Individual

Go to List of Family Names Go to List of People    < Previous Next >

Birth:          BEF 1061 Baisy, Lorraine, France
Death:          18 Jul 1100 Jerusalem (on crusade)

Notes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustace_II,_Count_of_Boulogne
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_de_Luci
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=jweber&id=I06092
Godfrey (or Geoffrey), Count of Boulogne, Duke of Lower Lorraine, probably born 
earlier than the 1061 usually given, at Baisy (?), Brabant, d. Jerusalem 18 July 1100; 
Domesday tenant 1086 at Carshalton, Surrey; a leader of the First Crusade, elected 
King of Jerusalem, but took the title of Advocate of the Holy Sepulcher (as Godfrey I); 
succeeded by his next younger brother Baldwin, Count of Edessa, who became 
Baldwin I King of Jerusalem, d. 2 Apr 1118, surviving issue, if any, unknown; m. 
Beatrice de Mandeville, daughter of Geoffrey de Mandeville and aunt of the first Earl 
of Essex. (Wagner considers Godfrey, father of William (No. 24), "probably 
illegitimate" and not identical with the Advocate of the Holy Sepulcher. [Ancestral 
Roots]

Note: Leo van de Pas, in a posting to SGM, 14 Nov 1998, states that Godefroy de 
Boulogne, Lord of Carshalton & husband of Beatrix de Mandeville, according to ES 
III/4, page 621, is an illegitimate son of Estache II de Boulogne. ES is probably 
following the reasoning of "Wagner" mentioned above by AR. Godfrey de Bouillon [the 
legitimate son who was Advocate of the Holy Sepulcher], died in Jersaluem and was 
never married, which is why his brother Baldwin succeeded him in Jerusalem. Then 
Kay Allen, AG, responded to Leo by copying the extensive note printed in Ancestral 
Roots following the above entry, stating that AR had considered Leo/Wagner's 
argument and refuted it. Following is the lengthy note in Ancestral Roots, attached to 
line 158a-23, which Kay Allen had nicely transcribed, which I have extended (Kay had 
not copied the whole note) and edited:

Note [copied from Ancestral Roots]: Although the Lotharingian name, Godofred, borne 
by the famous leader of the First Crusade, has been transcribed into English as 
'Godfrey', this is etymologically incorrect. The name is, instead, the equivalent of the 
name which normally appears in contemporary French or Anglo-Norman documents in 
such forms as "Goisfrid' and "Gauzfrid', the prototypes of modern "Geoffrey'. ...J. 
Horace Round (1895, p.256 [no citation given]), citing Domesday references to 
property held by Goisfrid, son of Count Eustace in right of his wife, daughter of 
Geoffrey de Mandeville, says that 'Dr. Liebermann asks whether Geoffrey's daughter 
was not thus 'the first wife, else unknown, of the future King of jerusalem'.' The 
reference is presumably to the linguistically sophisticated Anglo-Saxonist, Felix 
Liebermann, who would have made the equation. However, in an article published a 
year later, on Faramus, grandson of "Goisfrid', Round makes no mention of this 
identification. He had come to recognize that "Goisfrid' was the equivalent of later 
Geoffrey and had been informed by his friend, M.V.J. Vaillant, of Boulogne 'that the 
sons of Eustace are known and that Geoffrey is not among them'. What M. Vaillant 
should have written was that there was no Godfrey among them. However, Round 
accepted the testimony of his linguistically naive friend against that of Liebermann and 
therefore invented a non-existent bastard son, Geoffrey, of Eustace of Boulogne. The 
truth was later recognized by Joseph Armitage Robinson in his study of the Crispins, 
and by H.W.C. Davis (1913) who drew attention to the fact that ''Godfrey' of 
Jerusalem married Beatrice, daughter of Geoffrey de mandeville and aunt of the first 
Earl of Essex.

While the holdings of Geoffrey de Mandeville were not nearly as great as those of 
Eustace of Boulogne, he was a very substantial landholder in 11 counties and his 
daughter a suitable match for "Godfrey" who had already inherited a great deal from 
his maternal uncle. That De Mandeville would have alienated property in order to give 
his daughter in marriage to a bastard son of Count Eustace, lacking any substantial 
prospects, is highly unlikely.

More recently, Johnson and Cronne, good historians but poor linguists, have used 
Round's article to 'correct' Davis. The true identity of Geoffrey/Godfrey was 
recognized again by Miss Catherine Morton, who has been in touch with DHK [David 
H. Kelley] and with Sir Anthony Wagner on this matter. Wagner (1975, p. 253, with an 
unfortunate misprint) mentions the 'confusion' between 'Godfrey'and 'Geoffrey'. It was 
there assumed that the confusion was ancient and that Eustace's son Godofred, was 
genuinely a Godfrey. It should be emphasized that actually the confusion is entirely 
modern due to the use of 'Godfrey' to transcribe a name which is etymologically 
'Geoffrey' (the Germans use 'Gottfried' both for the leader of the first crusade and for 
Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou--one may regard this either as desirable 
consistency or doubled error).

Wagner cites the views of Stephen Runciman, a historian of the crusades, pointing 
out that crusader sources make no suggestion of a wife for "Godfrey' and emphasizing 
his chastity. However, a wife and child left in England would not necessarily have 
been known to such sources, nor was there anything notable in a Crusader leaving a 
wife behind, though certainly noteworthy if he brought a wife with him. Runciman's 
further suggestion that 'Godfrey' might have made some sort of 'morganatic alliance 
must be rejected. The concept is completely foreign to the period, save, perhaps, 
among the Welsh and would, in any case, hardly apply to a marriage of 
'Godfrey/Geoffrey' with Beatrice de Mandeville, of a family whose status was fully 
comparable to his own. It is extremely unlikely that 'maritagium', the term used for 
Goisfrid's marriage, would be applied to a union which was in any way irregular. 
Runciman is looking back from the days of 'Godfrey's' greatness, rather than 
realistically appraising the situation at the time of his marriage.

The child left by "Godfrey" in England was William de Boulogne, bearer of one of the 
oldest English surnames, for William was neither Count of Boulogne nor from 
Boulogne. He should appear with some frequency in the English records, for his son, 
Faramus, held extensive estates in widely separated parts of England (Somerset, 
Surrey, Essex, Oxford, Buckinghamshire, Suffolk, probably Kent and Northumberland). 
William appears as a witness to a document of 1106 and in a couple of later 
documents. Perhaps he is a still-unrecognized William Fitz-Geoffrey of other 
documents.
..." David Humiston Kelley was the author of this line.

Parents
____ Eustace (Eustache) II "aux Gernons" (ABT 1018 - ABT 1080)
----- ----- ()

Siblings
FITZ EUSTACE Geoffrey (BEF 1061 - 18 Jul 1100)

Marriage To DE MANDEVILLE Beatrice (ABT 1061 - )
    m.  

Notes

Parents
DE MANDEVILLE Geoffrey (ABT 1036 - AFT 1086)
DE BALTS Adeliza (ABT 1037 - )

Children by DE MANDEVILLE Beatrice ABT 1061 - 
DE BOULOGNE William (BEF 1085 - )

Produced by Fzip 1.7 6/20/2017