N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 29 sep 2005 00:56:54

Peter Stewart wrote:

Richardson is not going to wheedle out my private e-mail address
through a third party.

Peter Stewart

Dear Peter ~

You really should do something about your fake e-mail address. It
makes you look like you have something to hide. Do 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

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 sep 2005 01:20:54

Richardson wrote:

Dear Peter ~

You really should do something about your fake e-mail address. It
makes you look like you have something to hide. Do you?

You mean like someone named Richardson whose e-mail address is
"royalancestry"?

Of course I am not hiding behind the e-mail address - my OWN name is
subscribed to every post I make.

I am however sheltering behind it from spam attacks, and from unwanted
correspondence such as some e-mails I had in the past from Richardson.
One of these promises credit in his book for some information I
provided correcting another of his ill-founded claims, but I gather
(from report, not from sighting the book) that he chose to ignore this.

Peter Stewart

Louise Staley

OT: Speaking out AGAINST DR (was: Evidence re. the identity

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 29 sep 2005 01:44:52

Dear Douglas,

You really ought to do something about your obsessive compulsive
disorder. Repeating ad nauseum your whine for Peter's working email
address is pointless and wore thin aeons ago. Instead, why don’t you
spend your time more profitably by doing one or more of the following?

1. Answer the specific questions raised in the Allan of Galloway thread
2. Work on the corrections and additions pages for your books, promised
on 18 September to be within the month. How’s it going Douglas?
3. Actually answer, with reasoning not bibliographies, the substantive
errors noted in your books on Will Johnson’s site http://tinyurl.com/bbpn8
4. Avail yourself of one of the many fine religious or psychiatric
establishments in Utah to go on retreat and reflect deeply upon your
current behaviour, or in other words ABSENT YOURSELF from here and give
us all a rest.

Best always, Louise Staley, Willaura, Victoria


Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

Dear Peter ~

You really should do something about your fake e-mail address. It
makes you look like you have something to hide. Do you?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 29 sep 2005 03:22:02

Dear Peter
PLEASE don't leave.
I value your intelligent discussion, and admire the way you don't let
people like DR pull the wool over our eyes. I have nothing I can contribute
to this thread because I don't have access to the materials about Alan fitz
Roland, and apart from throwing the odd barb at idiots who seem set on
destroying this list, don't know how I could add anything of consequence.
Merilyn Pedrick

-------Original Message-------

From: Peter Stewart
Date: 09/28/05 18:42:10
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife,
_____ de Lacy

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...
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

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 29 sep 2005 03:37:02

......... whoever he is. And why don't you just shut up, you odious little
man.
Merilyn

-------Original Message-------

From: John Brandon
Date: 09/29/05 00:26:27
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife,
_____ de Lacy

Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you ...

Or, as Dave Chappelle might say, "Bye, biyotch."

Leo van de Pas

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 29 sep 2005 03:40:02

Well, I have said it---John Brandon is the most vicious person having graced
Gen-Med, Spencer Hines definitely is a gentleman in comparison, at least
Hines has a sense of humour.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Merilyn Pedrick" <pedricks@ozemail.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife,
_____ de Lacy


......... whoever he is. And why don't you just shut up, you odious
little
man.
Merilyn

-------Original Message-------

From: John Brandon
Date: 09/29/05 00:26:27
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife,
_____ de Lacy

Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you ...

Or, as Dave Chappelle might say, "Bye, biyotch."



the_verminator@comcast.ne

Re: OT: Speaking out AGAINST DR (was: Evidence re. the ident

Legg inn av the_verminator@comcast.ne » 29 sep 2005 04:59:21

Louise Staley wrote:
Dear Douglas,

You really ought to do something about your obsessive compulsive
disorder. Repeating ad nauseum your whine for Peter's working email
address is pointless and wore thin aeons ago. Instead, why don't you
spend your time more profitably by doing one or more of the following?

1. Answer the specific questions raised in the Allan of Galloway thread
2. Work on the corrections and additions pages for your books, promised
on 18 September to be within the month. How's it going Douglas?
3. Actually answer, with reasoning not bibliographies, the substantive
errors noted in your books on Will Johnson's site http://tinyurl.com/bbpn8
4. Avail yourself of one of the many fine religious or psychiatric
establishments in Utah to go on retreat and reflect deeply upon your
current behaviour, or in other words ABSENT YOURSELF from here and give
us all a rest.

Best always, Louise Staley, Willaura, Victoria




Clear and concise- an excellent post.

--
Vernon Hurt, VCO
The Verminator

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 29 sep 2005 06:01:33

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.net

Chris 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

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 29 sep 2005 06:10:47

Dear Chris ~

I've located one other record which shows that Roger de Lacy was
Constable of Chester in 1194:

".. by a fine dated 21 Apr. [1194], Roger the Constable, Aubrey's
grandson by her first husband, released to her and her son William
[FitzWilliam] all the lands which had belonged to Robert de Lisours her
father [Reference: Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 519 (sub Fitzwilliam),
citing Duchy of Lancaster, Great Couchet, ii, fo. 284 d].

By this record, it appears that Roger de Lacy, Constable of Chester,
was of age in or before 1194, and had succeeded to his father's office
by that date. The above record agrees well with Roger's first
apperance in the Pipe Rolls the same year.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
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.net

Chris 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

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 29 sep 2005 06:46:19

Dear Newsgroup ~

The following record is taken from the helpful online National Archives
(http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp). It concerns
the quitclaim of property in Kippax, Yorkshire to Roger de Lacy,
Constable of Chester. This record suggests that Roger de Lacy,
Constable of Chester (died 1211) was lord of Kippax, Yorkshire
following his acquisition of the honour of Pontefract in 1195. Thus,
the record can be dated as 1195-1211.

DL 25/1198: Saer (Savari) de Kipeis, son of Hugh to Roger de Lasci,
Constable of Chester: Quitclaim of a bovate of land in Kipeis: county?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.com

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 29 sep 2005 07:28:42

Dear Newsgroup ~

The following record is from the helpful online A2A Catalogue
(http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp). It indicates that a certain
Robert, son of Roger de Lacy, Constable of Chester, witnessed a royal
charter in 1205. I haven't encountered Robert de Lacy previously.
Presumably Robert de Lacy was Roger de Lacy's eldest son, as it appears
that Roger's eventual son and heir, John, was born about 1193. John
would have been too young to witness a royal charter in 1205. Quite
possibly Robert son of Roger was being held by King John as hostage for
his father's good behavior at the time this charter was issued. This
might explain why Robert and not his father Roger was a witness to this
charter.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Yorkshire Archaeological Society: H L Bradfer-Lawrence Collection
Reference: SMD0335/7/16
Former Reference: MD335/7/16

Royal charter of confirmation

Creation dates: 12 March 1205

Scope and Content

1. John, King of England 2. The Nuns and Priory of Appleton
(Nunappleton in Yorkshire) Recital and confirmation of all previous
grants of land, which all except for the last two grants were contained
in the confirmatory charter of his father Henry II. [The recital of
grants begins with that of Alicia de St. Quentin, who founded the
priory in 1135] Witnesses: Geoffrey Fitzpeter, Earl of Essex; Robert
son of Roger de Lascy, Constable of Chester; William Brewer
['Briwerr']; Robert Oldbridge ['de veteri ponte']; Hugo de Nevill;
Peter de Stok; scribe: Joscelin de Welliis At Nottingham 12 March in
the sixth year of King John. Tag and Great Seal of King John (imperfect
and repaired). [Former ref: Monastic Houses. Box 65/16] With
description of same from sale catalogue, note by Bradfer-Lawrence that
the document was purchased for £130 in 1955.

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 29 sep 2005 07:40:07

Dear Newsgroup ~

The following record is from the helpful online A2A Catalogue
(http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp). It is a charter for Alice
(or Adelicia), widow of John, Constable of Chester (died 1190). This
charter indicates that Alice survived her husband. Alice was the
mother of Roger de Lacy, Constable of Chester (died 1211).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Nottinghamshire Archives: Savile of Rufford: Deeds and Estate Papers
Reference: DD/SR/102/41
Creation dates: 1190 - 1211

Scope and Content

Grant by Adelicia once the wife of John constable of Chester to the
monks of Rufford of all her land in Almatona which belongs to her fee
in Cresale at an annual rent of 10s 0d.

Gjest

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 sep 2005 08:53:23

Douglas

Many thanks for posting this additional material.

I note that your putative birthdate for Roger de Lacy has been pushed
back from c1176 to c1173.

The apparent witnessing of a royal charter by one Robert, son of this
Roger, in 1205 is particularly interesting. If we assume that Robert
was the eldest son (which makes for the shortest chronology - perhaps
useful for the purpose of the present exercise), is it likely that he
would have witnessed such a document while under age? If so, how far
under age is he likely to be? Assigning him an age of 21 in 1205 (i.e.
birthdate of c1184) would make a c1173 birthdate for his father
impossible. Even allowing Robert to be a teenager would cause problems
for an 1173 birthdate for Roger, would it not?

Is the evidence for Roger assuming his father's duties c1194 based on
an absence of any such references from 1190 to 1194, or is there reason
to believe that (a) he assumed those duties when he first appears in
the records as holding them, and (b) his assumption was consequent upon
or concommitant with his reaching his majority?

Kind regards

Michael

Peter Stewart

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 sep 2005 09:51:26

<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1127980403.908850.324590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Douglas

Many thanks for posting this additional material.

I note that your putative birthdate for Roger de Lacy has been pushed
back from c1176 to c1173.

The apparent witnessing of a royal charter by one Robert, son of this
Roger, in 1205 is particularly interesting. If we assume that Robert
was the eldest son (which makes for the shortest chronology - perhaps
useful for the purpose of the present exercise), is it likely that he
would have witnessed such a document while under age? If so, how far
under age is he likely to be? Assigning him an age of 21 in 1205 (i.e.
birthdate of c1184) would make a c1173 birthdate for his father
impossible. Even allowing Robert to be a teenager would cause problems
for an 1173 birthdate for Roger, would it not?

Is the evidence for Roger assuming his father's duties c1194 based on
an absence of any such references from 1190 to 1194, or is there reason
to believe that (a) he assumed those duties when he first appears in
the records as holding them, and (b) his assumption was consequent upon
or concommitant with his reaching his majority?

There is no evidence to suggest that Roger had to wait four years to assume
the role of constable in Chester - no-one else occurs in this office after
his father's departure for the Holy Land & death at Acre in 1190. There are
several documents witnessed by "Rogero constabulario" that are dated between
1190 & 1194 by Geoffrey Barraclough, e.g. nos. 221, 223, 227, 228 in his
_Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester, c. 1071-1237_, Record
Society of Lancashire and Cheshire 126 (1988). From 1194 onwards Roger
consistently appears with the addition of the surname Lacy.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 sep 2005 10:19:17

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:iWN_e.2364$U51.191@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

There is no evidence to suggest that Roger had to wait four years to
assume the role of constable in Chester - no-one else occurs in this
office after his father's departure for the Holy Land & death at Acre in
1190. There are several documents witnessed by "Rogero constabulario" that
are dated between 1190 & 1194 by Geoffrey Barraclough, e.g. nos. 221, 223,
227, 228 in his _Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester, c.
1071-1237_, Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire 126 (1988). From
1194 onwards Roger consistently appears with the addition of the surname
Lacy.

Someone has kindly sent me the following references:

Farrer, in VCH Lancs, vol. 1 p. 300, says:

"[John the Constable] died at Tyre in the Holy Land during a crusade in the
year 1190. Roger, his son, having succeeded him as constable of Chester,
was in 1191 appointed by the chancellor, during the king's absence, governor
of the castles of Nottingham and Tickhill. During the struggle between
John, count of Mortain, and the chancellor, about Midsummer, 1191, two of
the constable's knights whom he had left in charge of these castles
treacherously surrendered them to John.[3] For this act, the constable
proposed to hang them, but being unable to find them he hanged two of their
associates instead. In revenge John laid his lands waste as far as lay in
his power.[4]"

[3] Rog. of Hoveden (Rolls Ser.) iii. 134, 172.
[4] Benedict (Rolls Ser.) ii. 232-4.

The chronicle ascribed to Benedict of Peterborough, 'Gesta Regis Henrici
Secundi Benedicti abbatis' (vol. 2 p. 232) states, under the year 1191,
"Eodem anno Rogerus constabularius Cestriae, filius Johannis...".

The events descibed clearly place Roger as of full age at the time. The text
is available on Gallica at

http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/CadresFenetre ... on&Y=Image

I will check Roger of Hoveden when I get to the library next.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 29 sep 2005 15:13:25

Dear Michael ~

You've asked a difficult question to which there is no easy answer.
How old would a young man have to be before he witnessed a royal
charter?

If a young man was witnessing his father's charter, my impression is
that he could be as young as about 14. Young men likewise show up for
military duty for the first time sometime about 14 or 15. If the same
conditions prevailed for a royal charter, I have to say that Robert son
of Roger the Constable was at least aged 15 when he witnessed the
king's charter in 1205, or born in or before 1190. Beyond that, it's
difficult to say with any real assurance. My own feeling is that
Robert would have been at least aged 20 to serve as a witness for the
king's charter, but customs and attitudes were different back then.
I'd be interested in knowing why Robert was with the king. Was Robert
a hostage for his father?

Best always, Douglas Richardson


mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Douglas

Many thanks for posting this additional material.

I note that your putative birthdate for Roger de Lacy has been pushed
back from c1176 to c1173.

The apparent witnessing of a royal charter by one Robert, son of this
Roger, in 1205 is particularly interesting. If we assume that Robert
was the eldest son (which makes for the shortest chronology - perhaps
useful for the purpose of the present exercise), is it likely that he
would have witnessed such a document while under age? If so, how far
under age is he likely to be? Assigning him an age of 21 in 1205 (i.e.
birthdate of c1184) would make a c1173 birthdate for his father
impossible. Even allowing Robert to be a teenager would cause problems
for an 1173 birthdate for Roger, would it not?

Is the evidence for Roger assuming his father's duties c1194 based on
an absence of any such references from 1190 to 1194, or is there reason
to believe that (a) he assumed those duties when he first appears in
the records as holding them, and (b) his assumption was consequent upon
or concommitant with his reaching his majority?

Kind regards

Michael

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 29 sep 2005 15:21:51

Chris Phillips wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
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

Thank you for the explanation, Chris. Much appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 29 sep 2005 15:58:13

Dear Chris ~

If that is the case (referring to the correct use of the Latin word,
suus), then Alan Fitz Roland's wife would have to be the sister of John
de Lacy, Constable of Chester (died 1240), not of his father, Roger.
Here we meet with some serious chronological problems.

I understand from a posting today that Roger de Lacy, John's father,
was at least aged 21 at the time of his father's death in 1190, and
that he was appointed Constable of Nottingham and Tickhill Castles in
1191. This would suggest that Roger was born in or before 1166-1169.
Assuming Roger married young which was typical in the time period, he
could produce a child say by 1181 (assuming the 1166 birthdate for
Roger is correct).

It is difficult to say exactly when Alan Fitz Roland married his wife.
However, we know that they had an unmarried daughter (presumably their
eldest) who was being held hostage in 1213. If the daughter was their
eldest, we'd have to say she was born in or after 1201, as she was not
yet married in 1213. This would peg the marriage of Alan and his wife
as somewhere in the period, 1195-1200.

So, it is just barely possible chronologically for Alan Fitz Roland to
be Roger de Lacy's son-in-law, but just barely. If we had Roger
married c. 1180, and Roger's daughter married to Alan c. 1200, I
suppose it would work. But, this is very tight chronology. We do have
some new indications that this is feasible. The discovery of the 1205
royal charter witnessed by Roger's son, Robert, suggests to me that
Robert was born in or before c. 1185. If Robert was born c. 1185, he
could easily have a sister born c. 1187 and married c. 1200. Also,
I've also determined that Roger de Lacy had interests in Kippax,
Yorkshire, which property was the maritagium of Alan Fitz Rolands's
wife. Both of these pieces of evidence are supportive of the
possibility that Alan Fitz Roland's wife was Roger de Lacy's daughter.


Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Chris Phillips wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
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

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 sep 2005 16:33:32

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Both of these pieces of evidence are supportive of the possibility that Alan Fitz >Roland's wife was Roger de Lacy's daughter.

Or, possibly, that Alan FitzRoland's wife was Richard de Lacy's
daughter, Roger de Lacy's niece.

Also, given that Roger seems to have been of age by 1190, how do we
know that he was born between 1166 and 1180. Perhaps he was older than
24 when his father died in 1190. As we have seen, with the estimated
birthdate having moved from c1176 to c1166, a few years can make an
enormous difference when chronology is important.

What do we know of Roger's father's birth and marriage dates - can
these be estimated?

Thanks for sticking with this Douglas: it might mean that your original
position will need to be revised, but surely the important thing here
is (rather than point scoring!) getting to the truth - or as close as a
distance of 800 years will allow.

Best wishes

Michael

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 29 sep 2005 18:07:33

My comments are interspersed below. DR

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:

Both of these pieces of evidence are supportive of the possibility that Alan Fitz >Roland's wife was Roger de Lacy's daughter.

Or, possibly, that Alan FitzRoland's wife was Richard de Lacy's
daughter, Roger de Lacy's niece.

I doubt Alan Fitz Roland was married to Roger de Lacy's niece for four
reasons: First, it would have been disparaging for someone of Alan's
rank to marry someone below the rank of an earl's daughter or a baron's
daughter. Roger de Lacy, while not an earl, became enormously wealthy
upon obtaining the vast Lacy inheritance in 1195. As such, I think we
can safely assume that Alan married Roger de Lacy's daughter AFTER
1195, as that is when Roger had the income and social standing which
would have permitted him to arrange a marriage between his daughter and
Alan Fitz Roland. Second, if the chronology is tight for Alan's wife
to be Roger's daughter, it would be even tighter if not impossible for
Alan's wife to be the daughter of a younger brother of Roger de Lacy.
Third, we now know that Roger de Lacy had land interests in Kippax,
Yorkshire and we know that Alan Fitz Roland's wife had Kippax and
presumably Scholes as her maritagium. So that fits well. Fourth, we
have no indication that Roger de Lacy's brother, Richard de Chester,
had any property, much less Kippax and Scholes.

What do we know of Roger's father's birth and marriage dates - can
these be estimated?

Jim Weber's database gives an approximate birthdate of 1150 for Roger's
father. I think the chronology would permit us to move John's birth
back five years, but not much more than that. I believe we run into
other chronological considerations with the earlier generations if we
push John's birth back much further than 1145. For one thing, we know
that John's mother, Aubrey de Lisours, was still living in 1194.
Aubrey's half-brother, Henry de Lacy, was active c. 1160. We're on a
rather tight leash chronologically I think.

Thanks for sticking with this Douglas: it might mean that your original
position will need to be revised, but surely the important thing here
is (rather than point scoring!) getting to the truth - or as close as a
distance of 800 years will allow.

I wasn't aware that there was a distinction in the Latin between suus
and eius. Now that Chris Phillips has made it clear that there was
such a distinction, I think we have to go with that unless the
situation dictates otherwise.

Best wishes

Michael

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 29 sep 2005 18:30:30

Dear Newsgroup ~

Upon the discovery of the 1205 royal charter which shows Robert, son of
Roger the Constable of Chester as a witness (see copy of my post
below), I believe that this record represents a correction to Complete
Peerage. Robert would have to have been Roger de Lacy's eldest son, as
Roger's other known son, John, was evidently born about 1192. John
would surely have been too young to witness a royal charter in 1205;
ergo, Robert would have to have been his older brother. John's
birthdate of 1192 is indicated by his obtaining his father's lands in
July 1213. His first payment to obtain his inheritance show up in the
Pipe Rolls the following year.

Complete Peerage, 7 (1929): 676 (sub Lincoln) states the following:

"John de Lacy, son and heir of Roger de Lacy, by Maud de Clare, was b.
circa 1192."

I think we can change that to read:

"John de Lacy (otherwise John de Chester), 2nd and eldest surviving son
and heir of Roger de Lacy (otherwise Roger de Chester), of Pontefract,
Yorkshire, hereditary Constable of Chester, by Maud, said to be a
Clare, was b. circa 1192."

This also represents a correction to Magna Carta Ancestry (2005), pg.
479.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

The following record is from the helpful online A2A Catalogue
(http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp). It indicates that a certain
Robert, son of Roger de Lacy, Constable of Chester, witnessed a royal
charter in 1205. I haven't encountered Robert de Lacy previously.
Presumably Robert de Lacy was Roger de Lacy's eldest son, as it appears
that Roger's eventual son and heir, John, was born about 1193. John
would have been too young to witness a royal charter in 1205. Quite
possibly Robert son of Roger was being held by King John as hostage for
his father's good behavior at the time this charter was issued. This
might explain why Robert and not his father Roger was a witness to this
charter.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Yorkshire Archaeological Society: H L Bradfer-Lawrence Collection
Reference: SMD0335/7/16
Former Reference: MD335/7/16

Royal charter of confirmation

Creation dates: 12 March 1205

Scope and Content

1. John, King of England 2. The Nuns and Priory of Appleton
(Nunappleton in Yorkshire) Recital and confirmation of all previous
grants of land, which all except for the last two grants were contained
in the confirmatory charter of his father Henry II. [The recital of
grants begins with that of Alicia de St. Quentin, who founded the
priory in 1135] Witnesses: Geoffrey Fitzpeter, Earl of Essex; Robert
son of Roger de Lascy, Constable of Chester; William Brewer
['Briwerr']; Robert Oldbridge ['de veteri ponte']; Hugo de Nevill;
Peter de Stok; scribe: Joscelin de Welliis At Nottingham 12 March in
the sixth year of King John. Tag and Great Seal of King John (imperfect
and repaired). [Former ref: Monastic Houses. Box 65/16] With
description of same from sale catalogue, note by Bradfer-Lawrence that
the document was purchased for £130 in 1955.

Peter Stewart

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 sep 2005 22:35:10

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128015030.544015.140330@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~

Upon the discovery of the 1205 royal charter which shows Robert, son of
Roger the Constable of Chester as a witness (see copy of my post
below), I believe that this record represents a correction to Complete
Peerage. Robert would have to have been Roger de Lacy's eldest son, as
Roger's other known son, John, was evidently born about 1192. John
would surely have been too young to witness a royal charter in 1205;
ergo, Robert would have to have been his older brother. John's
birthdate of 1192 is indicated by his obtaining his father's lands in
July 1213. His first payment to obtain his inheritance show up in the
Pipe Rolls the following year.

Complete Peerage, 7 (1929): 676 (sub Lincoln) states the following:

"John de Lacy, son and heir of Roger de Lacy, by Maud de Clare, was b.
circa 1192."

I think we can change that to read:

"John de Lacy (otherwise John de Chester), 2nd and eldest surviving son
and heir of Roger de Lacy (otherwise Roger de Chester), of Pontefract,
Yorkshire, hereditary Constable of Chester, by Maud, said to be a
Clare, was b. circa 1192."

This also represents a correction to Magna Carta Ancestry (2005), pg.
479.

For once I have a reason to defend MCA (2005), if this proposed correction
is just about the conjectured order of Roger de Lacy's sons John and Robert.

All that is definitely indicated by Robert's attesting a royal charter in
1205 is that he was present; all that is indicated by anyone else, including
his brother, not witnessing the same document is that they were not there.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 sep 2005 23:08:15

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128005893.270513.282310@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Chris ~

If that is the case (referring to the correct use of the Latin word,
suus), then Alan Fitz Roland's wife would have to be the sister of John
de Lacy, Constable of Chester (died 1240), not of his father, Roger.
Here we meet with some serious chronological problems.

I understand from a posting today that Roger de Lacy, John's father,
was at least aged 21 at the time of his father's death in 1190, and
that he was appointed Constable of Nottingham and Tickhill Castles in
1191.

And do you not understand from the same posting that you owe the poster a
retraction of some previous remarks?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 sep 2005 23:21:28

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128013653.329792.95260@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
My comments are interspersed below. DR

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:

Both of these pieces of evidence are supportive of the possibility that
Alan Fitz >Roland's wife was Roger de Lacy's daughter.

Or, possibly, that Alan FitzRoland's wife was Richard de Lacy's
daughter, Roger de Lacy's niece.

I doubt Alan Fitz Roland was married to Roger de Lacy's niece for four
reasons: First, it would have been disparaging for someone of Alan's
rank to marry someone below the rank of an earl's daughter or a baron's
daughter. Roger de Lacy, while not an earl, became enormously wealthy
upon obtaining the vast Lacy inheritance in 1195. As such, I think we
can safely assume that Alan married Roger de Lacy's daughter AFTER
1195, as that is when Roger had the income and social standing which
would have permitted him to arrange a marriage between his daughter and
Alan Fitz Roland.

Roger de Lacy himself was apparently married to Margaret de Clere, whose
father was merely the treasurer of York. Plenty of men married beneath their
own rank, even kings, and it is foolhardy to set much store by consistently
equal matches in the circumstances of politics and mortality of the
late-12th century. Roger was a very considerable figure before 1194, as
constable of Chester and with prospects of greater power closer to Scotland
from his Lacy connection. The earl of Chester's sister married a brother of
the king of Scots in 1190.

Second, if the chronology is tight for Alan's wife
to be Roger's daughter, it would be even tighter if not impossible for
Alan's wife to be the daughter of a younger brother of Roger de Lacy.

Why should a year or so (or less) make so much difference? Have you even
somehow determined that Roger and Richard de Chester might not have been
twins?

Third, we now know that Roger de Lacy had land interests in Kippax,
Yorkshire and we know that Alan Fitz Roland's wife had Kippax and
presumably Scholes as her maritagium. So that fits well.

We are also told that Alan received his wife maritagium from someone named
Richard.

Fourth, we have no indication that Roger de Lacy's brother, Richard de
Chester,
had any property, much less Kippax and Scholes.

Except for the indication that he gave these to Alan with his daughter....

You might not like this evidence, but you can't ignore it, and you certainly
can't rewrite it without compelling reasons that have not been broached to
this point.

What do we know of Roger's father's birth and marriage dates - can
these be estimated?

Jim Weber's database gives an approximate birthdate of 1150 for Roger's
father. I think the chronology would permit us to move John's birth
back five years, but not much more than that.

Hasn't this flawed resource let you down far enough already with
inaccurately guessed birthdates?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 30 sep 2005 03:45:08

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:INZ_e.2777$U51.346@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128013653.329792.95260@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
My comments are interspersed below. DR

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:

Both of these pieces of evidence are supportive of the possibility that
Alan Fitz >Roland's wife was Roger de Lacy's daughter.

Or, possibly, that Alan FitzRoland's wife was Richard de Lacy's
daughter, Roger de Lacy's niece.

I doubt Alan Fitz Roland was married to Roger de Lacy's niece for four
reasons: First, it would have been disparaging for someone of Alan's
rank to marry someone below the rank of an earl's daughter or a baron's
daughter. Roger de Lacy, while not an earl, became enormously wealthy
upon obtaining the vast Lacy inheritance in 1195. As such, I think we
can safely assume that Alan married Roger de Lacy's daughter AFTER
1195, as that is when Roger had the income and social standing which
would have permitted him to arrange a marriage between his daughter and
Alan Fitz Roland.

Roger de Lacy himself was apparently married to Margaret de Clere, whose
father was merely the treasurer of York.

Rather he was married to Maud de Clere, etc.

Luckily I am not a scribe making an official record, or I might have written
Richard instead of Roger....

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 sep 2005 08:20:36

Roger de Lacy, constable since 1191, would have named his eldest son
John after his own father, right?

A.
His son Robert is later (before 1232) a knight and mentioned after his
elder brother Roger of Chester (before 1232, knight).
This Robert is now seen mentioned as a royal witness in 1205. That
makes him minimal 14 (or 12) years old. That makes Robert being born
min. 1191 (1193). Being a younger son of Roger, this would make the
elder sons John and Roger being born in or before 1190 (1192).

Dutch en German continental naming customs at that time indicate that
the
1e son is named after the paternal grandfather,
2e son named after maternal grandfather,
3e son named after father.

If this custom can be observed in Medieval England aswell this would
indicate that the second (surviving) son Roger of Chester is actually
named after his maternal grandfather or after his own father. From this
last point of view one might assume a additional son who died young
between John de Lacy en brother Roger. That takes the marriage of
father Roger (de Lacy) into the period 1185/1190.

B.
The son Robert in 1205 is not the younger son with that name observed
in a charter of before 1232. That indicates that he died shortly
thereafter as his brother John followed in his fathers foodsteps. John
being the name that the eldest son would have received. If this
(younger) John de Lacy must have been born in 1192 his elder brother
Robert must be born before him, say 1191. That would make him 14 years
of age in 1205, fit to testify. According to his Christian name this
Robert (not alike his grandfather or father) must have been named after
his maternal grandfather. That assumes an elder brother John who died
as an infant. Lets say for the sake of an argument that this elder John
is born in 1190. That would place the marriage of Roger the Lacy in
1189.

Conclusion:
Either way Roger the Lacy (fitz John fitz Richard) must have married in
the eighties: 1185/1190 or 1189.

Regarding giving testimony at a young age
Children in the age period 7-13 years could be present (and could
confirm) when their parents (or guardians) preformed deeds or
transactions. But they were still under age. There are many examples
that when coming of age, earlier under age confirmations were not seen
legal by the contestants. Belgian and German examples show that mostly
the age of 14 years is a turning point (being the minimal marriage age
for men). So if one shows up in a witnesslist one might rightly assume
that the person was minimaly 14 years. In Holland (and other areas) the
age of 12 years was used. It kind of depend on the Law/Custom that one
was inclined to follow, or how high up one was in nobility.

Hans Vogels

Peter Stewart

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 30 sep 2005 08:45:49

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:UE1%e.2895$U51.1239@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Roger de Lacy himself was apparently married to Margaret de Clere, whose
father was merely the treasurer of York.

and partially corrected this:

Rather he was married to Maud de Clere, etc.

Luckily I am not a scribe making an official record, or I might have
written Richard instead of Roger....

I beg to differ with myself, again. This time I can be more confident, as
I'm not relying on myself but on information from someone who knows the
subject at first hand:-

Roger de Lacy himself was apparently married to MAUD de Clere, whose BROTHER
was merely the treasurer of York.

For this matter see Paul Reed's post of 9 February 1999 at

http://tinyurl.com/7ebug

It seems that Richardson still thinks the lady in question was Maud de
Clare, as he did in the face of persuasion to reconsider years ago - see the
exchanges at

http://tinyurl.com/cdy2z

Perhaps he will tell us why.

Peter Stewart

Louise Staley

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland's first wi

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 30 sep 2005 11:46:01

Having now read Paul Reed's detailed and comprehensive series of posts,
highlighted below by Peter, I am left with the understanding that Maud,
wife of Roger de Lacy, Constable of Chester was described as the sister
of the Treasurer of York. Further the same source as describes Maud this
way also names the Treasurer of York as William. Lastly that available
evidence as to men named William who were also Treasurer of York boils
down to a William de Rotherfield who was treasurer 1218-1221 when "Maud
was still then alive". Is this a correct summary?

So where does the de Clere come from? And does 'de Rotherfield' suggest
he was a member of the Greys of Rotherfield family or are there other
ideas as to which family this William de Rotherfield fitted into?

Louise

Peter Stewart had a few goes and wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote in message:

Roger de Lacy himself was apparently married to Margaret de Clere, whose
father was merely the treasurer of York.

and partially corrected this:


Rather he was married to Maud de Clere, etc.

Luckily I am not a scribe making an official record, or I might have
written Richard instead of Roger....


I beg to differ with myself, again. This time I can be more confident, as
I'm not relying on myself but on information from someone who knows the
subject at first hand:-

Roger de Lacy himself was apparently married to MAUD de Clere, whose BROTHER
was merely the treasurer of York.

For this matter see Paul Reed's post of 9 February 1999 at

http://tinyurl.com/7ebug

It seems that Richardson still thinks the lady in question was Maud de
Clare, as he did in the face of persuasion to reconsider years ago - see the
exchanges at

http://tinyurl.com/cdy2z

Perhaps he will tell us why.

Peter Stewart


John P. Ravilious

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland's first wi

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 30 sep 2005 12:21:29

Dear Louise,

Thanks for that.

While dealing with few knowns and more unknowns, I'd hazard that
Maud de Clere was likely a member of the Clere family of Sinnington and
Shere, co. Yorks. (later of Bramley, Surrey). Ralph de Clere of
Wilton, Shere and Sinnington, co. Yorks. ' confirmed his [brother
Roger's] gift of Atlingworth to Lewes priory, making an agreement
therefor in that year; and who gave the church of Sinnington and 4
bovates to Yeddingham priory.' [Clay, Early Yorkshire Families, p. 21,
cites Lewes Chartulary, ut sup., ii, 51-2; and E.Y.C., i, no. 595].
According to Richard Borthwick, Ralph d. in 1205, having by his wife
Mabel a son Ralph 'II', grandfather of Agatha de Clere (wife of William
le Rus of Stinton, Norfolk and Stradbroke, Suffolk) and ancestor
thereby of de Braose (of Stinton), de Weyland, de la Pole & many many
more besides.

I'd wage a sister of William de Rotherfield was married to a de
Clere (perhaps she was the Mabel (___) de Clere noted above - just a
thought) by whom Maud de Clere came into being. Whether there's a
another notable connections seems a gray (if not yet Grey) area at
present.

Cheers,

John



Louise Staley wrote:
Having now read Paul Reed's detailed and comprehensive series of posts,
highlighted below by Peter, I am left with the understanding that Maud,
wife of Roger de Lacy, Constable of Chester was described as the sister
of the Treasurer of York. Further the same source as describes Maud this
way also names the Treasurer of York as William. Lastly that available
evidence as to men named William who were also Treasurer of York boils
down to a William de Rotherfield who was treasurer 1218-1221 when "Maud
was still then alive". Is this a correct summary?

So where does the de Clere come from? And does 'de Rotherfield' suggest
he was a member of the Greys of Rotherfield family or are there other
ideas as to which family this William de Rotherfield fitted into?

Louise

Peter Stewart had a few goes and wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote in message:

Roger de Lacy himself was apparently married to Margaret de Clere, whose
father was merely the treasurer of York.

and partially corrected this:


Rather he was married to Maud de Clere, etc.

Luckily I am not a scribe making an official record, or I might have
written Richard instead of Roger....


I beg to differ with myself, again. This time I can be more confident, as
I'm not relying on myself but on information from someone who knows the
subject at first hand:-

Roger de Lacy himself was apparently married to MAUD de Clere, whose BROTHER
was merely the treasurer of York.

For this matter see Paul Reed's post of 9 February 1999 at

http://tinyurl.com/7ebug

It seems that Richardson still thinks the lady in question was Maud de
Clare, as he did in the face of persuasion to reconsider years ago - see the
exchanges at

http://tinyurl.com/cdy2z

Perhaps he will tell us why.

Peter Stewart


Janet

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Janet » 30 sep 2005 14:02:01

EARLDOM OF HUNTINGDON (X)

EARLDOM OF CHESTER (VIII, 5)

JOHN (LE Scot), EARL OF HUNTINGDON AND CAMBRIDGE (nephew of William the Lion, King of Scotland), being 3rd and youngest, but only surviving son and heir of David, EARL OF HUNTINGDON &C., by Maud, 1st sister and coheir of Ranulph (DE BLUNDEVILLE), EARL OF CHESTER, was born about 1207; succeeded his father as Earl of Huntingdon, &c., 12 June 1219, having livery of his lands 25 April 1227; was knighted by Alexander III 30 May 1227; and, after the death of the Earl of Chester, his uncle, though apparently in the lifetime of his mother (who d. Epiphany 1233), having inherited the whole County Palatine of Chester, was created, at Northampton, 21 November 1232, EARL OF CHESTER. At the Coronation of Queen Eleanor, 20 January 1235/6, he bore the " Curtatia," one of the three swords of State, as Earl of Chester, and claimed to bear the second sword as Earl of Hutitingdon. He took the Cross about 8 June 1236. He married, 1222, Helen, daughter of LLEWELLYN AP IORWERTH, PRINCE OF NORTH W!
ALES, and by her is suspected to have been poisoned. He died s.p., at Darnall, co. Chester, very shortly before 6 June 1237, and was buried at St. Werburg's, Chester, leaving the two daughters of his eldest sister and his three surviving sisters, as his coheirs, but in 1246 the Earldom of Chester was annexed to the Crown "lest so fair (preclara) a dominion should be divided (inter colas feminarum) among women." His widow married, before 5 December 1237, Robert DE QUINCY (youngest son of Saher, Earl of Winchester), who died s.p.m., August 1257. She died 1253, before 24 October. [Complete Peerage III:169-70, (transcribed by Dave Utzinger)]

Note: John was the last non-royal Earl of Chester, other than a brief period 1264-1265 when Simon de Montfort became Earl by coercing Henry III (a prisoner after the battle of Lewes) into giving him the title, which Prince Edward "Longshanks" had at the time. He (eventually Edward I) regained it in 1265. Usually the royal heir-apparent received the earldom about the same time that he received the title "Prince of Wales."



Janet of Missouri

----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife, _____ de Lacy


Dear Chris ~

If that is the case (referring to the correct use of the Latin word,
suus), then Alan Fitz Roland's wife would have to be the sister of John
de Lacy, Constable of Chester (died 1240), not of his father, Roger.
Here we meet with some serious chronological problems.

I understand from a posting today that Roger de Lacy, John's father,
was at least aged 21 at the time of his father's death in 1190, and
that he was appointed Constable of Nottingham and Tickhill Castles in
1191. This would suggest that Roger was born in or before 1166-1169.
Assuming Roger married young which was typical in the time period, he
could produce a child say by 1181 (assuming the 1166 birthdate for
Roger is correct).

It is difficult to say exactly when Alan Fitz Roland married his wife.
However, we know that they had an unmarried daughter (presumably their
eldest) who was being held hostage in 1213. If the daughter was their
eldest, we'd have to say she was born in or after 1201, as she was not
yet married in 1213. This would peg the marriage of Alan and his wife
as somewhere in the period, 1195-1200.

So, it is just barely possible chronologically for Alan Fitz Roland to
be Roger de Lacy's son-in-law, but just barely. If we had Roger
married c. 1180, and Roger's daughter married to Alan c. 1200, I
suppose it would work. But, this is very tight chronology. We do have
some new indications that this is feasible. The discovery of the 1205
royal charter witnessed by Roger's son, Robert, suggests to me that
Robert was born in or before c. 1185. If Robert was born c. 1185, he
could easily have a sister born c. 1187 and married c. 1200. Also,
I've also determined that Roger de Lacy had interests in Kippax,
Yorkshire, which property was the maritagium of Alan Fitz Rolands's
wife. Both of these pieces of evidence are supportive of the
possibility that Alan Fitz Roland's wife was Roger de Lacy's daughter.


Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Chris Phillips wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
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




--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.7/112 - Release Date: 9/26/2005

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 30 sep 2005 16:50:16

volucris@chello.nl wrote:
Roger de Lacy, constable since 1191, would have named his eldest son
John after his own father, right?

At best, this may have been a trend, not a rule.

taf

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»