Lacy of Pontefract

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
paul bulkley

Lacy of Pontefract

Legg inn av paul bulkley » 23 nov 2007 19:10:06

Has any subscriber any information regarding the
father of Gilbert Cromwell Botham who appears to have
been Henry 11 Lacy or Robert 11 Lacy The event would
have taken place probably 1160-1175.

Wightman claims that the father was Henry 11 Lacy.

One muddled subscriber has suggested that Robert 11
Lacy was the proud parent but offers no evidence. Then
he suggests that neither Henry or Robert were involved
and advises us of the meaning of false duality!

The subject should be of interest to GEN-MED because
Gilbert must have eaten "English Food".

Paul Bulkley


____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Gjest

Re: Lacy of Pontefract

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 nov 2007 20:55:07

On Nov 23, 10:06 am, paul bulkley <designecono...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Has any subscriber any information regarding the
father of Gilbert Cromwell Botham who appears to have
been Henry 11 Lacy or Robert 11 Lacy The event would
have taken place probably 1160-1175.

Wightman claims that the father was Henry 11 Lacy.

One muddled subscriber has suggested that Robert 11
Lacy was the proud parent but offers no evidence.


Given the disparity between what Paul claims was said, and what was
actually said, it is reasonable to suggest that *someone* is muddled.


This is what was said:

"The Cromwellbotton Lacys descend from Gilbert de Lacy, who appears to
have been kinsman of the last Lacy of Pontefract, Robert, who died
1193."

Paul's summary:

One muddled subscriber has suggested that Robert 11
Lacy was the proud parent . . . .

original poster - "appears to be kinsman"
summary - "was proud parent"

Does that look like an accurate summary to you?


But there's more . . . .

Original poster:

"(The Pontefract Chartulary names him "filius Roberti de Lasci"
- son of Robert de Lacy, by which the lord is understood, but this
parentage has been added to the entry in a later hand. )"

Paul's summary:

. . . . but offers no evidence.


original poster - "The Pontefract Chartulary names him . . ."
summary - "offers no evidence"

Again, accurate?

Let us, then, reevaluate where the muddle lies.

taf

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»