Any corroboration John Rush could be a descendant of King Louis IX "St. Louis"?

Question

Any corroboration to this premise that Captain John Rush could have referred to his ancestor as King St. Louis IX?

On 15 Jan 2024 Stephen L. Rush wrote on Rush-76:

In an attempt to ascertain John Rush's lineage, clues provide the following workable theory and perhaps may assist this work to fill the timeline gap from both directions to see if there's a corresponding tree:   Captain John Rush in his recollection described an ancestor of French origin who returned from the crusades with English crusaders.  When the English king asked the French man his name, he finally replied "Siour de la Roix."  He was given a plot of land for his heroism. <ref>Sylvester R. Rush, HISTORICAL and GENEALOGICAL ACCOUNT of the RUSH FAMILY, (Omaha: Festner Printing, 1925), sec. John Levi Rush, p.20.</ref> Now, "Siour de la Roix" is not a name, but a title given to nobles and royals that suggests an appointed or token position of the French court.  In Captain John Rush's account, it appears "Siour de la Roix" was uttered after a longer phrase, perhaps the shortened form of "Seigneur de la Roix de Paix" and was remarked how he "fought bravely" suggesting he almost died. <ref>[[Rush-1|Rush, Stephen L.]]. Personal recollection of John "Old Trooper" Rush's letters, 29 Oct 2023.</ref>  Certainly, "Roix de Paix" may have sounded as "Rue aiche" to the kings ears, who rechristened his name as the anglicized "Rush" <ref>[[Rush-2|Rush, Stephen L.]]. Personal theorem, 15 Jan 2024.</ref>. "Siour de la Roix" does not align historically with names of knights and nobles of the time of the crusades, save one - Louis IX, who is said to have died on a crusade in 1270. <ref>J. Brinker, "HISTORY OF ST. LOUIS IX REVEALS LOVE FOR POOR, JUSTICE," St. Louis Review, vol. 79, ed. Aug 24-30, 2020.</ref>  This invites the speculation of who it was the English brought back from the crusade "barely alive" and how come King Henry III may have issued him land in the fall of 1270 upon assuming how he so nearly fought to the death.  Being likely stripped of rank and coin on his dubious death bed following a bout with cholera, Saint Louis must not have had the means or strength to return and so accepted the offer of the English to stay while he recovered.  This is plausible, as medical science was not sophisticated. Comas were unknown until the 1600's [citation needed].  Perhaps he recovered en route given the English were compelled to leave no one behind.  It could rewrite French and English history to know King Louis IX survived and fathered an American family with English roots. <ref>[[Rush-3|Rush, Stephen L.]]. Personal theorem, 15 Jan 2024.</ref>

Let me clarify since it appears my treatment of history has been misread.  Captain "Old Trooper" John Rush, who is the John Rush of this profile according to the source I referenced, in his letter stated his ancestor was French and returned from the crusades and said his name was "Siour de Roix".  I am not rewriting history or grandstanding its importance - I am merely rediscovering what John Rush already did.  So, what I am looking for is corroboration to the implied fact (first), and then lineage.

Answer 1

Short answer: no.

Instead of trying to rewrite French and English history, you need to work back one generation at a time, using contemporary records. The first step would be to find good evidence of who John Rush's parents were.
 

There is a will of Thomas Russhe of Boreham, Essex, gentleman, 1636 (no middle name, not a knight)
https://www.essexarchivesonline.co.uk/result_details.aspx?ThisRecordsOffSet=3&id=909787
I can't read this without a subscription to get the clear text.
 

There is also a Thomas Russhe who was knighted in 1533.
https://archive.org/details/ShawWATheKnightsOfEnglandVol219061/page/n57/mode/2up?view=theater

This must be the Russhe, Thomas, of Ipswich, knight, who is found in Common Pleas in 1536

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/Indices/CP40Indices/CP40no1088/CP40no1088Cty.htm

But there is no evidence to connect them with someone who was born in Hornton, Oxon, 100 miles away.
 

Comments

Here is a descent from Sir Thomas Rush, from the Visitation of Essex. Thomas Rushe, of Sudborne, buried in Ipswich. He is the knight I mentioned earlier. Thomas' sons were Arthur, Thomas, and Anthony. Thomas, of Boreham, Essex, had Thomas Rushe, also of Boreham. The younger Thomas had two sons (Thomas and John) and four daughters.
https://archive.org/details/visitationsofess1314metc/page/480/mode/2up?view=theater

John might theoretically be the John Rush of this profile, except this one is now shown as being born in Oxfordshire. There were lots of people named Rush, and most of them were called Thomas or John.

Thomas Rush, before he was knighted, is found a few times in Common Pleas:
1516 Russhe, Thomas, of Ipswich, gent
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/Indices/CP40Indices/CP40no1013/CP40no1013Pl.htm

1529 Russhe, Thomas, of Ipswich, gent, sergeant at arms; Christian his wife, former wife of Baldry, Thomas, of Ipswich, merchant

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/Indices/CP40Indices/CP40no1060Def.htm
 

---

Let me clarify since it appears my treatment of history has been misread.  Captain "Old Trooper" John Rush, who is the John Rush of this profile according to the source referenced, in his letter stated his ancestor was French and returned from the crusades and said his name was "Siour de Roix".  I am not rewriting history - John Rush already did, and I am merely rediscovering it.  So, what I am looking for is corroboration first, and lineage second.

---

It is impossible to corroborate that John Rush is a descendant of Louis without first confirming the lineage step by step. It's 400 years between the two, about 15 generations.

Answer 2

Not sure if this will help. Have just searched WT connection finder.

According to WT King Louis St Louis is John Rush's 3rd cousin 14 times removed, both descendants of Guillaume (Aquitaine) de Aquitaine.

Guillaume is his 16th G/Grandfather.

It is through his father, Thomas Rush born 1593-1634, however, WT has his father as 'uncertain'!

Perhaps check other genealogy websites to ascertain his father.

I've also checked our connection to King Louis and according to WT he is my 24th G/Grandfather. It's interesting because WT Connection Finder is through our ancestors of the Hamilton family of Scotland, and the Relationship Finder is through our ancestors of the Cope family of England.

John Rush is also my 10th cousin 9 times removed, both descendants of John (Brewes) de Brewes.

Just checked Geni.com - they have John Rush as my 13th cousin 8 times removed. Through my ancestors - my 12th G/Grandmother, Elizabeth Mohun Carleton which is connected to the Cope Family of England. They have his father as Thomas Russ lll born 1571 in Cranford Suffolk, England...his father Thomas Russ ll born 1538 Suffolk, England, died 1574 Essex, England. His father was Sir Thomas Russ l born 1490 Suffolk and died 1565 Suffolk England.

Answer 3

Sorry Stephen but I can find no evidence that the recollections of John Rush nor your personal theorems have any basis in fact.

For instance, (St) Louis IX, King of France and Henry III, King of England were brothers-in-law and spent time in each others company and it seems impossible that Henry would not have recognised Louis, even if he had given a false name.  This is apart from the fact that Louis' death in 1270 (likely from bacterial dysentery not cholera) is attested by chronicles of the period.  Even if he was not dead, but in a coma, his body was placed in a casket and then transported to France for burial, a journey of many months, which means he would have definitely died by the end of the journey.

The other issue is that I'm not sure where the recollections of John Rush originate.  The historical and genealogical account of the Rush family by Sylvester R. Rush, published in 1925 has no mention of  the 'Siour de la Roix' on page 20, nor on p. 16 where John Rush, the immigrant is first mentioned, nor in the Introduction starting on p. 5.  I can't see the name Roix in the index or by searching either.

Unless there is actually verifiable information about the ancestry of the Rush family via a French crusader, it would appear to me to be just a family legend.

Comments

I appreciate your thoroughness, John.  

I recognize if there was not a mix-up of some sort where Louis IX somehow was alive, burial practice and transport at that time would have been lethal.  So, if the historical record is true, there's no way Louis could have ended up in England.  But for argument's sake, Louis may not have been recognizable after a brush with death.  And, there is record of the English transporting the rest of Louis' soldiery after his recorded death.  

Regarding the source of "Siour de Roix", I personally saw the script of nearly the entire note Captain John Rush wrote when looking up another search some time ago (2+ years).  I didn't realize it's importance.  When I couldn't find it to post this (not remembering my original key word terms used), I simply used the reference you see thinking it was the same.  I am desperately retracing my steps.

But, you may be right that until there is more to go on, it is difficult to ascertain what is fact.  To that end, I am pursuing research on aspects of the story that are verifiable.

Answer 4

I agree with everything Vance and John Atkinson say. I applaud the good practical approach of Vance and recommend that it would be a great way to get into medieval genealogy. Many of us started with some sort of family story.

I am not sure if this helps by I wanted to add that as you say yourself, the Siour de la Roix is not a name. However, depending on the period it also doesn't necessarily need to be important title. I wanted to point out that Captain John Rush's story sounds like it was deliberately vague. It is more or less apparently just saying that he thinks they descended from some Norman knight from a place that sounded like Rush. All too often families embellish such stories and set their descendants on wild goose chases.

Coming back to Vance's proposal. It could well be that Rush comes from a French place name. (I think this monosyllabic name can have several origins.) It might be possible to find out the real origins, but it will require study of the documentary evidence.

Comments

I created a profile for the earliest Thomas Rush, of Ipswich, knight. He was a Member of Parliament. Birth by about 1487. His origins are obscure "but there is reason to believe that he came of a Lincolnshire family".

https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/rush-thomas-1487-1537
 

---

Andrew, I also got the impression there was an intent to be carefully vague in part.  However, it is also deliberate to mention particular key facts.  Because the description refers to a French man, presumed to be a knight that returned from the crusades, the period is fairly well documented.  This supplies crucial clues to Who, Where, When.  Translating the phrase to "Lord of the King", it is unlikely to have been a town, but in fact is a title rarely used, and thus traceable.

---

I am sure there will be lots of people who were called "of the king" for various reasons. Notice how common the surname King is in English. I don't think such "titles" imply very high positions. But once you find people described that way how will you decide whether any of them connect to later Rush families?

From a language point of view I don't think medieval words for king would normally evolve into pronounciations like English "Rush". I don't think there was any "sh" sound in words for king. There are many placenames which match though, for example any which are called "the rock".

---

The French Roi usually became Roy in English, as in for example Fitzroy.

---

Yes but were there any dialects throughout the crusading period which really had a sibilant at the end? (I think it is one of those classicizing "gothic" spellings?) trying to imagine what this captain was thinking, he presumably believed that medieval French "x" could have been used to spell a "sh" sound. (Perhaps he was familiar with Portuguese spelling.) We don't know if he was thinking of a word for "king" though.

---

I suppose most families have these myths. For the Mead family, someone found early records where someone whose name was atte Mede was translated into Latin as ad Pratem or de Prato. And they decided that de Prato was their actual surname, equivalent to de Pre or du Pre, and that they came over with William the Conqueror.

On my mother's side, there's a family, Pontifex, from around High Wycombe. So someone decided they were descended from Pope Martin V.

---

Andrew, I appreciate your enthusiasm.  But I have to say, there is a scholarly treatment of the phrase "Siour de la Roix".  Only administrators of the crown were called "Lord of the King", typically assigned to nobles and royals for their service.  Your inclination to focus on "of the king" clouds the application of it as a title.  

As far as "sh" ending, that is a proposition as part of my theory, as it is natural the king would be surrounded by people - whether greeting the returning knights on the beach or in the court of the king - and that means a propensity for noise, for which a common sound would be to "shh" someone or "s" sound at the end of a hushed word.  Ill timed, a "shh" at the exact timing for the end of the phrase in question, or if the king were hard of hearing being advanced in age, may be what the king heard.

I have thought this through long and hard before presenting my question.

---

"there is a scholarly treatment of the phrase "Siour de la Roix"."

• Can you tell me what scholarly publications I can check to see this?

 if the king were hard of hearing

• This really isn't sounding like a very convincing scenario :) I want to emphasize that I am still primarily suggesting that Vance's first advice is the correct approach here. I have been there, trying to think hard and hoping it will bring answers. Thinking hard will bring us all too many possible scenarios, but it won't help you whittle them down. You'll need to start looking at the documentary evidence back to the middle ages.

---

I have been working on the profile of Sir Thomas Russhe, of Ipswich, about 1475-1537. He was the father of Thomas, the father of Thomas of Boreham, Essex. This last Thomas was the father of a John Rush, but his connection to Oxon is the weakest link, IMO.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Russhe-5

---

Andrew, I appreciate your stance.  And I support Vance's advice for most instances, certainly.  However, I have a working theory that I am pursuing through documentary evidence but am whittling down possible paths so I can target my research.  I believe it to be the correct course with the documentation available to me.  (My treatment and approach of the contents of John Rush's letter is further defined in Michel's comment below.)  Thanks.

---

Thank you, Vance.  I'll look into it.

Answer 5

If the text is authentic, I'm not sure it refers to the actual king as king in French is always preceded by 'le' not 'la' as the latter would only be used if the monarch was a woman who styled herself as king.  The English nobility were French in the 13th century so can't really see that mistake being made.

Is it possible it wasn't 'Sieur de la Croix?

Also I second the opinion you work your way back 1 generation at a time, connecting each link with verifiable sources along the way.  It's kinda fun and you might find some surprises.

Comments

We're not looking at how the French or nobility would construe the name, as this was an account 350 years (13 generations) after the fact and not by the royal court.  In looking at city and court Calendar and Charter Rolls from that century regarding "Roberto de lo Hode' (de Linton)", aka "Robin Hood", there was no continuity with regard to naming conventions, (ie, "da", "de la", "de le"; "Hud", "Hod", "Hod'e"; etc.).  It is not expected that grammar at that time would be specific or accurate.

While although "la" may be in question as you suggest, Captain John Rush was deliberate in his capitalization of "Roix".  And, the name change was from "Roix" to "Rush" as witnessed by countless generations of Rushes, not as in "Croix" to "Cross".  It is doubtful "Roix" was ever in error.