Dear Chris ~
As a followup to your good post regarding the birthdate of Roger de
Lacy (died 1211), I thought I would check out what evidence exists
which indicates when Roger de Lacy might have succeeded his father,
John of Chester, as Constable of Chester. We know that Roger's father
died in 1190, but when did Roger succeed to his father's lands and
office?
As best I can determine, Roger de Lacy first surfaces in the Pipe Rolls
at Michaelmas 1194, when the following item is recorded:
Sub Yorkshire
De Scutagio Militum ad Redemptionem Domini Regis
Henrico de Laci Rogerus de Cestr' successor eius debet xliij li. et xv
s. de scutagio" [Reference: Doris M. Stenton, ed. The Great Roll of the
Pipe for the Sixth Year of the Reign of King Richard the First,
Michaelmas 1194 (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 5) (1928): 162].
The following year, 1195, Roger is first mentioned as Constable of
Chester:
Sub Yorkshire
Tallagium Villarum de Euerw'sr'
Rogerus constabularius Cestr' r.c. de MMM m. pro omnibus terris et
munitionibus . que fuerunt Roberti de Laci de honore de Pontefracto
excepto castello de Pontefracto [quod dominus R.] retinuit in manu sua
sine villa." [Reference: Doris M. Stenton, The Great Roll of the Pipe
foe the Seventh Year of the Reign of King Richard the First, Michaelmas
1195 (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 6) (1929): 98].
By these records, I judge that Roger de Lacy (who was known as Roger de
Chester in this period) succeeded his father in the office of Constable
of Chester by Michaelmas [September] 1195, and that he was probably of
age the previous year in Michaelmas 1194 (although not then styled
Constable of Chester). If correct, then the Pipe Roll records would
indicate that Roger de Lacy (otherwise Roger de Chester) was born in or
before 1173. This would be a slight revision of Jim Weber's birthdate
for Roger of born circa 1176. This revised date would still make Roger
de Lacy the same approximate age as Alan Fitz Roland, who was born in
or before 1175 (being of age in 1196).
In your earlier post, you stated that Roger de Lacy was given the
honour of Pontefract by his grandmother in 1194. However, the Pipe
Rolls don't confirm that statement. Rather, as shown above, they
record Roger's recognition as the heir of Robert de Lacy by the king in
1195. In that year, Roger paid to have the lands of Robert de Lacy of
the honour of Pontefract. Curiously, the record notes while the honour
was granted to Roger, Pontefract Castle itself (which was surely the
caput of the honor) was retained in the king's hands.
Since I was working fast today, I may have missed an earlier
recognition of Roger's mother as Robert de Lacy's heir, but I doubt it.
In other words, as far as I can tell, Roger de Lacy was granted the
honour of Pontefract directly by the king in 1195, and not by his
grandmother in 1194. His grandmother never held the honour of
Pontefract.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website:
http://www.royalancestry.netChris Phillips wrote:
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. 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