Lacy of Pontefract

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
paul bulkley

Lacy of Pontefract

Legg inn av paul bulkley » 03 okt 2007 18:09:01

Thank you John Watson and a descendant of the Lacy
Family in New Zealand for your excellent observations.

John claims Hugh Abbot Selby was an 18th Century
invention. To support that idea, one needs to
understand why the Selby Cartulary claimed that Hugh
was a Lacy. What was the point of the Abbey's claim if
not true?

Janet Burton, well qualified in monastic orders,
considered the Abbot to be Hugh Lacy.

And one can cast doubt of much of Dugdale's work He
was the man who basically stole Roger Dodsworth's work
of Vol 1 Monasticum Anglicum, and I question the
accuracy of his work.

The New Zealand descendant did not think that Hugh
Abbot Selby was a Lacy but no evidence was provided to
support that view.

What is significant is that William Conqueror founded
Selby (for Benedictin monks), and Abbot Hugh (de
Lacy) undertook construction 1097-1123.

What appears to be forgotten is that Ilbert I Lacy
gave Hamulton to Selby Abbey 1088. This was declared
by King Stephen 1154 (Charter #817 R/R A/N)

The evidence certainly suggests a strong Lacy
connection.

Sincerely Yours,

Paul Bulkley


____________________________________________________________________________________
Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/

Gjest

Re: Lacy of Pontefract

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 okt 2007 19:44:51

On Oct 3, 9:07 am, paul bulkley <designecono...@yahoo.com> wrote:

John claims Hugh Abbot Selby was an 18th Century
invention.

This mischaracterizes his criticism. He only denies that Hugh, Abbot
of Selby was a member of the Lacy clan, and that there is no medieval
evidence that this was the case. THis is a far cry from arguing that
the abbot himself was a fiction.

To support that idea, one needs to
understand why the Selby Cartulary claimed that Hugh
was a Lacy.

I have not seen any evidence that the Cartulary itself (as opposed to
the editorial additions to the published version) makes such a claim.

What was the point of the Abbey's claim if
not true?

Flattery, ignorance, . . . . .

Janet Burton, well qualified in monastic orders,
considered the Abbot to be Hugh Lacy.

How does one 'qualify' in monastic orders? Anyhow this is nothing but
name-dropping unless we know the reason for this conclusion.

And one can cast doubt of much of Dugdale's work He
was the man who basically stole Roger Dodsworth's work
of Vol 1 Monasticum Anglicum, and I question the
accuracy of his work.

I don't see the relevance of this, but I suspect others might not
share your view.


The New Zealand descendant did not think that Hugh
Abbot Selby was a Lacy but no evidence was provided to
support that view.

(sigh) You can't cite evidence that supports a claim that "there is no
medieval evidence" - it is a claim that stands unless refuted by
evidence. The negative is the default. John's claim cannot be
supported by citing documents that fail to identify Hugh. It is not
like someone writing at Selby would have gone out of their way to
refer to "abbot Hugh, you know, the one who is not a member of the
Lacy family". Anyhow, John's statement was simply that there is no
evidence that he was a Lacy, not that there is evidence that he was
not a Lacy - the two claims are not equivalent, and only the latter
can be directly supported. If anyone feels his statement is erroneous,
then they can best demonstrate this by presenting a piece of medieval
evidence that suggests that Hugh was a Lacy. If no one can find any
evidence, then John's statement stands.


What is significant is that William Conqueror founded
Selby (for Benedictin monks), and Abbot Hugh (de
Lacy) undertook construction 1097-1123.

Perhaps I am missing the significance here.

What appears to be forgotten is that Ilbert I Lacy
gave Hamulton to Selby Abbey 1088. This was declared
by King Stephen 1154 (Charter #817 R/R A/N)

Again, I fail to see the significance. Is a donation to a monastic
house de facto evidence that the donor and the abbot were related?

The evidence certainly suggests a strong Lacy
connection.

I have yet to see such evidence.

taf

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»