On Sunday, November 17, 2013 at 8:13:07 PM UTC-5, Kim Anderson wrote:link between a daughter of William de Boulogne and the Jocelin family, a link Ms. Bevan herself recognized at the time she made the entry. The unnamed daughter of William de Boulogne married Hugh de Boseville and they had two sons, William and Robert,
Here is information not previously introduced in this forum concerning the Jocelin family. After finding an entry on the Corrections to K S B Keats- Rohan Domesday Series mg.ac/Projects/Domesday/ made by Rosie Bevan some years ago, I discovered a
Eustace ll of Boulogne
Geoffrey de Boulogne= Beatrice de Mandeville
William de Boulogne
Daughter of William de Boulogne= Hugh de Boseville
William de Beseville
Beatrice de Beseville= Ralph Jocelin
John Jocelin
Edith Wessler thought there was a Jocelin descent from Charlemagne although the links in her lineage don't lead to it. There is a connection to Charlemagne in this new lineage through the mother of Eustace ll, Matilda of Leuven.
Dear Kim ~between a daughter of William de Boulogne and the Jocelin family, a link Ms. Bevan herself recognized at the time she made the entry. The unnamed daughter of William de Boulogne married Hugh de Boseville ..." END OF QUOTE.
You told us the following:
"Here is information not previously introduced in this forum concerning the Jocelin family. After finding an entry on the Corrections to K S B Keats- Rohan Domesday Series mg.ac/Projects/Domesday/ made by Rosie Bevan some years ago, I discovered a link
You specifically said you "linked" the Boseville/Beseville family to the Boulogne family on the basis of the charter published by Dugdale. But the charter you cite does not support such a link. Nor has any reputable historian or genealogist includingKeats-Rohan ever made such a claim.
Now you're alleging that you have "other" evidence? For instance, you mention a Bracton case. Does the Bracton case also make this link? Really? Since the Bracton case almost certainly involves the Josselin family, I don't understand how you can citethat as evidence to prove a connection between the Beseville/Boseville family and the Boulogne family.
You've alleged that there is a close association of the Boulogne and Boseville family in contemporary records. VCH Surrey 4 (1912): 178-188 shows that the Boulogne family were overlords at Carshalton, Surrey. It further indicates that a certain Robertde Beseville who held a mill at Carshalton, Surrey in the reign of King John. In the reign of the next king, King Henry III, William de Beseville was granted a capital messuage at Carshalton, Surrey by William de Coleville. This information is available
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=43049&strquery=Carshaltonserved as witnesses for their overlords in this time period. But such associations don't prove familial ties or intermarriage between the families.
From this information, we know that at least from the reign of King John, the Beseville/Boseville family was a near neighbour, if not more likely an undertenant, of the Boulogne family at Carshalton, Surrey. Near neighbors and under tenants frequently
A descent of the Joselin family from the Boseville family is clear enough. But if you wish to maintain your claim to an earlier descent of the Boseville family from the Boulogne family, you need to set forth solid evidence, cite your sources, andprovide weblinks if you have them. An association between these families at Carshalton, Surrey can be readily explained without presuming a familial tie.
At present, I think you may have an interesting theory but no evidence to support it. The floor is your's, Kim. Be sure to cite your evidence. If you only have an opinion, it remains your theory.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 52:58:07 |
Calls: | 6,650 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,200 |
Messages: | 5,330,484 |