On Friday, December 20, 2013 at 6:42:28 PM UTC, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Kim ~
>
> 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 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 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 including Keats-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 cite that 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 Robert de 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 at the following weblink:
>
> http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=43049&strquery=Carshalton
>
> 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 served as witnesses for their overlords in this time period. But such associations don't prove familial ties or intermarriage between the families.
>
> 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, and provide 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

The phrase "concessores et testes" is unusual, and it suggests that the first named witnesses, those before the monks, are family with a role as consenting and holding hereditary rights in the property they concede through the Charter, rather than merely witnessing. This would indicate a close family relationship in the wording of the charter of Faramus, " Hujus concessions meae fuerunt concessores et testes fratres mei, Eustacius, et Simon, Hugo de Bosevilla, et uxor ejus, et filii ipsius Willielmi et Robertus de Bosevilla, Baldvinus Richetala." As a confirmation of an ancestor’s charter, the only people likely to concede to it are family members with rights vested in the land concerned. The Boseville family’s attestation en masse, speaks volumes about their hereditary right, as they held land in the Mandeville maritagium - a maritagium was customarily reserved for the provision of younger sons and for the marriages of daughters. The fact that the wife of Hugh de Boseville is mentioned, though unfortunately not named, shows that it was in her right that Hugh held the land, and his sons held by hereditary right.
The inclusion of Hugh, his wife and children in the witness list does in my view suggest a family connection. Otherwise why mention the wife and children at all? Normally a husband would represent his wife and children, who would therefore not be named. Their interest in his family property would only mature when he died. A wife would be named if she had an important personal interest in the property which is the subject-matter of a charter. Seeing a wife named with her husband is a bit of a red flag. Hugh's wife being the sister of Faramus is the most likely connection if we assume that "Balduinus Richetala", last person named in the list, was the same person as Faramus's half-brother Baudouin (although that is not proven). The order of names in a list like that, if they are all family members, would normally indicate some sort of relative seniority between them.
Faramus and his brothers may not have any children at this date? Therefore Hugh de Boseville, his wife and two sons have a role to play in consenting to Faramus's confirmation in continuance of his grandfather's and father's gift to the abbey. "Consent" (verb concedo) is something done by one's potential successors in property (wife, son, other) or by one's lord (who has an interest in who will succeed in property). (If can become part of a formula. dedisse et concessisse, but that is a different story.) "Confirmation" also has ambiguities. A lord's confirmation of a tenant's gift is, in effect, a consent. A donor's successor may confirm a gift (as here) in way that amounts to no more than continuing the gift (not that there was necessarily any potential for revocation, so such confirmation was a requirement, but it allows the successor to share in the spiritual benefits of his ancestor's gift to the church).