N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Kevin Bradford
N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Fellow Genealogists,
The following correction to Douglas Richardson's _Magna Charta ancestry_ [Boston: GPC, 2004], p. 685, updates the identification of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway's 1st wife, and as a consequence will undoubtedly change many people's GEDCOMs. In the aforementioned work, Mr. Richardson says the following about Alan Fitz Roland's 1st wife:
"_____, daughter of John Fitz Richard, of Pontefract, Yorkshire, hereditary Constable of Chester"
This statement, when corrected in the text, should read:
"_____, daughter of Richard de Crevequor."
In his post to SGM under date of 13 Sep. 2002, Mr. Richardson gives as the source for his statement the _Curia Regis Rolls_, 7 (1935): 85-86 ("suit by Alan of Galloway re: Kippax, co. York which he had in marriage with the aunt of John [de Lacy] [brackets are Mr. Richardson's], constable of Chester)."
I have a copy of this document in my possession, dated 1214 CE, which reads as follows:
Cumb’.—Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton’ Adam de Hocton’, tres milites de comitatu Cumberland’ missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene de Morevill’ et Alani de Galweia filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden’ in comitatu Roteland’ et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr’ de warantia carte de terra de Kippes in comitatu Ebor’, dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de Torinton’ vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de Londor’ de placito ecclesie de Wissenden’ in comitatu Roteland’. Dicunt etiam quod Alanus de Galweye posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor versus Johannem de Cestr’ de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in comitatu Ebor’. Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die. Et quoniam Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit, qui!
debuit testificasse simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum, consideratum est quod atachietur quod sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas. Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.
The above document shows Richard de Crevequor acting together in a suit with his son-in-law, John of Chester [not to be confused with the constable, as see below]
As proof of the relationship of Alan Fitz Roland de Galloway [Galweye] to his father-in-law, Richard de Crevequor, there is a maritagium suit in the same source [_Curia Regis Rolls_], further down on p. 86, under date of 1214 CE, which reads:
Ebor’.—Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr’ de placito quod idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc., et summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.
The above document reads:
Yorks.--Through the agency of the aforesaid Hamon the Clerk and Richard of Crevequor, Alan of Galweye [Galloway] acted on the fourth day against John of Chester concerning the plea that the same John guarantees the documents of Richard his father which Alan of Galway has concerning the marriage of his sister: he himself did not appear or give an excuse for his non-appearance, and a summons (was issued). For that reason an attachment was made with a fixed expiry.
In the above suit, the actual relationships between these parties are spelled out in clear detail. Alan Fitz Richard de Galloway's wife was a sister of one John of Chester, whose father was Richard de Crevequor. Attempting to match John [de Lacy], constable of Chester, with the John of the maritagium, turns out to be a chronological non sequitur: John de Lacy, hereditary Constable of Chester, died in 1190; his father, Richard Fitz Eustace, died in 1163. The suits in question date from the 1st part of the 13th c.
Elsewhere in SGM [13 Sept. 2002], Mr. Richardson claims that Alan of Galloway "was actually known in his lifetime as Alan Fitz Roland." This is only partially correct. The two suits I have quoted here show that he was also referred to as "Alan of Galloway."
In light of these suits, the statement in the Scots Peerage that Alan's 1st wife was "said to be a daughter of Reginald, Lord of the Isles" [SP 4:141], can be effectively disregarded.
All the best,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
The following correction to Douglas Richardson's _Magna Charta ancestry_ [Boston: GPC, 2004], p. 685, updates the identification of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway's 1st wife, and as a consequence will undoubtedly change many people's GEDCOMs. In the aforementioned work, Mr. Richardson says the following about Alan Fitz Roland's 1st wife:
"_____, daughter of John Fitz Richard, of Pontefract, Yorkshire, hereditary Constable of Chester"
This statement, when corrected in the text, should read:
"_____, daughter of Richard de Crevequor."
In his post to SGM under date of 13 Sep. 2002, Mr. Richardson gives as the source for his statement the _Curia Regis Rolls_, 7 (1935): 85-86 ("suit by Alan of Galloway re: Kippax, co. York which he had in marriage with the aunt of John [de Lacy] [brackets are Mr. Richardson's], constable of Chester)."
I have a copy of this document in my possession, dated 1214 CE, which reads as follows:
Cumb’.—Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton’ Adam de Hocton’, tres milites de comitatu Cumberland’ missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene de Morevill’ et Alani de Galweia filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden’ in comitatu Roteland’ et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr’ de warantia carte de terra de Kippes in comitatu Ebor’, dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de Torinton’ vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de Londor’ de placito ecclesie de Wissenden’ in comitatu Roteland’. Dicunt etiam quod Alanus de Galweye posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor versus Johannem de Cestr’ de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in comitatu Ebor’. Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die. Et quoniam Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit, qui!
debuit testificasse simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum, consideratum est quod atachietur quod sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas. Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.
The above document shows Richard de Crevequor acting together in a suit with his son-in-law, John of Chester [not to be confused with the constable, as see below]
As proof of the relationship of Alan Fitz Roland de Galloway [Galweye] to his father-in-law, Richard de Crevequor, there is a maritagium suit in the same source [_Curia Regis Rolls_], further down on p. 86, under date of 1214 CE, which reads:
Ebor’.—Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr’ de placito quod idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc., et summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.
The above document reads:
Yorks.--Through the agency of the aforesaid Hamon the Clerk and Richard of Crevequor, Alan of Galweye [Galloway] acted on the fourth day against John of Chester concerning the plea that the same John guarantees the documents of Richard his father which Alan of Galway has concerning the marriage of his sister: he himself did not appear or give an excuse for his non-appearance, and a summons (was issued). For that reason an attachment was made with a fixed expiry.
In the above suit, the actual relationships between these parties are spelled out in clear detail. Alan Fitz Richard de Galloway's wife was a sister of one John of Chester, whose father was Richard de Crevequor. Attempting to match John [de Lacy], constable of Chester, with the John of the maritagium, turns out to be a chronological non sequitur: John de Lacy, hereditary Constable of Chester, died in 1190; his father, Richard Fitz Eustace, died in 1163. The suits in question date from the 1st part of the 13th c.
Elsewhere in SGM [13 Sept. 2002], Mr. Richardson claims that Alan of Galloway "was actually known in his lifetime as Alan Fitz Roland." This is only partially correct. The two suits I have quoted here show that he was also referred to as "Alan of Galloway."
In light of these suits, the statement in the Scots Peerage that Alan's 1st wife was "said to be a daughter of Reginald, Lord of the Isles" [SP 4:141], can be effectively disregarded.
All the best,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-
Cliff Watts
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
The following correction to Douglas Richardson's _Magna Charta ancestry_
[Boston: GPC, 2004],
If we're correcting things, let's put GPC in Baltimore and date the book
2005.
--
Cliff Watts
Written at Westborough, MA
-
CED
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Kevin Bradford wrote:
Kevin Bradford:
Congratulations on work well done. It is about time that a qualified
person attack this problem. DR's attempted correction of a document to
fit the pre-chosen persons had to be exposed by somebody whose
qualifications and motives were not suspect. Again: Good work!
CED
Fellow Genealogists,
Kevin Bradford:
Congratulations on work well done. It is about time that a qualified
person attack this problem. DR's attempted correction of a document to
fit the pre-chosen persons had to be exposed by somebody whose
qualifications and motives were not suspect. Again: Good work!
CED
The following correction to Douglas Richardson's _Magna Charta ancestry_ [Boston: GPC, 2004], p. 685, updates the identification of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway's 1st wife, and as a consequence will undoubtedly change many people's GEDCOMs. In the aforementioned work, Mr. Richardson says the following about Alan Fitz Roland's 1st wife:
"_____, daughter of John Fitz Richard, of Pontefract, Yorkshire, hereditary Constable of Chester"
This statement, when corrected in the text, should read:
"_____, daughter of Richard de Crevequor."
In his post to SGM under date of 13 Sep. 2002, Mr. Richardson gives as the source for his statement the _Curia Regis Rolls_, 7 (1935): 85-86 ("suit by Alan of Galloway re: Kippax, co. York which he had in marriage with the aunt of John [de Lacy] [brackets are Mr. Richardson's], constable of Chester)."
I have a copy of this document in my possession, dated 1214 CE, which reads as follows:
Cumb'.-Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton' Adam de Hocton', tres milites de comitatu Cumberland' missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene de Morevill' et Alani de Galweia filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden' in comitatu Roteland' et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr' de warantia carte de terra de Kippes in comitatu Ebor', dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de Torinton' vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de Londor' de placito ecclesie de Wissenden' in comitatu Roteland'. Dicunt etiam quod Alanus de Galweye posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor versus Johannem de Cestr' de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in comitatu Ebor'. Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die. Et quoniam Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit, qui!
debuit testificasse simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum, consideratum est quod atachietur quod sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas. Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.
The above document shows Richard de Crevequor acting together in a suit with his son-in-law, John of Chester [not to be confused with the constable, as see below]
As proof of the relationship of Alan Fitz Roland de Galloway [Galweye] to his father-in-law, Richard de Crevequor, there is a maritagium suit in the same source [_Curia Regis Rolls_], further down on p. 86, under date of 1214 CE, which reads:
Ebor'.-Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr' de placito quod idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc., et summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.
The above document reads:
Yorks.--Through the agency of the aforesaid Hamon the Clerk and Richard of Crevequor, Alan of Galweye [Galloway] acted on the fourth day against John of Chester concerning the plea that the same John guarantees the documents of Richard his father which Alan of Galway has concerning the marriage of his sister: he himself did not appear or give an excuse for his non-appearance, and a summons (was issued). For that reason an attachment was made with a fixed expiry.
In the above suit, the actual relationships between these parties are spelled out in clear detail. Alan Fitz Richard de Galloway's wife was a sister of one John of Chester, whose father was Richard de Crevequor. Attempting to match John [de Lacy], constable of Chester, with the John of the maritagium, turns out to be a chronological non sequitur: John de Lacy, hereditary Constable of Chester, died in 1190; his father, Richard Fitz Eustace, died in 1163. The suits in question date from the 1st part of the 13th c.
Elsewhere in SGM [13 Sept. 2002], Mr. Richardson claims that Alan of Galloway "was actually known in his lifetime as Alan Fitz Roland." This is only partially correct. The two suits I have quoted here show that he was also referred to as "Alan of Galloway."
In light of these suits, the statement in the Scots Peerage that Alan's 1st wife was "said to be a daughter of Reginald, Lord of the Isles" [SP 4:141], can be effectively disregarded.
All the best,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Dear Kevin ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
My book is entitled Magna Carta Ancestry, not Magna Charta Ancestry.
It was published in Baltimore in 2005, not Boston in 2004.
As for your rendering of the Latin, you seem to have gotten things
twisted around a bit. Richard de Crevequer was the attorney for the
plaintiff, Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway. He was NOT the
father-in-law of the defendant, John of Chester.
The defendant, John of Chester, is the man of that name who is better
known as John de Lacy (died 1240), Earl of Lincoln, who was one of the
famous Magna Carta barons. He was occasionally known as John of
Chester in his early life, taking his name from his position as
hereditary Constable of Chester. His family held the manor of Kippax,
Yorkshire. The manor was given in marriage by John de Lacy's father,
Roger de Lacy, to Roger's sister, Alan Fitz Roland's first wife, whose
given name is unknown.
As far as the passage in the 1214 lawsuit is concerned, I believe the
reference to "Ricardi patris sui" [Richard his father] should read
"Rogeri patris suis." [Roger his father]. Slips like this are
occasionally found in the records of Curia Regis Rolls.
I don't have my notes in front of me, but as I recall, following the
1214 lawsuit you have mentioned, there was also a later wrangling over
the advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire by Alan Fitz Roland's son-in-law,
Roger de Quincy. Roger de Quincy was the husband of Alan's elder
daughter and co-heiress, Ellen Fitz Alan of Galloway. When I have
access to my notes, I'll post the pertinent citations for you.
In any event, this is not a chronological non sequitur. You have
mistakenly confused John Fitz Richard (died 1190), hereditary Constable
of Chester, with his grandson, John de Lacy (died 1240), also
hereditary Constable of Chester. The defendant in the 1214 lawsuit was
John de Lacy (died 1240), NOT his grandfather. I clearly stated this
in the citations in my book:
"Curia Regis Rolls_, 7 (1935): 85-86 ("suit by Alan of Galloway re:
Kippax, co. York which he had in marriage with the aunt of John [de
Lacy], constable of Chester)." END OF QUOTE.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Kevin Bradford wrote:
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
My book is entitled Magna Carta Ancestry, not Magna Charta Ancestry.
It was published in Baltimore in 2005, not Boston in 2004.
As for your rendering of the Latin, you seem to have gotten things
twisted around a bit. Richard de Crevequer was the attorney for the
plaintiff, Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway. He was NOT the
father-in-law of the defendant, John of Chester.
The defendant, John of Chester, is the man of that name who is better
known as John de Lacy (died 1240), Earl of Lincoln, who was one of the
famous Magna Carta barons. He was occasionally known as John of
Chester in his early life, taking his name from his position as
hereditary Constable of Chester. His family held the manor of Kippax,
Yorkshire. The manor was given in marriage by John de Lacy's father,
Roger de Lacy, to Roger's sister, Alan Fitz Roland's first wife, whose
given name is unknown.
As far as the passage in the 1214 lawsuit is concerned, I believe the
reference to "Ricardi patris sui" [Richard his father] should read
"Rogeri patris suis." [Roger his father]. Slips like this are
occasionally found in the records of Curia Regis Rolls.
I don't have my notes in front of me, but as I recall, following the
1214 lawsuit you have mentioned, there was also a later wrangling over
the advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire by Alan Fitz Roland's son-in-law,
Roger de Quincy. Roger de Quincy was the husband of Alan's elder
daughter and co-heiress, Ellen Fitz Alan of Galloway. When I have
access to my notes, I'll post the pertinent citations for you.
In any event, this is not a chronological non sequitur. You have
mistakenly confused John Fitz Richard (died 1190), hereditary Constable
of Chester, with his grandson, John de Lacy (died 1240), also
hereditary Constable of Chester. The defendant in the 1214 lawsuit was
John de Lacy (died 1240), NOT his grandfather. I clearly stated this
in the citations in my book:
"Curia Regis Rolls_, 7 (1935): 85-86 ("suit by Alan of Galloway re:
Kippax, co. York which he had in marriage with the aunt of John [de
Lacy], constable of Chester)." END OF QUOTE.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Kevin Bradford wrote:
Fellow Genealogists,
The following correction to Douglas Richardson's _Magna Charta ancestry_ [Boston: GPC, 2004], p. 685, updates the identification of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway's 1st wife, and as a consequence will undoubtedly change many people's GEDCOMs. In the aforementioned work, Mr. Richardson says the following about Alan Fitz Roland's 1st wife:
"_____, daughter of John Fitz Richard, of Pontefract, Yorkshire, hereditary Constable of Chester"
This statement, when corrected in the text, should read:
"_____, daughter of Richard de Crevequor."
In his post to SGM under date of 13 Sep. 2002, Mr. Richardson gives as the source for his statement the _Curia Regis Rolls_, 7 (1935): 85-86 ("suit by Alan of Galloway re: Kippax, co. York which he had in marriage with the aunt of John [de Lacy] [brackets are Mr. Richardson's], constable of Chester)."
I have a copy of this document in my possession, dated 1214 CE, which reads as follows:
Cumb'.-Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton' Adam de Hocton', tres milites de comitatu Cumberland' missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene de Morevill' et Alani de Galweia filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden' in comitatu Roteland' et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr' de warantia carte de terra de Kippes in comitatu Ebor', dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de Torinton' vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de Londor' de placito ecclesie de Wissenden' in comitatu Roteland'. Dicunt etiam quod Alanus de Galweye posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor versus Johannem de Cestr' de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in comitatu Ebor'. Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die. Et quoniam Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit, qui!
debuit testificasse simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum, consideratum est quod atachietur quod sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas. Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.
The above document shows Richard de Crevequor acting together in a suit with his son-in-law, John of Chester [not to be confused with the constable, as see below]
As proof of the relationship of Alan Fitz Roland de Galloway [Galweye] to his father-in-law, Richard de Crevequor, there is a maritagium suit in the same source [_Curia Regis Rolls_], further down on p. 86, under date of 1214 CE, which reads:
Ebor'.-Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr' de placito quod idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc., et summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.
The above document reads:
Yorks.--Through the agency of the aforesaid Hamon the Clerk and Richard of Crevequor, Alan of Galweye [Galloway] acted on the fourth day against John of Chester concerning the plea that the same John guarantees the documents of Richard his father which Alan of Galway has concerning the marriage of his sister: he himself did not appear or give an excuse for his non-appearance, and a summons (was issued). For that reason an attachment was made with a fixed expiry.
In the above suit, the actual relationships between these parties are spelled out in clear detail. Alan Fitz Richard de Galloway's wife was a sister of one John of Chester, whose father was Richard de Crevequor. Attempting to match John [de Lacy], constable of Chester, with the John of the maritagium, turns out to be a chronological non sequitur: John de Lacy, hereditary Constable of Chester, died in 1190; his father, Richard Fitz Eustace, died in 1163. The suits in question date from the 1st part of the 13th c.
Elsewhere in SGM [13 Sept. 2002], Mr. Richardson claims that Alan of Galloway "was actually known in his lifetime as Alan Fitz Roland." This is only partially correct. The two suits I have quoted here show that he was also referred to as "Alan of Galloway."
In light of these suits, the statement in the Scots Peerage that Alan's 1st wife was "said to be a daughter of Reginald, Lord of the Isles" [SP 4:141], can be effectively disregarded.
All the best,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-
Douglas Richardson royala
The first wife of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway
Dear Kevin ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
My book is entitled Magna Carta Ancestry, not Magna Charta Ancestry.
It was published in Baltimore in 2005, not Boston in 2004.
As for your rendering of the Latin, you seem to have gotten things
twisted around a bit. Richard de Crevequer was the attorney for the
plaintiff, Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway. He was NOT the
father of the defendant, John of Chester. And, he was certainly NOT
the father-in-law of the plaintiff, Alan Fitz Roland.
The defendant, John of Chester, is the man of that name who is better
known as John de Lacy (died 1240), Earl of Lincoln, who was one of the
famous Magna Carta barons. He was occasionally known as John of
Chester in his early life, taking his name from his position as
hereditary Constable of Chester. His family held the manor of Kippax,
Yorkshire. The manor was given in marriage by John de Lacy's father,
Roger de Lacy, to Roger's sister, Alan Fitz Roland's first wife, whose
given name is unknown.
As far as the passage in the 1214 lawsuit is concerned, I believe the
reference to "Ricardi patris sui" [Richard his father] should read
"Rogeri patris suis." [Roger his father]. Slips like this are
occasionally found in the records of Curia Regis Rolls.
I don't have my notes in front of me, but as I recall, following the
1214 lawsuit you have mentioned, there was also a later wrangling over
the advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire by Alan Fitz Roland's son-in-law,
Roger de Quincy. Roger de Quincy was the husband of Alan's elder
daughter and co-heiress, Ellen Fitz Alan of Galloway. When I have
access to my notes, I'll post the pertinent citations for you.
In any event, this is not a chronological non sequitur. You have
mistakenly confused John Fitz Richard (died 1190), hereditary Constable
of Chester, with his grandson, John de Lacy (died 1240), also
hereditary Constable of Chester. The defendant in the 1214 lawsuit was
John de Lacy (died 1240), NOT his grandfather. I clearly stated this
in the citations in my book:
"Curia Regis Rolls_, 7 (1935): 85-86 ("suit by Alan of Galloway re:
Kippax, co. York which he had in marriage with the aunt of John [de
Lacy], constable of Chester)." END OF QUOTE.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Kevin Bradford wrote:
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
My book is entitled Magna Carta Ancestry, not Magna Charta Ancestry.
It was published in Baltimore in 2005, not Boston in 2004.
As for your rendering of the Latin, you seem to have gotten things
twisted around a bit. Richard de Crevequer was the attorney for the
plaintiff, Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway. He was NOT the
father of the defendant, John of Chester. And, he was certainly NOT
the father-in-law of the plaintiff, Alan Fitz Roland.
The defendant, John of Chester, is the man of that name who is better
known as John de Lacy (died 1240), Earl of Lincoln, who was one of the
famous Magna Carta barons. He was occasionally known as John of
Chester in his early life, taking his name from his position as
hereditary Constable of Chester. His family held the manor of Kippax,
Yorkshire. The manor was given in marriage by John de Lacy's father,
Roger de Lacy, to Roger's sister, Alan Fitz Roland's first wife, whose
given name is unknown.
As far as the passage in the 1214 lawsuit is concerned, I believe the
reference to "Ricardi patris sui" [Richard his father] should read
"Rogeri patris suis." [Roger his father]. Slips like this are
occasionally found in the records of Curia Regis Rolls.
I don't have my notes in front of me, but as I recall, following the
1214 lawsuit you have mentioned, there was also a later wrangling over
the advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire by Alan Fitz Roland's son-in-law,
Roger de Quincy. Roger de Quincy was the husband of Alan's elder
daughter and co-heiress, Ellen Fitz Alan of Galloway. When I have
access to my notes, I'll post the pertinent citations for you.
In any event, this is not a chronological non sequitur. You have
mistakenly confused John Fitz Richard (died 1190), hereditary Constable
of Chester, with his grandson, John de Lacy (died 1240), also
hereditary Constable of Chester. The defendant in the 1214 lawsuit was
John de Lacy (died 1240), NOT his grandfather. I clearly stated this
in the citations in my book:
"Curia Regis Rolls_, 7 (1935): 85-86 ("suit by Alan of Galloway re:
Kippax, co. York which he had in marriage with the aunt of John [de
Lacy], constable of Chester)." END OF QUOTE.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Kevin Bradford wrote:
Fellow Genealogists,
The following correction to Douglas Richardson's _Magna Charta ancestry_ [Boston: GPC, 2004], p. 685, updates the identification of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway's 1st wife, and as a consequence will undoubtedly change many people's GEDCOMs. In the aforementioned work, Mr. Richardson says the following about Alan Fitz Roland's 1st wife:
"_____, daughter of John Fitz Richard, of Pontefract, Yorkshire, hereditary Constable of Chester"
This statement, when corrected in the text, should read:
"_____, daughter of Richard de Crevequor."
In his post to SGM under date of 13 Sep. 2002, Mr. Richardson gives as the source for his statement the _Curia Regis Rolls_, 7 (1935): 85-86 ("suit by Alan of Galloway re: Kippax, co. York which he had in marriage with the aunt of John [de Lacy] [brackets are Mr. Richardson's], constable of Chester)."
I have a copy of this document in my possession, dated 1214 CE, which reads as follows:
Cumb'.-Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton' Adam de Hocton', tres milites de comitatu Cumberland' missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene de Morevill' et Alani de Galweia filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden' in comitatu Roteland' et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr' de warantia carte de terra de Kippes in comitatu Ebor', dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de Torinton' vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de Londor' de placito ecclesie de Wissenden' in comitatu Roteland'. Dicunt etiam quod Alanus de Galweye posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor versus Johannem de Cestr' de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in comitatu Ebor'. Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die. Et quoniam Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit, qui!
debuit testificasse simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum, consideratum est quod atachietur quod sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas. Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.
The above document shows Richard de Crevequor acting together in a suit with his son-in-law, John of Chester [not to be confused with the constable, as see below]
As proof of the relationship of Alan Fitz Roland de Galloway [Galweye] to his father-in-law, Richard de Crevequor, there is a maritagium suit in the same source [_Curia Regis Rolls_], further down on p. 86, under date of 1214 CE, which reads:
Ebor'.-Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr' de placito quod idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc., et summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.
The above document reads:
Yorks.--Through the agency of the aforesaid Hamon the Clerk and Richard of Crevequor, Alan of Galweye [Galloway] acted on the fourth day against John of Chester concerning the plea that the same John guarantees the documents of Richard his father which Alan of Galway has concerning the marriage of his sister: he himself did not appear or give an excuse for his non-appearance, and a summons (was issued). For that reason an attachment was made with a fixed expiry.
In the above suit, the actual relationships between these parties are spelled out in clear detail. Alan Fitz Richard de Galloway's wife was a sister of one John of Chester, whose father was Richard de Crevequor. Attempting to match John [de Lacy], constable of Chester, with the John of the maritagium, turns out to be a chronological non sequitur: John de Lacy, hereditary Constable of Chester, died in 1190; his father, Richard Fitz Eustace, died in 1163. The suits in question date from the 1st part of the 13th c.
Elsewhere in SGM [13 Sept. 2002], Mr. Richardson claims that Alan of Galloway "was actually known in his lifetime as Alan Fitz Roland." This is only partially correct. The two suits I have quoted here show that he was also referred to as "Alan of Galloway."
In light of these suits, the statement in the Scots Peerage that Alan's 1st wife was "said to be a daughter of Reginald, Lord of the Isles" [SP 4:141], can be effectively disregarded.
All the best,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: The first wife of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway
Dear Kevin ~
As a followup to my original message, I thought I'd post the following
items from the helpful National Archives Catalogue which sheds some
light on the subsequent history of the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire. As
I indicated in my earlier post, the manor of Kippax was the maritagium
of Alan Fitz Roland's first wife, _____ de Lacy. Sir Roger de Quincy,
Earl of Winchester, named below was the husband of Ellen, daughter and
co-heiress of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway. Sir Roger de Quincy
obtained his interest in the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire through his
wife, Ellen's mother, the first wife of Alan Fitz Roland.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: National Archives Catalogue
(http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp)
Document #1:
DL 27/203
Date: 1253.
Agreement (chirograph) between Lord Roger de Quency, earl of
Winchester, constable of Scotland, and Edmund de Lascy his kinsman:
Roger grants Edmund the manor of Kippax and Scholes for a pair of
gloves in grey fur at Christmas; provided the earl's previous grants of
land there to John de Lungvilers and Robert de Walecote be ratified:
[Yorks]. Edmund grants Roger his manors of Kneesall and Wadenhoe with
the wapentake of Kneesall; reserving the homage and services of all
holding by knight service; with reversion to Edmund: [Notts],
[Northants]. If the manors of Kippax and Scholes are not worth £10,
Edmund may have to assign to Roger more land in their neighbourhood.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Document #2:
C 148/109
Date: 1256
Subject: Agreement, indented, whereby Sir William Lungeespee grants to
Henry son of Sir Edmund de Lacy and Margaret daughter of the said
William, in free marriage, his manors of Bicester and Middleton Stoney
(Middelton), and the said Edmund grants her, for life, his manors of
Skyppes and Scales (Kippax and Scoles) Counties: Oxfordshire &
Yorkshire West Riding
As a followup to my original message, I thought I'd post the following
items from the helpful National Archives Catalogue which sheds some
light on the subsequent history of the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire. As
I indicated in my earlier post, the manor of Kippax was the maritagium
of Alan Fitz Roland's first wife, _____ de Lacy. Sir Roger de Quincy,
Earl of Winchester, named below was the husband of Ellen, daughter and
co-heiress of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway. Sir Roger de Quincy
obtained his interest in the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire through his
wife, Ellen's mother, the first wife of Alan Fitz Roland.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: National Archives Catalogue
(http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp)
Document #1:
DL 27/203
Date: 1253.
Agreement (chirograph) between Lord Roger de Quency, earl of
Winchester, constable of Scotland, and Edmund de Lascy his kinsman:
Roger grants Edmund the manor of Kippax and Scholes for a pair of
gloves in grey fur at Christmas; provided the earl's previous grants of
land there to John de Lungvilers and Robert de Walecote be ratified:
[Yorks]. Edmund grants Roger his manors of Kneesall and Wadenhoe with
the wapentake of Kneesall; reserving the homage and services of all
holding by knight service; with reversion to Edmund: [Notts],
[Northants]. If the manors of Kippax and Scholes are not worth £10,
Edmund may have to assign to Roger more land in their neighbourhood.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Document #2:
C 148/109
Date: 1256
Subject: Agreement, indented, whereby Sir William Lungeespee grants to
Henry son of Sir Edmund de Lacy and Margaret daughter of the said
William, in free marriage, his manors of Bicester and Middleton Stoney
(Middelton), and the said Edmund grants her, for life, his manors of
Skyppes and Scales (Kippax and Scoles) Counties: Oxfordshire &
Yorkshire West Riding
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: The first wife of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway
Dear Newsgroup
Those interested in the earlier history of the manor of Kippax,
Yorkshire can find it listed among the lands holdings of Ilbert de Lacy
in the Domesday Book of Yorkshire in 1086:
http://www.milsom100.freeserve.co.uk/th ... cyland.htm
The manor subsequently fell by lineal descent to Roger de Lacy (died
1211), hereditary Constable of Chester, who granted it in marriage to
his sister, ____, the first wife of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Those interested in the earlier history of the manor of Kippax,
Yorkshire can find it listed among the lands holdings of Ilbert de Lacy
in the Domesday Book of Yorkshire in 1086:
http://www.milsom100.freeserve.co.uk/th ... cyland.htm
The manor subsequently fell by lineal descent to Roger de Lacy (died
1211), hereditary Constable of Chester, who granted it in marriage to
his sister, ____, the first wife of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Dear CED ~
So nice to hear from you again. To be perfectly honest, I've missed
your posts.
Since I know you like definitions, perhaps you would be so good as to
define for us the words in your post below: "qualified person" and
"good work." Your words seem a bit vague, and I want to be sure I
understand exactly what you are saying when you use these words.
One other thing: If you had searched the newsgroup archives, you would
quickly have determined that the identification of Alan Fitz Roland's
first wife as a Lacy was first made by the noted historian, Keith J.
Stringer, Ph.D., in his book, Essays on the Nobility of Medieval
Scotland, published in 1985. Since Dr. Stringer first made the
identification, not me, don't you think you are misrepresenting the
facts when you allege that I have attempted to fit "pre-chosen persons"
to fit a document? Or, do you now wish to "expose" Dr. Stringer's work
as "bad" and him as "unqualified"? If so, please present your evidence
to support your allegations. Also, please provide us with your
credentials to prove you are in a position of knowledge to be able to
determine the worth of Dr. Stringer's work.
I'm eagerly looking forward to your reply.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
So nice to hear from you again. To be perfectly honest, I've missed
your posts.
Since I know you like definitions, perhaps you would be so good as to
define for us the words in your post below: "qualified person" and
"good work." Your words seem a bit vague, and I want to be sure I
understand exactly what you are saying when you use these words.
One other thing: If you had searched the newsgroup archives, you would
quickly have determined that the identification of Alan Fitz Roland's
first wife as a Lacy was first made by the noted historian, Keith J.
Stringer, Ph.D., in his book, Essays on the Nobility of Medieval
Scotland, published in 1985. Since Dr. Stringer first made the
identification, not me, don't you think you are misrepresenting the
facts when you allege that I have attempted to fit "pre-chosen persons"
to fit a document? Or, do you now wish to "expose" Dr. Stringer's work
as "bad" and him as "unqualified"? If so, please present your evidence
to support your allegations. Also, please provide us with your
credentials to prove you are in a position of knowledge to be able to
determine the worth of Dr. Stringer's work.
I'm eagerly looking forward to your reply.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
Kevin Bradford:
Congratulations on work well done. It is about time that a qualified
person attack this problem. DR's attempted correction of a document to
fit the pre-chosen persons had to be exposed by somebody whose
qualifications and motives were not suspect. Again: Good work!
CED
-
CED
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
To the Newsgroup;
So sorry that DR has missed my posts. I apologize for not posting; but
I have an excuse - my computer went kaplooey and I lost my hard drive.
DR could well have enjoyed some of my lost posts, the material for
which had not been backed up on CD.
As you all know well, I let my words and logic stand for themselves.
It is so nice finally to have DR admit that he is not the original
proponent of the identity of the first wife as being a Lacy. Among
scholarly conventions is one one that requires acknowledging the
priority of the first to propose a theory. As far as I can determine,
this is the first time that DR has acknowledged K. J. Stringer's
priority and DR's dependence upon Stringer's reseach. Would that he
had dug a bit deeper than _Essays on the Nobility of Medieval Scotland_
published in 1985.
Stringer's contention that the first wife of Alan of Galloway was a
Lacy in that essay was based upon he earlier article (1972) published
in the Transactions of the Dumfrieshire and Galloway Natural History
and Antiquarian Society. The weakness of Stinger's argument
(dependence upon a correction of a medieval document) was apparent even
to Stringer himself; for, as is well known is scholarly circles, such a
correction should be corroborated with supporting evidence. This he
proposed was a consanguineous relationship within the prohibited degree
between the hypothetical Lacy first wife and the known Lacy third wife
of Alan of Galloway. That degree of kniship did not exist between the
two branches of the Lacy family in those generations. Stringer's lack
of information about the degree of kinship between them or the canon
law regarding consanguineous marriages should be explained before his
correction of the document can stand.
CED
Dear CED ~
So nice to hear from you again. To be perfectly honest, I've missed
your posts.
To the Newsgroup;
So sorry that DR has missed my posts. I apologize for not posting; but
I have an excuse - my computer went kaplooey and I lost my hard drive.
DR could well have enjoyed some of my lost posts, the material for
which had not been backed up on CD.
As you all know well, I let my words and logic stand for themselves.
It is so nice finally to have DR admit that he is not the original
proponent of the identity of the first wife as being a Lacy. Among
scholarly conventions is one one that requires acknowledging the
priority of the first to propose a theory. As far as I can determine,
this is the first time that DR has acknowledged K. J. Stringer's
priority and DR's dependence upon Stringer's reseach. Would that he
had dug a bit deeper than _Essays on the Nobility of Medieval Scotland_
published in 1985.
Stringer's contention that the first wife of Alan of Galloway was a
Lacy in that essay was based upon he earlier article (1972) published
in the Transactions of the Dumfrieshire and Galloway Natural History
and Antiquarian Society. The weakness of Stinger's argument
(dependence upon a correction of a medieval document) was apparent even
to Stringer himself; for, as is well known is scholarly circles, such a
correction should be corroborated with supporting evidence. This he
proposed was a consanguineous relationship within the prohibited degree
between the hypothetical Lacy first wife and the known Lacy third wife
of Alan of Galloway. That degree of kniship did not exist between the
two branches of the Lacy family in those generations. Stringer's lack
of information about the degree of kinship between them or the canon
law regarding consanguineous marriages should be explained before his
correction of the document can stand.
CED
Since I know you like definitions, perhaps you would be so good as to
define for us the words in your post below: "qualified person" and
"good work." Your words seem a bit vague, and I want to be sure I
understand exactly what you are saying when you use these words.
One other thing: If you had searched the newsgroup archives, you would
quickly have determined that the identification of Alan Fitz Roland's
first wife as a Lacy was first made by the noted historian, Keith J.
Stringer, Ph.D., in his book, Essays on the Nobility of Medieval
Scotland, published in 1985. Since Dr. Stringer first made the
identification, not me, don't you think you are misrepresenting the
facts when you allege that I have attempted to fit "pre-chosen persons"
to fit a document? Or, do you now wish to "expose" Dr. Stringer's work
as "bad" and him as "unqualified"? If so, please present your evidence
to support your allegations. Also, please provide us with your
credentials to prove you are in a position of knowledge to be able to
determine the worth of Dr. Stringer's work.
I'm eagerly looking forward to your reply.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
Kevin Bradford:
Congratulations on work well done. It is about time that a qualified
person attack this problem. DR's attempted correction of a document to
fit the pre-chosen persons had to be exposed by somebody whose
qualifications and motives were not suspect. Again: Good work!
CED
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Dear CED ~
Sorry, dear one, but you're going to have to provide your definitions
of "qualified person" and "good work." Your words and logic do NOT
stand for themselves. It is important that we examine your words
closely to determine if you are correctly using your language. I know
you will oblige me, as you have high ethical standards and will want to
make sure that everyone correctly understands what you mean. Frankly,
I suspect you are misusing the adjectives "qualified" and "good."
You've also displayed one major error in logic in this thread. So, to
be on the safe side, please provide your definitions.
I note once again that you have failed to provide us your credentials.
Are you in a position of training and knowledge to review Dr.
Stringer's work, or are you simply an armchair wannabe? Please state
your credentials, so we can see if you have the depth and training to
call Dr. Stringer "unqualified." Personally, I think you are the one
who is "unqualified," not Dr. Stringer. But, I could be wrong. For
your sake, I hope I am.
So, the spotlight is on you CED. Once again, we ask for your
definitions and credentials, please. The favor of your reply is much
appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
Sorry, dear one, but you're going to have to provide your definitions
of "qualified person" and "good work." Your words and logic do NOT
stand for themselves. It is important that we examine your words
closely to determine if you are correctly using your language. I know
you will oblige me, as you have high ethical standards and will want to
make sure that everyone correctly understands what you mean. Frankly,
I suspect you are misusing the adjectives "qualified" and "good."
You've also displayed one major error in logic in this thread. So, to
be on the safe side, please provide your definitions.
I note once again that you have failed to provide us your credentials.
Are you in a position of training and knowledge to review Dr.
Stringer's work, or are you simply an armchair wannabe? Please state
your credentials, so we can see if you have the depth and training to
call Dr. Stringer "unqualified." Personally, I think you are the one
who is "unqualified," not Dr. Stringer. But, I could be wrong. For
your sake, I hope I am.
So, the spotlight is on you CED. Once again, we ask for your
definitions and credentials, please. The favor of your reply is much
appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear CED ~
So nice to hear from you again. To be perfectly honest, I've missed
your posts.
To the Newsgroup;
So sorry that DR has missed my posts. I apologize for not posting; but
I have an excuse - my computer went kaplooey and I lost my hard drive.
DR could well have enjoyed some of my lost posts, the material for
which had not been backed up on CD.
As you all know well, I let my words and logic stand for themselves.
It is so nice finally to have DR admit that he is not the original
proponent of the identity of the first wife as being a Lacy. Among
scholarly conventions is one one that requires acknowledging the
priority of the first to propose a theory. As far as I can determine,
this is the first time that DR has acknowledged K. J. Stringer's
priority and DR's dependence upon Stringer's reseach. Would that he
had dug a bit deeper than _Essays on the Nobility of Medieval Scotland_
published in 1985.
Stringer's contention that the first wife of Alan of Galloway was a
Lacy in that essay was based upon he earlier article (1972) published
in the Transactions of the Dumfrieshire and Galloway Natural History
and Antiquarian Society. The weakness of Stinger's argument
(dependence upon a correction of a medieval document) was apparent even
to Stringer himself; for, as is well known is scholarly circles, such a
correction should be corroborated with supporting evidence. This he
proposed was a consanguineous relationship within the prohibited degree
between the hypothetical Lacy first wife and the known Lacy third wife
of Alan of Galloway. That degree of kniship did not exist between the
two branches of the Lacy family in those generations. Stringer's lack
of information about the degree of kinship between them or the canon
law regarding consanguineous marriages should be explained before his
correction of the document can stand.
CED
Since I know you like definitions, perhaps you would be so good as to
define for us the words in your post below: "qualified person" and
"good work." Your words seem a bit vague, and I want to be sure I
understand exactly what you are saying when you use these words.
One other thing: If you had searched the newsgroup archives, you would
quickly have determined that the identification of Alan Fitz Roland's
first wife as a Lacy was first made by the noted historian, Keith J.
Stringer, Ph.D., in his book, Essays on the Nobility of Medieval
Scotland, published in 1985. Since Dr. Stringer first made the
identification, not me, don't you think you are misrepresenting the
facts when you allege that I have attempted to fit "pre-chosen persons"
to fit a document? Or, do you now wish to "expose" Dr. Stringer's work
as "bad" and him as "unqualified"? If so, please present your evidence
to support your allegations. Also, please provide us with your
credentials to prove you are in a position of knowledge to be able to
determine the worth of Dr. Stringer's work.
I'm eagerly looking forward to your reply.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
Kevin Bradford:
Congratulations on work well done. It is about time that a qualified
person attack this problem. DR's attempted correction of a document to
fit the pre-chosen persons had to be exposed by somebody whose
qualifications and motives were not suspect. Again: Good work!
CED
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Seeing as you have time to badger CED, perhaps you also have time to
explain which of the cited documents led you to conclude that John
Raynsford married the widow of Thomas Riche. The favor of your reply is
much appreciated.
taf
So, the spotlight is on you CED. Once again, we ask for your
definitions and credentials, please. The favor of your reply is much
appreciated.
Seeing as you have time to badger CED, perhaps you also have time to
explain which of the cited documents led you to conclude that John
Raynsford married the widow of Thomas Riche. The favor of your reply is
much appreciated.
taf
-
CED
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
Since DR does so nicely insist, I repeat my compliments to Kevin
Bradford from my first message in this thread:
"Congratulations on work well done. It is about time that a
qualified
person attack this problem. DR's attempted correction of a document to
fit the pre-chosen persons had to be exposed by somebody whose
qualifications and motives were not suspect. Again: Good work! "
These words can in no way be construed, as DR is attempting to do, as
any statement about K. J. Stringer or any of his works. I have read a
number of works by Stringer; and, for the most part, I find them well
written, based on sound reseach. However, in one instance I have
raised a question.
DR has a long history of twisting words and arguments for his own
purposes. His present attempt is too obvious to merit further response
on that matter.
However, he has failed to respond on the substance of my latest posting
- Stringer's article (1972) published in the Transactions of the
Dumfrieshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society.
If he does not respond on the substance (Stringer's 1972 article), we
can safely assume that wants an exchange of flaming language. In that
I will not be a participant.
CED
Dear CED ~
Sorry, dear one, but you're going to have to provide your definitions
of "qualified person" and "good work." Your words and logic do NOT
stand for themselves. It is important that we examine your words
closely to determine if you are correctly using your language. I know
you will oblige me, as you have high ethical standards and will want to
make sure that everyone correctly understands what you mean. Frankly,
I suspect you are misusing the adjectives "qualified" and "good."
You've also displayed one major error in logic in this thread. So, to
be on the safe side, please provide your definitions.
To the Newsgroup:
Since DR does so nicely insist, I repeat my compliments to Kevin
Bradford from my first message in this thread:
"Congratulations on work well done. It is about time that a
qualified
person attack this problem. DR's attempted correction of a document to
fit the pre-chosen persons had to be exposed by somebody whose
qualifications and motives were not suspect. Again: Good work! "
These words can in no way be construed, as DR is attempting to do, as
any statement about K. J. Stringer or any of his works. I have read a
number of works by Stringer; and, for the most part, I find them well
written, based on sound reseach. However, in one instance I have
raised a question.
DR has a long history of twisting words and arguments for his own
purposes. His present attempt is too obvious to merit further response
on that matter.
However, he has failed to respond on the substance of my latest posting
- Stringer's article (1972) published in the Transactions of the
Dumfrieshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society.
If he does not respond on the substance (Stringer's 1972 article), we
can safely assume that wants an exchange of flaming language. In that
I will not be a participant.
CED
I note once again that you have failed to provide us your credentials.
Are you in a position of training and knowledge to review Dr.
Stringer's work, or are you simply an armchair wannabe? Please state
your credentials, so we can see if you have the depth and training to
call Dr. Stringer "unqualified." Personally, I think you are the one
who is "unqualified," not Dr. Stringer. But, I could be wrong. For
your sake, I hope I am.
So, the spotlight is on you CED. Once again, we ask for your
definitions and credentials, please. The favor of your reply is much
appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear CED ~
So nice to hear from you again. To be perfectly honest, I've missed
your posts.
To the Newsgroup;
So sorry that DR has missed my posts. I apologize for not posting; but
I have an excuse - my computer went kaplooey and I lost my hard drive.
DR could well have enjoyed some of my lost posts, the material for
which had not been backed up on CD.
As you all know well, I let my words and logic stand for themselves.
It is so nice finally to have DR admit that he is not the original
proponent of the identity of the first wife as being a Lacy. Among
scholarly conventions is one one that requires acknowledging the
priority of the first to propose a theory. As far as I can determine,
this is the first time that DR has acknowledged K. J. Stringer's
priority and DR's dependence upon Stringer's reseach. Would that he
had dug a bit deeper than _Essays on the Nobility of Medieval Scotland_
published in 1985.
Stringer's contention that the first wife of Alan of Galloway was a
Lacy in that essay was based upon he earlier article (1972) published
in the Transactions of the Dumfrieshire and Galloway Natural History
and Antiquarian Society. The weakness of Stinger's argument
(dependence upon a correction of a medieval document) was apparent even
to Stringer himself; for, as is well known is scholarly circles, such a
correction should be corroborated with supporting evidence. This he
proposed was a consanguineous relationship within the prohibited degree
between the hypothetical Lacy first wife and the known Lacy third wife
of Alan of Galloway. That degree of kniship did not exist between the
two branches of the Lacy family in those generations. Stringer's lack
of information about the degree of kinship between them or the canon
law regarding consanguineous marriages should be explained before his
correction of the document can stand.
CED
Since I know you like definitions, perhaps you would be so good as to
define for us the words in your post below: "qualified person" and
"good work." Your words seem a bit vague, and I want to be sure I
understand exactly what you are saying when you use these words.
One other thing: If you had searched the newsgroup archives, you would
quickly have determined that the identification of Alan Fitz Roland's
first wife as a Lacy was first made by the noted historian, Keith J.
Stringer, Ph.D., in his book, Essays on the Nobility of Medieval
Scotland, published in 1985. Since Dr. Stringer first made the
identification, not me, don't you think you are misrepresenting the
facts when you allege that I have attempted to fit "pre-chosen persons"
to fit a document? Or, do you now wish to "expose" Dr. Stringer's work
as "bad" and him as "unqualified"? If so, please present your evidence
to support your allegations. Also, please provide us with your
credentials to prove you are in a position of knowledge to be able to
determine the worth of Dr. Stringer's work.
I'm eagerly looking forward to your reply.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
Kevin Bradford:
Congratulations on work well done. It is about time that a qualified
person attack this problem. DR's attempted correction of a document to
fit the pre-chosen persons had to be exposed by somebody whose
qualifications and motives were not suspect. Again: Good work!
CED
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Kevin Bradford wrote:
[snip]
Lest this fall through the cracks, the two versions also differ in that
in "Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye
habet de maritagio sororis sue", Mr. Bradford concludes that "sue"
refers to John, Mr. Richardson that it refers to Richard ("recte Roger").
taf
Dear CED,
We are told by Mr. Richardson in his Sept. 2002 posting, "the citation plainly states that Alan Fitz Roland had the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire, which Richard [recte Roger] [de Lacy] gave to his sister in marriage." Whose correction is "recte Roger?" Is it Mr. Stringer's? Is it Mr. Richardson's? Under what authority do modern genealogists change the wording in 13th century primary documents?
As one can see from the original documents, again cited below, there is no "recte Roger" within the body of these texts:
[snip]
Ebor’.—Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr’ de placito quod idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc., et summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.
Lest this fall through the cracks, the two versions also differ in that
in "Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye
habet de maritagio sororis sue", Mr. Bradford concludes that "sue"
refers to John, Mr. Richardson that it refers to Richard ("recte Roger").
taf
-
CED
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Kevin Bradford wrote:
Kevin Bradford:
The following exerpt is from a posting by Mr. Richardson in which he
does not acknowledge K. J. Stringer's priority (thus giving the
impression that it was his own correction). Later I found that
Stringer was also making a similar "correction" at a much earlier date
(1972). Apparently Mr. Richardson was copying Stringer without
admitting that he was doing so; and he does not add any supporting
evidence.
(The hostage statement is worthless. Mr. Richardson seems to be
unaware of King John's treatment of [or policies regarding]hostages,
his sale of justice, and his treatment of the lands of his vassals. A
suit in midst of King John's difficulty with his barons is questionable
at best. How many of the persons mentioned in the document were rebels
at the time?)
By the way, I cannot find a statement in which Stringer explicitly
makes the "correction"; it is found in the translated text.
Beginning of quote:
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval From: royalances...@msn.com (Douglas
Richardson) - Date: 13 Sep 2002 18:55:39 -0700 Local: Fri, Sep 13 2002
8:55 pm Subject: Alan Fitz Roland's three marriages
* * * * * * *
[Note: The identity of Alan Fitz Roland';s first wife is proven by a
suit dated 1214 regarding Kippax, co. York, in which Alan is stated to
have married a sister of Richard [recte Roger], father of John [de
Lacy] [constable] of Chester. The year previously in 1213, an unnamed
daughter of Alan died as a hostage in the custody of Robert Fitz
Roger, of Warkworth, co. Northumberland. It was customary in this
period to place foreign born hostages with a near relative in England.
Robert Fitz Roger in question was the maternal uncle of Alan of
Galloway's first wife, and thus would have been closely related to
Alan's child].
End of quote.
CED
Dear CED,
We are told by Mr. Richardson in his Sept. 2002 posting, "the citation plainly states that Alan Fitz Roland had the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire, which Richard [recte Roger] [de Lacy] gave to his sister in marriage." Whose correction is "recte Roger?" Is it Mr. Stringer's? Is it Mr. Richardson's? Under what authority do modern genealogists change the wording in 13th century primary documents?
Kevin Bradford:
The following exerpt is from a posting by Mr. Richardson in which he
does not acknowledge K. J. Stringer's priority (thus giving the
impression that it was his own correction). Later I found that
Stringer was also making a similar "correction" at a much earlier date
(1972). Apparently Mr. Richardson was copying Stringer without
admitting that he was doing so; and he does not add any supporting
evidence.
(The hostage statement is worthless. Mr. Richardson seems to be
unaware of King John's treatment of [or policies regarding]hostages,
his sale of justice, and his treatment of the lands of his vassals. A
suit in midst of King John's difficulty with his barons is questionable
at best. How many of the persons mentioned in the document were rebels
at the time?)
By the way, I cannot find a statement in which Stringer explicitly
makes the "correction"; it is found in the translated text.
Beginning of quote:
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval From: royalances...@msn.com (Douglas
Richardson) - Date: 13 Sep 2002 18:55:39 -0700 Local: Fri, Sep 13 2002
8:55 pm Subject: Alan Fitz Roland's three marriages
* * * * * * *
[Note: The identity of Alan Fitz Roland';s first wife is proven by a
suit dated 1214 regarding Kippax, co. York, in which Alan is stated to
have married a sister of Richard [recte Roger], father of John [de
Lacy] [constable] of Chester. The year previously in 1213, an unnamed
daughter of Alan died as a hostage in the custody of Robert Fitz
Roger, of Warkworth, co. Northumberland. It was customary in this
period to place foreign born hostages with a near relative in England.
Robert Fitz Roger in question was the maternal uncle of Alan of
Galloway's first wife, and thus would have been closely related to
Alan's child].
End of quote.
CED
As one can see from the original documents, again cited below, there is no "recte Roger" within the body of these texts:
Cumb'.-Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton' Adam de Hocton', tres milites de comitatu Cumberland' missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene de Morevill' et Alani de Galweia filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden' in comitatu Roteland' et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr' de warantia carte de terra de Kippes in comitatu Ebor', dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de Torinton' vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de Londor' de placito ecclesie de Wissenden' in comitatu Roteland'. Dicunt etiam quod Alanus de Galweye posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor versus Johannem de Cestr' de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in comitatu Ebor'. Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die. Et quoniam Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit, qui!
' debuit testificasse simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum, consideratum est quod atachietur quod sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas. Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.
Ebor'.-Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr' de placito quod idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc., et summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.
Claims by Mr. Richardson, in a rebuttal to my recent posting, that this "John of Chester" is actually John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, are curious indeed ["The defendant in the 1214 lawsuit was John de Lacy (died 1240)"]. As many of us know, this John de Lacy's father was ROGER. The text of the suit in question clearly spells out that "John of Chester's" father was "RICHARD."
Best,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: CED <leesmyth@cox.net
Sent: Sep 26, 2005 11:01 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear CED ~
So nice to hear from you again. To be perfectly honest, I've missed
your posts.
To the Newsgroup;
So sorry that DR has missed my posts. I apologize for not posting; but
I have an excuse - my computer went kaplooey and I lost my hard drive.
DR could well have enjoyed some of my lost posts, the material for
which had not been backed up on CD.
As you all know well, I let my words and logic stand for themselves.
It is so nice finally to have DR admit that he is not the original
proponent of the identity of the first wife as being a Lacy. Among
scholarly conventions is one one that requires acknowledging the
priority of the first to propose a theory. As far as I can determine,
this is the first time that DR has acknowledged K. J. Stringer's
priority and DR's dependence upon Stringer's reseach. Would that he
had dug a bit deeper than _Essays on the Nobility of Medieval Scotland_
published in 1985.
Stringer's contention that the first wife of Alan of Galloway was a
Lacy in that essay was based upon he earlier article (1972) published
in the Transactions of the Dumfrieshire and Galloway Natural History
and Antiquarian Society. The weakness of Stinger's argument
(dependence upon a correction of a medieval document) was apparent even
to Stringer himself; for, as is well known is scholarly circles, such a
correction should be corroborated with supporting evidence. This he
proposed was a consanguineous relationship within the prohibited degree
between the hypothetical Lacy first wife and the known Lacy third wife
of Alan of Galloway. That degree of kniship did not exist between the
two branches of the Lacy family in those generations. Stringer's lack
of information about the degree of kinship between them or the canon
law regarding consanguineous marriages should be explained before his
correction of the document can stand.
CED
Since I know you like definitions, perhaps you would be so good as to
define for us the words in your post below: "qualified person" and
"good work." Your words seem a bit vague, and I want to be sure I
understand exactly what you are saying when you use these words.
One other thing: If you had searched the newsgroup archives, you would
quickly have determined that the identification of Alan Fitz Roland's
first wife as a Lacy was first made by the noted historian, Keith J.
Stringer, Ph.D., in his book, Essays on the Nobility of Medieval
Scotland, published in 1985. Since Dr. Stringer first made the
identification, not me, don't you think you are misrepresenting the
facts when you allege that I have attempted to fit "pre-chosen persons"
to fit a document? Or, do you now wish to "expose" Dr. Stringer's work
as "bad" and him as "unqualified"? If so, please present your evidence
to support your allegations. Also, please provide us with your
credentials to prove you are in a position of knowledge to be able to
determine the worth of Dr. Stringer's work.
I'm eagerly looking forward to your reply.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
Kevin Bradford:
Congratulations on work well done. It is about time that a qualified
person attack this problem. DR's attempted correction of a document to
fit the pre-chosen persons had to be exposed by somebody whose
qualifications and motives were not suspect. Again: Good work!
CED
-
Kevin Bradford
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Dear CED,
We are told by Mr. Richardson in his Sept. 2002 posting, "the citation plainly states that Alan Fitz Roland had the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire, which Richard [recte Roger] [de Lacy] gave to his sister in marriage." Whose correction is "recte Roger?" Is it Mr. Stringer's? Is it Mr. Richardson's? Under what authority do modern genealogists change the wording in 13th century primary documents?
As one can see from the original documents, again cited below, there is no "recte Roger" within the body of these texts:
Cumb’.—Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton’ Adam de Hocton’, tres milites de comitatu Cumberland’ missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene de Morevill’ et Alani de Galweia filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden’ in comitatu Roteland’ et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr’ de warantia carte de terra de Kippes in comitatu Ebor’, dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de Torinton’ vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de Londor’ de placito ecclesie de Wissenden’ in comitatu Roteland’. Dicunt etiam quod Alanus de Galweye posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor versus Johannem de Cestr’ de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in comitatu Ebor’. Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die. Et quoniam Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit, qui!
' debuit testificasse simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum, consideratum est quod atachietur quod sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas. Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.
Ebor’.—Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr’ de placito quod idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc., et summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.
Claims by Mr. Richardson, in a rebuttal to my recent posting, that this "John of Chester" is actually John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, are curious indeed ["The defendant in the 1214 lawsuit was John de Lacy (died 1240)"]. As many of us know, this John de Lacy's father was ROGER. The text of the suit in question clearly spells out that "John of Chester's" father was "RICHARD."
Best,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: CED <leesmyth@cox.net>
Sent: Sep 26, 2005 11:01 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
To the Newsgroup;
So sorry that DR has missed my posts. I apologize for not posting; but
I have an excuse - my computer went kaplooey and I lost my hard drive.
DR could well have enjoyed some of my lost posts, the material for
which had not been backed up on CD.
As you all know well, I let my words and logic stand for themselves.
It is so nice finally to have DR admit that he is not the original
proponent of the identity of the first wife as being a Lacy. Among
scholarly conventions is one one that requires acknowledging the
priority of the first to propose a theory. As far as I can determine,
this is the first time that DR has acknowledged K. J. Stringer's
priority and DR's dependence upon Stringer's reseach. Would that he
had dug a bit deeper than _Essays on the Nobility of Medieval Scotland_
published in 1985.
Stringer's contention that the first wife of Alan of Galloway was a
Lacy in that essay was based upon he earlier article (1972) published
in the Transactions of the Dumfrieshire and Galloway Natural History
and Antiquarian Society. The weakness of Stinger's argument
(dependence upon a correction of a medieval document) was apparent even
to Stringer himself; for, as is well known is scholarly circles, such a
correction should be corroborated with supporting evidence. This he
proposed was a consanguineous relationship within the prohibited degree
between the hypothetical Lacy first wife and the known Lacy third wife
of Alan of Galloway. That degree of kniship did not exist between the
two branches of the Lacy family in those generations. Stringer's lack
of information about the degree of kinship between them or the canon
law regarding consanguineous marriages should be explained before his
correction of the document can stand.
CED
We are told by Mr. Richardson in his Sept. 2002 posting, "the citation plainly states that Alan Fitz Roland had the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire, which Richard [recte Roger] [de Lacy] gave to his sister in marriage." Whose correction is "recte Roger?" Is it Mr. Stringer's? Is it Mr. Richardson's? Under what authority do modern genealogists change the wording in 13th century primary documents?
As one can see from the original documents, again cited below, there is no "recte Roger" within the body of these texts:
Cumb’.—Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton’ Adam de Hocton’, tres milites de comitatu Cumberland’ missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene de Morevill’ et Alani de Galweia filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden’ in comitatu Roteland’ et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr’ de warantia carte de terra de Kippes in comitatu Ebor’, dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de Torinton’ vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de Londor’ de placito ecclesie de Wissenden’ in comitatu Roteland’. Dicunt etiam quod Alanus de Galweye posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor versus Johannem de Cestr’ de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in comitatu Ebor’. Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die. Et quoniam Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit, qui!
' debuit testificasse simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum, consideratum est quod atachietur quod sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas. Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.
Ebor’.—Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr’ de placito quod idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc., et summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.
Claims by Mr. Richardson, in a rebuttal to my recent posting, that this "John of Chester" is actually John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, are curious indeed ["The defendant in the 1214 lawsuit was John de Lacy (died 1240)"]. As many of us know, this John de Lacy's father was ROGER. The text of the suit in question clearly spells out that "John of Chester's" father was "RICHARD."
Best,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: CED <leesmyth@cox.net>
Sent: Sep 26, 2005 11:01 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear CED ~
So nice to hear from you again. To be perfectly honest, I've missed
your posts.
To the Newsgroup;
So sorry that DR has missed my posts. I apologize for not posting; but
I have an excuse - my computer went kaplooey and I lost my hard drive.
DR could well have enjoyed some of my lost posts, the material for
which had not been backed up on CD.
As you all know well, I let my words and logic stand for themselves.
It is so nice finally to have DR admit that he is not the original
proponent of the identity of the first wife as being a Lacy. Among
scholarly conventions is one one that requires acknowledging the
priority of the first to propose a theory. As far as I can determine,
this is the first time that DR has acknowledged K. J. Stringer's
priority and DR's dependence upon Stringer's reseach. Would that he
had dug a bit deeper than _Essays on the Nobility of Medieval Scotland_
published in 1985.
Stringer's contention that the first wife of Alan of Galloway was a
Lacy in that essay was based upon he earlier article (1972) published
in the Transactions of the Dumfrieshire and Galloway Natural History
and Antiquarian Society. The weakness of Stinger's argument
(dependence upon a correction of a medieval document) was apparent even
to Stringer himself; for, as is well known is scholarly circles, such a
correction should be corroborated with supporting evidence. This he
proposed was a consanguineous relationship within the prohibited degree
between the hypothetical Lacy first wife and the known Lacy third wife
of Alan of Galloway. That degree of kniship did not exist between the
two branches of the Lacy family in those generations. Stringer's lack
of information about the degree of kinship between them or the canon
law regarding consanguineous marriages should be explained before his
correction of the document can stand.
CED
Since I know you like definitions, perhaps you would be so good as to
define for us the words in your post below: "qualified person" and
"good work." Your words seem a bit vague, and I want to be sure I
understand exactly what you are saying when you use these words.
One other thing: If you had searched the newsgroup archives, you would
quickly have determined that the identification of Alan Fitz Roland's
first wife as a Lacy was first made by the noted historian, Keith J.
Stringer, Ph.D., in his book, Essays on the Nobility of Medieval
Scotland, published in 1985. Since Dr. Stringer first made the
identification, not me, don't you think you are misrepresenting the
facts when you allege that I have attempted to fit "pre-chosen persons"
to fit a document? Or, do you now wish to "expose" Dr. Stringer's work
as "bad" and him as "unqualified"? If so, please present your evidence
to support your allegations. Also, please provide us with your
credentials to prove you are in a position of knowledge to be able to
determine the worth of Dr. Stringer's work.
I'm eagerly looking forward to your reply.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
Kevin Bradford:
Congratulations on work well done. It is about time that a qualified
person attack this problem. DR's attempted correction of a document to
fit the pre-chosen persons had to be exposed by somebody whose
qualifications and motives were not suspect. Again: Good work!
CED
-
Richard Smyth at Road Run
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Did anyone on the list happen to catch C-Span's Q&A with Wales, the man
behind the multi-national Wikipedia project? I was interested in a point he
made about one of their ironclad rules. They do not accept submissions for
their encyclopedias that contain original research. The main reason (Wales
gave several) is that editors of encyclopedic works are expected to vet
entries on the basis of what has been published in peer-reviewed literature.
They cannot and cannot be expected to act as peer reviewers themselves.
Here are two dictionary definitions of "encyclopedia":
Compact Oxford English: a book or set of books giving information on many
subjects or on many aspects of one subject, typically arranged
alphabetically.
Merriam-Webster: a work that contains information on all branches of
knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually
in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject
Richardson's work on the Plantagenet ancestries of colonial American
families and his work on Magna Carta ancestries fit these definitions; they
are comprehensive treatments of their respective subjects and both are
arranged alphabetically. How Richardson would describe these works is
irrelevant to one's understanding of what in fact they are.
I picked a bone with Richardson over his inclusion of original research in
these works, but that was criticism at the extreme margins of his
enterprise. I have never doubted his sincerity or that he simply disagrees
with me about what should be in such works. To believe otherwise one would
have to believe that he advertises actions that he recognized to be wrong.
Agains this background, I would be remiss if I did not try to defend
Richardson against the following charge by CED:
There is absolutely no such scholarly convention governing the type of work
which Richardson's books represent. His citations are clearly meant to
inform the reader who wants to know about further reading on the subject and
not to document each matter of fact. Should the author of my Britannica
article on the English Beauchamp family have acknowledged that he is not the
original proponent of the identity of Payn, second son of Hugh de Beauchamp?
The question answers itself.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com
behind the multi-national Wikipedia project? I was interested in a point he
made about one of their ironclad rules. They do not accept submissions for
their encyclopedias that contain original research. The main reason (Wales
gave several) is that editors of encyclopedic works are expected to vet
entries on the basis of what has been published in peer-reviewed literature.
They cannot and cannot be expected to act as peer reviewers themselves.
Here are two dictionary definitions of "encyclopedia":
Compact Oxford English: a book or set of books giving information on many
subjects or on many aspects of one subject, typically arranged
alphabetically.
Merriam-Webster: a work that contains information on all branches of
knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually
in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject
Richardson's work on the Plantagenet ancestries of colonial American
families and his work on Magna Carta ancestries fit these definitions; they
are comprehensive treatments of their respective subjects and both are
arranged alphabetically. How Richardson would describe these works is
irrelevant to one's understanding of what in fact they are.
I picked a bone with Richardson over his inclusion of original research in
these works, but that was criticism at the extreme margins of his
enterprise. I have never doubted his sincerity or that he simply disagrees
with me about what should be in such works. To believe otherwise one would
have to believe that he advertises actions that he recognized to be wrong.
Agains this background, I would be remiss if I did not try to defend
Richardson against the following charge by CED:
It is so nice finally to have DR admit that he is not the original
proponent of the identity of the first wife as being a Lacy. Among
scholarly conventions is one that requires acknowledging the
priority of the first to propose a theory.
There is absolutely no such scholarly convention governing the type of work
which Richardson's books represent. His citations are clearly meant to
inform the reader who wants to know about further reading on the subject and
not to document each matter of fact. Should the author of my Britannica
article on the English Beauchamp family have acknowledged that he is not the
original proponent of the identity of Payn, second son of Hugh de Beauchamp?
The question answers itself.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com
-
CED
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
"Richard Smyth at Road Runner" wrote:
Richard Smyth:
My criticism of DR is not about what he publishes in his books. I have
never seen one. My criticism is about his posting on this newsgroup
where he makes claims to expertise and academic qualifications. In
those circumstances piority is of great importance.
CED
Did anyone on the list happen to catch C-Span's Q&A with Wales, the man
behind the multi-national Wikipedia project? I was interested in a point he
made about one of their ironclad rules. They do not accept submissions for
their encyclopedias that contain original research. The main reason (Wales
gave several) is that editors of encyclopedic works are expected to vet
entries on the basis of what has been published in peer-reviewed literature.
They cannot and cannot be expected to act as peer reviewers themselves.
Here are two dictionary definitions of "encyclopedia":
Compact Oxford English: a book or set of books giving information on many
subjects or on many aspects of one subject, typically arranged
alphabetically.
Merriam-Webster: a work that contains information on all branches of
knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually
in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject
Richardson's work on the Plantagenet ancestries of colonial American
families and his work on Magna Carta ancestries fit these definitions; they
are comprehensive treatments of their respective subjects and both are
arranged alphabetically. How Richardson would describe these works is
irrelevant to one's understanding of what in fact they are.
I picked a bone with Richardson over his inclusion of original research in
these works, but that was criticism at the extreme margins of his
enterprise. I have never doubted his sincerity or that he simply disagrees
with me about what should be in such works. To believe otherwise one would
have to believe that he advertises actions that he recognized to be wrong.
Agains this background, I would be remiss if I did not try to defend
Richardson against the following charge by CED:
It is so nice finally to have DR admit that he is not the original
proponent of the identity of the first wife as being a Lacy. Among
scholarly conventions is one that requires acknowledging the
priority of the first to propose a theory.
Richard Smyth:
My criticism of DR is not about what he publishes in his books. I have
never seen one. My criticism is about his posting on this newsgroup
where he makes claims to expertise and academic qualifications. In
those circumstances piority is of great importance.
CED
There is absolutely no such scholarly convention governing the type of work
which Richardson's books represent. His citations are clearly meant to
inform the reader who wants to know about further reading on the subject and
not to document each matter of fact. Should the author of my Britannica
article on the English Beauchamp family have acknowledged that he is not the
original proponent of the identity of Payn, second son of Hugh de Beauchamp?
The question answers itself.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com
-
Gjest
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
In a message dated 9/26/05 11:14:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time, smyth@nc.rr.com
writes:
<< They do not accept submissions for
their encyclopedias that contain original research. The main reason (Wales
gave several) is that editors of encyclopedic works are expected to vet
entries on the basis of what has been published in peer-reviewed literature.
They cannot and cannot be expected to act as peer reviewers themselves. >>
As far as wikipedia, this is a rather moot point. The vast majority of
articles are not reviewed whatsoever except by other individual contributors, like
me, you or your great-aunt Tillie. It is only on the extreme, confrontational
articles (see for instance Baha U'llah) that "moderators" actually step-in to
try to exert any control at all.
In my own personal experience with wikipedia (I've contributed or edited
about 400 articles so far) only two to my knowledge have had any "moderator"
input. Baha U'llah and Jesus Christ. I'm sure you can tell why.
Will Johnson
writes:
<< They do not accept submissions for
their encyclopedias that contain original research. The main reason (Wales
gave several) is that editors of encyclopedic works are expected to vet
entries on the basis of what has been published in peer-reviewed literature.
They cannot and cannot be expected to act as peer reviewers themselves. >>
As far as wikipedia, this is a rather moot point. The vast majority of
articles are not reviewed whatsoever except by other individual contributors, like
me, you or your great-aunt Tillie. It is only on the extreme, confrontational
articles (see for instance Baha U'llah) that "moderators" actually step-in to
try to exert any control at all.
In my own personal experience with wikipedia (I've contributed or edited
about 400 articles so far) only two to my knowledge have had any "moderator"
input. Baha U'llah and Jesus Christ. I'm sure you can tell why.
Will Johnson
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Dear CED ~
How typical of you to turn tail and run when the heat gets turned up.
If you're going to make wild allegations, I'm afraid you will have to
stand and answer for your misspoken words and unfounded logic.
For starters, I once again ask that you provide us with your definition
of a "qualified person" and "good work." If Dr. Stringer, a trained
historian with a superior reputation, is not "qualified" and capable of
"good work," then I'd hate to guess who you think falls into that
category. Since you now admit that you were aware that Dr. Stringer
was the author of the original conclusion about Alan Fitz Roland's
wife, then perhaps you can tell us why you failed to mention that fact
in your original post. And, why did you attack me, and not Dr.
Stringer? Your statements to the contrary, I gave Dr. Stringer full
credit for his discovery here on the newsgroup back in 2002. And, as
you are fully aware, I also posted additional evidence which confirmed
his findings.
When you have the opportunity, I ask once again that you state your
credentials to offer us a review of Dr. Stringer's work. I suspect you
have no credentials, but I could be wrong. I hope for your sake that
you have something in your background besides an uninformed opinion.
SImply reading Dr. Stringer's works doesn't make you a scholar, or make
you qualified to pass judgement on his work.
Lastly, perhaps you can explain to us how Mr. Bradford identified the
father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron, as Richard de Crevecour,
the attorney of Alan Fitz Roland. This conclusion is beyond me.
Surely you know that the Crevecour family never owned Kippax,
Yorkshire. As I have posted, this property belonged to the Lacy family
since the time of the Domesday survey in 1086. And, are you suggesting
that Alan Fitz Roland, the plaintiff in 1214, had the father of the
defendant as his own attorney? Surely you gest. If this is not what
you are saying, please say so and tell us that Mr. Bradford's
conclusions are wrong.
Aside to the newgroup lurkers: I predict that CED will ignore my
request for the definitions of his words. He will not post his
qualifications. He will dodge the statement about Richard de Crevecour
being John de Lacy's father. He will ignore the fact that the Lacy
family were the owners of Kippax, Yorkshire. He will ignore Mr.
Bradford's conclusion that the plaintiff, Alan Fitz Roland's attorney
was the father of the defendant. He will also fail to admit that his
real motive in posting in this thread was to attack me personally, not
to address the question of the identity of Alan Fitz Roland's wife.
I think that about covers it, CED. The ball as they say is now in your
court.
Best always, Douglas RIchardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
How typical of you to turn tail and run when the heat gets turned up.
If you're going to make wild allegations, I'm afraid you will have to
stand and answer for your misspoken words and unfounded logic.
For starters, I once again ask that you provide us with your definition
of a "qualified person" and "good work." If Dr. Stringer, a trained
historian with a superior reputation, is not "qualified" and capable of
"good work," then I'd hate to guess who you think falls into that
category. Since you now admit that you were aware that Dr. Stringer
was the author of the original conclusion about Alan Fitz Roland's
wife, then perhaps you can tell us why you failed to mention that fact
in your original post. And, why did you attack me, and not Dr.
Stringer? Your statements to the contrary, I gave Dr. Stringer full
credit for his discovery here on the newsgroup back in 2002. And, as
you are fully aware, I also posted additional evidence which confirmed
his findings.
When you have the opportunity, I ask once again that you state your
credentials to offer us a review of Dr. Stringer's work. I suspect you
have no credentials, but I could be wrong. I hope for your sake that
you have something in your background besides an uninformed opinion.
SImply reading Dr. Stringer's works doesn't make you a scholar, or make
you qualified to pass judgement on his work.
Lastly, perhaps you can explain to us how Mr. Bradford identified the
father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron, as Richard de Crevecour,
the attorney of Alan Fitz Roland. This conclusion is beyond me.
Surely you know that the Crevecour family never owned Kippax,
Yorkshire. As I have posted, this property belonged to the Lacy family
since the time of the Domesday survey in 1086. And, are you suggesting
that Alan Fitz Roland, the plaintiff in 1214, had the father of the
defendant as his own attorney? Surely you gest. If this is not what
you are saying, please say so and tell us that Mr. Bradford's
conclusions are wrong.
Aside to the newgroup lurkers: I predict that CED will ignore my
request for the definitions of his words. He will not post his
qualifications. He will dodge the statement about Richard de Crevecour
being John de Lacy's father. He will ignore the fact that the Lacy
family were the owners of Kippax, Yorkshire. He will ignore Mr.
Bradford's conclusion that the plaintiff, Alan Fitz Roland's attorney
was the father of the defendant. He will also fail to admit that his
real motive in posting in this thread was to attack me personally, not
to address the question of the identity of Alan Fitz Roland's wife.
I think that about covers it, CED. The ball as they say is now in your
court.
Best always, Douglas RIchardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
CED
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
I repeat my previous statement:
"However, he has failed to respond on the substance of my latest
posting
- Stringer's article (1972) published in the Transactions of the
Dumfrieshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society.
If he does not respond on the substance (Stringer's 1972 article), we
can safely assume that wants an exchange of flaming language. In that
I will not be a participant. "
CED
Dear CED ~
How typical of you to turn tail and run when the heat gets turned up.
If you're going to make wild allegations, I'm afraid you will have to
stand and answer for your misspoken words and unfounded logic.
For starters, I once again ask that you provide us with your definition
of a "qualified person" and "good work." If Dr. Stringer, a trained
historian with a superior reputation, is not "qualified" and capable of
"good work," then I'd hate to guess who you think falls into that
category. Since you now admit that you were aware that Dr. Stringer
was the author of the original conclusion about Alan Fitz Roland's
wife, then perhaps you can tell us why you failed to mention that fact
in your original post. And, why did you attack me, and not Dr.
Stringer? Your statements to the contrary, I gave Dr. Stringer full
credit for his discovery here on the newsgroup back in 2002. And, as
you are fully aware, I also posted additional evidence which confirmed
his findings.
When you have the opportunity, I ask once again that you state your
credentials to offer us a review of Dr. Stringer's work. I suspect you
have no credentials, but I could be wrong. I hope for your sake that
you have something in your background besides an uninformed opinion.
SImply reading Dr. Stringer's works doesn't make you a scholar, or make
you qualified to pass judgement on his work.
Lastly, perhaps you can explain to us how Mr. Bradford identified the
father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron, as Richard de Crevecour,
the attorney of Alan Fitz Roland. This conclusion is beyond me.
Surely you know that the Crevecour family never owned Kippax,
Yorkshire. As I have posted, this property belonged to the Lacy family
since the time of the Domesday survey in 1086. And, are you suggesting
that Alan Fitz Roland, the plaintiff in 1214, had the father of the
defendant as his own attorney? Surely you gest. If this is not what
you are saying, please say so and tell us that Mr. Bradford's
conclusions are wrong.
To the Newsgroup:
I repeat my previous statement:
"However, he has failed to respond on the substance of my latest
posting
- Stringer's article (1972) published in the Transactions of the
Dumfrieshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society.
If he does not respond on the substance (Stringer's 1972 article), we
can safely assume that wants an exchange of flaming language. In that
I will not be a participant. "
CED
Aside to the newgroup lurkers: I predict that CED will ignore my
request for the definitions of his words. He will not post his
qualifications. He will dodge the statement about Richard de Crevecour
being John de Lacy's father. He will ignore the fact that the Lacy
family were the owners of Kippax, Yorkshire. He will ignore Mr.
Bradford's conclusion that the plaintiff, Alan Fitz Roland's attorney
was the father of the defendant. He will also fail to admit that his
real motive in posting in this thread was to attack me personally, not
to address the question of the identity of Alan Fitz Roland's wife.
I think that about covers it, CED. The ball as they say is now in your
court.
Best always, Douglas RIchardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Be fair. Mr. Bradford did NOT identify Richard de Crevecour as the
father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron. He concluded that John
of Chester (an person distinct from John de Lacys) was son of Richard de
Crevecour. Perhaps, though, you should ask Mr. Bradford about his
conclusions, rather than demanding the information of a third party.
And while you are at it, you could explain the justification for
identifying John de Lacy, son of Roger with this John of Chester, son of
Richard. (Just saying that the entry has made a mistake doesn't cut it.
On what basis do you conclude this is an error?) You know - actually
discuss the question.
Umm, . . . . you have little standing to complain of this until you show
your willingness to respond to questions posed to you.
taf
Lastly, perhaps you can explain to us how Mr. Bradford identified the
father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron, as Richard de Crevecour,
the attorney of Alan Fitz Roland.
Be fair. Mr. Bradford did NOT identify Richard de Crevecour as the
father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron. He concluded that John
of Chester (an person distinct from John de Lacys) was son of Richard de
Crevecour. Perhaps, though, you should ask Mr. Bradford about his
conclusions, rather than demanding the information of a third party.
And while you are at it, you could explain the justification for
identifying John de Lacy, son of Roger with this John of Chester, son of
Richard. (Just saying that the entry has made a mistake doesn't cut it.
On what basis do you conclude this is an error?) You know - actually
discuss the question.
Aside to the newgroup lurkers: I predict that CED will ignore my
request for the definitions of his words.
Umm, . . . . you have little standing to complain of this until you show
your willingness to respond to questions posed to you.
taf
-
CED
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
To be honest, I have been collecting materials to counter a number of
DR's propositions, awaiting appropriate opportunities for their
productive use. The loss of my hard drive has been unfortunate in that
regard. However, when it came to the matter of Alan of Galloway, it
just happened that I had hard copy in my library. So, when the
opportunity to expose DR came about, I used it.
CED
PS: I wonder whether Alan of Galloway had any conception of a surname.
When Alan needed to identify himself, he could use either his
patronymic (son of Roland) or his title (of Galloway), neither of which
was considered a surname. Why DR insists upon the use of the
patronymic as if it were a surname, a usage or concept unknown at that
time, is a wonder in itself.
CED
Dear CED ~
How typical of you to turn tail and run when the heat gets turned up.
If you're going to make wild allegations, I'm afraid you will have to
stand and answer for your misspoken words and unfounded logic.
For starters, I once again ask that you provide us with your definition
of a "qualified person" and "good work." If Dr. Stringer, a trained
historian with a superior reputation, is not "qualified" and capable of
"good work," then I'd hate to guess who you think falls into that
category. Since you now admit that you were aware that Dr. Stringer
was the author of the original conclusion about Alan Fitz Roland's
wife, then perhaps you can tell us why you failed to mention that fact
in your original post. And, why did you attack me, and not Dr.
Stringer? Your statements to the contrary, I gave Dr. Stringer full
credit for his discovery here on the newsgroup back in 2002. And, as
you are fully aware, I also posted additional evidence which confirmed
his findings.
When you have the opportunity, I ask once again that you state your
credentials to offer us a review of Dr. Stringer's work. I suspect you
have no credentials, but I could be wrong. I hope for your sake that
you have something in your background besides an uninformed opinion.
SImply reading Dr. Stringer's works doesn't make you a scholar, or make
you qualified to pass judgement on his work.
Lastly, perhaps you can explain to us how Mr. Bradford identified the
father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron, as Richard de Crevecour,
the attorney of Alan Fitz Roland. This conclusion is beyond me.
Surely you know that the Crevecour family never owned Kippax,
Yorkshire. As I have posted, this property belonged to the Lacy family
since the time of the Domesday survey in 1086. And, are you suggesting
that Alan Fitz Roland, the plaintiff in 1214, had the father of the
defendant as his own attorney? Surely you gest. If this is not what
you are saying, please say so and tell us that Mr. Bradford's
conclusions are wrong.
Aside to the newgroup lurkers: I predict that CED will ignore my
request for the definitions of his words. He will not post his
qualifications. He will dodge the statement about Richard de Crevecour
being John de Lacy's father. He will ignore the fact that the Lacy
family were the owners of Kippax, Yorkshire. He will ignore Mr.
Bradford's conclusion that the plaintiff, Alan Fitz Roland's attorney
was the father of the defendant. He will also fail to admit that his
real motive in posting in this thread was to attack me personally, not
to address the question of the identity of Alan Fitz Roland's wife.
To the Newsgroup:
To be honest, I have been collecting materials to counter a number of
DR's propositions, awaiting appropriate opportunities for their
productive use. The loss of my hard drive has been unfortunate in that
regard. However, when it came to the matter of Alan of Galloway, it
just happened that I had hard copy in my library. So, when the
opportunity to expose DR came about, I used it.
CED
PS: I wonder whether Alan of Galloway had any conception of a surname.
When Alan needed to identify himself, he could use either his
patronymic (son of Roland) or his title (of Galloway), neither of which
was considered a surname. Why DR insists upon the use of the
patronymic as if it were a surname, a usage or concept unknown at that
time, is a wonder in itself.
CED
I think that about covers it, CED. The ball as they say is now in your
court.
Best always, Douglas RIchardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
CED
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
To the newsgroup:
I doubt that K. J. Stringer would describe himself as a "trained
historian." Historians, as good historians know, are not "trained."
The term "trained" implies job training or some other preparation for
manual work. No good historian would consider him- or her-self
"trained" for the profession. Stringer is a good historian.
DR does consider himself to be a "trained" historian, almost as if he
were a puppy.
CED
with a superior reputation, is not "qualified" and capable of
Dear CED ~
How typical of you to turn tail and run when the heat gets turned up.
If you're going to make wild allegations, I'm afraid you will have to
stand and answer for your misspoken words and unfounded logic.
For starters, I once again ask that you provide us with your definition
of a "qualified person" and "good work." If Dr. Stringer, a trained
historian
To the newsgroup:
I doubt that K. J. Stringer would describe himself as a "trained
historian." Historians, as good historians know, are not "trained."
The term "trained" implies job training or some other preparation for
manual work. No good historian would consider him- or her-self
"trained" for the profession. Stringer is a good historian.
DR does consider himself to be a "trained" historian, almost as if he
were a puppy.
CED
with a superior reputation, is not "qualified" and capable of
"good work," then I'd hate to guess who you think falls into that
category. Since you now admit that you were aware that Dr. Stringer
was the author of the original conclusion about Alan Fitz Roland's
wife, then perhaps you can tell us why you failed to mention that fact
in your original post. And, why did you attack me, and not Dr.
Stringer? Your statements to the contrary, I gave Dr. Stringer full
credit for his discovery here on the newsgroup back in 2002. And, as
you are fully aware, I also posted additional evidence which confirmed
his findings.
When you have the opportunity, I ask once again that you state your
credentials to offer us a review of Dr. Stringer's work. I suspect you
have no credentials, but I could be wrong. I hope for your sake that
you have something in your background besides an uninformed opinion.
SImply reading Dr. Stringer's works doesn't make you a scholar, or make
you qualified to pass judgement on his work.
Lastly, perhaps you can explain to us how Mr. Bradford identified the
father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron, as Richard de Crevecour,
the attorney of Alan Fitz Roland. This conclusion is beyond me.
Surely you know that the Crevecour family never owned Kippax,
Yorkshire. As I have posted, this property belonged to the Lacy family
since the time of the Domesday survey in 1086. And, are you suggesting
that Alan Fitz Roland, the plaintiff in 1214, had the father of the
defendant as his own attorney? Surely you gest. If this is not what
you are saying, please say so and tell us that Mr. Bradford's
conclusions are wrong.
Aside to the newgroup lurkers: I predict that CED will ignore my
request for the definitions of his words. He will not post his
qualifications. He will dodge the statement about Richard de Crevecour
being John de Lacy's father. He will ignore the fact that the Lacy
family were the owners of Kippax, Yorkshire. He will ignore Mr.
Bradford's conclusion that the plaintiff, Alan Fitz Roland's attorney
was the father of the defendant. He will also fail to admit that his
real motive in posting in this thread was to attack me personally, not
to address the question of the identity of Alan Fitz Roland's wife.
I think that about covers it, CED. The ball as they say is now in your
court.
Best always, Douglas RIchardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Kevin Bradford
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Mr. Farmerie,
That is correct, I did *NOT* identifity Richard de Crevequor as the father of John de Lacy. Apparently Mr. Richardson, in his zeal to turn the intent of my posting into a personal attack against himself, misses not only the original point of my posting, but the entire body of evidence I presented. It's not about Mr. Richardson. This thread is about the evidence, and the evidence only. In order to make the conclusions fit his premise, Mr. Richardson's "John of Chester" must have a father named "Roger," else his de Lacy conclusions won't fit. This is the principal reason he insists the name "Richard" is in error in the document. Aside from Mr. Richardson's John de Lacy, there have been several others who have tried fitting the de Lacy tag onto Alan de Galloway's 1st wife. Most of these are a conflagration with his 3rd wife, and of those that aren't, no convincing evidence has been brought forth.
Aside from a straightforward reading of the Latin ("sui" in this context relates to the sister of the John), one salient clue of Richard's identification as "patris" carries with it only a forename, no surname or cognomen. I would be interested if anyone who reads medieval Latin could point out just where, in either of these documents, Richard de Crevequor's role in the process excludes him from being John of Chester's father. I have had the text *very* carefully examined, in its medieval context. Most primary medieval texts, in practice not in theory, identify individuals by location, nickname, or familial connections (e.g., "William of Malmesbury, "Geoffrey of Staunton," etc.). Where they don't make this distinction, there is usually a salient reason. You will note that in the context of the adjective "patris" in the evidence I cited, Richard patris of John has no surname or cognomen. That's because one wasn't necessary. These parties knew who "patris" was--Richard !
de Crevequor.
Best,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
Sent: Sep 26, 2005 5:29 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Be fair. Mr. Bradford did NOT identify Richard de Crevecour as the
father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron. He concluded that John
of Chester (an person distinct from John de Lacys) was son of Richard de
Crevecour. Perhaps, though, you should ask Mr. Bradford about his
conclusions, rather than demanding the information of a third party.
And while you are at it, you could explain the justification for
identifying John de Lacy, son of Roger with this John of Chester, son of
Richard. (Just saying that the entry has made a mistake doesn't cut it.
On what basis do you conclude this is an error?) You know - actually
discuss the question.
Umm, . . . . you have little standing to complain of this until you show
your willingness to respond to questions posed to you.
taf
That is correct, I did *NOT* identifity Richard de Crevequor as the father of John de Lacy. Apparently Mr. Richardson, in his zeal to turn the intent of my posting into a personal attack against himself, misses not only the original point of my posting, but the entire body of evidence I presented. It's not about Mr. Richardson. This thread is about the evidence, and the evidence only. In order to make the conclusions fit his premise, Mr. Richardson's "John of Chester" must have a father named "Roger," else his de Lacy conclusions won't fit. This is the principal reason he insists the name "Richard" is in error in the document. Aside from Mr. Richardson's John de Lacy, there have been several others who have tried fitting the de Lacy tag onto Alan de Galloway's 1st wife. Most of these are a conflagration with his 3rd wife, and of those that aren't, no convincing evidence has been brought forth.
Aside from a straightforward reading of the Latin ("sui" in this context relates to the sister of the John), one salient clue of Richard's identification as "patris" carries with it only a forename, no surname or cognomen. I would be interested if anyone who reads medieval Latin could point out just where, in either of these documents, Richard de Crevequor's role in the process excludes him from being John of Chester's father. I have had the text *very* carefully examined, in its medieval context. Most primary medieval texts, in practice not in theory, identify individuals by location, nickname, or familial connections (e.g., "William of Malmesbury, "Geoffrey of Staunton," etc.). Where they don't make this distinction, there is usually a salient reason. You will note that in the context of the adjective "patris" in the evidence I cited, Richard patris of John has no surname or cognomen. That's because one wasn't necessary. These parties knew who "patris" was--Richard !
de Crevequor.
Best,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
Sent: Sep 26, 2005 5:29 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Lastly, perhaps you can explain to us how Mr. Bradford identified the
father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron, as Richard de Crevecour,
the attorney of Alan Fitz Roland.
Be fair. Mr. Bradford did NOT identify Richard de Crevecour as the
father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron. He concluded that John
of Chester (an person distinct from John de Lacys) was son of Richard de
Crevecour. Perhaps, though, you should ask Mr. Bradford about his
conclusions, rather than demanding the information of a third party.
And while you are at it, you could explain the justification for
identifying John de Lacy, son of Roger with this John of Chester, son of
Richard. (Just saying that the entry has made a mistake doesn't cut it.
On what basis do you conclude this is an error?) You know - actually
discuss the question.
Aside to the newgroup lurkers: I predict that CED will ignore my
request for the definitions of his words.
Umm, . . . . you have little standing to complain of this until you show
your willingness to respond to questions posed to you.
taf
-
Patricia Junkin
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
All,
Assume we are discussing the same Alan here .
From Medieval Scotland, Crown, Lordship and community the essay,periphery
and Core: Alan of Galloway presented to Barrow and edited by Stringer:
p. 93 "In the circumstances, it would have been prudent for Alan to have
made some sort of accommodation with the de Lacy interest, and it was
possibly in 1219 (rather than 1229, the traditional date) that he married
Hugh's [de Lacy] daughter Rose."
Here the citation reads--Cf. K. J. Stringer. A New Wife for Alan of
Galloway. TDGNHAS 3rd. series, xlix (1972) p. 52 (where the argument should
turn on the degree of affinity, not consanguinity) This lady, evidently
called Rose, had in 1217 been placed in the custody of her uncle, the
Regent's ally Walter de Lacy: Register of the Priory of St. Bees ed. J.
Wilson (Surtees Soc. 1915, p. x and n. 5.
Alan of Galloway and the de Veteripontes were closely connected through the
de Morvilles.
Pat
----------
Assume we are discussing the same Alan here .
From Medieval Scotland, Crown, Lordship and community the essay,periphery
and Core: Alan of Galloway presented to Barrow and edited by Stringer:
p. 93 "In the circumstances, it would have been prudent for Alan to have
made some sort of accommodation with the de Lacy interest, and it was
possibly in 1219 (rather than 1229, the traditional date) that he married
Hugh's [de Lacy] daughter Rose."
Here the citation reads--Cf. K. J. Stringer. A New Wife for Alan of
Galloway. TDGNHAS 3rd. series, xlix (1972) p. 52 (where the argument should
turn on the degree of affinity, not consanguinity) This lady, evidently
called Rose, had in 1217 been placed in the custody of her uncle, the
Regent's ally Walter de Lacy: Register of the Priory of St. Bees ed. J.
Wilson (Surtees Soc. 1915, p. x and n. 5.
Alan of Galloway and the de Veteripontes were closely connected through the
de Morvilles.
Pat
----------
From: "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Date: Mon, Sep 26, 2005, 3:10 PM
Kevin Bradford wrote:
Dear CED,
We are told by Mr. Richardson in his Sept. 2002 posting, "the citation
plainly states that Alan Fitz Roland had the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire,
which Richard [recte Roger] [de Lacy] gave to his sister in marriage."
Whose correction is "recte Roger?" Is it Mr. Stringer's? Is it Mr.
Richardson's? Under what authority do modern genealogists change the
wording in 13th century primary documents?
Kevin Bradford:
The following exerpt is from a posting by Mr. Richardson in which he
does not acknowledge K. J. Stringer's priority (thus giving the
impression that it was his own correction). Later I found that
Stringer was also making a similar "correction" at a much earlier date
(1972). Apparently Mr. Richardson was copying Stringer without
admitting that he was doing so; and he does not add any supporting
evidence.
(The hostage statement is worthless. Mr. Richardson seems to be
unaware of King John's treatment of [or policies regarding]hostages,
his sale of justice, and his treatment of the lands of his vassals. A
suit in midst of King John's difficulty with his barons is questionable
at best. How many of the persons mentioned in the document were rebels
at the time?)
By the way, I cannot find a statement in which Stringer explicitly
makes the "correction"; it is found in the translated text.
Beginning of quote:
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval From: royalances...@msn.com (Douglas
Richardson) - Date: 13 Sep 2002 18:55:39 -0700 Local: Fri, Sep 13 2002
8:55 pm Subject: Alan Fitz Roland's three marriages
* * * * * * *
[Note: The identity of Alan Fitz Roland';s first wife is proven by a
suit dated 1214 regarding Kippax, co. York, in which Alan is stated to
have married a sister of Richard [recte Roger], father of John [de
Lacy] [constable] of Chester. The year previously in 1213, an unnamed
daughter of Alan died as a hostage in the custody of Robert Fitz
Roger, of Warkworth, co. Northumberland. It was customary in this
period to place foreign born hostages with a near relative in England.
Robert Fitz Roger in question was the maternal uncle of Alan of
Galloway's first wife, and thus would have been closely related to
Alan's child].
End of quote.
CED
As one can see from the original documents, again cited below, there is
no "recte Roger" within the body of these texts:
Cumb'.-Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton' Adam de Hocton', tres
milites de comitatu Cumberland' missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene de
Morevill' et Alani de Galweia filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum ipsa
Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem de
Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden' in comitatu Roteland' et ad
videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela que est
inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr' de warantia carte de terra de Kippes in
comitatu Ebor', dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de Torinton' vel
Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de Londor' de placito ecclesie de
Wissenden' in comitatu Roteland'. Dicunt etiam quod Alanus de Galweye
posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor versus
Johannem de Cestr' de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in comitatu
Ebor'. Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die. Et quoniam
Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit, q!
ui!
' debuit testificasse simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum,
consideratum est quod atachietur quod sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas.
Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.
Ebor'.-Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de
Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr' de placito quod
idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye
habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc.,
et summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.
Claims by Mr. Richardson, in a rebuttal to my recent posting, that this
"John of Chester" is actually John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, are curious
indeed ["The defendant in the 1214 lawsuit was John de Lacy (died 1240)"].
As many of us know, this John de Lacy's father was ROGER. The text of the
suit in question clearly spells out that "John of Chester's" father was
"RICHARD."
Best,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography:
http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: CED <leesmyth@cox.net
Sent: Sep 26, 2005 11:01 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear CED ~
So nice to hear from you again. To be perfectly honest, I've missed
your posts.
To the Newsgroup;
So sorry that DR has missed my posts. I apologize for not posting; but
I have an excuse - my computer went kaplooey and I lost my hard drive.
DR could well have enjoyed some of my lost posts, the material for
which had not been backed up on CD.
As you all know well, I let my words and logic stand for themselves.
It is so nice finally to have DR admit that he is not the original
proponent of the identity of the first wife as being a Lacy. Among
scholarly conventions is one one that requires acknowledging the
priority of the first to propose a theory. As far as I can determine,
this is the first time that DR has acknowledged K. J. Stringer's
priority and DR's dependence upon Stringer's reseach. Would that he
had dug a bit deeper than _Essays on the Nobility of Medieval Scotland_
published in 1985.
Stringer's contention that the first wife of Alan of Galloway was a
Lacy in that essay was based upon he earlier article (1972) published
in the Transactions of the Dumfrieshire and Galloway Natural History
and Antiquarian Society. The weakness of Stinger's argument
(dependence upon a correction of a medieval document) was apparent even
to Stringer himself; for, as is well known is scholarly circles, such a
correction should be corroborated with supporting evidence. This he
proposed was a consanguineous relationship within the prohibited degree
between the hypothetical Lacy first wife and the known Lacy third wife
of Alan of Galloway. That degree of kniship did not exist between the
two branches of the Lacy family in those generations. Stringer's lack
of information about the degree of kinship between them or the canon
law regarding consanguineous marriages should be explained before his
correction of the document can stand.
CED
Since I know you like definitions, perhaps you would be so good as to
define for us the words in your post below: "qualified person" and
"good work." Your words seem a bit vague, and I want to be sure I
understand exactly what you are saying when you use these words.
One other thing: If you had searched the newsgroup archives, you would
quickly have determined that the identification of Alan Fitz Roland's
first wife as a Lacy was first made by the noted historian, Keith J.
Stringer, Ph.D., in his book, Essays on the Nobility of Medieval
Scotland, published in 1985. Since Dr. Stringer first made the
identification, not me, don't you think you are misrepresenting the
facts when you allege that I have attempted to fit "pre-chosen persons"
to fit a document? Or, do you now wish to "expose" Dr. Stringer's work
as "bad" and him as "unqualified"? If so, please present your evidence
to support your allegations. Also, please provide us with your
credentials to prove you are in a position of knowledge to be able to
determine the worth of Dr. Stringer's work.
I'm eagerly looking forward to your reply.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
Kevin Bradford:
Congratulations on work well done. It is about time that a qualified
person attack this problem. DR's attempted correction of a document to
fit the pre-chosen persons had to be exposed by somebody whose
qualifications and motives were not suspect. Again: Good work!
CED
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway
Dear Newsgroup ~
As I recall, Alan Fitz Roland used the following style in all of his
charters as published by Dr. Keith Stringer:
Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway, Constable of Scotland.
"Fitz Roland" was not a surname. It was a patronymic. Alan was rarely
called Alan of Galloway. In fact, I have never seen any charter issued
by him as Alan of Galloway. Rather, he is always Alan Fitz Roland.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
As I recall, Alan Fitz Roland used the following style in all of his
charters as published by Dr. Keith Stringer:
Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway, Constable of Scotland.
"Fitz Roland" was not a surname. It was a patronymic. Alan was rarely
called Alan of Galloway. In fact, I have never seen any charter issued
by him as Alan of Galloway. Rather, he is always Alan Fitz Roland.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Kevin Bradford
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
The Latin maritagium & suit cited by me are dated 1214, long before Rose was in custody of her uncle.
KB
-----Original Message-----
From: Patricia Junkin <pajunkin@cox.net>
Sent: Sep 26, 2005 3:50 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
All,
Assume we are discussing the same Alan here .
From Medieval Scotland, Crown, Lordship and community the essay,periphery
and Core: Alan of Galloway presented to Barrow and edited by Stringer:
p. 93 "In the circumstances, it would have been prudent for Alan to have
made some sort of accommodation with the de Lacy interest, and it was
possibly in 1219 (rather than 1229, the traditional date) that he married
Hugh's [de Lacy] daughter Rose."
Here the citation reads--Cf. K. J. Stringer. A New Wife for Alan of
Galloway. TDGNHAS 3rd. series, xlix (1972) p. 52 (where the argument should
turn on the degree of affinity, not consanguinity) This lady, evidently
called Rose, had in 1217 been placed in the custody of her uncle, the
Regent's ally Walter de Lacy: Register of the Priory of St. Bees ed. J.
Wilson (Surtees Soc. 1915, p. x and n. 5.
Alan of Galloway and the de Veteripontes were closely connected through the
de Morvilles.
Pat
----------
KB
-----Original Message-----
From: Patricia Junkin <pajunkin@cox.net>
Sent: Sep 26, 2005 3:50 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
All,
Assume we are discussing the same Alan here .
From Medieval Scotland, Crown, Lordship and community the essay,periphery
and Core: Alan of Galloway presented to Barrow and edited by Stringer:
p. 93 "In the circumstances, it would have been prudent for Alan to have
made some sort of accommodation with the de Lacy interest, and it was
possibly in 1219 (rather than 1229, the traditional date) that he married
Hugh's [de Lacy] daughter Rose."
Here the citation reads--Cf. K. J. Stringer. A New Wife for Alan of
Galloway. TDGNHAS 3rd. series, xlix (1972) p. 52 (where the argument should
turn on the degree of affinity, not consanguinity) This lady, evidently
called Rose, had in 1217 been placed in the custody of her uncle, the
Regent's ally Walter de Lacy: Register of the Priory of St. Bees ed. J.
Wilson (Surtees Soc. 1915, p. x and n. 5.
Alan of Galloway and the de Veteripontes were closely connected through the
de Morvilles.
Pat
----------
From: "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Date: Mon, Sep 26, 2005, 3:10 PM
Kevin Bradford wrote:
Dear CED,
We are told by Mr. Richardson in his Sept. 2002 posting, "the citation
plainly states that Alan Fitz Roland had the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire,
which Richard [recte Roger] [de Lacy] gave to his sister in marriage."
Whose correction is "recte Roger?" Is it Mr. Stringer's? Is it Mr.
Richardson's? Under what authority do modern genealogists change the
wording in 13th century primary documents?
Kevin Bradford:
The following exerpt is from a posting by Mr. Richardson in which he
does not acknowledge K. J. Stringer's priority (thus giving the
impression that it was his own correction). Later I found that
Stringer was also making a similar "correction" at a much earlier date
(1972). Apparently Mr. Richardson was copying Stringer without
admitting that he was doing so; and he does not add any supporting
evidence.
(The hostage statement is worthless. Mr. Richardson seems to be
unaware of King John's treatment of [or policies regarding]hostages,
his sale of justice, and his treatment of the lands of his vassals. A
suit in midst of King John's difficulty with his barons is questionable
at best. How many of the persons mentioned in the document were rebels
at the time?)
By the way, I cannot find a statement in which Stringer explicitly
makes the "correction"; it is found in the translated text.
Beginning of quote:
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval From: royalances...@msn.com (Douglas
Richardson) - Date: 13 Sep 2002 18:55:39 -0700 Local: Fri, Sep 13 2002
8:55 pm Subject: Alan Fitz Roland's three marriages
* * * * * * *
[Note: The identity of Alan Fitz Roland';s first wife is proven by a
suit dated 1214 regarding Kippax, co. York, in which Alan is stated to
have married a sister of Richard [recte Roger], father of John [de
Lacy] [constable] of Chester. The year previously in 1213, an unnamed
daughter of Alan died as a hostage in the custody of Robert Fitz
Roger, of Warkworth, co. Northumberland. It was customary in this
period to place foreign born hostages with a near relative in England.
Robert Fitz Roger in question was the maternal uncle of Alan of
Galloway's first wife, and thus would have been closely related to
Alan's child].
End of quote.
CED
As one can see from the original documents, again cited below, there is
no "recte Roger" within the body of these texts:
Cumb'.-Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton' Adam de Hocton', tres
milites de comitatu Cumberland' missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene de
Morevill' et Alani de Galweia filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum ipsa
Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem de
Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden' in comitatu Roteland' et ad
videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela que est
inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr' de warantia carte de terra de Kippes in
comitatu Ebor', dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de Torinton' vel
Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de Londor' de placito ecclesie de
Wissenden' in comitatu Roteland'. Dicunt etiam quod Alanus de Galweye
posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor versus
Johannem de Cestr' de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in comitatu
Ebor'. Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die. Et quoniam
Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit, q!
ui!
' debuit testificasse simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum,
consideratum est quod atachietur quod sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas.
Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.
Ebor'.-Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de
Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr' de placito quod
idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye
habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc.,
et summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.
Claims by Mr. Richardson, in a rebuttal to my recent posting, that this
"John of Chester" is actually John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, are curious
indeed ["The defendant in the 1214 lawsuit was John de Lacy (died 1240)"].
As many of us know, this John de Lacy's father was ROGER. The text of the
suit in question clearly spells out that "John of Chester's" father was
"RICHARD."
Best,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography:
http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: CED <leesmyth@cox.net
Sent: Sep 26, 2005 11:01 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear CED ~
So nice to hear from you again. To be perfectly honest, I've missed
your posts.
To the Newsgroup;
So sorry that DR has missed my posts. I apologize for not posting; but
I have an excuse - my computer went kaplooey and I lost my hard drive.
DR could well have enjoyed some of my lost posts, the material for
which had not been backed up on CD.
As you all know well, I let my words and logic stand for themselves.
It is so nice finally to have DR admit that he is not the original
proponent of the identity of the first wife as being a Lacy. Among
scholarly conventions is one one that requires acknowledging the
priority of the first to propose a theory. As far as I can determine,
this is the first time that DR has acknowledged K. J. Stringer's
priority and DR's dependence upon Stringer's reseach. Would that he
had dug a bit deeper than _Essays on the Nobility of Medieval Scotland_
published in 1985.
Stringer's contention that the first wife of Alan of Galloway was a
Lacy in that essay was based upon he earlier article (1972) published
in the Transactions of the Dumfrieshire and Galloway Natural History
and Antiquarian Society. The weakness of Stinger's argument
(dependence upon a correction of a medieval document) was apparent even
to Stringer himself; for, as is well known is scholarly circles, such a
correction should be corroborated with supporting evidence. This he
proposed was a consanguineous relationship within the prohibited degree
between the hypothetical Lacy first wife and the known Lacy third wife
of Alan of Galloway. That degree of kniship did not exist between the
two branches of the Lacy family in those generations. Stringer's lack
of information about the degree of kinship between them or the canon
law regarding consanguineous marriages should be explained before his
correction of the document can stand.
CED
Since I know you like definitions, perhaps you would be so good as to
define for us the words in your post below: "qualified person" and
"good work." Your words seem a bit vague, and I want to be sure I
understand exactly what you are saying when you use these words.
One other thing: If you had searched the newsgroup archives, you would
quickly have determined that the identification of Alan Fitz Roland's
first wife as a Lacy was first made by the noted historian, Keith J.
Stringer, Ph.D., in his book, Essays on the Nobility of Medieval
Scotland, published in 1985. Since Dr. Stringer first made the
identification, not me, don't you think you are misrepresenting the
facts when you allege that I have attempted to fit "pre-chosen persons"
to fit a document? Or, do you now wish to "expose" Dr. Stringer's work
as "bad" and him as "unqualified"? If so, please present your evidence
to support your allegations. Also, please provide us with your
credentials to prove you are in a position of knowledge to be able to
determine the worth of Dr. Stringer's work.
I'm eagerly looking forward to your reply.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
Kevin Bradford:
Congratulations on work well done. It is about time that a qualified
person attack this problem. DR's attempted correction of a document to
fit the pre-chosen persons had to be exposed by somebody whose
qualifications and motives were not suspect. Again: Good work!
CED
-
Peter Stewart
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:4338684c@news.ColoState.EDU...
Since we know that Roger, constable of Chester (died 1211, who took the
surname Lacy and was father of father of John de Lacy, constable of Chester
& earl of Lincoln) had previously been known like his brothers as "de
Chester", and that one of his brothers was named Richard, why can't "John de
Chester" be the latter's son, and Alan of Galloway's first wife the daughter
of this Richard de Chester, given Kippax from his family otherwise called
Lacy?
I haven't followed the thread, but on reading just the posts from Kevin and
Todd I don't see why a more elaborate theory is needed on the slender
evidence available, much less a supposed "correction" of the relevant name,
from Richard to Roger, in the document providing this.
Peter Stewart
news:4338684c@news.ColoState.EDU...
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Lastly, perhaps you can explain to us how Mr. Bradford identified the
father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron, as Richard de Crevecour,
the attorney of Alan Fitz Roland.
Be fair. Mr. Bradford did NOT identify Richard de Crevecour as the father
of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron. He concluded that John of Chester
(an person distinct from John de Lacys) was son of Richard de Crevecour.
Perhaps, though, you should ask Mr. Bradford about his conclusions, rather
than demanding the information of a third party. And while you are at it,
you could explain the justification for identifying John de Lacy, son of
Roger with this John of Chester, son of Richard. (Just saying that the
entry has made a mistake doesn't cut it. On what basis do you conclude
this is an error?) You know - actually discuss the question.
Since we know that Roger, constable of Chester (died 1211, who took the
surname Lacy and was father of father of John de Lacy, constable of Chester
& earl of Lincoln) had previously been known like his brothers as "de
Chester", and that one of his brothers was named Richard, why can't "John de
Chester" be the latter's son, and Alan of Galloway's first wife the daughter
of this Richard de Chester, given Kippax from his family otherwise called
Lacy?
I haven't followed the thread, but on reading just the posts from Kevin and
Todd I don't see why a more elaborate theory is needed on the slender
evidence available, much less a supposed "correction" of the relevant name,
from Richard to Roger, in the document providing this.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Y22_e.15678$0E5.512@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Make that just one "father of" John de Lacy - Roger was not his grandfather,
despite my fingers mindlessly adding a generation to the line.
Peter Stewart
news:Y22_e.15678$0E5.512@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Since we know that Roger, constable of Chester (died 1211, who took the
surname Lacy and was father of father of John de Lacy, constable of
Chester & earl of Lincoln)
Make that just one "father of" John de Lacy - Roger was not his grandfather,
despite my fingers mindlessly adding a generation to the line.
Peter Stewart
-
Richard Smyth at Road Run
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Will Johnson:
I accept the possibility that you are in a position to contradict Wales. I
am not. I have had experience with a Wiki, but not with the Wikapedia
project. However Wales and you may be saying the same thing. He said that
in the vast majority of the cases material that is inappropriate (because,
for example, it is allegedly original research) is removed almost
immediately by someone who is not part of what he would regard as an
editorial board constituted by him or by anyone else. He actually cited a
figure, something like six minutes, as what a study showed is the average
length of time something inappropriate goes without getting removed. Wales
seems to think that the editorial boards in a given area of these
"multi-language encyclopedia projects" are self-constituting. Perhaps he is
delusional, as many in the grip of a vision seem to be. In any event how
the Wikipedia project actually operates is beside the point. The question
is whether one should expect that a review article or a more encyclopedic
review of our knowledge in some area will not contain original research.
The question of who enforces such a rule in a particular case is irrelevant.
CED now says that it was Richardson's email to Gen-Medieval that should have
contained an acknowledgment of the original source of his information. That
proposition is too absurd to be worth pursuing. Anyway, Richardson now says
that he had offered the information about the source in an earlier posting.
That, if true, moots CED's complaint, but it does not answer my concerns
about the standards by which Richardson's books should be judged.
On a more personal note, I am awed and humbled by the fact that there are
400 subjects on which you are able to claim competence. It reminds me of a
joke about a philosophy professor from Tulane who had an interview with
Einstein. At the conclusion, to be polite, Einstein said, "This has been
very interesting. You must send me something to read. You have written a
book, haven't you?" To which the philosopher replied, "Sir, I have written
15 books." "Humm," said Einstein, "Very suspicious." I take that, by the
way, to be a joke about philosophers, and not about Tulane.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com
The main reason (Wales
gave several) is that editors of encyclopedic works are expected to vet
entries on the basis of what has been published in peer-reviewed
literature.
They cannot and cannot be expected to act as peer reviewers themselves.
As far as wikipedia, this is a rather moot point. The vast majority of
articles are not reviewed whatsoever except by other individual
contributors, like
me, you or your great-aunt Tillie. It is only on the extreme,
confrontational
articles (see for instance Baha U'llah) that "moderators" actually step-in
to
try to exert any control at all.
In my own personal experience with wikipedia (I've contributed or edited
about 400 articles so far) only two to my knowledge have had any
"moderator"
input.
I accept the possibility that you are in a position to contradict Wales. I
am not. I have had experience with a Wiki, but not with the Wikapedia
project. However Wales and you may be saying the same thing. He said that
in the vast majority of the cases material that is inappropriate (because,
for example, it is allegedly original research) is removed almost
immediately by someone who is not part of what he would regard as an
editorial board constituted by him or by anyone else. He actually cited a
figure, something like six minutes, as what a study showed is the average
length of time something inappropriate goes without getting removed. Wales
seems to think that the editorial boards in a given area of these
"multi-language encyclopedia projects" are self-constituting. Perhaps he is
delusional, as many in the grip of a vision seem to be. In any event how
the Wikipedia project actually operates is beside the point. The question
is whether one should expect that a review article or a more encyclopedic
review of our knowledge in some area will not contain original research.
The question of who enforces such a rule in a particular case is irrelevant.
CED now says that it was Richardson's email to Gen-Medieval that should have
contained an acknowledgment of the original source of his information. That
proposition is too absurd to be worth pursuing. Anyway, Richardson now says
that he had offered the information about the source in an earlier posting.
That, if true, moots CED's complaint, but it does not answer my concerns
about the standards by which Richardson's books should be judged.
On a more personal note, I am awed and humbled by the fact that there are
400 subjects on which you are able to claim competence. It reminds me of a
joke about a philosophy professor from Tulane who had an interview with
Einstein. At the conclusion, to be polite, Einstein said, "This has been
very interesting. You must send me something to read. You have written a
book, haven't you?" To which the philosopher replied, "Sir, I have written
15 books." "Humm," said Einstein, "Very suspicious." I take that, by the
way, to be a joke about philosophers, and not about Tulane.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife,
Here is a discussion of the evidence:
Point One: The manor of Kippax, Yorkshire was owned by Ilbert de Lacy
at the time of the Domesday survey and passed by lineal descent to
Roger de Lacy (died 1211), hereditary Constable of Chester. The said
Roger de Lacy in turn gave it in marriage to his sister, the first wife
of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway.
Point Two: Over the course of the centuries, the advowson of Kippax,
Yorkshire was granted by Henry de Lacy c. 1160 to Pontefract Abbey.
Henry de Lacy was the great-grand-uncle and antecedant of Roger de
Lacy, Constable of Chester, who died in 1211. A brief extract of Henry
de Lacy's charter is given below:
"To archbishop Roger and all sons of Holy Church, Henry de Lacy,
greeting. Know ... that I have granted and ... confirmed ... to the
monks of Pontefract, the church of Kippax, etc." [Reference: Richard
Holmes, ed. The Chartulary of St. John of Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch.
Soc. Record Series 25) (1899): 31].
Point Three: Following the granting of the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire
to Alan Fitz Roland in marriage with the sister of Roger de Lacy, the
manor passed by inheritance to Alan Fitz Roland's daughter, Ellen, and
her husband, Sir Roger de Quincy. In 1233 there was a dispute about
the advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire which involved Pontefract Priory,
Roger de Quincy and his wife's nephew, John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln.
Here are brief extracts of the two pertinent documents:
Document #1. Date: 1233. "To the reverand father in Christ, and very
dear lord, W[alter], by the grace of God, archbishop of York, and
primate of England, John de Lascy, earl of Lincoln and constable of
Chester, greeting in the Lord ... We make known to your fatherhood that
having seen the deeds and charters of my father, Roger de Lascy, and of
my ancestors, piously granted by those ancestors to God and St. John
the Evangelist of Pontefract, and to my monks there serving God,
concerning the church of Kippax, the truth has been shown itself to be
other than we believed ... we have remitted to them for ever all the
right and claim that we claimed to have in the said church of Kippax
...." [Reference: Richard Holmes, ed. The Chartulary of St. John of
Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Record Series 25) (1899): 39-40].
Document #2. Date: 1233. To all, &c. ... W[alter] ..., archbishop of
York, &c. Know that whereas the contention raised between our dear
sons, the prior and convent of Pontefract, on the one part, and the
noble man, Roger de Quenci, on the other, concerning the last
presentation of the church of Kippax, has been ended by the judgement
of the court of the lord king, we at the presentation of the said prior
and convent who recovered possesion of the patrongae of the said
church, as the lord Henry, the illustrious king of England, has
signified to us by his letter .." [Reference: Richard Holmes, ed. The
Chartulary of St. John of Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Record
Series 25) (1899): 74-75].
Point Four: The manor and advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire were
subsequently exchanged in 1254 by Roger de Quincy, Earl of Winchester,
with Edmund de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, for other property in cos.
Northampton, Nottingham, and Yorkshire [Reference: John Parker ed. Feet
of Fines for the County of York from 1246 to 1272 (Yorkshire Arch. Soc.
Record Series 82) (1932): 193; see also Sir Christopher Hatton's Book
of Seals (1950): 288-289].
Point Five: The defendant in the 1214 lawsuit regarding the manor of
Kippax, Yorkshire was John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, not an
unidentified John of Chester. This identification is confirmed by John
de Lacy's subsequent release of the advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire as
stated above. He is called "John of Chester" in the 1214 lawsuit,
which was his style at the time. An example of this style can be found
in the Pipe Roll for the same year, 1214. An abstract of this record
reads as follows:
Date: Michaelmas 1214. Sub Yorkshire.
"Johannes de Cestr' r.c. de MM et DCCC li. pro habendis terris que
fuerunt patris sui . sicut continetur ibidem. In thes. Nichil."
[Reference: Patricia M. Barnes ed. The Great Roll of the Pipe for the
Sixteenth Year of the Reign of King John, Michaelmas 1214 (Pipe Roll
Soc. n.s. 35) (1962): 93].
Point Six: Richard de Crevecour was the attorney of Alan Fitz Roland,
lord of Galloway, in 1214. It can not be construed in any way he was
the father of the defendant, John de Lacy.
Point Seven: I find no evidence that Richard de Crevecour or his family
ever owned the advowson and manor of Kippax, Yorkshire. Instead, as
shown above, the manor and the advowson were held by the Lacy family,
until this property was granted in marriage by Roger de Lacy to his
sister, the wife of Alan Fitz Roland. The manor of Kippax afterwards
passed as stated above by inheritance to Alan Fitz Roland's daughter,
Ellen, wife of Sir Roger de Quincy.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Point One: The manor of Kippax, Yorkshire was owned by Ilbert de Lacy
at the time of the Domesday survey and passed by lineal descent to
Roger de Lacy (died 1211), hereditary Constable of Chester. The said
Roger de Lacy in turn gave it in marriage to his sister, the first wife
of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway.
Point Two: Over the course of the centuries, the advowson of Kippax,
Yorkshire was granted by Henry de Lacy c. 1160 to Pontefract Abbey.
Henry de Lacy was the great-grand-uncle and antecedant of Roger de
Lacy, Constable of Chester, who died in 1211. A brief extract of Henry
de Lacy's charter is given below:
"To archbishop Roger and all sons of Holy Church, Henry de Lacy,
greeting. Know ... that I have granted and ... confirmed ... to the
monks of Pontefract, the church of Kippax, etc." [Reference: Richard
Holmes, ed. The Chartulary of St. John of Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch.
Soc. Record Series 25) (1899): 31].
Point Three: Following the granting of the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire
to Alan Fitz Roland in marriage with the sister of Roger de Lacy, the
manor passed by inheritance to Alan Fitz Roland's daughter, Ellen, and
her husband, Sir Roger de Quincy. In 1233 there was a dispute about
the advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire which involved Pontefract Priory,
Roger de Quincy and his wife's nephew, John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln.
Here are brief extracts of the two pertinent documents:
Document #1. Date: 1233. "To the reverand father in Christ, and very
dear lord, W[alter], by the grace of God, archbishop of York, and
primate of England, John de Lascy, earl of Lincoln and constable of
Chester, greeting in the Lord ... We make known to your fatherhood that
having seen the deeds and charters of my father, Roger de Lascy, and of
my ancestors, piously granted by those ancestors to God and St. John
the Evangelist of Pontefract, and to my monks there serving God,
concerning the church of Kippax, the truth has been shown itself to be
other than we believed ... we have remitted to them for ever all the
right and claim that we claimed to have in the said church of Kippax
...." [Reference: Richard Holmes, ed. The Chartulary of St. John of
Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Record Series 25) (1899): 39-40].
Document #2. Date: 1233. To all, &c. ... W[alter] ..., archbishop of
York, &c. Know that whereas the contention raised between our dear
sons, the prior and convent of Pontefract, on the one part, and the
noble man, Roger de Quenci, on the other, concerning the last
presentation of the church of Kippax, has been ended by the judgement
of the court of the lord king, we at the presentation of the said prior
and convent who recovered possesion of the patrongae of the said
church, as the lord Henry, the illustrious king of England, has
signified to us by his letter .." [Reference: Richard Holmes, ed. The
Chartulary of St. John of Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Record
Series 25) (1899): 74-75].
Point Four: The manor and advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire were
subsequently exchanged in 1254 by Roger de Quincy, Earl of Winchester,
with Edmund de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, for other property in cos.
Northampton, Nottingham, and Yorkshire [Reference: John Parker ed. Feet
of Fines for the County of York from 1246 to 1272 (Yorkshire Arch. Soc.
Record Series 82) (1932): 193; see also Sir Christopher Hatton's Book
of Seals (1950): 288-289].
Point Five: The defendant in the 1214 lawsuit regarding the manor of
Kippax, Yorkshire was John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, not an
unidentified John of Chester. This identification is confirmed by John
de Lacy's subsequent release of the advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire as
stated above. He is called "John of Chester" in the 1214 lawsuit,
which was his style at the time. An example of this style can be found
in the Pipe Roll for the same year, 1214. An abstract of this record
reads as follows:
Date: Michaelmas 1214. Sub Yorkshire.
"Johannes de Cestr' r.c. de MM et DCCC li. pro habendis terris que
fuerunt patris sui . sicut continetur ibidem. In thes. Nichil."
[Reference: Patricia M. Barnes ed. The Great Roll of the Pipe for the
Sixteenth Year of the Reign of King John, Michaelmas 1214 (Pipe Roll
Soc. n.s. 35) (1962): 93].
Point Six: Richard de Crevecour was the attorney of Alan Fitz Roland,
lord of Galloway, in 1214. It can not be construed in any way he was
the father of the defendant, John de Lacy.
Point Seven: I find no evidence that Richard de Crevecour or his family
ever owned the advowson and manor of Kippax, Yorkshire. Instead, as
shown above, the manor and the advowson were held by the Lacy family,
until this property was granted in marriage by Roger de Lacy to his
sister, the wife of Alan Fitz Roland. The manor of Kippax afterwards
passed as stated above by inheritance to Alan Fitz Roland's daughter,
Ellen, wife of Sir Roger de Quincy.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127787297.377668.180490@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Henry de Lacy was related in exactly the same way to Roger the Constable's
brother Richard de Chester.
Leaving aside the arbitrary & so far unjustified decision that Alan of
Galloway's wife must have been sister rather than daughter to the man called
Richard in the only available evidence, who is renamed Roger above, we don't
know from this "Document #1" what truth had been shown to be other than John
de Lacy had believed, in other words what was the basis of his mistaken &
eventually withdrawn claim. For all I know this could have been, or could
have included, that John de Lacy's father Roger was discovered to have given
Kippax to his (Roger's) brother Richard de Chester, who had then given it
with his (Richard's) daughter to Alan of Galloway.
The earlier and later evidence about Kippax does nothing to alter this
possibility, that seems to fit the evidence without conveniently changing
names. There appears to be no evidence that John de Lacy was ever called
"John de Chester" after 1194, when his father Roger adopted the surname
"Lacy". Meanwhile, a namesake first cousin, son of Richard de Chester, has
not yet been ruled out of contention as the brother (NB not nephew on the
evidence presented) of Alan's first wife.
Peter Stewart
news:1127787297.377668.180490@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Here is a discussion of the evidence:
Point One: The manor of Kippax, Yorkshire was owned by Ilbert de Lacy
at the time of the Domesday survey and passed by lineal descent to
Roger de Lacy (died 1211), hereditary Constable of Chester. The said
Roger de Lacy in turn gave it in marriage to his sister, the first wife
of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway.
Point Two: Over the course of the centuries, the advowson of Kippax,
Yorkshire was granted by Henry de Lacy c. 1160 to Pontefract Abbey.
Henry de Lacy was the great-grand-uncle and antecedant of Roger de
Lacy, Constable of Chester, who died in 1211. A brief extract of Henry
de Lacy's charter is given below:
Henry de Lacy was related in exactly the same way to Roger the Constable's
brother Richard de Chester.
"To archbishop Roger and all sons of Holy Church, Henry de Lacy,
greeting. Know ... that I have granted and ... confirmed ... to the
monks of Pontefract, the church of Kippax, etc." [Reference: Richard
Holmes, ed. The Chartulary of St. John of Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch.
Soc. Record Series 25) (1899): 31].
Point Three: Following the granting of the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire
to Alan Fitz Roland in marriage with the sister of Roger de Lacy, the
manor passed by inheritance to Alan Fitz Roland's daughter, Ellen, and
her husband, Sir Roger de Quincy. In 1233 there was a dispute about
the advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire which involved Pontefract Priory,
Roger de Quincy and his wife's nephew, John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln.
Here are brief extracts of the two pertinent documents:
Document #1. Date: 1233. "To the reverand father in Christ, and very
dear lord, W[alter], by the grace of God, archbishop of York, and
primate of England, John de Lascy, earl of Lincoln and constable of
Chester, greeting in the Lord ... We make known to your fatherhood that
having seen the deeds and charters of my father, Roger de Lascy, and of
my ancestors, piously granted by those ancestors to God and St. John
the Evangelist of Pontefract, and to my monks there serving God,
concerning the church of Kippax, the truth has been shown itself to be
other than we believed ... we have remitted to them for ever all the
right and claim that we claimed to have in the said church of Kippax
..." [Reference: Richard Holmes, ed. The Chartulary of St. John of
Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Record Series 25) (1899): 39-40].
Leaving aside the arbitrary & so far unjustified decision that Alan of
Galloway's wife must have been sister rather than daughter to the man called
Richard in the only available evidence, who is renamed Roger above, we don't
know from this "Document #1" what truth had been shown to be other than John
de Lacy had believed, in other words what was the basis of his mistaken &
eventually withdrawn claim. For all I know this could have been, or could
have included, that John de Lacy's father Roger was discovered to have given
Kippax to his (Roger's) brother Richard de Chester, who had then given it
with his (Richard's) daughter to Alan of Galloway.
The earlier and later evidence about Kippax does nothing to alter this
possibility, that seems to fit the evidence without conveniently changing
names. There appears to be no evidence that John de Lacy was ever called
"John de Chester" after 1194, when his father Roger adopted the surname
"Lacy". Meanwhile, a namesake first cousin, son of Richard de Chester, has
not yet been ruled out of contention as the brother (NB not nephew on the
evidence presented) of Alan's first wife.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Peter Stewart wrote:
There appears to be no evidence that John de Lacy was ever called
Dear Peter ~
My research shows that John de Lacy (died 1240), Constable of Chester,
later Earl of Lincoln, was known as John de Chester as late as 1214:
Date: Michaelmas 1214. Sub Yorkshire.
"Johannes de Cestr' r.c. de MM et DCCC li. pro habendis terris que
fuerunt patris sui . sicut continetur ibidem. In thes. Nichil."
[Reference: Patricia M. Barnes ed. The Great Roll of the Pipe for the
Sixteenth Year of the Reign of King John, Michaelmas 1214 (Pipe Roll
Soc. n.s. 35) (1962): 93].
I should also note that John de Lacy's two brothers, Roger and Robert,
witnessed John de Lacy's charter dated before 1232 as "Roger and Robert
de Chester, knights" [Reference: Richard Holmes, ed. The Chartulary of
St. John of Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Record Series 25) (1899):
38-39].
So it would appear that the surname "de Chester" continued to be
employed by male members of this family for some time after the family
adopted the surname, Lacy.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
There appears to be no evidence that John de Lacy was ever called
"John de Chester" after 1194, when his father Roger adopted the surname
"Lacy".
Dear Peter ~
My research shows that John de Lacy (died 1240), Constable of Chester,
later Earl of Lincoln, was known as John de Chester as late as 1214:
Date: Michaelmas 1214. Sub Yorkshire.
"Johannes de Cestr' r.c. de MM et DCCC li. pro habendis terris que
fuerunt patris sui . sicut continetur ibidem. In thes. Nichil."
[Reference: Patricia M. Barnes ed. The Great Roll of the Pipe for the
Sixteenth Year of the Reign of King John, Michaelmas 1214 (Pipe Roll
Soc. n.s. 35) (1962): 93].
I should also note that John de Lacy's two brothers, Roger and Robert,
witnessed John de Lacy's charter dated before 1232 as "Roger and Robert
de Chester, knights" [Reference: Richard Holmes, ed. The Chartulary of
St. John of Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Record Series 25) (1899):
38-39].
So it would appear that the surname "de Chester" continued to be
employed by male members of this family for some time after the family
adopted the surname, Lacy.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
How are you certain that this refers to John de Lacy rather than to a
namesake first cousin of his? Is his father actually named, Roger
rather than Richard?
Where did "before 1232" come from? The document appears to be undated
if this had to be given as an editorial gloss. Of course, 1194 is
"before 1232" anyway.
That is my point - Roger the Constable's three brothers for starters,
including Richard de Chester, continued to use this. We have the same
evidence you allow to prove that Alan of Galloway's first wife was from
this family to show that Richard (de Chester) was her father and that
she had a brother named John.
The only difficulties with this so far, on my limited attention to the
problem, are your insistence that Kippax belonged in the relevant
generation only to Richard's elder brother Roger, and that Alan of
Galloway's wife was sister rather than daughter of Roger misnamed
Richard; but you have not proved either point.
I don't yet see any reason to be so sure that the name Richard was
given wrongly, or that bits & pieces of the Lacy inheritance were not
shared to some extent amongst the four brothers, with Kippax falling to
Richard and passing with the marriage of his daughter to Alan of
Galloway, later temporarily and unsuccessfully disputed by her cousin
John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart wrote:
There appears to be no evidence that John de Lacy was ever called
"John de Chester" after 1194, when his father Roger adopted the surname
"Lacy".
Dear Peter ~
My research shows that John de Lacy (died 1240), Constable of Chester,
later Earl of Lincoln, was known as John de Chester as late as 1214:
Date: Michaelmas 1214. Sub Yorkshire.
"Johannes de Cestr' r.c. de MM et DCCC li. pro habendis terris que
fuerunt patris sui . sicut continetur ibidem. In thes. Nichil."
[Reference: Patricia M. Barnes ed. The Great Roll of the Pipe for the
Sixteenth Year of the Reign of King John, Michaelmas 1214 (Pipe Roll
Soc. n.s. 35) (1962): 93].
How are you certain that this refers to John de Lacy rather than to a
namesake first cousin of his? Is his father actually named, Roger
rather than Richard?
I should also note that John de Lacy's two brothers, Roger and Robert,
witnessed John de Lacy's charter dated before 1232 as "Roger and Robert
de Chester, knights" [Reference: Richard Holmes, ed. The Chartulary of
St. John of Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Record Series 25) (1899):
38-39].
Where did "before 1232" come from? The document appears to be undated
if this had to be given as an editorial gloss. Of course, 1194 is
"before 1232" anyway.
So it would appear that the surname "de Chester" continued to be
employed by male members of this family for some time after the family
adopted the surname, Lacy.
That is my point - Roger the Constable's three brothers for starters,
including Richard de Chester, continued to use this. We have the same
evidence you allow to prove that Alan of Galloway's first wife was from
this family to show that Richard (de Chester) was her father and that
she had a brother named John.
The only difficulties with this so far, on my limited attention to the
problem, are your insistence that Kippax belonged in the relevant
generation only to Richard's elder brother Roger, and that Alan of
Galloway's wife was sister rather than daughter of Roger misnamed
Richard; but you have not proved either point.
I don't yet see any reason to be so sure that the name Richard was
given wrongly, or that bits & pieces of the Lacy inheritance were not
shared to some extent amongst the four brothers, with Kippax falling to
Richard and passing with the marriage of his daughter to Alan of
Galloway, later temporarily and unsuccessfully disputed by her cousin
John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln.
Peter Stewart
-
CED
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
DR again is using the term "surname" with respect to persons who were
unlikely to have understood the concept of a surname. Does he have
evidence that either "Chester" or "Lacy" were meant to be surnames at
the time those words were used?
The least ambiguous use of the term is to show that more than two
generations used the same patronymic or place-name associated with the
family by reason of their being attached thereto.
CED
Peter Stewart wrote:
There appears to be no evidence that John de Lacy was ever called
"John de Chester" after 1194, when his father Roger adopted the surname
"Lacy".
Dear Peter ~
My research shows that John de Lacy (died 1240), Constable of Chester,
later Earl of Lincoln, was known as John de Chester as late as 1214:
Date: Michaelmas 1214. Sub Yorkshire.
"Johannes de Cestr' r.c. de MM et DCCC li. pro habendis terris que
fuerunt patris sui . sicut continetur ibidem. In thes. Nichil."
[Reference: Patricia M. Barnes ed. The Great Roll of the Pipe for the
Sixteenth Year of the Reign of King John, Michaelmas 1214 (Pipe Roll
Soc. n.s. 35) (1962): 93].
I should also note that John de Lacy's two brothers, Roger and Robert,
witnessed John de Lacy's charter dated before 1232 as "Roger and Robert
de Chester, knights" [Reference: Richard Holmes, ed. The Chartulary of
St. John of Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Record Series 25) (1899):
38-39].
So it would appear that the surname "de Chester" continued to be
employed by male members of this family for some time after the family
adopted the surname, Lacy.
To the Newsgroup:
DR again is using the term "surname" with respect to persons who were
unlikely to have understood the concept of a surname. Does he have
evidence that either "Chester" or "Lacy" were meant to be surnames at
the time those words were used?
The least ambiguous use of the term is to show that more than two
generations used the same patronymic or place-name associated with the
family by reason of their being attached thereto.
CED
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
I think it's rather clear from the enormous sum of money being charged
in the 1214 Pipe Roll record, that the indiovidual involved in this
record was John de Lacy. I might also note that this entry is indexed
by the modern editor under John de Lacy.
John de Lacy refers to himself as Constable of Chester in this charter.
As such, this charter is dated before 1232, when John de Lacy became
Earl of Lincoln. The charter was also witnessed by "Carolo abbate de
Stanlaw." If a list of the abbots of Stanlaw can be found, it may be
possible to obtain a better date for this charter.
No, Peter, your point was that John de Lacy was not known as John de
Chester after 1194. I have shown that to be incorrect. So, there is
no reason to go looking for another individual when we know that John
de Lacy was also known as John de Chester.
I don't have any particulars on John de Lacy's uncle, Richard de
Chester, but I'll take your word for it that such an individual
existed. I also have no evidence that Richard de Chester had a son,
John de Chester. If you have such evidence, I would like to see it.
When you have the opportunity, please produce this evidence.
On this point, I think you are on very weak ground. I know of no
evidence that Roger de Lacy granted the manor and advowson of Kippax,
Yorkshire to his brother, Richard de Chester. And, I know of no
evidence that Richard de Chester had a son, John, living in 1214.
Moreover, in 1232, when there was a dispute regarding the advowson of
Kippax, it was John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln (formerly known as John de
Chester), who quitclaimed his rights to this advowson to Pontefract
Priory, NOT a kinsman named John de Chester. As such, I have to
conclude that it was John de Lacy who was the John de Chester involved
in the 1214 lawsuit.
As for Alan Fitz Roland, he could have married anyone in Scotland or
England whose family was of the rank of earl. In your scenario, you're
suggesting that Alan married a daughter of the younger brother of the
Constable of Chester. Such a marriage would have been considered
disparaging to someone of Alan Fitz Roland's rank.
I find that when they could marry well, they did so, at least for their
first marriage. And, this was Alan Fitz Roland's first marriage.
I find errors in the Curia Regis Rolls from time to time, so I know
mistakes were made in the surviving texts. So, yes, it is entirely
possible that the name Richard could have been incorrectly inserted for
the name, Roger. The Curia Regis Rolls are not the original pleadings,
but short summaries of the cases. We have to assume that clerical
errors took place when transcribing the details of the pleadings, just
as errors occur today. The last time I filed in court, the clerk made
an error which later had to be corrected. To err in legal records is
human, to forgive is divine.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
How are you certain that this refers to John de Lacy rather than to a
namesake first cousin of his? Is his father actually named, Roger
rather than Richard?
I think it's rather clear from the enormous sum of money being charged
in the 1214 Pipe Roll record, that the indiovidual involved in this
record was John de Lacy. I might also note that this entry is indexed
by the modern editor under John de Lacy.
I should also note that John de Lacy's two brothers, Roger and Robert,
witnessed John de Lacy's charter dated before 1232 as "Roger and Robert
de Chester, knights" [Reference: Richard Holmes, ed. The Chartulary of
St. John of Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Record Series 25) (1899):
38-39].
Where did "before 1232" come from? The document appears to be undated
if this had to be given as an editorial gloss. Of course, 1194 is
"before 1232" anyway.
John de Lacy refers to himself as Constable of Chester in this charter.
As such, this charter is dated before 1232, when John de Lacy became
Earl of Lincoln. The charter was also witnessed by "Carolo abbate de
Stanlaw." If a list of the abbots of Stanlaw can be found, it may be
possible to obtain a better date for this charter.
So it would appear that the surname "de Chester" continued to be
employed by male members of this family for some time after the family
adopted the surname, Lacy.
That is my point - Roger the Constable's three brothers for starters,
including Richard de Chester, continued to use this. We have the same
evidence you allow to prove that Alan of Galloway's first wife was from
this family to show that Richard (de Chester) was her father and that
she had a brother named John.
No, Peter, your point was that John de Lacy was not known as John de
Chester after 1194. I have shown that to be incorrect. So, there is
no reason to go looking for another individual when we know that John
de Lacy was also known as John de Chester.
I don't have any particulars on John de Lacy's uncle, Richard de
Chester, but I'll take your word for it that such an individual
existed. I also have no evidence that Richard de Chester had a son,
John de Chester. If you have such evidence, I would like to see it.
When you have the opportunity, please produce this evidence.
The only difficulties with this so far, on my limited attention to the
problem, are your insistence that Kippax belonged in the relevant
generation only to Richard's elder brother Roger, and that Alan of
Galloway's wife was sister rather than daughter of Roger misnamed
Richard; but you have not proved either point.
On this point, I think you are on very weak ground. I know of no
evidence that Roger de Lacy granted the manor and advowson of Kippax,
Yorkshire to his brother, Richard de Chester. And, I know of no
evidence that Richard de Chester had a son, John, living in 1214.
Moreover, in 1232, when there was a dispute regarding the advowson of
Kippax, it was John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln (formerly known as John de
Chester), who quitclaimed his rights to this advowson to Pontefract
Priory, NOT a kinsman named John de Chester. As such, I have to
conclude that it was John de Lacy who was the John de Chester involved
in the 1214 lawsuit.
As for Alan Fitz Roland, he could have married anyone in Scotland or
England whose family was of the rank of earl. In your scenario, you're
suggesting that Alan married a daughter of the younger brother of the
Constable of Chester. Such a marriage would have been considered
disparaging to someone of Alan Fitz Roland's rank.
I find that when they could marry well, they did so, at least for their
first marriage. And, this was Alan Fitz Roland's first marriage.
I don't yet see any reason to be so sure that the name Richard was
given wrongly, or that bits & pieces of the Lacy inheritance were not
shared to some extent amongst the four brothers, with Kippax falling to
Richard and passing with the marriage of his daughter to Alan of
Galloway, later temporarily and unsuccessfully disputed by her cousin
John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln.
I find errors in the Curia Regis Rolls from time to time, so I know
mistakes were made in the surviving texts. So, yes, it is entirely
possible that the name Richard could have been incorrectly inserted for
the name, Roger. The Curia Regis Rolls are not the original pleadings,
but short summaries of the cases. We have to assume that clerical
errors took place when transcribing the details of the pleadings, just
as errors occur today. The last time I filed in court, the clerk made
an error which later had to be corrected. To err in legal records is
human, to forgive is divine.
Peter Stewart
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Vickie Elam White
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Peter,
That certainly does seem like a simple solution per
the KISS principle -- Keep It Simple, Stupid. <smile>
More fun to say better than Ocam's Razor. <smile>
Do we know anything about this Richard de Chester?
Vickie Elam White
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:xi2_e.15716$0E5.9227@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
That certainly does seem like a simple solution per
the KISS principle -- Keep It Simple, Stupid. <smile>
More fun to say better than Ocam's Razor. <smile>
Do we know anything about this Richard de Chester?
Vickie Elam White
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:xi2_e.15716$0E5.9227@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Y22_e.15678$0E5.512@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Since we know that Roger, constable of Chester (died 1211, who took the
surname Lacy and was father of father of John de Lacy, constable of
Chester & earl of Lincoln)
Make that just one "father of" John de Lacy - Roger was not his
grandfather,
despite my fingers mindlessly adding a generation to the line.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Dear Douglas,
"Point One: The manor of Kippax, Yorkshire was owned by Ilbert de Lacy
at the time of the Domesday survey and passed by lineal descent to
Roger de Lacy (died 1211), hereditary Constable of Chester. The said
Roger de Lacy in turn gave it in marriage to his sister, the first wife
of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway."
This looks to me like a statement, not a fact. We have seen several
documents on Alan of Galoway [Alan Fitz Roland] and the mannor of
Kippax. Could you please enlighten me on the documented change of hands
or inheretances that cement your point one statement.
Hans Vogels
"Point One: The manor of Kippax, Yorkshire was owned by Ilbert de Lacy
at the time of the Domesday survey and passed by lineal descent to
Roger de Lacy (died 1211), hereditary Constable of Chester. The said
Roger de Lacy in turn gave it in marriage to his sister, the first wife
of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway."
This looks to me like a statement, not a fact. We have seen several
documents on Alan of Galoway [Alan Fitz Roland] and the mannor of
Kippax. Could you please enlighten me on the documented change of hands
or inheretances that cement your point one statement.
Hans Vogels
-
Vickie Elam White
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Oops,
"More fun to say better?" Geez, where is my mind!
Vickie
"Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Vji_e.15795$Xl2.14603@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"More fun to say better?" Geez, where is my mind!
Vickie
"Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Vji_e.15795$Xl2.14603@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Peter,
That certainly does seem like a simple solution per
the KISS principle -- Keep It Simple, Stupid. <smile
More fun to say better than Ocam's Razor. <smile
Do we know anything about this Richard de Chester?
Vickie Elam White
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:xi2_e.15716$0E5.9227@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Y22_e.15678$0E5.512@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Since we know that Roger, constable of Chester (died 1211, who took
the
surname Lacy and was father of father of John de Lacy, constable of
Chester & earl of Lincoln)
Make that just one "father of" John de Lacy - Roger was not his
grandfather,
despite my fingers mindlessly adding a generation to the line.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
"Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Vji_e.15795$Xl2.14603@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
I don't, but had assumed that Richardson would as he has supposedly
researched the subject since discovering this personage in Stringer's work.
However, he now says that he is taking my word for Richard's existence, so
apparently the due homework hasn't been done after all, yet again, again.
Richard de Chester was evidently the next eldest of Roger de Lacy's
brothers, as he witnessed before the two others at least twice.
One example can be found in _Facsimiles of Early Cheshire Charters_, edited
by Geoffrey Barraclough (1957), p. 18 - a charter of Roger from between 1200
& 1211: "ego Rogerus de Lasci, constabularius Cestrie...Hiis testibus:
Ricardo de Cestria, Eustachio de Cestria, Gaufrido de Cestria...".
Peter Stewart
news:Vji_e.15795$Xl2.14603@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Peter,
That certainly does seem like a simple solution per
the KISS principle -- Keep It Simple, Stupid. <smile
More fun to say better than Ocam's Razor. <smile
Do we know anything about this Richard de Chester?
I don't, but had assumed that Richardson would as he has supposedly
researched the subject since discovering this personage in Stringer's work.
However, he now says that he is taking my word for Richard's existence, so
apparently the due homework hasn't been done after all, yet again, again.
Richard de Chester was evidently the next eldest of Roger de Lacy's
brothers, as he witnessed before the two others at least twice.
One example can be found in _Facsimiles of Early Cheshire Charters_, edited
by Geoffrey Barraclough (1957), p. 18 - a charter of Roger from between 1200
& 1211: "ego Rogerus de Lasci, constabularius Cestrie...Hiis testibus:
Ricardo de Cestria, Eustachio de Cestria, Gaufrido de Cestria...".
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
I see the fog had thickened once more in SLC. Comments interspersed:
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127830754.650979.45670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Neither point advanced here is proof that the person wasn't John de Lacy's
cousin John de Chester. A modern editor's opinion and the sum of money
involved are hardly conclusive: but even if it can be established that John
de Lacy was still occasionally called "John de Chester" throughout his life,
this doesn't go any way to changing the name of his father from Roger to
Richard, or confirming the unnecessary amendment from one to the other that
Richardson's case depends upon.
You ought to know where to find a list of abbots from the early 13th
century. Obviously the range is narrowed to 1211-32 at least.
I wrote 'There appears to be no evidence that John de Lacy was ever called
"John de Chester" after 1194, when his father Roger adopted the surname
"Lacy".' This is NOT the same as misrepresented above, and in any case it
has NOT been shown to be incorrect. As for the reason 'to go looking for
another individual', the evidence under discussion related to a John de
Chester whose father was named Richard - prima facie this is NOT John de
Lacy, whose father was Roger.
You have been talking about this evidence for days: it is the SAME document
that you accept as proof for the marriage of John de Chester's sister to
Alan of Galloway. Her brother John was called upon to confirm the
transactions of his father Richard, at around the same time as John de Lacy,
his cousin, was discovering that his own claimed rights to Kippax were not
sound.
I wonder what thread Richardson is reading. He knows of "no evidence" for
exactly the information contained in the evidence under review. He is so
bound up with the pre-suppositions he brought to this question that he can't
now see beyond these, or even see a reason not to announce his blinkerdom to
the newsgroup....
This is an argument from the person who once insisted that Roger Bigod
married Ida from the cadet Akeny branch of the Tosny family!
If Alan wanted to ally himself to the family of Roger de Lacy and only a
niece was available at the time, why on earth wouldn't she be acceptable? We
have NO evidence of a daughter of Roger in this question, but we do have
evidence of a daughter of his brother Richard.
On this basis it is just as possible that "Richard" was an error for any
other name. However, we know there was a Richard de Chester, who from other
circumstantial evidence could have been part of the problem that his nephew
John de Lacy ran into when he found that his rights to Kippax were not as he
had supposed.
If errors in the primary record are to be established these need to be
proved with solid reasoning, not merely forced to fit an arbitrary scheme
that involves renaming more than one person.
Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127830754.650979.45670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
How are you certain that this refers to John de Lacy rather than to a
namesake first cousin of his? Is his father actually named, Roger
rather than Richard?
I think it's rather clear from the enormous sum of money being charged
in the 1214 Pipe Roll record, that the indiovidual involved in this
record was John de Lacy. I might also note that this entry is indexed
by the modern editor under John de Lacy.
Neither point advanced here is proof that the person wasn't John de Lacy's
cousin John de Chester. A modern editor's opinion and the sum of money
involved are hardly conclusive: but even if it can be established that John
de Lacy was still occasionally called "John de Chester" throughout his life,
this doesn't go any way to changing the name of his father from Roger to
Richard, or confirming the unnecessary amendment from one to the other that
Richardson's case depends upon.
I should also note that John de Lacy's two brothers, Roger and Robert,
witnessed John de Lacy's charter dated before 1232 as "Roger and Robert
de Chester, knights" [Reference: Richard Holmes, ed. The Chartulary of
St. John of Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Record Series 25) (1899):
38-39].
Where did "before 1232" come from? The document appears to be undated
if this had to be given as an editorial gloss. Of course, 1194 is
"before 1232" anyway.
John de Lacy refers to himself as Constable of Chester in this charter.
As such, this charter is dated before 1232, when John de Lacy became
Earl of Lincoln. The charter was also witnessed by "Carolo abbate de
Stanlaw." If a list of the abbots of Stanlaw can be found, it may be
possible to obtain a better date for this charter.
You ought to know where to find a list of abbots from the early 13th
century. Obviously the range is narrowed to 1211-32 at least.
So it would appear that the surname "de Chester" continued to be
employed by male members of this family for some time after the family
adopted the surname, Lacy.
That is my point - Roger the Constable's three brothers for starters,
including Richard de Chester, continued to use this. We have the same
evidence you allow to prove that Alan of Galloway's first wife was from
this family to show that Richard (de Chester) was her father and that
she had a brother named John.
No, Peter, your point was that John de Lacy was not known as John de
Chester after 1194. I have shown that to be incorrect. So, there is
no reason to go looking for another individual when we know that John
de Lacy was also known as John de Chester.
I wrote 'There appears to be no evidence that John de Lacy was ever called
"John de Chester" after 1194, when his father Roger adopted the surname
"Lacy".' This is NOT the same as misrepresented above, and in any case it
has NOT been shown to be incorrect. As for the reason 'to go looking for
another individual', the evidence under discussion related to a John de
Chester whose father was named Richard - prima facie this is NOT John de
Lacy, whose father was Roger.
I don't have any particulars on John de Lacy's uncle, Richard de
Chester, but I'll take your word for it that such an individual
existed. I also have no evidence that Richard de Chester had a son,
John de Chester. If you have such evidence, I would like to see it.
When you have the opportunity, please produce this evidence.
You have been talking about this evidence for days: it is the SAME document
that you accept as proof for the marriage of John de Chester's sister to
Alan of Galloway. Her brother John was called upon to confirm the
transactions of his father Richard, at around the same time as John de Lacy,
his cousin, was discovering that his own claimed rights to Kippax were not
sound.
The only difficulties with this so far, on my limited attention to the
problem, are your insistence that Kippax belonged in the relevant
generation only to Richard's elder brother Roger, and that Alan of
Galloway's wife was sister rather than daughter of Roger misnamed
Richard; but you have not proved either point.
On this point, I think you are on very weak ground. I know of no
evidence that Roger de Lacy granted the manor and advowson of Kippax,
Yorkshire to his brother, Richard de Chester. And, I know of no
evidence that Richard de Chester had a son, John, living in 1214.
Moreover, in 1232, when there was a dispute regarding the advowson of
Kippax, it was John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln (formerly known as John de
Chester), who quitclaimed his rights to this advowson to Pontefract
Priory, NOT a kinsman named John de Chester. As such, I have to
conclude that it was John de Lacy who was the John de Chester involved
in the 1214 lawsuit.
I wonder what thread Richardson is reading. He knows of "no evidence" for
exactly the information contained in the evidence under review. He is so
bound up with the pre-suppositions he brought to this question that he can't
now see beyond these, or even see a reason not to announce his blinkerdom to
the newsgroup....
As for Alan Fitz Roland, he could have married anyone in Scotland or
England whose family was of the rank of earl. In your scenario, you're
suggesting that Alan married a daughter of the younger brother of the
Constable of Chester. Such a marriage would have been considered
disparaging to someone of Alan Fitz Roland's rank.
I find that when they could marry well, they did so, at least for their
first marriage. And, this was Alan Fitz Roland's first marriage.
This is an argument from the person who once insisted that Roger Bigod
married Ida from the cadet Akeny branch of the Tosny family!
If Alan wanted to ally himself to the family of Roger de Lacy and only a
niece was available at the time, why on earth wouldn't she be acceptable? We
have NO evidence of a daughter of Roger in this question, but we do have
evidence of a daughter of his brother Richard.
I don't yet see any reason to be so sure that the name Richard was
given wrongly, or that bits & pieces of the Lacy inheritance were not
shared to some extent amongst the four brothers, with Kippax falling to
Richard and passing with the marriage of his daughter to Alan of
Galloway, later temporarily and unsuccessfully disputed by her cousin
John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln.
I find errors in the Curia Regis Rolls from time to time, so I know
mistakes were made in the surviving texts. So, yes, it is entirely
possible that the name Richard could have been incorrectly inserted for
the name, Roger. The Curia Regis Rolls are not the original pleadings,
but short summaries of the cases. We have to assume that clerical
errors took place when transcribing the details of the pleadings, just
as errors occur today. The last time I filed in court, the clerk made
an error which later had to be corrected. To err in legal records is
human, to forgive is divine.
On this basis it is just as possible that "Richard" was an error for any
other name. However, we know there was a Richard de Chester, who from other
circumstantial evidence could have been part of the problem that his nephew
John de Lacy ran into when he found that his rights to Kippax were not as he
had supposed.
If errors in the primary record are to be established these need to be
proved with solid reasoning, not merely forced to fit an arbitrary scheme
that involves renaming more than one person.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
My comment are interspersed below. DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
Yes, you made a tiny mistake. No biggie.
My what?
You seem to have forgotten about John de Lacy dealing with the advowson
of Kippax, Yorkshire in 1233. This record proves that he is the same
individual as John de Chester in the 1214 lawsuit. If the manor and
advowson were granted away to a cadet branch, then the head of the
cadet branch should have answered to Pontefract Priory in 1233, not
John de Lacy. I don't know of any evidence that a cadet branch ever
held Kippax, Yorkshire. If you know of such evidence, please, please
let me know.
> Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart wrote:
I wrote 'There appears to be no evidence that John de Lacy was ever called
"John de Chester" after 1194, when his father Roger adopted the surname
"Lacy".' This is NOT the same as misrepresented above, and in any case it
has NOT been shown to be incorrect.
Yes, you made a tiny mistake. No biggie.
I wonder what thread Richardson is reading. He knows of "no evidence" for
exactly the information contained in the evidence under review. He is so
bound up with the pre-suppositions he brought to this question that he can't
now see beyond these, or even see a reason not to announce his blinkerdom to
the newsgroup....
My what?
I don't yet see any reason to be so sure that the name Richard was
given wrongly, or that bits & pieces of the Lacy inheritance were not
shared to some extent amongst the four brothers, with Kippax falling to
Richard and passing with the marriage of his daughter to Alan of
Galloway, later temporarily and unsuccessfully disputed by her cousin
John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln.
You seem to have forgotten about John de Lacy dealing with the advowson
of Kippax, Yorkshire in 1233. This record proves that he is the same
individual as John de Chester in the 1214 lawsuit. If the manor and
advowson were granted away to a cadet branch, then the head of the
cadet branch should have answered to Pontefract Priory in 1233, not
John de Lacy. I don't know of any evidence that a cadet branch ever
held Kippax, Yorkshire. If you know of such evidence, please, please
let me know.
> Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Richardson wrote;
<snip of the usual rubbish>
We all know already the evidence that Alan of Galloway received Kippax
from his wife's father, named Richard and described as father also of
John. The only persons fitting those names who could have belonged to
the Lacy lineage at the appropriate time were Roger de Lacy's younger
brother Richard de Chester, and a son of his. There is no mystery about
"such evidence": it is the subject of the entire discussion.
Richardson wants to stuff it & carve it like another of his
genealogical turkeys, but unfortunately for him Uriah has absconded
with the cooking implements, and these will have to be sought along
with him....in Turkey!
Peter Stewart
<snip of the usual rubbish>
I don't know of any evidence that a cadet branch ever held Kippax,
Yorkshire. If you know of such evidence, please, please let me
know.
We all know already the evidence that Alan of Galloway received Kippax
from his wife's father, named Richard and described as father also of
John. The only persons fitting those names who could have belonged to
the Lacy lineage at the appropriate time were Roger de Lacy's younger
brother Richard de Chester, and a son of his. There is no mystery about
"such evidence": it is the subject of the entire discussion.
Richardson wants to stuff it & carve it like another of his
genealogical turkeys, but unfortunately for him Uriah has absconded
with the cooking implements, and these will have to be sought along
with him....in Turkey!
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Dear Peter ~
I see you're doing the usual bob and weave we get from you, when you're
asked to produce some evidence, and have none. That plus the normal
insults. When you have some evidence to put on the table, by all
means, let's renew the discussion.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
I see you're doing the usual bob and weave we get from you, when you're
asked to produce some evidence, and have none. That plus the normal
insults. When you have some evidence to put on the table, by all
means, let's renew the discussion.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
Richardson wrote;
snip of the usual rubbish
I don't know of any evidence that a cadet branch ever held Kippax,
Yorkshire. If you know of such evidence, please, please let me
know.
We all know already the evidence that Alan of Galloway received Kippax
from his wife's father, named Richard and described as father also of
John. The only persons fitting those names who could have belonged to
the Lacy lineage at the appropriate time were Roger de Lacy's younger
brother Richard de Chester, and a son of his. There is no mystery about
"such evidence": it is the subject of the entire discussion.
Richardson wants to stuff it & carve it like another of his
genealogical turkeys, but unfortunately for him Uriah has absconded
with the cooking implements, and these will have to be sought along
with him....in Turkey!
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Dear Leo ~
Please call me Douglas, not Richardson. Thank you.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Please call me Douglas, not Richardson. Thank you.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Dear Newsgroup ~
I see that the noted historian, Dr. Keith Stringer, has written an
article published in 2000 concerning the charters of the the early
Lords of Galloway:
Keith Stringer, 'Acts of Lordship: The Records of the Lords of Galloway
to 1234', in T. Brotherstone and D. Ditchburn (ed.), Freedom and
Authority: Scotland c.1050-c.1650, (East Linton: Tuckwell Press, 2000),
pp. 203-34.
Has anyone seen this article?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
I see that the noted historian, Dr. Keith Stringer, has written an
article published in 2000 concerning the charters of the the early
Lords of Galloway:
Keith Stringer, 'Acts of Lordship: The Records of the Lords of Galloway
to 1234', in T. Brotherstone and D. Ditchburn (ed.), Freedom and
Authority: Scotland c.1050-c.1650, (East Linton: Tuckwell Press, 2000),
pp. 203-34.
Has anyone seen this article?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Bob and weave? Surely the expert is Richardson-----instead of giving an
answer can I pose the following questions----how much more bobbing and
weaving can we get. If you can't give an answer, that is your ususal
"bobbing and weaving" response. I am sure there are quite a few people
waiting to see you, for once, give a reply.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife,
_____ de Lacy
answer can I pose the following questions----how much more bobbing and
weaving can we get. If you can't give an answer, that is your ususal
"bobbing and weaving" response. I am sure there are quite a few people
waiting to see you, for once, give a reply.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife,
_____ de Lacy
Dear Peter ~
I see you're doing the usual bob and weave we get from you, when you're
asked to produce some evidence, and have none. That plus the normal
insults. When you have some evidence to put on the table, by all
means, let's renew the discussion.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
Richardson wrote;
snip of the usual rubbish
I don't know of any evidence that a cadet branch ever held Kippax,
Yorkshire. If you know of such evidence, please, please let me
know.
We all know already the evidence that Alan of Galloway received Kippax
from his wife's father, named Richard and described as father also of
John. The only persons fitting those names who could have belonged to
the Lacy lineage at the appropriate time were Roger de Lacy's younger
brother Richard de Chester, and a son of his. There is no mystery about
"such evidence": it is the subject of the entire discussion.
Richardson wants to stuff it & carve it like another of his
genealogical turkeys, but unfortunately for him Uriah has absconded
with the cooking implements, and these will have to be sought along
with him....in Turkey!
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Richardson wrote:
This from Richardson is once again a blatant insult to the intelligence
& patience of the entire newsgroup: the evidence he is demanding is
ALREADY on the table. HE HAS USED IT HIMSELF to substantiate the
marriage of Alan of Galloway to his first wife, only he preferred to
try amending & manipulating it into something else regarding her
immediate relationships.
The evidence for Richard de Chester as her father and a John de Chester
as her brother is every bit as good and clear as the other portion that
Richardson chooses to admit for his purposes.
Stringer made an unwarranted assumption that John de Chester must have
been the same as John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, although accepting that
his father's name was Richard instead of Roger. However, we know that
John de Lacy was son of Roger de Lacy, constable of Chester. If the
John de Chester in 1214 had been constable of Chester that is how he
would normally have been described; and if he had been the son of Roger
his father most probably would have been named & titled as Roger the
Constable or Roger de Lacy - not just "R." with a copyist left to fill
in the blank and mistakenly give Richard.
The simple way to interpret the evidence about Alan of Galloway's wife
is as written - that she was daughter of (Roger's brother) Richard, and
herself had a brother named John. I have said the same thing from the
start, no bobbing, no weaving, and no agenda apart from getting at the
facts.
On the other hand, nothing that Richardson has proposed lends any
substance to his wilful and unnecessary contradiction of this. It is
pure ego on his part, misplaced, stupid and boring, as ever.
He appears to think that the disposal of a property is not evidence of
its being held, unless we also have evidence of its acquisition. This
is absurd. Kippax was trasferred from Richard to Alan along with the
former's daughter in marriage. How and when it came to Richard, with or
without the advowson, cannot be known. That doesn't mean it can be
denied without firm evidence, flying in the face of the text posted
here by Kevin Bradford.
I do not intend to go on discussing this matter in the absence of any
further evidence. If Richardson can't admit that he has no case, and
persists in baseless charges against anyone who points this out, then
someone else can deal with the nuisance for a change.
I am not the designated pest control help for SGM - this chore should
be shared around. If people are unwilling to do this, they will soon
end up with the newsgroup they deserve - a farrago of self-serving
nonsense from Richardson and his minions, much of it unchallenged in
the record because no-one left here is prepared to undertake the toil.
Peter Stewart
I see you're doing the usual bob and weave we get from you, when
you're asked to produce some evidence, and have none. That plus
the normal insults. When you have some evidence to put on the
table, by all means, let's renew the discussion.
This from Richardson is once again a blatant insult to the intelligence
& patience of the entire newsgroup: the evidence he is demanding is
ALREADY on the table. HE HAS USED IT HIMSELF to substantiate the
marriage of Alan of Galloway to his first wife, only he preferred to
try amending & manipulating it into something else regarding her
immediate relationships.
The evidence for Richard de Chester as her father and a John de Chester
as her brother is every bit as good and clear as the other portion that
Richardson chooses to admit for his purposes.
Stringer made an unwarranted assumption that John de Chester must have
been the same as John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, although accepting that
his father's name was Richard instead of Roger. However, we know that
John de Lacy was son of Roger de Lacy, constable of Chester. If the
John de Chester in 1214 had been constable of Chester that is how he
would normally have been described; and if he had been the son of Roger
his father most probably would have been named & titled as Roger the
Constable or Roger de Lacy - not just "R." with a copyist left to fill
in the blank and mistakenly give Richard.
The simple way to interpret the evidence about Alan of Galloway's wife
is as written - that she was daughter of (Roger's brother) Richard, and
herself had a brother named John. I have said the same thing from the
start, no bobbing, no weaving, and no agenda apart from getting at the
facts.
On the other hand, nothing that Richardson has proposed lends any
substance to his wilful and unnecessary contradiction of this. It is
pure ego on his part, misplaced, stupid and boring, as ever.
He appears to think that the disposal of a property is not evidence of
its being held, unless we also have evidence of its acquisition. This
is absurd. Kippax was trasferred from Richard to Alan along with the
former's daughter in marriage. How and when it came to Richard, with or
without the advowson, cannot be known. That doesn't mean it can be
denied without firm evidence, flying in the face of the text posted
here by Kevin Bradford.
I do not intend to go on discussing this matter in the absence of any
further evidence. If Richardson can't admit that he has no case, and
persists in baseless charges against anyone who points this out, then
someone else can deal with the nuisance for a change.
I am not the designated pest control help for SGM - this chore should
be shared around. If people are unwilling to do this, they will soon
end up with the newsgroup they deserve - a farrago of self-serving
nonsense from Richardson and his minions, much of it unchallenged in
the record because no-one left here is prepared to undertake the toil.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Dear Newsgroup ~
As a followup to my earlier post regarding the manor of Scholes,
Yorkshire being a Lacy property, I found the following two items just
now in the helpful online National Archives catalogue
(http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp):
DL 25/2167
John de Wescy to Sir Edmund de Lascy, Constable of Chester: Grant of
the assart he held of him in Scholes (Scales): (Yorks, W.R.)
DL 25/2160
Alfred de Suleigny to Henry de Lascy, Earl of Lincoln: Grant, indented,
of land in Manston in exchange for land in Scholes (Scales): (Yorks,
W.R.)
The grantees in the above two documents were the son and grandson
respectively of John de Lacy (otherwise known as John de Chester) (died
1240), Earl of Lincoln, hereditary Constable of Chester.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
As a followup to my earlier post regarding the manor of Scholes,
Yorkshire being a Lacy property, I found the following two items just
now in the helpful online National Archives catalogue
(http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp):
DL 25/2167
John de Wescy to Sir Edmund de Lascy, Constable of Chester: Grant of
the assart he held of him in Scholes (Scales): (Yorks, W.R.)
DL 25/2160
Alfred de Suleigny to Henry de Lascy, Earl of Lincoln: Grant, indented,
of land in Manston in exchange for land in Scholes (Scales): (Yorks,
W.R.)
The grantees in the above two documents were the son and grandson
respectively of John de Lacy (otherwise known as John de Chester) (died
1240), Earl of Lincoln, hereditary Constable of Chester.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Dear Leo ~
Please call me Douglas, not Richardson. Thank you!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Please call me Douglas, not Richardson. Thank you!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
I believe that all questions, most of the time anyway, deserve an answer.
You have here a request to me, would you like me to ignore it as much as you
ignore the questions of others?
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife,
_____ de Lacy
You have here a request to me, would you like me to ignore it as much as you
ignore the questions of others?
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife,
_____ de Lacy
Dear Leo ~
Please call me Douglas, not Richardson. Thank you.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Peter Stewart wrote:
< The simple way to interpret the evidence about Alan of Galloway's
wife
< is as written - that she was daughter of (Roger's brother) Richard,
and
< herself had a brother named John. I have said the same thing from the
< start, no bobbing, no weaving, and no agenda apart from getting at
the
< facts.
Dear Peter ~
Your theory has one gigantic hole in it. It's called chronology, which
is the backbone of medieval genealogy. If we take it that John de
Lacy's father, Roger de Lacy, was born about 1176, then Roger's younger
brother, Richard de Chester, can have been born no earlier than 1178.
Presuming Richard being a younger son married before the age of 20, it
would be 1198 or later before his children were born. If Richard de
Chester had a daughter, she would be the same age as Alan Fitz Roland's
children, NOT the age of his wife. Thus, your theory is off by a whole
generation. Yikes!
The short end of it: Your theory falls to the ground, crashes, and
burns. Game over. So sorry.
One last thing: Please call me Douglas, not Richardson. Thank you!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
< The simple way to interpret the evidence about Alan of Galloway's
wife
< is as written - that she was daughter of (Roger's brother) Richard,
and
< herself had a brother named John. I have said the same thing from the
< start, no bobbing, no weaving, and no agenda apart from getting at
the
< facts.
Dear Peter ~
Your theory has one gigantic hole in it. It's called chronology, which
is the backbone of medieval genealogy. If we take it that John de
Lacy's father, Roger de Lacy, was born about 1176, then Roger's younger
brother, Richard de Chester, can have been born no earlier than 1178.
Presuming Richard being a younger son married before the age of 20, it
would be 1198 or later before his children were born. If Richard de
Chester had a daughter, she would be the same age as Alan Fitz Roland's
children, NOT the age of his wife. Thus, your theory is off by a whole
generation. Yikes!
The short end of it: Your theory falls to the ground, crashes, and
burns. Game over. So sorry.
One last thing: Please call me Douglas, not Richardson. Thank you!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
This trash has sat on my server for hours now, and presumably reached a lot
of SGM readers before me.
No-one has bothered to point out the extreme folly of Richardson's stating
"If we take it..." and then proceeding to assume that his unfounded
supposition must be true. Any and every reader of SGM could have done this.
No-one has bothered to question the arbitrary statement that Roger de Lacy
was "born about 1176". Many readers could have done this, asking why his
father John the Constable would have departed on crusade, dying at the siege
of Acre in 1190, if his eldest son and heir was only about 14 at the time,
or how Roger could have succeeded & acted as constable of Chester, without
any recorded hint of a problem, at the same age.
Why do you all sit around waiting for someone else to take up such
elementary points? This is a discussion GROUP, not a dialogue.
Is no-one offended by the delinquency of Richardson crowing "Yikes! The
short end of it: Your theory falls to the ground, crashes, and burns. Game
over. So sorry." when nothing remotely of the sort has taken place?
I am shortly going to leave this newsgroup, and the reason is NOT
Richardson's inanities, but rather the passivity and complicity of readers
who consistently remain quiet about them. This in my view is irresponsible,
and I don't choose to go on corresponding with a lot of people who won't
pull their weight.
Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127891999.094791.206340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
of SGM readers before me.
No-one has bothered to point out the extreme folly of Richardson's stating
"If we take it..." and then proceeding to assume that his unfounded
supposition must be true. Any and every reader of SGM could have done this.
No-one has bothered to question the arbitrary statement that Roger de Lacy
was "born about 1176". Many readers could have done this, asking why his
father John the Constable would have departed on crusade, dying at the siege
of Acre in 1190, if his eldest son and heir was only about 14 at the time,
or how Roger could have succeeded & acted as constable of Chester, without
any recorded hint of a problem, at the same age.
Why do you all sit around waiting for someone else to take up such
elementary points? This is a discussion GROUP, not a dialogue.
Is no-one offended by the delinquency of Richardson crowing "Yikes! The
short end of it: Your theory falls to the ground, crashes, and burns. Game
over. So sorry." when nothing remotely of the sort has taken place?
I am shortly going to leave this newsgroup, and the reason is NOT
Richardson's inanities, but rather the passivity and complicity of readers
who consistently remain quiet about them. This in my view is irresponsible,
and I don't choose to go on corresponding with a lot of people who won't
pull their weight.
Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127891999.094791.206340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
The simple way to interpret the evidence about Alan of Galloway's
wife
is as written - that she was daughter of (Roger's brother) Richard,
and
herself had a brother named John. I have said the same thing from the
start, no bobbing, no weaving, and no agenda apart from getting at
the
facts.
Dear Peter ~
Your theory has one gigantic hole in it. It's called chronology, which
is the backbone of medieval genealogy. If we take it that John de
Lacy's father, Roger de Lacy, was born about 1176, then Roger's younger
brother, Richard de Chester, can have been born no earlier than 1178.
Presuming Richard being a younger son married before the age of 20, it
would be 1198 or later before his children were born. If Richard de
Chester had a daughter, she would be the same age as Alan Fitz Roland's
children, NOT the age of his wife. Thus, your theory is off by a whole
generation. Yikes!
The short end of it: Your theory falls to the ground, crashes, and
burns. Game over. So sorry.
One last thing: Please call me Douglas, not Richardson. Thank you!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Douglas Richardson wrote:
For what it's worth, I do agree with previous posters that the natural
reading of the Curia Regis entry is that Alan's wife is the sister of John,
not of his father "Richard". (Though CP xii/2, p. 271, note g, commenting on
a similar case, says that "in medieval Latin suus might be used for ejus"
and ends up relying on the context for the correct interpretation.)
It does seem sensible to look at the chronology, but I wonder how secure Jim
Weber's estimate of 1176 for Roger's birthdate is. CP vii 676 has his son
John born c. 1192 (on the basis that he had livery of his inheritance in
1213), and in a footnote says that Roger was given the honor of Pontefract
by his grandmother in 1194 (when on Jim's reckoning he would be only about
18). There seems to be scope for Roger to have been born earlier than 1176,
which would make it more plausible for Alan's wife to be either his daughter
or a daughter of his brother Richard.
I can't find anything particularly helpful on the chronology in the books I
have here. The closest I can find is that Roger's maternal grandmother,
Alice de Vere, was said to be either 60 or 80 in 1185, and married Roger's
grandfather after the death of her first husband, Robert of Essex, who was
dead by 1146. At least there's nothing in that to prevent Roger having been
born, say, 10 years earlier, in the mid 1160s.
Chris Phillips
Your theory has one gigantic hole in it. It's called chronology, which
is the backbone of medieval genealogy. If we take it that John de
Lacy's father, Roger de Lacy, was born about 1176, then Roger's younger
brother, Richard de Chester, can have been born no earlier than 1178.
Presuming Richard being a younger son married before the age of 20, it
would be 1198 or later before his children were born. If Richard de
Chester had a daughter, she would be the same age as Alan Fitz Roland's
children, NOT the age of his wife. Thus, your theory is off by a whole
generation. Yikes!
For what it's worth, I do agree with previous posters that the natural
reading of the Curia Regis entry is that Alan's wife is the sister of John,
not of his father "Richard". (Though CP xii/2, p. 271, note g, commenting on
a similar case, says that "in medieval Latin suus might be used for ejus"
and ends up relying on the context for the correct interpretation.)
It does seem sensible to look at the chronology, but I wonder how secure Jim
Weber's estimate of 1176 for Roger's birthdate is. CP vii 676 has his son
John born c. 1192 (on the basis that he had livery of his inheritance in
1213), and in a footnote says that Roger was given the honor of Pontefract
by his grandmother in 1194 (when on Jim's reckoning he would be only about
18). There seems to be scope for Roger to have been born earlier than 1176,
which would make it more plausible for Alan's wife to be either his daughter
or a daughter of his brother Richard.
I can't find anything particularly helpful on the chronology in the books I
have here. The closest I can find is that Roger's maternal grandmother,
Alice de Vere, was said to be either 60 or 80 in 1185, and married Roger's
grandfather after the death of her first husband, Robert of Essex, who was
dead by 1146. At least there's nothing in that to prevent Roger having been
born, say, 10 years earlier, in the mid 1160s.
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
The loss of Peter Stewart would indeed be a considerable one.
I have followed this thread as closely as I can. Peter thinks that his
theory is a possibility. Douglas thinks his theory is the only one.
It seems to me the jury is still out: the issue of Roger vs Richard is
not conclusive, and therefore Peter's theory may work - it certainly
can't be discarded. I am not persuaded by Peter's argument, but I
don't think he himself is convinced it is necessarily correct - just
that it is a possibility. With respect, Douglas seems to be the
dogmatic one here, which is unfortunate. A reasonable, open mind is an
essential tool to this kind of research.
One thing about Douglas's position that I don't understand is the
following:
"If we take it that John de Lacy's father, Roger de Lacy, was born
about 1176, then Roger's younger brother, Richard de Chester, can have
been born no earlier than 1178.
Presuming Richard being a younger son married before the age of 20, it
would be 1198 or later before his children were born. If Richard de
Chester had a daughter, she would be the same age as Alan Fitz Roland's
children, NOT the age of his wife."
Firstly, it would be instructive to state how it is known that Roger de
Lacy was born about 1176. When I posit such assertions, I always try
to record my source or my logic, otherwise a "fact" is created where
none may have been established.
Secondly (and perhaps I am being stupid) if Roger was born in 1176 and
had a daughter old enough to be Alan FitzRoland's wife, why would the
daughter of Richard (born 1178) be the same age as Alan FitzRoland's
children - is this not a non sequitur?
One final point - and again, with the greatest respect - it does seem
to be unfortunate that Douglas at times does not answer direct
questions in relation to the positions he posits - that does undermine
his seeing "bobbing and weaving" in others.
I greatly respect Peter's contributions, his deep knowledge, and his
clear logic. I also respect Douglas's contributions, and admire his
preparedness to speculate - but I wish Douglas would resist the
tempations (which I am sure affects many of us) to present this
speculation as facts or regard their being questioned as an attack, and
I would respect him the more if he answered questions more often!
Best wishes
Michael
I have followed this thread as closely as I can. Peter thinks that his
theory is a possibility. Douglas thinks his theory is the only one.
It seems to me the jury is still out: the issue of Roger vs Richard is
not conclusive, and therefore Peter's theory may work - it certainly
can't be discarded. I am not persuaded by Peter's argument, but I
don't think he himself is convinced it is necessarily correct - just
that it is a possibility. With respect, Douglas seems to be the
dogmatic one here, which is unfortunate. A reasonable, open mind is an
essential tool to this kind of research.
One thing about Douglas's position that I don't understand is the
following:
"If we take it that John de Lacy's father, Roger de Lacy, was born
about 1176, then Roger's younger brother, Richard de Chester, can have
been born no earlier than 1178.
Presuming Richard being a younger son married before the age of 20, it
would be 1198 or later before his children were born. If Richard de
Chester had a daughter, she would be the same age as Alan Fitz Roland's
children, NOT the age of his wife."
Firstly, it would be instructive to state how it is known that Roger de
Lacy was born about 1176. When I posit such assertions, I always try
to record my source or my logic, otherwise a "fact" is created where
none may have been established.
Secondly (and perhaps I am being stupid) if Roger was born in 1176 and
had a daughter old enough to be Alan FitzRoland's wife, why would the
daughter of Richard (born 1178) be the same age as Alan FitzRoland's
children - is this not a non sequitur?
One final point - and again, with the greatest respect - it does seem
to be unfortunate that Douglas at times does not answer direct
questions in relation to the positions he posits - that does undermine
his seeing "bobbing and weaving" in others.
I greatly respect Peter's contributions, his deep knowledge, and his
clear logic. I also respect Douglas's contributions, and admire his
preparedness to speculate - but I wish Douglas would resist the
tempations (which I am sure affects many of us) to present this
speculation as facts or regard their being questioned as an attack, and
I would respect him the more if he answered questions more often!
Best wishes
Michael
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127887794.743991.20870@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Yes, I have a copy - and you should have checked this BEFORE throwing
opinions around rather than trying to get someone else to fill you in now.
There are several charters of Alan relating to Kippax, one of particular
interest regarding the advowson.
Peter Stewart
news:1127887794.743991.20870@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
I see that the noted historian, Dr. Keith Stringer, has written an
article published in 2000 concerning the charters of the the early
Lords of Galloway:
Keith Stringer, 'Acts of Lordship: The Records of the Lords of Galloway
to 1234', in T. Brotherstone and D. Ditchburn (ed.), Freedom and
Authority: Scotland c.1050-c.1650, (East Linton: Tuckwell Press, 2000),
pp. 203-34.
Has anyone seen this article?
Yes, I have a copy - and you should have checked this BEFORE throwing
opinions around rather than trying to get someone else to fill you in now.
There are several charters of Alan relating to Kippax, one of particular
interest regarding the advowson.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
PS I see from another thread that Douglas's position is that Alan's
first wife was sister of Roger (?and Richard) rather than daughter or
grand-daughter, so I was being dim.
The chronology would therefore appear to be quite important in this
case. Other than websites, what is the primary evidence or logical
deduction behind the supposed birthdates of the Chester/Lacy family?
first wife was sister of Roger (?and Richard) rather than daughter or
grand-daughter, so I was being dim.
The chronology would therefore appear to be quite important in this
case. Other than websites, what is the primary evidence or logical
deduction behind the supposed birthdates of the Chester/Lacy family?
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:dhdm11$nv2$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Thank you, Chris.
Are you suggesting that Richardson's examination of the Lacy family
chronology, the basis for his sneering, consistented of looking up Jim
Weber's database?
And even at that, not stopping to question how Roger the Constable came into
the great Lacy inheritance and adopted this surname in 1194, at the age of
only "around" 18?
By the way, as Kevin has pointed out already, "suus" was used twice in the
same sentence and Richardson insistes that the possessive pronoun referred
to a different person each time, yet has given no better rationale for this
that the arbitrary & highly dubious chronology he proposed.
Thanks also to Michael for his kind post - unlike him, I do not respect
Richardson, although I do think the man is capable of doing better. However,
he will have little incentive to try when he can come to a supine newsgroup,
full of politely quiet readers, and act as badly as he has lately with
virtual impunity.
As I said, I do not intend to keep on carrying a large share of the burden
of pointing out his absurdities and dishonesties, especially in a field that
doesn't interest me in the least such as the late 12th/early 13th centuries
in England & Scotland. Equally I don't see why Leo should have to carry the
burden he does of pointing out the ethical & professional deficiencies in
Richardson's behaviour.
Peter Stewart
news:dhdm11$nv2$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Your theory has one gigantic hole in it. It's called chronology, which
is the backbone of medieval genealogy. If we take it that John de
Lacy's father, Roger de Lacy, was born about 1176, then Roger's younger
brother, Richard de Chester, can have been born no earlier than 1178.
Presuming Richard being a younger son married before the age of 20, it
would be 1198 or later before his children were born. If Richard de
Chester had a daughter, she would be the same age as Alan Fitz Roland's
children, NOT the age of his wife. Thus, your theory is off by a whole
generation. Yikes!
For what it's worth, I do agree with previous posters that the natural
reading of the Curia Regis entry is that Alan's wife is the sister of
John,
not of his father "Richard". (Though CP xii/2, p. 271, note g, commenting
on
a similar case, says that "in medieval Latin suus might be used for ejus"
and ends up relying on the context for the correct interpretation.)
It does seem sensible to look at the chronology, but I wonder how secure
Jim
Weber's estimate of 1176 for Roger's birthdate is.
Thank you, Chris.
Are you suggesting that Richardson's examination of the Lacy family
chronology, the basis for his sneering, consistented of looking up Jim
Weber's database?
And even at that, not stopping to question how Roger the Constable came into
the great Lacy inheritance and adopted this surname in 1194, at the age of
only "around" 18?
By the way, as Kevin has pointed out already, "suus" was used twice in the
same sentence and Richardson insistes that the possessive pronoun referred
to a different person each time, yet has given no better rationale for this
that the arbitrary & highly dubious chronology he proposed.
Thanks also to Michael for his kind post - unlike him, I do not respect
Richardson, although I do think the man is capable of doing better. However,
he will have little incentive to try when he can come to a supine newsgroup,
full of politely quiet readers, and act as badly as he has lately with
virtual impunity.
As I said, I do not intend to keep on carrying a large share of the burden
of pointing out his absurdities and dishonesties, especially in a field that
doesn't interest me in the least such as the late 12th/early 13th centuries
in England & Scotland. Equally I don't see why Leo should have to carry the
burden he does of pointing out the ethical & professional deficiencies in
Richardson's behaviour.
Peter Stewart
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Peter Stewart wrote:
I understood from his previous post on the chronology that this was where
the 1176 estimate for Roger's birthdate came from.
Chris Phillips
Are you suggesting that Richardson's examination of the Lacy family
chronology, the basis for his sneering, consistented of looking up Jim
Weber's database?
I understood from his previous post on the chronology that this was where
the 1176 estimate for Roger's birthdate came from.
Chris Phillips
-
R. Battle
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Comments interspersed and following:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Peter Stewart wrote:
But probably not read by the majority of them, either because they only
check the group sporadically or else they are not following the thread.
Speaking only for myself, I tend to read only about 10% of the newsgroup
postings--those with interesting subject lines or from particular authors
and those in threads which, for whatever reason (usually one of the two
mentioned), I was following before. I suspect that is true for most of us
who occasionally contribute and don't just lurk all of the time. In this
particular case, I am more-or-less following the thread, but by the time I
read the message to which you are referring a couple of replies had
already appeared (see below).
True; but I think that the repetition of points already raised by others
can tend to distract from the flow of discussion (assuming that there is
one, of course). Before I reply to a post I always check to see if any
other replies have already been made, and then look at them to see if I
have anything to add to what has been said. Immediately after I read the
post to which you were objecting, I read your reply (to which I am now
replying) as well as Chris Phillips', both of which pointed out the error
of building upon the shaky 1176 foundation. For me to raise the same
issue would therefore be redundant. In a way, you're a victim of your own
success--I rarely find anything to add to what you've said.
Of course, both for that and for the immaturity of its sentiment and
wording.
I hope you'll reconsider; but if you do leave, I hope you'll pass along
your address just in case I ever start working on continental genealogy.

-Robert Battle
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Peter Stewart wrote:
This trash has sat on my server for hours now, and presumably reached a lot
of SGM readers before me.
snip
But probably not read by the majority of them, either because they only
check the group sporadically or else they are not following the thread.
Speaking only for myself, I tend to read only about 10% of the newsgroup
postings--those with interesting subject lines or from particular authors
and those in threads which, for whatever reason (usually one of the two
mentioned), I was following before. I suspect that is true for most of us
who occasionally contribute and don't just lurk all of the time. In this
particular case, I am more-or-less following the thread, but by the time I
read the message to which you are referring a couple of replies had
already appeared (see below).
Why do you all sit around waiting for someone else to take up such
elementary points? This is a discussion GROUP, not a dialogue.
True; but I think that the repetition of points already raised by others
can tend to distract from the flow of discussion (assuming that there is
one, of course). Before I reply to a post I always check to see if any
other replies have already been made, and then look at them to see if I
have anything to add to what has been said. Immediately after I read the
post to which you were objecting, I read your reply (to which I am now
replying) as well as Chris Phillips', both of which pointed out the error
of building upon the shaky 1176 foundation. For me to raise the same
issue would therefore be redundant. In a way, you're a victim of your own
success--I rarely find anything to add to what you've said.
Is no-one offended by the delinquency of Richardson crowing "Yikes! The
short end of it: Your theory falls to the ground, crashes, and burns. Game
over. So sorry." when nothing remotely of the sort has taken place?
Of course, both for that and for the immaturity of its sentiment and
wording.
I am shortly going to leave this newsgroup, and the reason is NOT
Richardson's inanities, but rather the passivity and complicity of readers
who consistently remain quiet about them. This in my view is irresponsible,
and I don't choose to go on corresponding with a lot of people who won't
pull their weight.
snip
I hope you'll reconsider; but if you do leave, I hope you'll pass along
your address just in case I ever start working on continental genealogy.
-Robert Battle
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
In message of 28 Sep, "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
wrote:
I had the good fortune not to read DR's initial post as I have
kill-filed him.
But I have seen his remarks quoted and in particular various requests
of his for proper evidence. If he merely took this off an internet
site, then it shows that his hypocrisy has not changed since I commented
extensively on it a few months back.
I have also, as one or two may have noted, given away his book which I
ordered in error some years ago. I could not bring myself to refer to
a work that claimed to be scholarly and yet did not follow scholarly
practices; more hypocrisy of course.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
Are you suggesting that Richardson's examination of the Lacy family
chronology, the basis for his sneering, consistented of looking up
Jim Weber's database?
I understood from his previous post on the chronology that this was where
the 1176 estimate for Roger's birthdate came from.
I had the good fortune not to read DR's initial post as I have
kill-filed him.
But I have seen his remarks quoted and in particular various requests
of his for proper evidence. If he merely took this off an internet
site, then it shows that his hypocrisy has not changed since I commented
extensively on it a few months back.
I have also, as one or two may have noted, given away his book which I
ordered in error some years ago. I could not bring myself to refer to
a work that claimed to be scholarly and yet did not follow scholarly
practices; more hypocrisy of course.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
John Brandon
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
As I said, I do not intend to keep on carrying a large share of the burden
of pointing out his absurdities and dishonesties, especially in a field that
doesn't interest me in the least such as the late 12th/early 13th centuries
in England & Scotland. Equally I don't see why Leo should have to carry the
burden he does of pointing out the ethical & professional deficiencies in
Richardson's behaviour.
Peter Stewart
And thus we witness how 'righteous indignation' degenerates into
'self-righteous indignation' ...
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
In message of 28 Sep, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
<Snip of The Hypocrite's latest CU>
I will be sorry if you should depart from our midst. Three reasons.
First I have enjoyed your obvious serious knowledge and capability with
early, particularly early continental european documents. I have
always marvelled at those who can get their head around even classical
latin, but medieval latin with all its abbreviations and never mind the
ghastly script is several times more demanding. Not merely this, of
course, but also the very extensive knowledge of the people that you
manage to carry in your head, another failure of my braincell that I
have ever admired in others.
Second the generous help you have given those who have been making
enquiries in your areas of speciality.
Thirdly I have hugely enjoyed the lambasting (ghastly word but all
newspapers, even The Times, seem to be using it now) given to The
Hypocrite. I will confess that I have occasionally felt guilty about
this enjoyment as it so often expressed so well what seemed fit, though
over the top for discreet English discourse. On the other hand I have
also been entertained by odd Australians whose command of delightful
invective has come naturally, eloquently and just as vitriolically from
the touchline of the rugby field (for such was the style of the man who
eventually became headmaster of my sons' school).
But while I do not see the need for you to carry on the crusade to
correct The Hypocrite, I wonder if you might stay with us by putting
him, as I have done, on a kill-file. I suspect that someone else might
yet take up the cudgels of clear reasoning and honesty; after all this
did happen when Paul Reed retired from the scene.
A final reason for staying with this group is the marvellous
improvements in the last year or so in the content of the postings. A
few years ago we did well if we could find a morsel from CP. But now
hardly a day passes without some cogent and apposite extracts from
primary sources, thereby radically extending our genealogical
knowledge. I remain humbled by the sheer competence of it all.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<Snip of The Hypocrite's latest CU>
Why do you all sit around waiting for someone else to take up such
elementary points? This is a discussion GROUP, not a dialogue.
Is no-one offended by the delinquency of Richardson crowing "Yikes! The
short end of it: Your theory falls to the ground, crashes, and burns. Game
over. So sorry." when nothing remotely of the sort has taken place?
I am shortly going to leave this newsgroup, and the reason is NOT
Richardson's inanities, but rather the passivity and complicity of readers
who consistently remain quiet about them. This in my view is irresponsible,
and I don't choose to go on corresponding with a lot of people who won't
pull their weight.
I will be sorry if you should depart from our midst. Three reasons.
First I have enjoyed your obvious serious knowledge and capability with
early, particularly early continental european documents. I have
always marvelled at those who can get their head around even classical
latin, but medieval latin with all its abbreviations and never mind the
ghastly script is several times more demanding. Not merely this, of
course, but also the very extensive knowledge of the people that you
manage to carry in your head, another failure of my braincell that I
have ever admired in others.
Second the generous help you have given those who have been making
enquiries in your areas of speciality.
Thirdly I have hugely enjoyed the lambasting (ghastly word but all
newspapers, even The Times, seem to be using it now) given to The
Hypocrite. I will confess that I have occasionally felt guilty about
this enjoyment as it so often expressed so well what seemed fit, though
over the top for discreet English discourse. On the other hand I have
also been entertained by odd Australians whose command of delightful
invective has come naturally, eloquently and just as vitriolically from
the touchline of the rugby field (for such was the style of the man who
eventually became headmaster of my sons' school).
But while I do not see the need for you to carry on the crusade to
correct The Hypocrite, I wonder if you might stay with us by putting
him, as I have done, on a kill-file. I suspect that someone else might
yet take up the cudgels of clear reasoning and honesty; after all this
did happen when Paul Reed retired from the scene.
A final reason for staying with this group is the marvellous
improvements in the last year or so in the content of the postings. A
few years ago we did well if we could find a morsel from CP. But now
hardly a day passes without some cogent and apposite extracts from
primary sources, thereby radically extending our genealogical
knowledge. I remain humbled by the sheer competence of it all.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
John Brandon
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
But while I do not see the need for you to carry on the crusade to
correct The Hypocrite, I wonder if you might stay with us by putting
him, as I have done, on a kill-file. I suspect that someone else might
yet take up the cudgels of clear reasoning and honesty; after all this
did happen when Paul Reed retired from the scene.
Oh this is vulgar and disgusting!
-
John Brandon
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
I am shortly going to leave this newsgroup, and the reason is NOT Richardson's
inanities, but rather the passivity and complicity of readers who consistently remain
quiet about them. This in my view is irresponsible, and I don't choose to go on
corresponding with a lot of people who won't pull their weight.
Bunch of pious, pompous rot.
Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you ...
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Dear Michael ~
With all due respect, I don't think my interpretation regarding the
identity of Alan Fitz Roland's first wife is "the only one." I have
never thought that. If you have a theory of your own, by all means,
please advance it along with your evidence.
I think it goes without saying that if we're going to continue to
discuss the various problems involving the earlier baronial families of
England, we'll have to raise the level of discussion a lot higher.
Indeed the further back you go in time, the fewer the records you have,
the more Latin you encounter, and the more murkier things get. Unless
some posters start acting a lot more collegial, I suspect it's going to
get very rocky around here. Especially since the entire arrangement of
a family can hinge on the interpretation of one ambiguous document.
In answer to your question about chronology, and, no, you are not being
stupid, I've stated my "opinion" that Alan Fitz Roland married a sister
of Roger de Lacy (died 1211), NOT his daughter. If Alan married
Roger's daughter as you have set it out, I believe you would encounter
the SAME chronological problem that besets Mr. Stewart's theory. This
is a non sequitur (Latin meaning: it does not follow).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
m...@btinternet.com wrote:
With all due respect, I don't think my interpretation regarding the
identity of Alan Fitz Roland's first wife is "the only one." I have
never thought that. If you have a theory of your own, by all means,
please advance it along with your evidence.
I think it goes without saying that if we're going to continue to
discuss the various problems involving the earlier baronial families of
England, we'll have to raise the level of discussion a lot higher.
Indeed the further back you go in time, the fewer the records you have,
the more Latin you encounter, and the more murkier things get. Unless
some posters start acting a lot more collegial, I suspect it's going to
get very rocky around here. Especially since the entire arrangement of
a family can hinge on the interpretation of one ambiguous document.
In answer to your question about chronology, and, no, you are not being
stupid, I've stated my "opinion" that Alan Fitz Roland married a sister
of Roger de Lacy (died 1211), NOT his daughter. If Alan married
Roger's daughter as you have set it out, I believe you would encounter
the SAME chronological problem that besets Mr. Stewart's theory. This
is a non sequitur (Latin meaning: it does not follow).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
m...@btinternet.com wrote:
The loss of Peter Stewart would indeed be a considerable one.
I have followed this thread as closely as I can. Peter thinks that his
theory is a possibility. Douglas thinks his theory is the only one.
It seems to me the jury is still out: the issue of Roger vs Richard is
not conclusive, and therefore Peter's theory may work - it certainly
can't be discarded. I am not persuaded by Peter's argument, but I
don't think he himself is convinced it is necessarily correct - just
that it is a possibility. With respect, Douglas seems to be the
dogmatic one here, which is unfortunate. A reasonable, open mind is an
essential tool to this kind of research.
One thing about Douglas's position that I don't understand is the
following:
"If we take it that John de Lacy's father, Roger de Lacy, was born
about 1176, then Roger's younger brother, Richard de Chester, can have
been born no earlier than 1178.
Presuming Richard being a younger son married before the age of 20, it
would be 1198 or later before his children were born. If Richard de
Chester had a daughter, she would be the same age as Alan Fitz Roland's
children, NOT the age of his wife."
Firstly, it would be instructive to state how it is known that Roger de
Lacy was born about 1176. When I posit such assertions, I always try
to record my source or my logic, otherwise a "fact" is created where
none may have been established.
Secondly (and perhaps I am being stupid) if Roger was born in 1176 and
had a daughter old enough to be Alan FitzRoland's wife, why would the
daughter of Richard (born 1178) be the same age as Alan FitzRoland's
children - is this not a non sequitur?
One final point - and again, with the greatest respect - it does seem
to be unfortunate that Douglas at times does not answer direct
questions in relation to the positions he posits - that does undermine
his seeing "bobbing and weaving" in others.
I greatly respect Peter's contributions, his deep knowledge, and his
clear logic. I also respect Douglas's contributions, and admire his
preparedness to speculate - but I wish Douglas would resist the
tempations (which I am sure affects many of us) to present this
speculation as facts or regard their being questioned as an attack, and
I would respect him the more if he answered questions more often!
Best wishes
Michael
-
John Brandon
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you ...
Or, as Dave Chappelle might say, "Bye, biyotch."
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Dear Tim ~
It isn't necessary for you to express your opinions about Douglas
Richardson whenever you post. We already know your views about him -
you've expressed them here repeatedly.
This particular thread is about the identity of Alan Fitz Roland's
first wife. Do you have anything tangible to add to the discussion,
Tim? If so, please post away. Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
It isn't necessary for you to express your opinions about Douglas
Richardson whenever you post. We already know your views about him -
you've expressed them here repeatedly.
This particular thread is about the identity of Alan Fitz Roland's
first wife. Do you have anything tangible to add to the discussion,
Tim? If so, please post away. Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
I had the good fortune not to read DR's initial post as I have
kill-filed him.
But I have seen his remarks quoted and in particular various requests
of his for proper evidence. If he merely took this off an internet
site, then it shows that his hypocrisy has not changed since I commented
extensively on it a few months back.
I have also, as one or two may have noted, given away his book which I
ordered in error some years ago. I could not bring myself to refer to
a work that claimed to be scholarly and yet did not follow scholarly
practices; more hypocrisy of course.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Dear Chris ~
Thank you for your good post.
When you have a moment, can you explain the use of the Latin words,
"suo" versus "eius," in context with the Curia Regis Rolls document? I
think this would be helpful.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Thank you for your good post.
When you have a moment, can you explain the use of the Latin words,
"suo" versus "eius," in context with the Curia Regis Rolls document? I
think this would be helpful.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
For what it's worth, I do agree with previous posters that the natural
reading of the Curia Regis entry is that Alan's wife is the sister of John,
not of his father "Richard". (Though CP xii/2, p. 271, note g, commenting on
a similar case, says that "in medieval Latin suus might be used for ejus"
and ends up relying on the context for the correct interpretation.)
It does seem sensible to look at the chronology, but I wonder how secure Jim
Weber's estimate of 1176 for Roger's birthdate is. CP vii 676 has his son
John born c. 1192 (on the basis that he had livery of his inheritance in
1213), and in a footnote says that Roger was given the honor of Pontefract
by his grandmother in 1194 (when on Jim's reckoning he would be only about
18). There seems to be scope for Roger to have been born earlier than 1176,
which would make it more plausible for Alan's wife to be either his daughter
or a daughter of his brother Richard.
I can't find anything particularly helpful on the chronology in the books I
have here. The closest I can find is that Roger's maternal grandmother,
Alice de Vere, was said to be either 60 or 80 in 1185, and married Roger's
grandfather after the death of her first husband, Robert of Essex, who was
dead by 1146. At least there's nothing in that to prevent Roger having been
born, say, 10 years earlier, in the mid 1160s.
Chris Phillips
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Dear Newsgroup ~
Sometime ago, the ever helpful Dave Utzinger posted the following
information to the newsgroup. Since it directly concerns Roger de
Lacy, Constable of Chester, and his son, John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln,
I thought I'd repost it again. Special thanks go to Dave for posting
this information.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Sidney Painter (Studies in the History of the English Feudal Barony)
did a [preliminary] study of baronial incomes between 1160 and 1320
(chapter VII). Of fifty-four barons he tallied figures for during a
part of that period, Roger de Lacy, constable of Chester, had the
highest income in England at his death in 1210 (800 pounds per annum).
Next was William, Earl of Gloucester at 700 pounds, Robert, Earl of
Leicester, at 560 pounds, and then Earl William de Mandeville at 504
pounds per annum. So this would explain, in part, why John de Lacy was
vaulted to the peerage when the opportunity presented itself without
much dispute. The palatine Earl of Chester only had an annual income of
327 pounds per annum in Henry II's reign. [Ref: Dave Utzinger 5 Jan
1999 msg to SGM]
Sometime ago, the ever helpful Dave Utzinger posted the following
information to the newsgroup. Since it directly concerns Roger de
Lacy, Constable of Chester, and his son, John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln,
I thought I'd repost it again. Special thanks go to Dave for posting
this information.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Sidney Painter (Studies in the History of the English Feudal Barony)
did a [preliminary] study of baronial incomes between 1160 and 1320
(chapter VII). Of fifty-four barons he tallied figures for during a
part of that period, Roger de Lacy, constable of Chester, had the
highest income in England at his death in 1210 (800 pounds per annum).
Next was William, Earl of Gloucester at 700 pounds, Robert, Earl of
Leicester, at 560 pounds, and then Earl William de Mandeville at 504
pounds per annum. So this would explain, in part, why John de Lacy was
vaulted to the peerage when the opportunity presented itself without
much dispute. The palatine Earl of Chester only had an annual income of
327 pounds per annum in Henry II's reign. [Ref: Dave Utzinger 5 Jan
1999 msg to SGM]
-
CED
Re: Richardson's form of address
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
Is there any other participant in the group who demands that posters
use her or his given name, rather than her or his surname? Is DR so in
need of affection that he derives pleasure from other's using the
familiar name, rather than a formal name (even though the use of the
familiar would be hypocritical)? It could be that, if he so insists,
we could use "Uriah."
CED
Dear Leo ~
Please call me Douglas, not Richardson. Thank you.
To the Newsgroup:
Is there any other participant in the group who demands that posters
use her or his given name, rather than her or his surname? Is DR so in
need of affection that he derives pleasure from other's using the
familiar name, rather than a formal name (even though the use of the
familiar would be hypocritical)? It could be that, if he so insists,
we could use "Uriah."
CED
-
Gjest
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Oh shut up!
It takes one to know one.
Hans Vogels
It takes one to know one.
Hans Vogels
-
Gjest
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Dear dear!
A fine example of your education are those words.
Hans Vogels
A fine example of your education are those words.
Hans Vogels
-
Gjest
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Can't wait to see the last of you.
Hans Vogels
Hans Vogels
-
Gjest
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Leo
They Can't Peter has called them stupied. Yeah he's going to win
Brownie points on that one.
Mike
They Can't Peter has called them stupied. Yeah he's going to win
Brownie points on that one.
Mike
-
norenxaq
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
I am shortly going to leave this newsgroup, and the reason is NOT
Richardson's inanities, but rather the passivity and complicity of readers
who consistently remain quiet about them.
people will join or not join a particular discussion as they see fit regardless
of whether someone else thinks they should
This in my view is irresponsible,
your choice, but it isn't
and I don't choose to go on corresponding with a lot of people who won't
pull their weight.
Peter Stewart
if you have problems with certain theories or people, express them (which you
do), but don't expect others to join in.
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Peter Stewart wrote:
Curiously, my server shows his post and your response being posted to
soc.gen.med 48 minutes apart. Considering that some posters (present
company included) sometimes go 24 hours or longer between readings of
the group (by which time many points have been sufficiently addressed by
other posters that there is no sense in tediously repeating them).
Expecting numerous responses within hours is perhaps asking a level of
commitment to the group few can match.
taf
This trash has sat on my server for hours now, and presumably reached a lot
of SGM readers before me.
No-one has bothered to point out the extreme folly of Richardson's stating
"If we take it..." and then proceeding to assume that his unfounded
supposition must be true. Any and every reader of SGM could have done this.
Curiously, my server shows his post and your response being posted to
soc.gen.med 48 minutes apart. Considering that some posters (present
company included) sometimes go 24 hours or longer between readings of
the group (by which time many points have been sufficiently addressed by
other posters that there is no sense in tediously repeating them).
Expecting numerous responses within hours is perhaps asking a level of
commitment to the group few can match.
taf
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Mine too. That puzzled me as well.
Chris Phillips
Curiously, my server shows his post and your response being posted to
soc.gen.med 48 minutes apart.
Mine too. That puzzled me as well.
Chris Phillips
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
I think that at times people have to speak up and show their support. I
think too often Richardson goes over board and needs to be pulled in line.
This should not be done all the time by the same few. Richardson has just
expressed his believe in numbers, we need numbers to impress him whether
people approve or disapprove of his behaviour.
I firmly believe in _remaining silent is agreeing_ and remaining silent
only gives support to Richardson.
----- Original Message -----
From: "norenxaq" <norenxaq@san.rr.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 3:16 AM
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first
wife,_____ de Lacy
think too often Richardson goes over board and needs to be pulled in line.
This should not be done all the time by the same few. Richardson has just
expressed his believe in numbers, we need numbers to impress him whether
people approve or disapprove of his behaviour.
I firmly believe in _remaining silent is agreeing_ and remaining silent
only gives support to Richardson.
----- Original Message -----
From: "norenxaq" <norenxaq@san.rr.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 3:16 AM
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first
wife,_____ de Lacy
I am shortly going to leave this newsgroup, and the reason is NOT
Richardson's inanities, but rather the passivity and complicity of
readers
who consistently remain quiet about them.
people will join or not join a particular discussion as they see fit
regardless
of whether someone else thinks they should
This in my view is irresponsible,
your choice, but it isn't
and I don't choose to go on corresponding with a lot of people who won't
pull their weight.
Peter Stewart
if you have problems with certain theories or people, express them (which
you
do), but don't expect others to join in.
-
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
The Lacy identity of Alan of Galloway's first wife was proposed by
Stringer in 1972 (Dumfries & Galloway NHAS Transactions Vol XLIX). The
evidence adduced by Stringer is sixfold:
1 In 1254 Roger de Quincy granted Kippax to Edmund de Lacy. Quincy was
the husband of Alan's eldest daughter Helen, who we know was not a
daughter by Margaret of Huntingdon as Helen was not an heir to Earl
John, Margaret's brother, and who we know inherited the Constableship
of Scotland, and so was an elder half sister of Dervorguilla.
2 In ca 1223 Alan ordered his bailiff to take possession, apparently as
an escheat, of Swillington, which pertained to Kippax.
3 The Curia Regis Rolls of 1214 show Alan acting against John de Lacy
(father of Edmund) "de warantia carte de terra de Kippes".
Stringer quotes in English that " John de Chester shall warrant the
charters of his father Richard (per Stringer recte Roger) which Alan
.... has anent the maritagium of his sister (the "his" is not
specific between father and son and Stringer says "sister or dau of
Roger de Lacy, constable of Chester")
4 A letter of Pope Honorius III of March 1222 states that Alan had
married within the prohibited degrees of consanguinuity. His later
wife was the daughter of Hugh de Lacy, Earl of Ulster (of the Weobley
Lacys), so an earlier Lacy wife (of the Pontefract Lacys) would fit the
bill.
5 Stringer also suggests that there would not appear to be a suitable
earlier marriage in Alan's pedigree to allow for him and his
descendants to hold Kippax.
6 He also refers to the Close Rolls 1242-47, apparently showing, but
without quotation, that Helen of Galloway's maritagium was in the
Honour of Pontefract.
It seems to me that if the scribe had in his notes written "R", it
could have been for Roger when he wrote it, but when he transcribed it
in the quote in item 3, he expanded it to the more usual Richard.
However, the argument is more complex and more persuasive than anyone
has yet (to my memory) suggested. Clearly once such a case as this has
been made and accepted, those who later propose it do not feel the
necessity to rehearse the whole argument, whether this is actually
necessary or not.
The quote above
". Sciant omnes presentes et futuri has Litteras visuri [et] audituri
.. Quod ego Alanus filius Roll(andi) . Dominus Galuuath' Scotie
Constab(ularius) . quitam clamaui . Rogero de lascy . Centrie
Constab(ulario) [et] heredibus suis . de me [et] heredibus meis .
aduocationem ecclesie de kipeis . Hijs Test(ibus) . Eustacio de Vescy .
Roberto Walensi . Willelmo de bello monte . hugone despensario . Thoma
fratre suo . Gilberto fili(o) Cospatric . Radulfo de Campania . Ricardo
clerico de creuequor litterarum scriptore . [et]
multis aliis."
is not sourced, but I assume it to be another piece of unattributed
evidence of which Stringer was unaware when he wrote the 1972 article.
At all events, it would seem to support his argument.
Finally as to the identity of "Ricardo clerico de creuequor
litterarum scriptore" T and C are notoriously interchangeable, or
alternatively confusable, and to anyone familiar with Galloway this
must be Troqueer. Richard is clearly the priest of Troqueer. Old
forms of Troqueer have for "Tro" "Treve", from the Brythonic
"tref", a place, as in Threve, Terregles and many other Galwegian
place names.
Stringer in 1972 (Dumfries & Galloway NHAS Transactions Vol XLIX). The
evidence adduced by Stringer is sixfold:
1 In 1254 Roger de Quincy granted Kippax to Edmund de Lacy. Quincy was
the husband of Alan's eldest daughter Helen, who we know was not a
daughter by Margaret of Huntingdon as Helen was not an heir to Earl
John, Margaret's brother, and who we know inherited the Constableship
of Scotland, and so was an elder half sister of Dervorguilla.
2 In ca 1223 Alan ordered his bailiff to take possession, apparently as
an escheat, of Swillington, which pertained to Kippax.
3 The Curia Regis Rolls of 1214 show Alan acting against John de Lacy
(father of Edmund) "de warantia carte de terra de Kippes".
Stringer quotes in English that " John de Chester shall warrant the
charters of his father Richard (per Stringer recte Roger) which Alan
.... has anent the maritagium of his sister (the "his" is not
specific between father and son and Stringer says "sister or dau of
Roger de Lacy, constable of Chester")
4 A letter of Pope Honorius III of March 1222 states that Alan had
married within the prohibited degrees of consanguinuity. His later
wife was the daughter of Hugh de Lacy, Earl of Ulster (of the Weobley
Lacys), so an earlier Lacy wife (of the Pontefract Lacys) would fit the
bill.
5 Stringer also suggests that there would not appear to be a suitable
earlier marriage in Alan's pedigree to allow for him and his
descendants to hold Kippax.
6 He also refers to the Close Rolls 1242-47, apparently showing, but
without quotation, that Helen of Galloway's maritagium was in the
Honour of Pontefract.
It seems to me that if the scribe had in his notes written "R", it
could have been for Roger when he wrote it, but when he transcribed it
in the quote in item 3, he expanded it to the more usual Richard.
However, the argument is more complex and more persuasive than anyone
has yet (to my memory) suggested. Clearly once such a case as this has
been made and accepted, those who later propose it do not feel the
necessity to rehearse the whole argument, whether this is actually
necessary or not.
The quote above
". Sciant omnes presentes et futuri has Litteras visuri [et] audituri
.. Quod ego Alanus filius Roll(andi) . Dominus Galuuath' Scotie
Constab(ularius) . quitam clamaui . Rogero de lascy . Centrie
Constab(ulario) [et] heredibus suis . de me [et] heredibus meis .
aduocationem ecclesie de kipeis . Hijs Test(ibus) . Eustacio de Vescy .
Roberto Walensi . Willelmo de bello monte . hugone despensario . Thoma
fratre suo . Gilberto fili(o) Cospatric . Radulfo de Campania . Ricardo
clerico de creuequor litterarum scriptore . [et]
multis aliis."
is not sourced, but I assume it to be another piece of unattributed
evidence of which Stringer was unaware when he wrote the 1972 article.
At all events, it would seem to support his argument.
Finally as to the identity of "Ricardo clerico de creuequor
litterarum scriptore" T and C are notoriously interchangeable, or
alternatively confusable, and to anyone familiar with Galloway this
must be Troqueer. Richard is clearly the priest of Troqueer. Old
forms of Troqueer have for "Tro" "Treve", from the Brythonic
"tref", a place, as in Threve, Terregles and many other Galwegian
place names.
-
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
I think a better grasp of Latin is required. It is clear that, in both
these quotes from the Rolls, Richard de Crevequor (Troqueer) is acting
as the attorney of Alan of Galloway in a suit against John of Chester.
these quotes from the Rolls, Richard de Crevequor (Troqueer) is acting
as the attorney of Alan of Galloway in a suit against John of Chester.
-
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
In reply to the very first message in this thread:
I think a better grasp of Latin is required. It is clear that, in both
these quotes from the Rolls, Richard de Crevequor (Troqueer) is acting
as the attorney of Alan of Galloway in a suit against John of Chester.
I think a better grasp of Latin is required. It is clear that, in both
these quotes from the Rolls, Richard de Crevequor (Troqueer) is acting
as the attorney of Alan of Galloway in a suit against John of Chester.
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Dear Mike,
Brownie points? When gen-med is going to deteriorate to a third rate tea
party where quantity ir more important than quality?
----- Original Message -----
From: <mwelch8442@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first
wife,_____ de Lacy
Brownie points? When gen-med is going to deteriorate to a third rate tea
party where quantity ir more important than quality?
----- Original Message -----
From: <mwelch8442@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first
wife,_____ de Lacy
Leo
They Can't Peter has called them stupied. Yeah he's going to win
Brownie points on that one.
Mike
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127915835.625869.163180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Um, how exactly can Peter Stewart be "self-righteous" about the burden on
Leo van de Pas from other people's complacency?
Peter Stewart
news:1127915835.625869.163180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
As I said, I do not intend to keep on carrying a large share of the
burden
of pointing out his absurdities and dishonesties, especially in a field
that
doesn't interest me in the least such as the late 12th/early 13th
centuries
in England & Scotland. Equally I don't see why Leo should have to carry
the
burden he does of pointing out the ethical & professional deficiencies in
Richardson's behaviour.
Peter Stewart
And thus we witness how 'righteous indignation' degenerates into
'self-righteous indignation' ...
Um, how exactly can Peter Stewart be "self-righteous" about the burden on
Leo van de Pas from other people's complacency?
Peter Stewart
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Well, as I understand it, "suus" normally has the sense of "his/her/its
own", and refers back to the subject of the sentence, whereas "eius" relates
to somebody else.
Chris Phillips
When you have a moment, can you explain the use of the Latin words,
"suo" versus "eius," in context with the Curia Regis Rolls document? I
think this would be helpful.
Well, as I understand it, "suus" normally has the sense of "his/her/its
own", and refers back to the subject of the sentence, whereas "eius" relates
to somebody else.
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Ed You don't have to apologize for anything. They are grown men let
them hash it out. No matter what kind of guilt someone is trying to
place on.
Best
Mike Welch
them hash it out. No matter what kind of guilt someone is trying to
place on.
Best
Mike Welch
-
Edward Crabtree
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
I am sorry, but as a semi-retired salesman I do NOT have the wherewithal to
argue genealogical/historical facts. My silence is not an agreement - it is
more to suppress my ignorance of the topic discussed.
Ed Crabtree - Missouri, USA
familyhistorian@kc.rr.com
All outgoing messages checked by McAfee VirusScan
argue genealogical/historical facts. My silence is not an agreement - it is
more to suppress my ignorance of the topic discussed.
Ed Crabtree - Missouri, USA
familyhistorian@kc.rr.com
All outgoing messages checked by McAfee VirusScan
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
"norenxaq" <norenxaq@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:433ACFD6.AE818A07@san.rr.com...
I'm not asking anyone to join in about the theories under discussion, but
about the methods employed in this & most other controversies.
I'm also not asking lurkers to break their silence. But people who come here
posing questions & seeking help, who then offer none at all when they can
see the smears and nonsense thrown at people like Leo, always so willing to
help, are in my view irresponsible in their approach to this group.
I'm afraid to say that DOES include norenqax, who for whatever reason hardly
ever bothers to make more substantial comments that John Brandon.
Peter Stewart
news:433ACFD6.AE818A07@san.rr.com...
I am shortly going to leave this newsgroup, and the reason is NOT
Richardson's inanities, but rather the passivity and complicity of
readers
who consistently remain quiet about them.
people will join or not join a particular discussion as they see fit
regardless
of whether someone else thinks they should
This in my view is irresponsible,
your choice, but it isn't
and I don't choose to go on corresponding with a lot of people who won't
pull their weight.
Peter Stewart
if you have problems with certain theories or people, express them (which
you
do), but don't expect others to join in.
I'm not asking anyone to join in about the theories under discussion, but
about the methods employed in this & most other controversies.
I'm also not asking lurkers to break their silence. But people who come here
posing questions & seeking help, who then offer none at all when they can
see the smears and nonsense thrown at people like Leo, always so willing to
help, are in my view irresponsible in their approach to this group.
I'm afraid to say that DOES include norenqax, who for whatever reason hardly
ever bothers to make more substantial comments that John Brandon.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:433adff4@news.ColoState.EDU...
I don't know about the 48 minutes - I deliberately left the message
unanswered for a few hours, waiting to see what happened (and it was
nothing).
My point is that the first reader who came across "If we take it...."
followed by a dogmatic load of nonsense & insults assuming the hypothesis to
be proved, and saw no response, could have pointed out the fundamental flaw
in Richardson's post.
In a group discussion, it should not need to wait for a particular poster to
do this tedious chore.
As Leo has said, Richardson is impressed by numbers - he thinks the sales of
Roderick Stuart's trash are a factor in favour of GPC, for instance. He
values and thrives on the supposed respect of SGM readers. Yet he is NOT
made aware, by numbers or respondents, of how he is destroying the very
thing he craves.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
news:433adff4@news.ColoState.EDU...
Peter Stewart wrote:
This trash has sat on my server for hours now, and presumably reached a
lot of SGM readers before me.
No-one has bothered to point out the extreme folly of Richardson's
stating "If we take it..." and then proceeding to assume that his
unfounded supposition must be true. Any and every reader of SGM could
have done this.
Curiously, my server shows his post and your response being posted to
soc.gen.med 48 minutes apart. Considering that some posters (present
company included) sometimes go 24 hours or longer between readings of the
group (by which time many points have been sufficiently addressed by other
posters that there is no sense in tediously repeating them). Expecting
numerous responses within hours is perhaps asking a level of commitment to
the group few can match.
I don't know about the 48 minutes - I deliberately left the message
unanswered for a few hours, waiting to see what happened (and it was
nothing).
My point is that the first reader who came across "If we take it...."
followed by a dogmatic load of nonsense & insults assuming the hypothesis to
be proved, and saw no response, could have pointed out the fundamental flaw
in Richardson's post.
In a group discussion, it should not need to wait for a particular poster to
do this tedious chore.
As Leo has said, Richardson is impressed by numbers - he thinks the sales of
Roderick Stuart's trash are a factor in favour of GPC, for instance. He
values and thrives on the supposed respect of SGM readers. Yet he is NOT
made aware, by numbers or respondents, of how he is destroying the very
thing he craves.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:dhenhr$ubq$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
I read the message on Google Groups, and answered it later via Usenet - or
vice versa, I can't remember which.
Peter Stewart
news:dhenhr$ubq$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Curiously, my server shows his post and your response being posted to
soc.gen.med 48 minutes apart.
Mine too. That puzzled me as well.
I read the message on Google Groups, and answered it later via Usenet - or
vice versa, I can't remember which.
Peter Stewart
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
ESPECIALLY as a semi-retired salesman you should be able to realise when
someone is avoiding giving an answer, especially as it is done frequently
and to a pattern of counter-questions or abuse. If it is made obvious that
this is not appreciated and if said often enough, it might sink in and
Richardson might realise that giving an answer will speed things up and
improve the quality of the messages instead of the quantity. This has
nothing to do with being a "trained" historian or genealogist nor with the
knowledge of Latin. But all to do with deception and the avoidance of
answers.
If the behaviour of Richardson is condoned, because we want a nice group
never mind the quality of the messages, soon Richardson will be left with
his friends Hines, Brandon and Welch and a group of people willing to be
duped by Richardson because "we are here to make friends". I still believe
that at times _remaining silent is approving_.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward Crabtree" <familyhistorian@kc.rr.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife,
_____ de Lacy
someone is avoiding giving an answer, especially as it is done frequently
and to a pattern of counter-questions or abuse. If it is made obvious that
this is not appreciated and if said often enough, it might sink in and
Richardson might realise that giving an answer will speed things up and
improve the quality of the messages instead of the quantity. This has
nothing to do with being a "trained" historian or genealogist nor with the
knowledge of Latin. But all to do with deception and the avoidance of
answers.
If the behaviour of Richardson is condoned, because we want a nice group
never mind the quality of the messages, soon Richardson will be left with
his friends Hines, Brandon and Welch and a group of people willing to be
duped by Richardson because "we are here to make friends". I still believe
that at times _remaining silent is approving_.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward Crabtree" <familyhistorian@kc.rr.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife,
_____ de Lacy
I am sorry, but as a semi-retired salesman I do NOT have the wherewithal to
argue genealogical/historical facts. My silence is not an agreement - it
is more to suppress my ignorance of the topic discussed.
Ed Crabtree - Missouri, USA
familyhistorian@kc.rr.com
All outgoing messages checked by McAfee VirusScan
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
""Edward Crabtree"" <familyhistorian@kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:010b01c5c46f$bd180890$6501a8c0@SKIPS...
I certainly didn't mean to criticise you on this score, Ed - in all the time
I have been reading SGM, you have been willing to help and generous in
posting the details you have on a wide variety of descents and ancestries.
Peter Stewart
news:010b01c5c46f$bd180890$6501a8c0@SKIPS...
I am sorry, but as a semi-retired salesman I do NOT have the wherewithal to
argue genealogical/historical facts. My silence is not an agreement - it
is more to suppress my ignorance of the topic discussed.
I certainly didn't mean to criticise you on this score, Ed - in all the time
I have been reading SGM, you have been willing to help and generous in
posting the details you have on a wide variety of descents and ancestries.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Peter Stewart wrote:
I thought you had flounced out of here, leaving us to our own hellish
devices. Bye now. Buh-bye.
Um, how exactly can Peter Stewart be "self-righteous" about the burden on
Leo van de Pas from other people's complacency?
Peter Stewart
I thought you had flounced out of here, leaving us to our own hellish
devices. Bye now. Buh-bye.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127947550.444384.16150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Brandon's comprehension is predictably as poor as Richardson's, and his
responses are as juvenile - I said I am _shortly_ going to leave the
newsgroup, that is, when a moderated alternative becomes available. This is
still in the planning, which doesn't involve me so that the timing is out of
my hands.
Peter Stewart
news:1127947550.444384.16150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
Um, how exactly can Peter Stewart be "self-righteous" about the burden on
Leo van de Pas from other people's complacency?
Peter Stewart
I thought you had flounced out of here, leaving us to our own hellish
devices. Bye now. Buh-bye.
Brandon's comprehension is predictably as poor as Richardson's, and his
responses are as juvenile - I said I am _shortly_ going to leave the
newsgroup, that is, when a moderated alternative becomes available. This is
still in the planning, which doesn't involve me so that the timing is out of
my hands.
Peter Stewart
-
Kevin Bradford
Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
The matter of the actual role of de Crevequor in the maritagium has been resolved; my recent comment regarding this subject was no doubt buried underneath the avalanche of messages on this topic.
Regards,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Maxwell Findlater <maxwellfindlater@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sep 28, 2005 4:45 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
In reply to the very first message in this thread:
I think a better grasp of Latin is required. It is clear that, in both
these quotes from the Rolls, Richard de Crevequor (Troqueer) is acting
as the attorney of Alan of Galloway in a suit against John of Chester.
Regards,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Maxwell Findlater <maxwellfindlater@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sep 28, 2005 4:45 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
In reply to the very first message in this thread:
I think a better grasp of Latin is required. It is clear that, in both
these quotes from the Rolls, Richard de Crevequor (Troqueer) is acting
as the attorney of Alan of Galloway in a suit against John of Chester.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
The passage quoted below with such approval from Richardson is misascribed
by him to a later poster who copied it - the original information came from
the ever helpful Paul Reed, in January 1998.
See http://tinyurl.com/9vqgs
Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127923801.044079.292720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
by him to a later poster who copied it - the original information came from
the ever helpful Paul Reed, in January 1998.
See http://tinyurl.com/9vqgs
Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127923801.044079.292720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Sometime ago, the ever helpful Dave Utzinger posted the following
information to the newsgroup. Since it directly concerns Roger de
Lacy, Constable of Chester, and his son, John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln,
I thought I'd repost it again. Special thanks go to Dave for posting
this information.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Sidney Painter (Studies in the History of the English Feudal Barony)
did a [preliminary] study of baronial incomes between 1160 and 1320
(chapter VII). Of fifty-four barons he tallied figures for during a
part of that period, Roger de Lacy, constable of Chester, had the
highest income in England at his death in 1210 (800 pounds per annum).
Next was William, Earl of Gloucester at 700 pounds, Robert, Earl of
Leicester, at 560 pounds, and then Earl William de Mandeville at 504
pounds per annum. So this would explain, in part, why John de Lacy was
vaulted to the peerage when the opportunity presented itself without
much dispute. The palatine Earl of Chester only had an annual income of
327 pounds per annum in Henry II's reign. [Ref: Dave Utzinger 5 Jan
1999 msg to SGM]
-
John Brandon
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Peter Stewart wrote:
Promises, promises. Please make sure you keep them when the time comes
....
I said I am _shortly_ going to leave the newsgroup, that is, when a moderated
alternative becomes available. This is still in the planning
Promises, promises. Please make sure you keep them when the time comes
....
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Dear Mike,
I think you see it wrong. We are a group discussing genealogy and if someone
continues to use dishonest tactics this should be condoned for just so long,
then people should speak up to retain _quality_ and reduce quantity. One
simply reply which sticks to the facts is so much more palatable than the
grandstanding and counter questions we most of the time are getting.
Stick to the facts!!!
When one person keeps on getting away with dishonest behaviour and no-one,
except a few, speak up that encourages that person in his behaviour. If for
a short period people would make it obvious that we expect answers, not
avoiding issues for the sake of arguing, this could stop and we could return
to genealogy instead of stroking egos. I still believe that _by remaining
silent you give approval of behaviour_
Leo
---- Original Message -----
From: <mwelch8442@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife,
_____ de Lacy
I think you see it wrong. We are a group discussing genealogy and if someone
continues to use dishonest tactics this should be condoned for just so long,
then people should speak up to retain _quality_ and reduce quantity. One
simply reply which sticks to the facts is so much more palatable than the
grandstanding and counter questions we most of the time are getting.
Stick to the facts!!!
When one person keeps on getting away with dishonest behaviour and no-one,
except a few, speak up that encourages that person in his behaviour. If for
a short period people would make it obvious that we expect answers, not
avoiding issues for the sake of arguing, this could stop and we could return
to genealogy instead of stroking egos. I still believe that _by remaining
silent you give approval of behaviour_
Leo
---- Original Message -----
From: <mwelch8442@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife,
_____ de Lacy
Ed You don't have to apologize for anything. They are grown men let
them hash it out. No matter what kind of guilt someone is trying to
place on.
Best
Mike Welch
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Dear Peter ~
My source for the attribution to Dave Utzinger was the database of the
ever helpful Jim Weber. I suggest you drop Jim a line and tell him he
needs to make this minor correction. It's important that the right
person be credited.
Best always, Douglas Richatrdson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
My source for the attribution to Dave Utzinger was the database of the
ever helpful Jim Weber. I suggest you drop Jim a line and tell him he
needs to make this minor correction. It's important that the right
person be credited.
Best always, Douglas Richatrdson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
The passage quoted below with such approval from Richardson is misascribed
by him to a later poster who copied it - the original information came from
the ever helpful Paul Reed, in January 1998.
See http://tinyurl.com/9vqgs
Peter Stewart
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127923801.044079.292720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Sometime ago, the ever helpful Dave Utzinger posted the following
information to the newsgroup. Since it directly concerns Roger de
Lacy, Constable of Chester, and his son, John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln,
I thought I'd repost it again. Special thanks go to Dave for posting
this information.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Sidney Painter (Studies in the History of the English Feudal Barony)
did a [preliminary] study of baronial incomes between 1160 and 1320
(chapter VII). Of fifty-four barons he tallied figures for during a
part of that period, Roger de Lacy, constable of Chester, had the
highest income in England at his death in 1210 (800 pounds per annum).
Next was William, Earl of Gloucester at 700 pounds, Robert, Earl of
Leicester, at 560 pounds, and then Earl William de Mandeville at 504
pounds per annum. So this would explain, in part, why John de Lacy was
vaulted to the peerage when the opportunity presented itself without
much dispute. The palatine Earl of Chester only had an annual income of
327 pounds per annum in Henry II's reign. [Ref: Dave Utzinger 5 Jan
1999 msg to SGM]
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Richardson wrote:
It's astonishing enough that someone purporting to be a "trained
historian and professional genealogist" would have recourse to an
amateur's database for so much information, much less that he would
openly rely on this to start insulting some people and just as
mistakenly complimenting others.
Jim Weber can read SGM, and he can look after his own errors.
Richardson is not going to wheedle out my private e-mail address
through a third party.
Peter Stewart
My source for the attribution to Dave Utzinger was the database of the
ever helpful Jim Weber. I suggest you drop Jim a line and tell him he
needs to make this minor correction. It's important that the right
person be credited.
It's astonishing enough that someone purporting to be a "trained
historian and professional genealogist" would have recourse to an
amateur's database for so much information, much less that he would
openly rely on this to start insulting some people and just as
mistakenly complimenting others.
Jim Weber can read SGM, and he can look after his own errors.
Richardson is not going to wheedle out my private e-mail address
through a third party.
Peter Stewart