Peter Lacy.

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
paul bulkley

Peter Lacy.

Legg inn av paul bulkley » 15 jan 2007 18:09:02

Dear Douglas Richardson:

You were quite specific 9th January. Peter was not the
illegitimate son of John Lacy.

In response to my observations, you then declare that
Peter could have been the son of John Lacy.

There appears to be a contradiction in your claims.

Anyhow you are correct that Peter could have been a
son of John Lacy. Thus I am puzzled why you initially
claimed that Peter was not a son?

You refer to Peter's letter 1248/1258 in which he
describes himself as a "kinsman and cleric" of Edmund
Lacy. One can presume that it would not be
advantageous for Peter to claim to be an illegitimate
brother of Edmund Lacy. The term "kinsman" would be
appropriate and prudent.

Regardless where is the evidence that supports your
claim that he was not the son of John Lacy?

Finally there are numerous examples in the Whalley
Coucher of John Lacy's involvement in the churches
within Blackburnshire. Perhaps the most significant
record is:

1230-1238: Presentation of John Lacy to Alex Bishop of
Coventry of Peter Cestrie to the Church of Whalley.

Sincerely Yours,

Paul Bulkley





____________________________________________________________________________________
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»