The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first marri

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first marri

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 okt 2005 18:35:58

Fellow genealogists,

Browsing through the archives I noted that Robert de Quincy and his
wife Elen had a daughter Margaret, born c.1218 and a daughter Helen
born c.1222. This would indicate that the marriage between Robert and
Elen must have taken place c.1217. If the birth estimate c.1218 is
correct, Elen must have had reached her procreative age when she
married. Ususally that's 15 years on average. That would pinpoint
Elen's birthyear at c.1202. Maybe it was a bit later but not much.

Robert's eldest daughter Margaret seems be named after his own mother
Margaret de Beaumont, wife of Saher IV de Quincy. The youngest daughter
Helen seems to be named after her mother. Between 1217 and 1222 is
enough space for a third daughter who most likely was named after her
other grandmother N.N [de Lacy].

In 1213 the probably eldest daughter of Alan of Galloway died as a
hostage. Douglas Richardson's estimate that this daugter was not yet 12
years of age because she was not yet married, looks like a sound one.
It does not have to be right on the spot but it may be a very near one.
Given the thought that she must have been the elder one alive at the
time of taking hostages we may place her year of birth in c.1201.

So far we have two daughters of Alan of Galloway and his wife N.N. [de
Lacy]:
1. N.N. (c.1201-+1213).
2. Elen (c.1202- ).

Higher up we could observe that naming customs were folowed. Alan of
Galloway would undoubtly have named his eldest daughter after his own
mother Helen, and his second daughter after his mother in law. It could
be possible that this mother in law wore the name Elen but that would
be to much of a coincidence, so one might assume that we have to add a
third daughter (Alan was very good in daughters) to the before
mentioned two ones. Since it was the first period in a marriage we can
safely assume that the children were still being born year after year.
That places the birth year of the eldest daughter [Helen] in 1200.
Since Alan of Galloway has no record of producing sons we might aswell
assume that Helen was his first daughter and that he must have married
c.1199.

Alan's first spouse was a N.N. [de Lacy]. In 1199 she must have had the
procreative age of c.15 year. So N.N. must have been born c.1184.

In my previous post on the subject I offered two scenario's to
determine the marriage year of Roger fitz John fitz Richard, later
named de Lacy: 1185/1190 or c.1189.

The burning question for some time, as I recall, has been who the
father was of N.N. who became the first wife of Alan of Galloway: Roger
de Lacy or his brother Richard.

Let's turn the attention around to what we know:
1. N.N. had a brother with the name John of Chester.
2. Her father is described as a Richard.
3. Roger de Lacy is known to be married, he had offspring.
4. Richard, brother of Roger has no known wife or children.
5. Alan de Galloway was a prominent Scotisch nobleman.
6. Roger de Lacy was a wealthy English nobleman.
7. The whole business of the manor of Kippax and the advowson (the
right to name the priest with financial benefits) of the church of
Kippax is best, simply and logicaly explained by assuming that N.N. was
a daughter of Roger de Lacy.
8. Clercs/scribes are known to make mistakes.
9. Alan de Galloway married around 1199.
10.Roger de Lacy was earlier born then previously was assumed.
11.From onomastic point of view the marriage of Roger de Lacy must have
been most likely in the mid eighties.

Everything makes sense when we decide that the text of the suit of 1214
regarding Kippax by Alan of Galloway against John of Chester contains a
clerical error. Maybe originaly the name R was used in the draft that
the scribe (maybe a different one) later filled in as R(ichard). Or the
text of the suit is based on a corrupt later transcription of the
original.

Conclusion:
Roger de Lacy married in the eighties. N.N. must have been his first
child and eldest daughter. His marriage can now be put on c.1183. He
would have named his first daughter after his own mother Alice. I
therefore propose the naam [Alice] between brackets as a hypothetical
but logical one for N.N. The argumentation of Douglas Richardson for
choosing Roger de Lacy as a father in law above a younger brother
Richard (of whom we have no independant evidence of being married)
makes sense.

Now the father of [Alice] (former N.N.) is determined we can also make
a logical prediction for the name of her second daughter. That would
have been [Maud] after her maternal grandmother.

[Alice] de Lacy married around 1199 Alan de Galloway and died in
c.1208. Her daughters were:
1. Helen, born c.1200, + in or before 1202.
2. [Maud], born c.1201, + 1213 as a hostage.
3. Helen/Elen, born c.1202, married c.1217 Robert de Quicy.

Hans Vogels

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 okt 2005 19:55:05

Another time, another day. I've spent hours typing this and the other
post.
Like I said, naming customs was common knowledge in the Low and German
Countries and lots of other regions. It might have been at work in
Medieval England aswell. From what I saw and gathered in the
information on the newsgroup it was very much likely that it was
practice in England too. So far nobody took notice of my earlier
remarks. In this de Lacy case it looked time that somebody pointed out
this approach.

With regard to the discussion. 1 post and 177 reactions further we knew
a bit more than at point zero. But nobody had the definite answer.
Information, interpretation, piled on assumptions, but still no
decision. How many opinions were unsupported? I only provided an
logical answer to an enigma from a objective and different point of
view. I would not care less if one follows my advise or not.

Regarding literature, there are paragraphs here and there in articles.
Dutch and German articles mostly. French is not to my liking. I'm Dutch
with a keen interest in English Medieval genealogy and history.

I'm astonished that Americans are not more aware of the literature in
the field. Onomastic is a disciplin of History. Did you ever visit the
site of the American prof. Donald C. Jackman (he studied in Germany):
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/c/dcj121/prosop/

I've got his Criticism and Critique. Sidelights on the Konradiner,
Prosopographica et Genealogica 1997 on the bookshelve.

For P et G publications see:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~prosop/publications.htm.
Personaly I think that Jackman overdoes it.

The website on P et G is: http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/proso.html

You should also try the site on Proposon aswell:
http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/prosopon.html and read the articles in the
different years of Prosopon.

With regards,
Hans Vogels

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 okt 2005 19:55:11

Another time, another day. I've spent hours typing this and the other
post.
Like I said, naming customs was common knowledge in the Low and German
Countries and lots of other regions. It might have been at work in
Medieval England aswell. From what I saw and gathered in the
information on the newsgroup it was very much likely that it was
practice in England too. So far nobody took notice of my earlier
remarks. In this de Lacy case it looked time that somebody pointed out
this approach.

With regard to the discussion. 1 post and 177 reactions further we knew
a bit more than at point zero. But nobody had the definite answer.
Information, interpretation, piled on assumptions, but still no
decision. How many opinions were unsupported? I only provided an
logical answer to an enigma from a objective and different point of
view. I would not care less if one follows my advise or not.

Regarding literature, there are paragraphs here and there in articles.
Dutch and German articles mostly. French is not to my liking. I'm Dutch
with a keen interest in English Medieval genealogy and history.

I'm astonished that Americans are not more aware of the literature in
the field. Onomastic is a disciplin of History. Did you ever visit the
site of the American prof. Donald C. Jackman (he studied in Germany):
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/c/dcj121/prosop/

I've got his Criticism and Critique. Sidelights on the Konradiner,
Prosopographica et Genealogica 1997 on the bookshelve.

For P et G publications see:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~prosop/publications.htm.
Personaly I think that Jackman overdoes it.

The website on P et G is: http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/proso.html

You should also try the site on Proposon aswell:
http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/prosopon.html and read the articles in the
different years of Prosopon.

With regards,
Hans Vogels

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 okt 2005 20:05:05

In a message dated 10/1/2005 10:42:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,
volucris@chello.nl writes:

Higher up we could observe that naming customs were folowed. Alan of
Galloway would undoubtly have named his eldest daughter after his own
mother Helen, and his second daughter after his mother in law.


You seem to put a lot of unsupported store by this idea of "naming customs".
I don't see it. Perhaps you could give some background info that supports
your idea that people named their children for those children's grandparents
in some particular and specific fashion. Otherwise you're building quite an
edifice here upon notions that start as suppositions and end up being facts.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 okt 2005 20:48:32

You seem not convinced - your good right, but do not ridicule something
you can not put your finger behind - from the shown examples. The
problem is that we have very few information on large households in the
early Medieval times. So the custom does not always shows.

What do think of a nice example from around 1400 from a noble Dutch
family with 10 documented children? Or is it not representative
according to you. I can find more examples. I believe that there was a
count of Guines with a large household somewere.

Sure and Herod named one of his daughters "Julia", does this mean she was a descendent of the Julian family? No it doesnt.

You've got a imagitive mind. What's got this to do with the subject.

I did not write that the rule MUST be aplied to England. I said that it
was POSSIBLE to, and from what I saw in the Galloway-de Lacy discussion
IT COULD BE SHOWN in the household of Robert de Quincy and [Maud] de
Lacy. So why not a generation earlier? We've seen lots of familiar
names in the names of Roger and his brothers. Coincidence or not.
That's your own choice.

Tell me the reason according to you for John Fitz Richard for naming
his sons: Roger, Richard, Eustace and Geoffry. Surely it can not be
pure coincidence. What's the working mechanism behind the naming
according to you?

Tell me the score now I call your cards. What is your opinion on the
Galloway-de Lacy matter. How do you propose things are reconstructed?

With regards to your other remarks what are you? An ancestor-shopper or
a researcher? I gave you something to follow up. Do that before you
rush to another line of comment. Why not sleep on it.

I'm going for a drink. Have a nice day.

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 okt 2005 20:50:13

Onamastics can be useful.

However, a quick glance at an established English genealogy - such as
for instance the Plantagenet kings - will show that it can only be a
guide, not a rule, e.g.

King John, monarch from 1199 to 1216:

1. Henry (named for his father's father)
2. Richard (named for his paternal uncle)
3. Joan (named for her paternal aunt)
4. Isabella (named for her mother)
5. Eleanor (named for her paternal grandmother)

None of these children is named for their maternal grandparents (Aymer
and Alice).

Many more examples could be given.

John P. Ravilious

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 01 okt 2005 21:01:56

Dear mjcar (Mardi ?) et al,

True, onomastics can be useful, and care should be taken as with
any method of dealing with these families.

I might point out that your view of the English side of Isabella of
Angouleme's issue is correct. Note however, when we look at her issue
by Hugh X 'le Brun' de Lusignan, we find the names Aymer and Alice
(among many others).

Cheers,

John



mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Onamastics can be useful.

However, a quick glance at an established English genealogy - such as
for instance the Plantagenet kings - will show that it can only be a
guide, not a rule, e.g.

King John, monarch from 1199 to 1216:

1. Henry (named for his father's father)
2. Richard (named for his paternal uncle)
3. Joan (named for her paternal aunt)
4. Isabella (named for her mother)
5. Eleanor (named for her paternal grandmother)

None of these children is named for their maternal grandparents (Aymer
and Alice).

Many more examples could be given.

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 okt 2005 21:10:39

Can we have those examples in another string.
Let's discuss my primary post without rushing
on a crusade.

Lets evaluate the findings and the conclusion
and keep the discussion clear.

Cheers,
Hans Vogels

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 okt 2005 21:11:02

In a message dated 10/1/2005 11:57:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
volucris@chello.nl writes:


naming customs was common knowledge in the Low and German
Countries and lots of other regions. It might have been at work in
Medieval England aswell. From what I saw and gathered in the
information on the newsgroup it was very much likely that it was
practice in England too.

Sure and Herod named one of his daughters "Julia", does this mean she was a
descendent of the Julian family? No it doesnt.

Onomastics is a flawed approach, esp. if you go trying to fill in missing
gaps using only onomastics. It can bring something to the table sure, but not
when you go throwing around the "fact" of naming patterns when no such "fact"
exists except that you add people who we have no record of, in order to make the
"fact" appear :)

Maybe when you get the time, you can post a cogent argument that shows this
fact a little more clearly.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 okt 2005 21:11:52

John

You are quite right. But as these are the issue of her second
marriage, very much her younger children, the "rule" cited above that
the grandparents' names are given to the eldest children is clearly not
at work in this instance - or in many others that could be cited.

Regards

Michael

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 okt 2005 22:01:01

In a message dated 10/1/2005 12:57:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
volucris@chello.nl writes:


Or is it not representative
according to you. I can find more examples. I believe that there was a
count of Guines with a large household somewere.

For every example you find which you claim shows this iron-clad rule, I will
find an example which destroys it :)

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 02 okt 2005 00:47:28

<volucris@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1128188158.845819.9720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

Everything makes sense when we decide that the text of the suit of 1214
regarding Kippax by Alan of Galloway against John of Chester contains a
clerical error. Maybe originaly the name R was used in the draft that
the scribe (maybe a different one) later filled in as R(ichard). Or the
text of the suit is based on a corrupt later transcription of the
original.

Not quite "everything" (there being precious little anyway) makes sense on
this basis.

There remains the quitclaim of the advowson of Kippax, by Alan on behalf of
himself and his heirs to Roger de Lacy and his heirs.

We would also have to accept a co-incidental sloppiness in several aspects
of the drafting of this document, since it does not call Roger "socer"
(father-in-law) to Alan - a normal if not invariable courtesy in these
circumstances - and it does not make perfect sense for Alan's heirs to
quitclaim in part to themselves if they were also heirs of Roger.

To counter these dubious indications, there is NOTHING in Alan's quitclaim
to suggest that his wife WAS actually the daughter of Roger. All that can be
read into it is that Roger as the direct heir of the Lacy possessions was
apparently taking responsibility for a faulty, double disposition of the
Kippax advowson. Whether this had wrongly passed directly from himself to
Alan, or through his brother Richard, we cannot know.

If Alan and Roger wished to ally their families by a marriage (as at some
stage they must have done), and only a niece of the latter was available at
the time (as we have no information to confirm or to refute), I can't see a
problem with Roger passing a rich manor along to Alan via a known younger
brother of the right given name, Richard de Chester, to form the main prize
of a suitable maritagium.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 okt 2005 01:42:01

In a message dated 10/1/05 10:42:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
volucris@chello.nl writes:

<< Browsing through the archives I noted that Robert de Quincy and his
wife Elen had a daughter Margaret, born c.1218 and a daughter Helen
born c.1222. This would indicate that the marriage between Robert and
Elen must have taken place c.1217. If the birth estimate c.1218 is
correct, Elen must have had reached her procreative age when she
married. Ususally that's 15 years on average. That would pinpoint
Elen's birthyear at c.1202. Maybe it was a bit later but not much. >>

I don't believe we actually have any good indication of when these girls were
born.
So giving them exact birthyears and then proposing an exact birthyear for
Ellen is a house-of-cards.
Tim Powys-Lybbe http://www.southfarm.plus.com/pl_tree/ps12/ps12_446.htm
is my source for Ellen (Helen) and I'm showing her birth abt 1208

Which may also be based on a wild guess, I have no note to back it up, but
I'd be suspicious of any attempt to use exact years here to make an argument
like the above.

Will Johnson

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 04 okt 2005 18:03:18

Helen married Alan de la Zouche, who did homage in 1238.

We know that Sir John, Lord Clavering was 44 in 1310 (his father's
IPM), so born 1266 or so (and he was 12 when married). His mother was
Margery de la Zouche, daughter of Helen de Quincy. Margery must have
been 15-20 at the youngest when John was born, so herself born say
1250, but quite possibly earlier. We know that Helen de Quincy married
before 1242 (can't see where), so this is consistent. She might have
been born ca 1225 and her mother Helen of Galloway ca 1205/08, at least
before the marriage of her father to Margaret of Huntingdon in 1209.
Alan of Galloway was born say 1170, although it could be 1180. So it
is quite likely that his Lacy bride was not of child-bearing age when
married.

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 okt 2005 19:16:02

In a message dated 10/4/2005 10:13:15 AM Pacific Standard Time,
maxwellfindlater@hotmail.com writes:

We know that Sir John, Lord Clavering was 44 in 1310 (his father's
IPM), so born 1266 or so (and he was 12 when married). His mother was
Margery de la Zouche, daughter of Helen de Quincy. Margery must have
been 15-20 at the youngest when John was born, so herself born say
1250, but quite possibly earlier. We know that Helen de Quincy married
before 1242 (can't see where), so this is consistent. She might have
been born ca 1225 and her mother Helen of Galloway ca 1205/08, at least
before the marriage of her father to Margaret of Huntingdon in 1209.
Alan of Galloway was born say 1170, although it could be 1180. So it
is quite likely that his Lacy bride was not of child-bearing age when
married.


I'm not following your logic here, on why any of this pertains to the last
statement that "his de Lacy bride was not of child-bearing age when married".
Can you clarify your line of reasoning a bit? Thanks.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 okt 2005 23:41:01

In a message dated 10/4/05 10:13:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
maxwellfindlater@hotmail.com writes:

<< We know that Sir John, Lord Clavering was 44 in 1310 (his father's
IPM), so born 1266 or so (and he was 12 when married). His mother was
Margery de la Zouche, daughter of Helen de Quincy. Margery must have
been 15-20 at the youngest when John was born, so herself born say
1250, but quite possibly earlier. We know that Helen de Quincy married
before 1242 (can't see where), so this is consistent. She might have
been born ca 1225 and her mother Helen of Galloway ca 1205/08, at least
before the marriage of her father to Margaret of Huntingdon in 1209.
Alan of Galloway was born say 1170, although it could be 1180. So it
is quite likely that his Lacy bride was not of child-bearing age when
married. >>

I fed all of this back into my calculations and it didn't actually affect the
age of the de Lacy bride at all.
It does imply that Helen de Quincy was perhaps not the eldest daughter of
Roger
And it allows us to push Alan le Zouche's birthdate a bit further back

Other than that it didn't affect my database which still shows that the de
Lacy bride could have been born 1174/95.
Her birth is more of a problem if we insist she must be a daughter of Roger's
marriage to Maud de Clare, but less of a problem if we allow her to be his
niece, dau of his brother Richard de Lacy.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 okt 2005 07:46:13

I would not call c. 1202 an exact birthyear. C. stands for circa =
about (with dates). So it is an approximate (come near to (esp in
quality or number)) date. So your remark "So giving them exact
birthyears and then proposing an exact birthyear for
Ellen is a house-of-cards" is not fitting.

Tim Powys-Lybbe http://www.southfarm.plus.com/pl_tree/ps12/ps12_446.htm
is my source for Ellen (Helen) and I'm showing her birth abt 1208.

So you show her birth at 1208. That's an estimate or more of an
guesstimate since you do not provide evidence to back that up. You
refer to Tim as a source. I've seen the year 1208 before too. In the
following excerpt from a post of Dave form 10-2-2001 from this
newsgroup:

Descendants of Saire IV de Quency

2 Roger de Quenci b: Abt. 1195 in of Winchester, HAM, ENG d: 25
April 1264 Burial: Brackley, NTH, ENG
.... +Helen MacDonal de Galloway b: Abt. 1208 in of Galloway, SCT
m: Abt. 1217 d: Aft. 21 November 1245 in Brackley
... 3 Elizabeth de Quinci d: Bef. November 1328
....... +Alexander Comyn d: Bef. 06 April 1290
.. 3 Margaret de Quency b: Abt. 1218 in Lincoln, Lincoln, ENG d:
Abt. 11 March 1283/84 in Clerkenwell, ENG
....... +William de Ferrers b: Abt. 1193 in Derbyshire, ENG m: Abt. 1238
d: 24 March 1253/54 in Evington, ENG Burial: 31 March 1254 Merevale Abbey
... 3 Helen de Quincy b: Abt. 1222 in Winchester, HAM, ENG d: Bef.
20 August 1296
....... +Alan la Zouce b: Abt. 1205 in of North Molton, DEV, ENG m:
Bef. 1242 d: 10 August 1270
*2nd Wife of Roger de Quenci:
.... +Alianore de Ferrers m: Aft. 1252 d: 26 October 1274
Always optimistic--Dave

You have the sense to back this up with the remark that abt. 1208 may
be base on a wild guess. If you look more critical you notice the years
abt 1217 for a marriage and abt 1218 for the birth of daughter
Margaret.
So these exact (your words) are someone elses. The years c. 1208 and c.
1217 and c. 1218 do not match in combination. To be married in c.1217 a
girl had to be minimal 12 years of age. So that makes Helen minimal
born c. 1205. Starting from the suggestion that in 1218 or better c.
1218 daughter Margaret was born, her mother Helen must have reached the
procreative age when she married in c. 1217. The procreative age is on
average around 15 years (if you want to argue about that, go ahead), so
that makes Helen born around 1202. You might not like the methodology
but it is still a way to reach results.

If you want to be critical John, watch firstly what you produce
yourself. When in a glass house one should not throw stones. As I wrote
before I'm not emotional involved as these people are not my ancestors.
I stand more objectively beyond the field of research.

Have a nice day.
Hans Vogels

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 okt 2005 09:46:01

In a message dated 10/4/2005 11:58:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,
volucris@chello.nl writes:

So these exact (your words) are someone elses. The years c. 1208 and c.
1217 and c. 1218 do not match in combination. To be married in c.1217 a
girl had to be minimal 12 years of age. So that makes Helen minimal
born c. 1205. Starting from the suggestion that in 1218 or better c.
1218 daughter Margaret was born, her mother Helen must have reached the
procreative age when she married in c. 1217. The procreative age is on
average around 15 years (if you want to argue about that, go ahead), so
that makes Helen born around 1202. You might not like the methodology
but it is still a way to reach results.


Sorry Hans but no dice.
I posted a year with a source. What you posted is just a huge collection of
years with no sources. That is not the same thing at all. You cannot use
an "c" date to state that a mother should have been born "c" 15 years earlier,
it just doesn't work unless you have some source that can show that the "c"
date is based on *some* thing. Otherwise it's an exercise in futility.

So once you start posting sources, then we can get somewhere.
Otherwise this is circular logic.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 okt 2005 16:59:02

Will,

Our remarks have been made on the assumptions of others. Mine, as you
could check in my post, on a fast SGM-search that resulted in a post
from 2001 (the most recent as it seemed) from ever optimistic Dave.
Yours was based on the website of Tim Powys-Lybbe. I looked there.
Names, dates and estimates. No sources to back up the estimates.

The appr. data that I worked from were not mine. Nothing wrong with the
method though. I should have mentioned that my line of approach was to
get to a appr.minimal year of birth of Elen. The appr. year of birth of
the daughter who died in 1213 was based on a remark of Douglas
Richardson. He made a guess too on the appr. marriage year of Alan and
N.N. de Lacy. I did not see you bring out the FLAK on those two
guesses.

The best way of approach would be to inquire with Tim and Dave on how
they came by their estimates. Once there can be reached a modus of
opinion we can try and start again. As it seems that you have a special
interest in the matter I would suggest that you do the inquiring and
I'll sit back and watch for the results.

With regards,
Hans Vogels

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 okt 2005 22:36:01

In a message dated 10/5/05 9:13:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
volucris@chello.nl writes:

<< As it seems that you have a special
interest in the matter I would suggest that you do the inquiring and
I'll sit back and watch for the results. >>

Hans I've already done the work. The various notes are in my database.
I refuse to be handed the *charge* to do the work so you can collect the
benefits.
It should be apparent that *if* the only document we have on a person merely
states that they were the child of another person, then the only information
we can glean is that they are younger than that person by 13 to 60 years
perhaps.

Nothing more, unless more details are forthcoming.

In this particular case, we do have a marraige of Alan in 1209. Since we
know she was not an heir of this wife's kin, we can assume she is not from this
marraige. Since we know her descendents chronology does not allow her to be
later than this wife's death, we can assume she was from a prior wife.

And that, as they say, is all. Anything further than this is just guess work
without making additional assumptions that may not be yet warrented. The
more assumptions you pile on, the shakier the whole edifice becomes. Until, like
in my last destruction post on a line in "Living Descendents" (see archives)
it all comes down with one puff.

Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 06 okt 2005 11:12:31

In message of 5 Oct, volucris@chello.nl wrote:

Will,

Our remarks have been made on the assumptions of others. Mine, as you
could check in my post, on a fast SGM-search that resulted in a post
from 2001 (the most recent as it seemed) from ever optimistic Dave.
Yours was based on the website of Tim Powys-Lybbe. I looked there.

Can I advise everyone that my data is no better than my sources
which are always listed in the database. (Nearly always: if
there are none, please ignore the person.)

Further my sources are badly displayed, as I have already explained. I
do not, as I should, give a reference for each fact: just, modern
prophet style, a gaggle of references for the person. You, and I, may
then try and work out which one has the real facts in them. (I had to
lump all the references together in this way as GEDCOM will not always
handle fact by fact references.)

Caveat emptor. (Another latin tag.)

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 okt 2005 07:33:14

Thanks Tim,

for the clarification of your data and how to use the database.

With regards,
Hans Vogels

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 okt 2005 08:05:47

Will,

This answer of yours looks a bit like a DSH answer.

Do you care to give your opinion on the remarks of Douglas Richardson
with regard to the elder daughter of Alan and on his estimate of Alans
marriage? I did not see you putting him to the grill. And if you want
to be critical you have got to be consistant. You evaded my remark.

Hans Vogels

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 okt 2005 09:40:02

In a message dated 10/7/2005 12:14:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
volucris@chello.nl writes:


Do you care to give your opinion on the remarks of Douglas Richardson
with regard to the elder daughter of Alan and on his estimate of Alans
marriage?

I didn't see any estimate.
We know that Alan married for the second time in 1209.
We know that Helen was not a child of this second marriage.
We know that she could not have been from any later marriage.
Therefore she was from the first.
When that occurred, we don't know.

Helen's birth year could be anywhere from perhaps 1187 to 1209.

Now what remarks are you alluding to?
Will

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 okt 2005 17:37:27

He did around the time that you started to participate. A quick SGM
check shows the following:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... oway&hl=nl

Datum: 27 Sep 2005 10:08:17 -0700
Lokaal: di 27 sep 2005 19:08
Onderwerp: Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway

"All things being equal, the daughter of Alan Fitz Roland who was
held
hostage in 1213 was probably his eldest daughter. If so, she would be
the child of his first wife, _____ de Lacy. Alan had another daughter,

Ellen, by his first wife who was living at the time, but she was not
the daughter taken as hostage."

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... oway&hl=nl

Datum: 29 Sep 2005 07:58:13 -0700
Lokaal: do 29 sep 2005 16:58
Onderwerp: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first
wife, _____ de Lacy

"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."

Hans Vogels



WJhonson@aol.com schreef:

In a message dated 10/7/2005 12:14:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
volucris@chello.nl writes:


Do you care to give your opinion on the remarks of Douglas Richardson
with regard to the elder daughter of Alan and on his estimate of Alans
marriage?

I didn't see any estimate.
We know that Alan married for the second time in 1209.
We know that Helen was not a child of this second marriage.
We know that she could not have been from any later marriage.
Therefore she was from the first.
When that occurred, we don't know.

Helen's birth year could be anywhere from perhaps 1187 to 1209.

Now what remarks are you alluding to?
Will

Gjest

Re: The eldest daughters of Alan of Galloway and his first m

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 okt 2005 19:37:02

In a message dated 10/7/05 9:44:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
volucris@chello.nl writes:

<< 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." >>

Assumptions inherent in this passage
1) That the date of 1213 is firmly set in stone
2) That it was a custom, if there was no son, that the "eldest" daughter was
to be the one held.
3) That this custom was followed in this particular case
4) That it was standard that girls, in this time period and of this class of
family, got married at age 13
5) That she was not only the eldest *surviving* daughter, but also the eldest
daughter.

This passage Hans, is a *guide* to the *possible* date of that marriage, it
is not to be taken as a absolute barrier to any other interpretation.
Will Johnson

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»