrees read history. (These references apply to the pages of The Genealogist.) 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. 55 
 
 I have endeavoured to state all the facts relating to the earlj^ 
 members of the Lincoln family, as well as the theories which have 
 been built on them. But one fact has not received the attention it 
 deserves. In the Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I, both an Alfred and a 
 Robert de Lincoln are mentioned as having been pardoned certain 
 sums of money due from them, apparently as landowners in Dorset ; 
 and at the same time Alfred paid a fine for having the manor of 
 Puleham in that county for the term of his life. I merely noted these 
 references to Alfred in my original paper because, influenced by the 
 existing theories, I concluded that he was a later Alfred, the successor 
 of Robert, with whom I was not concerned, and this may have been 
 the case. 
 
 On reconsideration, however, I feel bound to point out that there 
 is an alternative. It may be strongly suspected that the Alfred and 
 Robert thus mentioned in 1130 were identical with the " Alveredus de 
 Lincol' et Robertus filius ejus " who gave Gillingham and Brugia to 
 Montacute priory, as they are mentioned after Robert de la Haye in 
 the charter of Henry II ; and that the description given by Ordericus 
 Vitalis of "Robertus Alveredi de Lincolia filius," in 1138, really 
 applies to these two. Now, as I have shown that the Alfred de 
 Lincoln of Domesday died before the compilation of the Lindsey 
 Survey (1112 — 1119), it would foUow, if this view be correct, that 
 Mr. Preeman is mistaken in identifying Robert as the son of the 
 .Domesday Alfred, and his argument that Alan de Lincoln was 
 necessarily the son, rather than brother, and heir of that Alfred, 
 woiild fall to the ground, were it not supported by the fact that 
 Alan lived till about thirty years after his predecessor in title. (See 
 p. 154.) 
 
 Alan de Lincoln is also mentioned in the roll of 1130, under 
 Lincolnshire, and it was doubtless these notices of an Alfred and an 
 Alan as living at the same time which induced Dugdale erroneously 
 to describe the Domesday Alfred as a contemporary of Alan, and 
 Stapleton to assume that they were brothers. 
 
 This view of the case further leads one to question whether the 
 Alfred who gave lands and tithes in Dorset to the monastery of 
 Cranborne or Tewkesbury, in or before 1106, is not more likely to 
 have been the Dorset Alfred of 1130 than the Lincoln Alfred of 
 1086. It has always appeared strange that a man whose large 
 barony was situate in the north, shoidd have shown so much par- 
 tiality for southern monasteries. 
 
 It may also be that the witness to the Rheims charter between 1102 
 and 1107 was the Dorset Alfred, and therefore the Lincoln Alfred 
 may not have lived to quite so late a period as I supposed. (See 
 p. 156.) 
 
 No doubt the Alfred of 1130 was related in some way to one of the 
 northern families of Lincoln, but it may be assumed that he was not 
 the eldest son of anj'- one of them, and had no lands in Lincolnshire, 
 and that he obtained all or part of his estates in Dorset and Somerset 
 by marriage with an heiress, probably with the widow Pitz Grip. On 
 
56 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 this point Mr. Thomas Bond's researches may be profitably reverted 
 to. 
 
 It will then be asked, was he a son of the Domesday Alfred ? I do 
 not think it is imperative to suppose so. He was an Anglo-Saxon by 
 birth, judging from the manner in which his name is spelt in the 
 Tewkesbury charters, and he was probably named after the great 
 Lincoln Alfred. But, seeing that Eobert de la Haye, a successor of 
 Colswain de Lincoln, made grants to the very same monasteries of 
 Tewkesbury and Montacute, it is more reasonable to conjecture that 
 this Alfred was a relative, perhaps a younger son, of Colswain; though 
 it is remarkable that the Malets held twelve fees (not ten, as above) 
 of Glastonbury Abbey, which fact however may only point t» the 
 intimate relationship between them and both the Lincoln families, 
 and of the latter to each other. The description " Aluredus Senior" 
 (temp. Hen, I) is used in the Black Book to distinguish him from 
 "Alfredus" [son of Robert], who was in possession of the Dorset 
 estates in 8 Henry II (1161-2) according to the Pipe Roll of that 
 year, and in 12 Henry II (1165-6) according to the Black Book. 
 
 It should be remarked that Robert also probably married an 
 heiress, as he was evidently holding lands in Dorset in his father's 
 lifetime ; and this may explain how some estates which had not belonged 
 to the widow Mtz Grip came into the family, though Gillingham 
 seems to have belonged to Alfred. A Robert de Lincoln occurs in the 
 Pipe Roll of 12 Henry II, under Lincolnshire, but the Dorset Robert 
 was dead before that date. 
 
 I venture to submit this new interpretation to the consideration oi 
 genealogists, as it seems to be at least as plausible as previous 
 suggestions, and removes a few difficulties. 
 
 Some surprise may be expressed at the narrow period here assigned 
 to the Lindsey Survey. Attempts have been made to reduce the 
 limit, 1101-1120, between which it is supposed to have been com- 
 piled, but without much success, judging from Mr. J. H. Round's 
 papers in the Genealogist for 1887. Now I have shown that Colswain 
 was succeeded by his son Picot, or Pikot, and that Picot was suc- 
 ceeded by his son or son-in-law Robert de Haia. Further, I have 
 called attention to Picot's interesting charter to Spalding, dated 
 on Sunday, 14th May, 1111, and to the fact that in the Lindsey 
 Survey Robert de Haia is returned as holding the barony of Col- 
 swain. Therefore, as Picot was living in 1111, the Survey could not 
 have been taken till after that year. The other extreme date of 1120 
 is fixed by the fact of Ranulph Meschin being returned as in posses- 
 sion of the estates which he surrendered in that year. Thus, taking 
 no account of the odd months, we may confine the possible period of 
 this compilation to the years between 1112 and 1119, reducing the 
 previously wider limit by about twelve years, which must be im- 
 portant to the proper understanding of many matters therein re- 
 corded, but does not affect the Countess Lucy controversy. 
 
 Picot's charter is also noticeable because it mentions that he then 
 had two grandcliildren. It is consequently reasonable to assume that 
 he was about sixty years of age in 1111, and was born about 1050, so 
 that Colswain would be bom about 1020. On this ground it seems 
 
THE COUNTESS LUCY. 57 
 
 impossiUe that Colswain could have been son of Alfred de Lincoln 
 (the first), as argued by Mr. Freeman, and thus another modern 
 theory goes by the board. If there were any relationship between 
 them, Colswain was more probably the brother than the son of 
 Alfred ; and it should be noticed that Golswain's barony is described 
 before Alfred's in Domesday. But the suggestion that Alfred was 
 twice married, and had part of his family before the Conquest and 
 part afterwards, is still valuable. 
 
 To sum up the Lincoln pedigree : we have been dealing with three 
 distinct families, which may however have been related in the manner 
 above indicated. 
 
 (1) Alfred de Lincoln, living in 1086, was succeeded in his 
 barony by his son Alan de Lincoln, whose daughter Margaret 
 married Eanulph de Bayeux. Thorold the Sheriff was also 
 apparently a son of this Alfred, by a former marriage, for reasons 
 already given, and was succeeded by his daughter the Countess 
 Lucy. 
 
 (2) Colswain de Lincoln, living 1086, was succeeded by his son 
 Picot, who was living in 1111, after which date he was 
 succeeded by Eobert de Haia, whose wife Muriel seems to have 
 been daughter and heiress of Colswain, as stated more fully 
 before, 
 
 (3) Alfred de Lincoln, who probably married the widow Fitz 
 Grip, was living in 1130. He was succeeded by his son 
 Eobert, who was succeeded by another Alfred, living in. 1165-6, 
 and whose widow in 10 Eichard I paid a fine to marry again. 
 
 As to East Holme, about which some remarks have been made, it 
 appears from an inquisition taken in 9 Edward I (No. 47), to which 
 Mr. Bond has referred me, that the manor of *' Holne " was pai-t of the 
 lands in Purbeck of the Prior of Montacute ; and as I have shown 
 that the widow Fitz Grip had two carucates in Purbeck, this manor 
 may have belonged to her, though the monks were bound to chant 
 throughout the year " for the souls of Aluered de Lyncoln and of his 
 progenitors and ancestors." 
 
 Since the abstracts of the Lucy Charters were printed, three more 
 charters referring to the Countess have been published by the Eev. 
 Joseph Stevenson in the eleventh Eeport of the Historical MSS. 
 Commission, part 7, p. 59 (on the MSS. of the Marchioness of Water- 
 ford, at Ford Castle, Northumberland). Two of them are charters 
 by Henry II to the nuns of Stikeswald in Lincolnshire, and they 
 refer to a gift of land in Hundinton, made by " the Countess Lucy" and 
 Earl Eanulph [her son?]. The third is a charter by Hamo de 
 Hundingtone, son of Ton, granting a bovate of land there which 
 his father bought of Lucy the Countess, and seven selions of land 
 which Lucy the Countess held of his father in Womabe. There is 
 also a charter by " William the Earl de Eoumare," Lucy's eldest son, 
 relating to the same land of Hundinton. 
 
 Tanner states that the Countess Lucy founded a nunnery at Stix- 
 would in the reign of King Stephen, and he refers to the charter of 
 foundation, but his reference is incorrect. There is, however, an 
 inspeximus by Henry IV of a charter of Henry, Duke of Normandy, 
 
58 THE COUNTESS LUCY. 
 
 who confirmed the gift which " Lucy the Countess," Eanulph, Earl 
 of Chester, and " Willehnus Comes Eosmar'" had made to the nuns 
 of Stikeswald, " as their charters testify ;" the names of the witnesses 
 showing that the Duke's charter was granted between 1143 and 1154. 
 A register of this abbey was formerly in the possession of the 
 Coventry family. 
 
 E. E. G. K. 
 
 May, 1889. 
 
I ,^i,"'<'*. 
 
 
U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 IIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMI