Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Tony Ingham

Re: Genealogy in general was Corrections to new DNB

Legg inn av Tony Ingham » 25 sep 2005 06:03:06

Will,

Scroggs is a pretty fair example of 'wealth by stealth'. A vague
resemblance in surname was enough for claiming a slightly more
illustrious name.

Personally my favourite ancestors are those who rose from peasant class
by acquisition of a small grant of land. By dint of hard work this
holding was then improved and added to by judicious land purchases.
Later a son or grandson is addressed as 'yeoman' until finally the
'gentilman' is one of the semi-notables in his county.

This is not pie in the sky. It refers to the Martin family of
Cambridgeshire. The Campe family took over the holding by way of
marrying the heiress. In turn the Campe heiress married Richard Barlee,
esquire, living at Havering-at-Bower. This Richard was an associate of
Alfred Cornburgh, esquire, an under-treasurer of England.

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

You know what I find interesting, is this penchant for following this
process in connecting colonial families back to England.

1) Document as much as you can about your colonial person esp vague
statements like "he came from a family not obscure", and "his father was a wealthy
Lord", and "he ran through his wealth and so was required to leave the
country"....

2) Then make a wild guess about when your person should have been born.

3) Try to find any person with the same name and approx birth year in any
document, real, fictitious, hypothetical, or otherwise.

4) Propose that they might be the same person, i.e. that your colonial John
Brown might be the same person as John Brown of London b 1642 ....

5) Wait ten years or so, and then declare, without further documentation,
that they ARE in fact the same person.

6) Wait another twenty to forty years, to have this picked up first as
tangential data in modest publications and then later as germane data in more
weighty publications. Then sit back and laugh at the great joke you've pulled,
because you realize that 99.8% of all persons will not try to verify the facts.

Will Johnson




Gjest

re: Janis Joplin's medieval forebears

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 sep 2005 07:00:25

On this site
_http://www.newenglandancestors.org/education/articles/research/special_guests
/gary_boyd_roberts/column_37_659_437.asp_
(http://www.newenglandancestors.org/educ ... 37_659_437
..asp)

we see an article by Gary Boyd Roberts on some of the ancestors of Janis
Joplin.

I would like to cite his article in an article that I am working on to
correct/extend some of this, but I can't seem to see, in this article, any mention
of WHEN it was published.

What am I missing ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Order of the Garter

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 sep 2005 11:21:50

WJhonson@aol.com writes:

I had asked in a prior post about a will which conferred a collar of the
Order of the Garter onto an heir, and whether membership in the Order was passed
in this way. Leo responded that it wasn't.

I assumed that this was being passed on as a family souvenir, and was
mentioned early in the will as something he was proud of; similarly to
medals being passed on in a family

cheers

Simon

Doug Thompson

Re: Cudworth /Lewknor/Echingham

Legg inn av Doug Thompson » 25 sep 2005 11:37:23

in article 82.30b6db33.30604fc9@cs.com, Rsbow@cs.com at Rsbow@cs.com wrote
on 19/9/05 6:31 pm:

(Richardson also identified the "Margaret de Barosa (Braose?)" who m. Ralph
Lord Camoys per the Sussex Arch. Collection as the dau of William de Brewes
and Aline de Multon)


If Richardson did say this, he is in error. Yes, the "Barosa" is a typo for
"Braosa". But Margaret was a daughter of William de Brewes by his third
wife, Mary de Ros. (See Complete Peerage ii p507)

Regards

Doug Thompson
--------------
History and Genealogy of the Braose Family

http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thomps ... index1.htm (Genealogy)

http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thomps ... /stage.htm (History)

Gjest

Re: Order of the Garter

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 sep 2005 14:56:40

The son was made KG, but that is not the point. The collar and chain of the
order of KG was extremely valuable, but the bequest would not confer any
right to become a KG

Adrian



In a message dated 25/09/2005 02:16:43 GMT Standard Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:

In a message dated 9/20/2005 4:38:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson
writes:

FILE - Probate of the Will of ANTHONYE BROWNE, knt. and Master of the
kyngis
horses - ref. SAS-BA/19 - date: 22 Apr 1547
[from Scope and Content] To son Sir Anthony Browne, testator's collar of
the
Order of the Garter, with all householf stuff, plate, money &c., debts
cattele, leases, wardships and all other things appertaining to 'my body',
the
furnishing of any of testator's houses of Battell, Cowdrye or Byflet not
already
bequeathed, at 21 years


I had asked in a prior post about a will which conferred a collar of the
Order of the Garter onto an heir, and whether membership in the Order was
passed
in this way. Leo responded that it wasn't. I've pasted the part of the
will above to which I was referring. This Anthony is giving his "collar of
the
Order of the Garter" to his son. I was presuming that the wearing of the
collar marks a person as a member of the Order. It would be interesting to
see
if this son was ever made a member of the Order of the Garter.
Will

Gjest

Re: Cudworth /Lewknor/Echingham

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 sep 2005 18:10:15

Thanks Doug Thompson for his correction and apologies to Douglas Richardson
who did indeed correctly identify Mary de Roos as the mother of Margaret de
Brewes who m.Ralph de Camoys

Robert Bowman

Patricia Junkin

Re: Reliable genealogy of Robert Bruce/ Baron of Clackmannan

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 25 sep 2005 19:34:52

Bruce,
I, too, am interested in a authoritative line of Clackmannan. I have two
descents, one from an Edward whose son, Alexander, by some accounts became
Earl of Carrick and the other, a Robert Bruce, both illegitimate. I am in
search of the Robert Bruce who married Helen Vipont b. c. 1310, perhaps
daughter of the Alan who held Loch Leven Castle against the English in 1335.
She could also have been a daughter of William Vipont slain at the battle of
Haildon Hill.
Pat
----------
From: BJM <comstone@gmail.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Reliable genealogy of Robert Bruce/ Baron of Clackmannan & Rate
Date: Sun, Sep 25, 2005, 10:35 AM


Greetings. I have received a lineage including Robert Bruce, 2nd (3rd?)
Baron of Clackmannan and Rate. However, I am dubious of the data,
primarily because there is so _little_ data -- primarily names and a few
places. Does anyone know of an established source for the Bruce family's
ancestry and descendancy, including documentation?

Regards,
Bruce Martin
Houston

Gjest

Re: Cudworth /Lewknor/Echingham

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 sep 2005 22:10:57

Dear Robert,
All the sites I have seen thus far indicate that Ralph
Camoys who married 1303 Margaret Braose had by him a son Thomas Camoys. He
married before 1319 Elizabeth de Rogate by whom a son John who by an unknown wife
(He also married Margaret Foliot, but no part of the Foliot estates descended
to John`s son Thomas, 1st Lord Camoys of Broadwater who married Elizabeth
Louches and had a son and heir Sir Richard Camoys who dvp married Joan, daughter
of Richard, 3rd Lord Poynings and left among other issue daughters Margaret
Camoys who married Ralph Radmylde of Sussex d 1443, daughter Isabel Radmylde was
married to Nicholas Lewknor who was a younger brother of Sir Roger Lewknor
who was married to Margaret Camoys younger sister Eleanor.
So Apparently the Lewknors didn`t descend from Llewelyn Fawr, Prince of Wales
or from William the Lion, King of Scots at least not via Margaret Braose`s
marriage to Ralph Camoys.
Sources: Stirnet czmisc 03 (Camoys), Ancestors of Paul Bailey
McBride
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Tony Hoskins

Re: DNB corrections? Henry VIII v Carey

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 25 sep 2005 23:28:51

"I think you did a superb job with your article and this may give Henry
VIII his rightful genealogical position."

Dear Leo,

Thanks so much for your kind words.

Since my article was published eight years ago I have observed an
interesting phenomenon: the more knowledgeable a person is of the
realities of English history - and of 16th century canon law, also
Henrician and Elizabethan personalities, politics, and dynastic
insecurities - the more rapidly and readily that person is likely to
accept the weighty probability of Henry VIII's fathering the Carey
children. The converse also applies. There is a species of "genealogist"
(one used to see this type not infrequently as approving genealogists of
hereditary societies) that - lacking historical knowledge, perspective,
interpretive skills, and methodological training - just don't/can't "get
it".

It has been rather amusing for me to observe the much readier
acceptance of my hypothesis among top-level Tudor historians and
academics than among certain portions of the mainstream genealogical
cognoscenti.

Again, many thanks for your words.

Tony

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Leo van de Pas

Re: DNB corrections? Henry VIII v Carey

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 25 sep 2005 23:34:35

Dear Tony,

Your article made so much sense. A tyrant like Henry VIII just would not
share his mistress, not even with her husband. Add all the other points you
made and who else could be the father? I think you did a very special job
and I hope it will make its presense felt in genealogy.
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>; <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: DNB corrections? Henry VIII v Carey


"I think you did a superb job with your article and this may give Henry
VIII his rightful genealogical position."

Dear Leo,

Thanks so much for your kind words.

Since my article was published eight years ago I have observed an
interesting phenomenon: the more knowledgeable a person is of the
realities of English history - and of 16th century canon law, also
Henrician and Elizabethan personalities, politics, and dynastic
insecurities - the more rapidly and readily that person is likely to
accept the weighty probability of Henry VIII's fathering the Carey
children. The converse also applies. There is a species of "genealogist"
(one used to see this type not infrequently as approving genealogists of
hereditary societies) that - lacking historical knowledge, perspective,
interpretive skills, and methodological training - just don't/can't "get
it".

It has been rather amusing for me to observe the much readier
acceptance of my hypothesis among top-level Tudor historians and
academics than among certain portions of the mainstream genealogical
cognoscenti.

Again, many thanks for your words.

Tony

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Cudworth /Lewknor/Echingham

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 26 sep 2005 00:01:04

Dear James ~

Thank you for mentioning the Davis' reference. Much appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestrty.net

Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Robert,
The proof that Edward Lewknor`s wife Dorothy Wroth was a
daughter of Robert and Jane (Hawte) Wroth wasn`t in MC but rather in W G Davis`
book ' The Ancestry of Mary Isaac" pp 177-178. In 1535 her father`s will
stipulated that his ward Edward Lewknor should marry his daughter Dorothy Wroth
and further indicated that if either of them refused that Dorothy might have
money from his estate`s executors ? from the Lewknor estate. Davis was not
certain.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

please note that The Ancestry of Mary Isaac is available on-line at
Ancestry.com`s Family and Local History database. It is complete and fully
searchable.

Gjest

Re: DNB corrections? Henry VIII v Carey

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 sep 2005 01:42:28

Tony,

With a message like that would a sceptic dare reply? -:)

What bothers me is the difficulties with which Henry VIII had in leaving a
healthy son, yet I understand that Henry Carey lived to 70 and left many issue.

regards,
Adrian


"I think you did a superb job with your article and this may give Henry
VIII his rightful genealogical position."

Dear Leo,

Thanks so much for your kind words.

Since my article was published eight years ago I have observed an
interesting phenomenon: the more knowledgeable a person is of the
realities of English history - and of 16th century canon law, also
Henrician and Elizabethan personalities, politics, and dynastic
insecurities - the more rapidly and readily that person is likely to
accept the weighty probability of Henry VIII's fathering the Carey
children. The converse also applies. There is a species of "genealogist"
(one used to see this type not infrequently as approving genealogists of
hereditary societies) that - lacking historical knowledge, perspective,
interpretive skills, and methodological training - just don't/can't "get
it".

It has been rather amusing for me to observe the much readier
acceptance of my hypothesis among top-level Tudor historians and
academics than among certain portions of the mainstream genealogical
cognoscenti.

Again, many thanks for your words.

Tony

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Gjest

Re: DNB corrections? Henry VIII v Carey

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 sep 2005 01:53:47

In a message dated 9/25/2005 3:42:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com writes:

What bothers me is the difficulties with which Henry VIII had in leaving a
healthy son, yet I understand that Henry Carey lived to 70 and left many
issue.



But you glossed over the fact that there are two parents involved in
delivering a healthy boy, and his (first) wife to whom he was married during his
*most prime* (my opinion) years, wasn't exactly steller in the *delivering of
healthy children* department.

Will

Leo van de Pas

Re: DNB corrections? Henry VIII v Carey

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 26 sep 2005 02:18:12

Dear Adrian,

Your observation is so difficult for anyone to answer several hundred years
after the facts.

As Will Johnson says, it takes two to tangle. Catherine of Aragon was
several years older than Henry VIII and that may have been a contributary
factor? Catherine was one of four sisters, of these four two produced many
healthy children, and two didn't. Was this a factor as well?

In reproduction there are so many aspects that it is difficult at times to
say what is going on.
You hear so often of infertile women that as soon they adopt a child they
start producing their own. The pressure on Catherine of Aragon to produce
children must have been incredible .

In my own family was another aspect I had never heard of before. This couple
produced two children very quickly and then decided to wait a few years,
intending to have another two. But when they felt ready to have another
child they found the husband's fertility had passed its use by date, and
they were unable to have more. This man's brother married late in life and
was also unable to have children.

I understand "the blame" in Henry VIII's case is a veneral disease he may
have picked up in 1520 in France, but by then Catherine's childbearing days
were already over, Mary I being born in 1516. Henry Fitzroy had been born in
1519, also before his visit to France.

I understand that when a veneral disease is involved female children have a
better chance than male children. But could this be a hit and miss
situation, like with the blood disease where males suffer and women are
carriers? Not all males suffer and not all females are carriers.

It definitely is interesting. If only a genetic test could be done on Henry
VIII and the two Cary children.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: <ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: DNB corrections? Henry VIII v Carey


Tony,

With a message like that would a sceptic dare reply? -:)

What bothers me is the difficulties with which Henry VIII had in leaving a
healthy son, yet I understand that Henry Carey lived to 70 and left many
issue.

regards,
Adrian


"I think you did a superb job with your article and this may give Henry
VIII his rightful genealogical position."

Dear Leo,

Thanks so much for your kind words.

Since my article was published eight years ago I have observed an
interesting phenomenon: the more knowledgeable a person is of the
realities of English history - and of 16th century canon law, also
Henrician and Elizabethan personalities, politics, and dynastic
insecurities - the more rapidly and readily that person is likely to
accept the weighty probability of Henry VIII's fathering the Carey
children. The converse also applies. There is a species of "genealogist"
(one used to see this type not infrequently as approving genealogists of
hereditary societies) that - lacking historical knowledge, perspective,
interpretive skills, and methodological training - just don't/can't "get
it".

It has been rather amusing for me to observe the much readier
acceptance of my hypothesis among top-level Tudor historians and
academics than among certain portions of the mainstream genealogical
cognoscenti.

Again, many thanks for your words.

Tony

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562






Gjest

Re: DNB corrections? Henry VIII v Carey

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 sep 2005 02:33:55

ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com writes:

Tony,

With a message like that would a sceptic dare reply? -:)

What bothers me is the difficulties with which Henry VIII had in leaving a
healthy son, yet I understand that Henry Carey lived to 70 and left many issue.

and I'm one of the descendants

Maybe Henry VIII spent too much time playing cards?

Not convinced by Tony's comments
the more knowledgeable a person is of the
realities of English history - and of 16th century canon law, also
Henrician and Elizabethan personalities, politics, and dynastic
insecurities - the more rapidly and readily that person is likely to
accept the weighty probability of Henry VIII's fathering the Carey
children.

I'm certainly not in this group - gave up history when I was 14; yet was
convinced by the arguments in Tony's paper when it came out and ripped that
part of the family the tree and put Henry VIII in instead. I found it by
far the best article in GM for many years.

cheers

Simon

Gjest

Re: DNB corrections? Henry VIII v Carey

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 sep 2005 03:31:21

Dear Leo, Guy and others,
I think it`s notable that Queen
Elizabeth I lived to a couple of months shy of her 70th year. She was born in
1533 some thirteen years after Henry VIII contracted venereal diseae. A Son was
stillborn in 1536 and inside six months He had Anne Bolelyn executed and wed
Jane Seymour not long after. Edward VI was born to her in October 1537 and would
die in 1553 at the age of sixteen. his personality was beginning to reveal
itself as that of a hard line Puritan. As for the long suffering pious Katherine
of Aragon, Henry`s biggest disappointment probably came at February 22, 1511
when her first living child, a son Henry who had been born on January 1 of the
same year died. She had a total of 6 children between 1510 and 1518, 3 of
them were stillborn. The other two survivors were another son, possibly named
Henry who was born and died in November 1513 and the future Mary I born 1516.
source : David Williamson " Kings and Queens
of Britain" p 107
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: DNB corrections? Henry VIII v Carey

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 sep 2005 03:31:22

In a message dated 9/25/2005 4:18:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

I understand that when a veneral disease is involved female children have a
better chance than male children. But could this be a hit and miss
situation, like with the blood disease where males suffer and women are
carriers? Not all males suffer and not all females are carriers.


I'm not sure that would explain the monsters that he was said to have had
later, born dead.
Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: DNB corrections? Henry VIII v Carey

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 26 sep 2005 05:15:13

What do you mean? He had monsters later, born dead? By whom?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: DNB corrections? Henry VIII v Carey


In a message dated 9/25/2005 4:18:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

I understand that when a veneral disease is involved female children have
a
better chance than male children. But could this be a hit and miss
situation, like with the blood disease where males suffer and women are
carriers? Not all males suffer and not all females are carriers.


I'm not sure that would explain the monsters that he was said to have had
later, born dead.
Will Johnson


Gjest

Re: FW: Henry VIII's monsters

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 sep 2005 17:07:01

In subsequent issues of the _Genealogists Magazine_ re Henry's venereal
disease:

In the September 1997 it was stated that "it is common knowledge" common
fallacy? "that, possibly in his teens, the King contracted venereal disease,
which plagued him from the rest of his life. ... The standard treatment for
syphilis and the like in Tudor times, which is also in use today was the
application of nitrate of silver. It is a recorded fact that Henry VIII's surgeons
treated him continually with this potion."

Even if this were true, this line of argument was largely nullified by a Dr
Paul Fox in the March 1998 issue:

Henry could not have passed on congenital syphilis to all his issue "...a
man who is infected with syphilis remains infectious to his partner for only
about two years. A woman can transmit the infection to her children for about
four years after she has been infected...", so there must be another reason
for the early deaths of most of his children.

Adrian

John P. wrote;

The links between disease, birth rate and survival are central to
genealogical understandings and the case of Henry VIII and his wives and
issue, since his marriages were central to the course of the English
Reformation, are among the best reported and most scrutinized of all. But a
good deal of cant has been written about it.

A theory was put forward some years ago, in Retha Warnicke's biography of
Anne Boleyn, that the male fetus Anne miscarried in January 1536 was
deformed. Warnicke argues that since deformed children were thought to
result from incest or other sexual transgressions, Henry VIII got the idea
that Anne had committed incest, or at least that the deformed fetus was used
to prove that she had committed incest w/her brother. There is however no
contemporary reference to a deformed fetus in January 1536, nor was such an
argument used in the trials of Queen Anne or her brother. In fact a report
from an Italian ambassador at the time says that Anne was only in the 4th
month of pregnancy when she miscarried, so while it may have been possible
to determine that it was male, only the grossest deformity would have been
visible--and again, no known source at the time mentions any such deformity.
Warnicke's work has not met with general approval.

The theory that Henry VIII had venereal disease originated only in the 19th
century. It is known that Henry suffered for decades before his death with
a venous ulcer on one leg. Such a lesion can be a sign of syphilis but
there can be many other causes as well. As Victorian historians were always
ready to deal with scandal, however, it quickly became a byword that the
early deaths of many of Henry's children, including Edward VI, resulted from
hereditary syphilis. Mary I's childlessness was also blamed on Henry's
supposed venereal disease.

We know that Henry suffered a bad leg injury in a tournament (not the fall
that supposedly led to Anne Boleyn's miscarriage in 1536). An equally
persuasive post-facto diagnosis is that he developed chronic osteomyelitis
after the broken leg and the ulcer resulted from that disease. Just
possibly, the long existence of such a chronic infection could have lowered
his fertility levels, or ended them, explaining why he failed to impregnate
the Katherines Howard & Parr. (The evidence seems quite overwhelming that
the marriage to Anne of Cleves was never consummated. It is also possible
that given Henry's age and extremely poor health by the time he married
Katherine Parr, that was only a marriage of companionship. Certainly during

that marriage there was far less speculation about more children than there
had been with Katherine Howard, though Katherine Parr as queen was in her
thirties, significantly older than her predecessor. On the other hand, she
died in 1548 giving birth to a daughter by her last huband, Thomas Seymour.)

One sidelight here is that despite her promiscuity, Katherine Howard never
became pregnant by any of the sexual partners she had in addition to Henry
VIII. Dereham and Culpeper were younger men and in good health, and
Katherine was in her teens and twenties. Was there any effective
contraceptive knowledge at that time, and did Katherine have access to it?
(Abstinence clearly does not apply here!)

Katharine of Aragon's gynaecological history recalls that of her mother,
Isabella the Catholic, who had several unsuccessful pregnancies in addition
to those that ended with live births. Ives' book proves that Anne Boleyn
also suffered a miscarriage in August 1534, less than a year after Elizabeth
I was born. There were probably many more such medieval family tragedies
that escaped notice in our records, so Katharine and Anne aren't necessarily
unique in that sense.

Regards

John P.

Kevin Bradford

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 27 sep 2005 03:51:01

Dear Mr. Richardson,

Here are two references (brought to the newsgroup's attention by yourself in September 2002), in which Alan's contemporaries describe him as "Alan of Galloway." Unless, of course, you can demonstrate to the group that these charters do not reference the same person, Alan Fitz Roland (which I would be very interested in, if so), then I submit these are admissable as evidence that, during his lifetime, Alan was also known as "Alan of Galloway" or "Alan de Galweye." These transcripts are taken directly from the Curia Regis Rolls, which I trust will be appreciated as a refresher in this question:

1214
pp. 85-86, v. 7:
m.18
Cumb’.—Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton’ Adam de Hocton’, tres milites de comitatu Cumberland’ missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene de Morevill’ et ALANI de GALWEIA filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden’ in comitatu Roteland’ et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr’ de warantia carte de terra de Kippes in comitatu Ebor’, dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de Torinton’ vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de Londor’ de placito ecclesie de Wissenden’ in comitatu Roteland’. Dicunt etiam quod ALANUS DE GALWEYE posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor versus Johannem de Cestr’ de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in comitatu Ebor’. Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die. Et quoniam Willelmus de Pe!
rcy quartus miles non venit, qui debuit testificasse simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum, consideratum est quod atachietur quod sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas. Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.
p. 86, v. 7:

m. 18 (cont.)
Ebor’.—ALANUS DE GALWEYE per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr’ de placito quod idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas ALANUS DE GALWEYE habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc., et summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.

All the best,

Kevin Bradford


From: "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Subject: Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway
Date: 26 Sep 2005 18:13:50 -0700

Dear Newsgroup ~

As I recall, Alan Fitz Roland used the following style in all of his
charters as published by Dr. Keith Stringer:

Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway, Constable of Scotland.

"Fitz Roland" was not a surname. It was a patronymic. Alan was rarely
called Alan of Galloway. In fact, I have never seen any charter issued
by him as Alan of Galloway. Rather, he is always Alan Fitz Roland.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Patricia Junkin

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 27 sep 2005 03:54:02

Douglas, I have this 1213 instrument regarding Scots hostages:

Teste me ipso apud Bellum XIII die Jun. Robt. de Veteriponte quod as eundem
diem habeat Wm filium cometes Patricii et obsidem regis Scottorum. Et
sciendum est quod filia Alani de Galewya quae fuit in custodia Robt filii
Rogeri Mortua est Et filius W, Cumin qui fuit in custodia Eustachii de Vescy
quitus est Rott. Litt Clausarum

Pat
----------
From: "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway
Date: Mon, Sep 26, 2005, 9:13 PM


Dear Newsgroup ~

As I recall, Alan Fitz Roland used the following style in all of his
charters as published by Dr. Keith Stringer:

Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway, Constable of Scotland.

"Fitz Roland" was not a surname. It was a patronymic. Alan was rarely
called Alan of Galloway. In fact, I have never seen any charter issued
by him as Alan of Galloway. Rather, he is always Alan Fitz Roland.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Gjest

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 sep 2005 03:57:02

Dear Douglas, Kevin and others,
Alan`s gaelic subjects
probably called him Ailean mac Lachlan.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Kevin Bradford

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 27 sep 2005 04:03:01

James,

Interesting. A good demonstration of the risks of contemporary researchers insisting upon their own standardizations of rather fluid medieval naming patterns.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Jwc1870@aol.com
Sent: Sep 26, 2005 9:55 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway

Dear Douglas, Kevin and others,
Alan`s gaelic subjects
probably called him Ailean mac Lachlan.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Ginny Wagner

Thorney Libri and John Moore

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 27 sep 2005 05:15:04

I read an article by John S. Moore in Family Roots in
Politics ... not sure of the name of the book, but it was a
collection of articles, of which his, Prospographical
Problems of English libri vitae was one. Anyhoo, I would
surely like to get in touch with him.

He mentions folio 10v of the Thorney Libri and included a
page from it which has led me to very much want to see this
libri if it is at all possible ... or to browse it online
.... etc. In addition, if he has the time and inclination,
I'd love to ask him about the marriages he cites as examples
of continental names, etc., in his article.

If anyone knows him, or how to get in touch with him or,
failing that, how to gain access to, not the readily
accessible Thorney Annals by Cyril Hart (which are
interesting), but the primary docs or an English translation
of folio 10v I'd appreciate hearing from you. Thanks in
advance.

Ginny Wagner
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 27 sep 2005 05:42:21

Dear Patricia ~

Thank you for posting this record. Much appreciated.

As you have noted, the unnamed daughter of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of
Galloway, was a hostage in 1213 and placed in the care of Robert Fitz
Roger. My examination of the long lists of Scottish hostages indicates
that they were primarily placed under the care of their English
kinsfolk.

In this case, the daughter of Alan Fitz Roland would be related to
Robert Fitz Roger as follows:

1. Richard Fitz Eustace, m. Aubrey de Lisours.
2. John Fitz Richard, Constable of Chester, m. Alice de Mandeville.
3. _____ de Lacy, m. Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway.
4. unnamed daughter of Alan Fitz Roland.

1. Richard Fitz Eustace, m. Aubrey de Lisours.
2. Roger Fitz Richard, m. Alice de Vere.
3. Robert Fitz Roger, lord of Warkworth, died 1214.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Patricia Junkin" wrote:
< Douglas, I have this 1213 instrument regarding Scots hostages:
<
< Teste me ipso apud Bellum XIII die Jun. Robt. de Veteriponte quod as
eundem
< diem habeat Wm filium cometes Patricii et obsidem regis Scottorum. Et
< sciendum est quod filia Alani de Galewya quae fuit in custodia Robt
filii
< Rogeri Mortua est Et filius W, Cumin qui fuit in custodia Eustachii
de Vescy
< quitus est Rott. Litt Clausarum
<
< Pat
----------
From: "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway
Date: Mon, Sep 26, 2005, 9:13 PM


Dear Newsgroup ~

As I recall, Alan Fitz Roland used the following style in all of his
charters as published by Dr. Keith Stringer:

Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway, Constable of Scotland.

"Fitz Roland" was not a surname. It was a patronymic. Alan was rarely
called Alan of Galloway. In fact, I have never seen any charter issued
by him as Alan of Galloway. Rather, he is always Alan Fitz Roland.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Gjest

re: Robert Brooke gains livery 1601

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 sep 2005 06:10:02

While I was putting together notes on all the lands that Robert Brooke of
Cockfield Hall, Yoxford, etc owned I found this document:

FILE - Livery by Sir Robert Cecil (signature), Secretary of State and Master
of the Court of Wards and Liveries, and Cuthbert Pepper, Surveyor to the same
Court, to Robert Brooke, Esq., son and heir of Robert Brooke, London, Esq. of
the manors of Yoxford, Blythburgh, Westleton, Lymballs, etc. With schedule
attached. - ref. HA30/369/339 - date: 23rd June 1601


I'm not sure how I should read this. Does this document tell me:
1) Robert Brooke, Esq is now "of age" ?
2) Prior to this he was a Ward, therefore his parents are both dead?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Chris Phillips

Re: Thorney Libri and John Moore

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 27 sep 2005 08:54:37

Ginny Wagner wrote:
I read an article by John S. Moore in Family Roots in
Politics ... not sure of the name of the book, but it was a
collection of articles, of which his, Prospographical
Problems of English libri vitae was one. Anyhoo, I would
surely like to get in touch with him.

His contact page on the University of Bristol website is here:
http://tinyurl.com/9uply

Chris Phillips

Chris Phillips

Re: Robert Brooke gains livery 1601

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 27 sep 2005 09:00:46

Will Johnson wrote:
While I was putting together notes on all the lands that Robert Brooke of
Cockfield Hall, Yoxford, etc owned I found this document:

FILE - Livery by Sir Robert Cecil (signature), Secretary of State and
Master
of the Court of Wards and Liveries, and Cuthbert Pepper, Surveyor to the
same
Court, to Robert Brooke, Esq., son and heir of Robert Brooke, London, Esq.
of
the manors of Yoxford, Blythburgh, Westleton, Lymballs, etc. With schedule
attached. - ref. HA30/369/339 - date: 23rd June 1601


I'm not sure how I should read this. Does this document tell me:
1) Robert Brooke, Esq is now "of age" ?
2) Prior to this he was a Ward, therefore his parents are both dead?

Normally the heir would have to be of age before being granted livery of his
inheritance (though it was sometimes done earlier). I think you can conclude
from this that his father was dead, but not necessarily his mother -
wardship occurred when a tenant died leaving an heir under age, in which
case the lord had rights to both the lands and the wardship of the heir
during his minority.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

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

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 sep 2005 11:52:21

"Kevin Bradford" <plantagenet60@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2324847.1127816569021.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net...
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Kevin Bradford <plantagenet60@earthlink.net
Sent: Sep 27, 2005 6:21 AM
To: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife,
_____ de Lacy

The charter, of course, does not say that. "Sister" is placed in
direct relationship to "John of Chester," so Mr. Richardson's
premise here is left without adequate support.

That is certainly my view - a number of points in my posts, including this,
have not been addressed, any more than others from yourself and Todd.

It should be noted that medieval scribes did sometimes get muddled with
ambiguous personal pronouns, just as writers do in English & many other
languages today, but so far we have been given no persuasive reason to
suppose this happened in the document you posted.

Besides this aspect, there is also no adequate support for the proposed
amendment of "Richard" to "Roger", so that we haven't yet moved on from
CED's remark early in the thread about "attempted correction of a document
to fit the pre-chosen persons".

Peter Stewart

Kevin Bradford

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

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 27 sep 2005 12:24:02

-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Kevin Bradford <plantagenet60@earthlink.net>
Sent: Sep 27, 2005 6:21 AM
To: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife, _____ de Lacy

The charter, of course, does not say that. "Sister" is placed in direct relationship to "John of Chester," so Mr. Richardson's premise here is left without adequate support.

KB

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Sent: Sep 26, 2005 11:27 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife, _____ de Lacy


Document #1. Date: 1233. "To the reverand father in Christ, and very
dear lord, W[alter], by the grace of God, archbishop of York, and
primate of England, John de Lascy, earl of Lincoln and constable of
Chester, greeting in the Lord ... We make known to your fatherhood that
having seen the deeds and charters of my father, Roger de Lascy, and of
my ancestors, piously granted by those ancestors to God and St. John
the Evangelist of Pontefract, and to my monks there serving God,
concerning the church of Kippax, the truth has been shown itself to be
other than we believed ... we have remitted to them for ever all the
right and claim that we claimed to have in the said church of Kippax
..." [Reference: Richard Holmes, ed. The Chartulary of St. John of
Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Record Series 25) (1899): 39-40].

Leaving aside the arbitrary & so far unjustified decision that Alan of
Galloway's wife must have been sister rather than daughter to the man called
Richard in the only available evidence, who is renamed Roger above, we don't
know from this "Document #1" what truth had been shown to be other than John
de Lacy had believed, in other words what was the basis of his mistaken &
eventually withdrawn claim. For all I know this could have been, or could
have included, that John de Lacy's father Roger was discovered to have given
Kippax to his (Roger's) brother Richard de Chester, who had then given it
with his (Richard's) daughter to Alan of Galloway.

The earlier and later evidence about Kippax does nothing to alter this
possibility, that seems to fit the evidence without conveniently changing
names. There appears to be no evidence that John de Lacy was ever called
"John de Chester" after 1194, when his father Roger adopted the surname
"Lacy". Meanwhile, a namesake first cousin, son of Richard de Chester, has
not yet been ruled out of contention as the brother (NB not nephew on the
evidence presented) of Alan's first wife.

Peter Stewart

Tim Powys-Lybbe

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

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 27 sep 2005 12:26:08

In message of 27 Sep, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

It should be noted that medieval scribes did sometimes get muddled
with ambiguous personal pronouns, just as writers do in English &
many other languages today, but so far we have been given no
persuasive reason to suppose this happened in the document you
posted.

This raises an interesting point. Our Dear Friend (DR for short)
regularly refers to these charters as if they had been written by the
principal signatory. I have difficulty believing that. For a start
not many of these signatories were that literate in those times.
Further, they had a job to do (whoring, hunting, killing, whatever) and
would not have bothered with filling in forms. Finally and over most
ages, this sort of thing was left to the lawyers and the result
presented for signature(s) and seal(s) when done.

What then was the most common method of production of these charters?

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

Kevin Bradford

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

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 27 sep 2005 13:27:02

Peter,

Yes, exactly so. The ambiguity of the documents lends to various interpretations, and is the initial reason for my serious speculation that de Crevequor was the party of interest, wherein Mr. Richardson has insinuated a position of attorney for the man which doesn't exist in the text. Ergo, in reviewing the parade of inconclusive documents presented, we seem no further ahead on this subject than to say that the *only* statement with any kind of direct knowledge, found in the 1214 maritagium, states that the lady's father was "Richard," father of "a" John of Chester (which John of Chester, and, as long as we are discussing errors, how certain can we be that John of Chester shouldn't read something else? Mr. Richardson takes this subject down a slippery slope, from which it is difficult to recover). We cannot be about the business of "correcting" primary medieval texts--we either accept them as they are, or we don't.

Best,

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Sent: Sep 27, 2005 6:52 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife, _____ de Lacy


"Kevin Bradford" <plantagenet60@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2324847.1127816569021.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net...
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Kevin Bradford <plantagenet60@earthlink.net
Sent: Sep 27, 2005 6:21 AM
To: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife,
_____ de Lacy

The charter, of course, does not say that. "Sister" is placed in
direct relationship to "John of Chester," so Mr. Richardson's
premise here is left without adequate support.

That is certainly my view - a number of points in my posts, including this,
have not been addressed, any more than others from yourself and Todd.

It should be noted that medieval scribes did sometimes get muddled with
ambiguous personal pronouns, just as writers do in English & many other
languages today, but so far we have been given no persuasive reason to
suppose this happened in the document you posted.

Besides this aspect, there is also no adequate support for the proposed
amendment of "Richard" to "Roger", so that we haven't yet moved on from
CED's remark early in the thread about "attempted correction of a document
to fit the pre-chosen persons".

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 27 sep 2005 16:01:54

Dear Kevin ~

The Latin text in the 1214 Curia Regis Rolls item states that Ellen de
Morville, mother of Alan Fitz Roland, appointed Adam de Torrington or
Hamon the Clerk as her attorneys in a plea, and that Ellen's son, Alan,
appointed the same Hamon the Clerk OR Richard de Crevequor as his
attornies in another plea:

".. dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de Torinton' vel Hamonem
Clericum versus abbatem de Londor' de placito ecclesie de
Wissenden' in comitatu Roteland'. Dicunt etiam quod Alanus de
Galweye posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor
versus Johannem de Cestr' de placito warantie carte de terra in
Kipesc in comitatu Ebor'."

The Latin is very clear. Richard de Crevecour was Alan Fitz Roland's
attorney, NOT his father-in-law.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalanmcestry.net

Douglas Richardson royala

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 27 sep 2005 16:17:44

Dear Patricia ~

Thank you for your post. You've asked a very good question.

The person who is called "J[ohn the Scot]" in the record you posted
actually appears in contemporary records as John de Scotia [John of
Scotland], or as John, East of Chester and Huntingdon.

John de Lacy was Earl of Lincoln and hereditary constable of Chester.
In his early life, he was known as John de Chester, or simply as John
son of the Constable. In later life, he was known as John de Lacy,
Earl of Lincoln and Constable of Chester.

So, there was no confusion between the two men.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Patricia Junkin" wrote:
All,
I am a little confused by the following given the following A2A citation:
BCM/D/5/1/19 - date: [Hen. III, 1233] Witnesses: P[eter des Roches] bishop
of Winchester, J[ohn the Scot], earl of Chester and Huntingdon, J[ohn de
Lacy], earl of Lincoln and constable of Chester, H[umphrey de Bohun], earl
of Hereford, Walter de Lascy, Henry de Aldithel, Walter de Bello Campo,
Ralph son of Nicholas, John son of Philip, Geoffrey Dispenser, William de
Picheford.
Here it appears that John le Scot was the earl of Chester while John de Laci
was the constable, therefore both are "of Chester." Since I study the Scots,
how can one differentiate one from the other if no other facts are present?
Thank you,
Pat

----------
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife, _____
de Lacy
Date: Tue, Sep 27, 2005, 1:02 AM


Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:

There appears to be no evidence that John de Lacy was ever called
"John de Chester" after 1194, when his father Roger adopted the surname
"Lacy".

Dear Peter ~

My research shows that John de Lacy (died 1240), Constable of Chester,
later Earl of Lincoln, was known as John de Chester as late as 1214:

Date: Michaelmas 1214. Sub Yorkshire.
"Johannes de Cestr' r.c. de MM et DCCC li. pro habendis terris que
fuerunt patris sui . sicut continetur ibidem. In thes. Nichil."
[Reference: Patricia M. Barnes ed. The Great Roll of the Pipe for the
Sixteenth Year of the Reign of King John, Michaelmas 1214 (Pipe Roll
Soc. n.s. 35) (1962): 93].

How are you certain that this refers to John de Lacy rather than to a
namesake first cousin of his? Is his father actually named, Roger
rather than Richard?

I should also note that John de Lacy's two brothers, Roger and Robert,
witnessed John de Lacy's charter dated before 1232 as "Roger and Robert
de Chester, knights" [Reference: Richard Holmes, ed. The Chartulary of
St. John of Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Record Series 25) (1899):
38-39].

Where did "before 1232" come from? The document appears to be undated
if this had to be given as an editorial gloss. Of course, 1194 is
"before 1232" anyway.

So it would appear that the surname "de Chester" continued to be
employed by male members of this family for some time after the family
adopted the surname, Lacy.

That is my point - Roger the Constable's three brothers for starters,
including Richard de Chester, continued to use this. We have the same
evidence you allow to prove that Alan of Galloway's first wife was from
this family to show that Richard (de Chester) was her father and that
she had a brother named John.

The only difficulties with this so far, on my limited attention to the
problem, are your insistence that Kippax belonged in the relevant
generation only to Richard's elder brother Roger, and that Alan of
Galloway's wife was sister rather than daughter of Roger misnamed
Richard; but you have not proved either point.

I don't yet see any reason to be so sure that the name Richard was
given wrongly, or that bits & pieces of the Lacy inheritance were not
shared to some extent amongst the four brothers, with Kippax falling to
Richard and passing with the marriage of his daughter to Alan of
Galloway, later temporarily and unsuccessfully disputed by her cousin
John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 27 sep 2005 16:21:54

Dear Patricia ~

Thank you for your post. You've asked a very good question.

The person who is called "J[ohn the Scot]" in the record you posted
actually appears in contemporary records as John de Scotia [John of
Scotland], or as John, Earl of Chester and Huntingdon.

John de Lacy was Earl of Lincoln and hereditary constable of Chester.
In his early life, he was known as John de Chester, or simply as John
son of the Constable. In later life, he was known as John de Lacy,
Earl of Lincoln and Constable of Chester.

So, there was no confusion between the two men.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Patricia Junkin" wrote:
All,
I am a little confused by the following given the following A2A citation:
BCM/D/5/1/19 - date: [Hen. III, 1233] Witnesses: P[eter des Roches] bishop
of Winchester, J[ohn the Scot], earl of Chester and Huntingdon, J[ohn de
Lacy], earl of Lincoln and constable of Chester, H[umphrey de Bohun], earl
of Hereford, Walter de Lascy, Henry de Aldithel, Walter de Bello Campo,
Ralph son of Nicholas, John son of Philip, Geoffrey Dispenser, William de
Picheford.
Here it appears that John le Scot was the earl of Chester while John de Laci
was the constable, therefore both are "of Chester." Since I study the Scots,
how can one differentiate one from the other if no other facts are present?
Thank you,
Pat

Vickie Elam White

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 27 sep 2005 16:47:07

Perhaps some impartial list member could translate both
of these for us? It has been nearly 30 years since I
studied Latin.

Vickie Elam White

"Kevin Bradford" <plantagenet60@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8766005.1127785765433.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net...
Dear Mr. Richardson,

Here are two references (brought to the newsgroup's attention by yourself
in September 2002), in which Alan's contemporaries describe him as "Alan of

Galloway." Unless, of course, you can demonstrate to the group that these
charters do not reference the same person, Alan Fitz Roland (which I would
be very interested in, if so), then I submit these are admissable as
evidence that, during his lifetime, Alan was also known as "Alan of
Galloway" or "Alan de Galweye." These transcripts are taken directly from
the Curia Regis Rolls, which I trust will be appreciated as a refresher in
this question:
1214
pp. 85-86, v. 7:
m.18
Cumbâ?T.â?"Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Cambertonâ?T Adam de Hoctonâ?T,
tres milites de comitatu Cumberlandâ?T missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene

de Morevillâ?T et ALANI de GALWEIA filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum
ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem
de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissendenâ?T in comitatu Rotelandâ?T
et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela
que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestrâ?T de warantia carte de terra de
Kippes in comitatu Eborâ?T, dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de
Torintonâ?T vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de Londorâ?T de placito
ecclesie de Wissendenâ?T in comitatu Rotelandâ?T. Dicunt etiam quod ALANUS
DE GALWEYE posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor
versus Johannem de Cestrâ?T de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in
comitatu Eborâ?T. Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die.
Et quoniam Willelmus de Pe!
rcy quartus miles non venit, qui debuit testificasse simul cum ipsis
atornatos predictorum, consideratum est quod atachietur quod sit a die

Pasche in tres septimanas. Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.
p. 86, v. 7:

m. 18 (cont.)
Eborâ?T.â?"ALANUS DE GALWEYE per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de
Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestrâ?T de placito quod

idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas ALANUS DE GALWEYE
habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc., et
summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.
All the best,

Kevin Bradford


From: "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com
Subject: Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway
Date: 26 Sep 2005 18:13:50 -0700

Dear Newsgroup ~

As I recall, Alan Fitz Roland used the following style in all of his
charters as published by Dr. Keith Stringer:

Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway, Constable of Scotland.

"Fitz Roland" was not a surname. It was a patronymic. Alan was rarely
called Alan of Galloway. In fact, I have never seen any charter issued
by him as Alan of Galloway. Rather, he is always Alan Fitz Roland.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Vickie Elam White

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 27 sep 2005 16:52:35

Is Alan's second wife still considered to be Margaret
Huntingdon, d. of David of Huntingdon and Maud of
Chester? Their marriage date is listed as 1209 in
AR7. Was the daughter who died in 1213 a product
of Alan's first or second marriage?

And is it of any consequence that this second marriage
had a Chester connection?

Vickie Elam White

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127796141.936992.118630@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Patricia ~

Thank you for posting this record. Much appreciated.

As you have noted, the unnamed daughter of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of
Galloway, was a hostage in 1213 and placed in the care of Robert Fitz
Roger. My examination of the long lists of Scottish hostages indicates
that they were primarily placed under the care of their English
kinsfolk.

In this case, the daughter of Alan Fitz Roland would be related to
Robert Fitz Roger as follows:

1. Richard Fitz Eustace, m. Aubrey de Lisours.
2. John Fitz Richard, Constable of Chester, m. Alice de Mandeville.
3. _____ de Lacy, m. Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway.
4. unnamed daughter of Alan Fitz Roland.

1. Richard Fitz Eustace, m. Aubrey de Lisours.
2. Roger Fitz Richard, m. Alice de Vere.
3. Robert Fitz Roger, lord of Warkworth, died 1214.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Patricia Junkin" wrote:
Douglas, I have this 1213 instrument regarding Scots hostages:

Teste me ipso apud Bellum XIII die Jun. Robt. de Veteriponte quod as
eundem
diem habeat Wm filium cometes Patricii et obsidem regis Scottorum. Et
sciendum est quod filia Alani de Galewya quae fuit in custodia Robt
filii
Rogeri Mortua est Et filius W, Cumin qui fuit in custodia Eustachii
de Vescy
quitus est Rott. Litt Clausarum

Pat
----------
From: "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
royalancestry@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway
Date: Mon, Sep 26, 2005, 9:13 PM


Dear Newsgroup ~

As I recall, Alan Fitz Roland used the following style in all of his
charters as published by Dr. Keith Stringer:

Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway, Constable of Scotland.

"Fitz Roland" was not a surname. It was a patronymic. Alan was
rarely
called Alan of Galloway. In fact, I have never seen any charter
issued
by him as Alan of Galloway. Rather, he is always Alan Fitz Roland.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Patricia Junkin

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

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 27 sep 2005 16:58:02

All,
I am a little confused by the following given the following A2A citation:
BCM/D/5/1/19 - date: [Hen. III, 1233] Witnesses: P[eter des Roches] bishop
of Winchester, J[ohn the Scot], earl of Chester and Huntingdon, J[ohn de
Lacy], earl of Lincoln and constable of Chester, H[umphrey de Bohun], earl
of Hereford, Walter de Lascy, Henry de Aldithel, Walter de Bello Campo,
Ralph son of Nicholas, John son of Philip, Geoffrey Dispenser, William de
Picheford.
Here it appears that John le Scot was the earl of Chester while John de Laci
was the constable, therefore both are "of Chester." Since I study the Scots,
how can one differentiate one from the other if no other facts are present?
Thank you,
Pat

----------
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife, _____
de Lacy
Date: Tue, Sep 27, 2005, 1:02 AM


Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:

There appears to be no evidence that John de Lacy was ever called
"John de Chester" after 1194, when his father Roger adopted the surname
"Lacy".

Dear Peter ~

My research shows that John de Lacy (died 1240), Constable of Chester,
later Earl of Lincoln, was known as John de Chester as late as 1214:

Date: Michaelmas 1214. Sub Yorkshire.
"Johannes de Cestr' r.c. de MM et DCCC li. pro habendis terris que
fuerunt patris sui . sicut continetur ibidem. In thes. Nichil."
[Reference: Patricia M. Barnes ed. The Great Roll of the Pipe for the
Sixteenth Year of the Reign of King John, Michaelmas 1214 (Pipe Roll
Soc. n.s. 35) (1962): 93].

How are you certain that this refers to John de Lacy rather than to a
namesake first cousin of his? Is his father actually named, Roger
rather than Richard?

I should also note that John de Lacy's two brothers, Roger and Robert,
witnessed John de Lacy's charter dated before 1232 as "Roger and Robert
de Chester, knights" [Reference: Richard Holmes, ed. The Chartulary of
St. John of Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Record Series 25) (1899):
38-39].

Where did "before 1232" come from? The document appears to be undated
if this had to be given as an editorial gloss. Of course, 1194 is
"before 1232" anyway.

So it would appear that the surname "de Chester" continued to be
employed by male members of this family for some time after the family
adopted the surname, Lacy.

That is my point - Roger the Constable's three brothers for starters,
including Richard de Chester, continued to use this. We have the same
evidence you allow to prove that Alan of Galloway's first wife was from
this family to show that Richard (de Chester) was her father and that
she had a brother named John.

The only difficulties with this so far, on my limited attention to the
problem, are your insistence that Kippax belonged in the relevant
generation only to Richard's elder brother Roger, and that Alan of
Galloway's wife was sister rather than daughter of Roger misnamed
Richard; but you have not proved either point.

I don't yet see any reason to be so sure that the name Richard was
given wrongly, or that bits & pieces of the Lacy inheritance were not
shared to some extent amongst the four brothers, with Kippax falling to
Richard and passing with the marriage of his daughter to Alan of
Galloway, later temporarily and unsuccessfully disputed by her cousin
John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 27 sep 2005 18:08:17

Dear Vickie ~

Thank you for your good post. You've asked an excellent question.

I believe it was customary for the king to ask for a person's eldest
son and heir as hostage. Failing having a son, the king accepted a
man's daughter, presumably the eldest daughter. Occasionally, the king
demanded more than one son as hostage as indicated below:

"In 1205 ... King John had demanded the eldest son of William Marshal
as hostage, and two years later, when the latter was about to set off
for Ireland, John also sought delivery of his second son; but the
Marshal's wife, Isabella, daughter of Strongbow and Affe, publicly
warned him against doing so at a council of the Marshal's men held just
before his departure." END OF QUOTE.

I don't think the practice of taking one's eldest son was set in stone,
however. I note that the famous William Marshal was taken as hostage
for his father by King Stephen. William was the eldest son by his
father's 2nd marriage, but he had two older half-brothers, both sons of
his father:

"King Stephen held John [le Marshal]'s son William as hostage for his
father's good behavior during a granted truce." END OF QUOTE.

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.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancesty.net

Vickie Elam White wrote:
< Is Alan's second wife still considered to be Margaret
< Huntingdon, d. of David of Huntingdon and Maud of
< Chester? Their marriage date is listed as 1209 in
< AR7. Was the daughter who died in 1213 a product
< of Alan's first or second marriage?
<
< And is it of any consequence that this second marriage
< had a Chester connection?
<
< Vickie Elam White
>

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 27 sep 2005 18:38:24

Dear Newsgroup ~

In my post yesterday (see copy below), I set forth the relationship
between Alan Fitz Roland's daughter and Robert Fitz Roger, her
guardian, in 1213. Since my laptop with my database is in the shop for
repairs, I relied on Leo van de Pas' great database to develop the
kinship. However, checking Jim Weber's database today, I find Jim
gives a slightly different relationship between the two parties. I
believe Jim's version is more correct. So, Leo may want to review this
matter with Jim.

Here is Jim Weber's version:

1. Roger Fitz Richard, d. 1178, m. Alice de Vere.
2. Alice Fitz Roger, married John Fitz Richard, Constable of Chester.
3. _____ de Lacy, m. Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway.
4. unnamed daughter of Alan Fitz Roland.

1. Roger Fitz Richard, d. 1178, m. Alice de Vere.
2. Robert Fitz Roger, lord of Warkworth, died 1214.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
< Dear Patricia ~
<
< Thank you for posting this record. Much appreciated.
<
< As you have noted, the unnamed daughter of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of
< Galloway, was a hostage in 1213 and placed in the care of Robert Fitz
< Roger. My examination of the long lists of Scottish hostages
indicates
< that they were primarily placed under the care of their English
< kinsfolk.
<
< In this case, the daughter of Alan Fitz Roland would be related to
< Robert Fitz Roger as follows:
<
< 1. Richard Fitz Eustace, m. Aubrey de Lisours.
< 2. John Fitz Richard, Constable of Chester, m. Alice de Mandeville.
< 3. _____ de Lacy, m. Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway.
< 4. unnamed daughter of Alan Fitz Roland.
<
< 1. Richard Fitz Eustace, m. Aubrey de Lisours.
< 2. Roger Fitz Richard, m. Alice de Vere.
< 3. Robert Fitz Roger, lord of Warkworth, died 1214.
<
< Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
<
< Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 27 sep 2005 21:07:58

Thank you, Michael. The Latin translation you provided is much
appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:
I have not been following the current controversy in any detail, but can
offer the following translations, in case it helps the participants or others who
may be following the debate.
Please bear in mind that I am ignorant of the parentage of Alan of Galloway,
and of the identity of his wife, as also of any possible connection of his
wife with the family of de Lacy: nor have I examined the original documents, even
in photostat.
I have added punctuation to assist the reading.

pp 85-86 v7
Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton Adam de Hocton
tres milites de comitatu Cumberland missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene
de Morevil et Alani de Galweia filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum
ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem
de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden in comitatu Roteland
et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela
que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr de warantia carte de terra de
Kippes in comitatu Ebor dicunt quod Elena point [a transcription error for
"posuit"] loco suo Adam de Torinton vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de
Londor de placito ecclesie de Wissenden in comitatu Roteland Dicunt etiam quod
Alanus de Galweye posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor
versus Johannem de Cestr de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in
comitatu Ebor Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die.
Et quoniam Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit qui debuit testificasse
simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum consideratum est quod atachietur quod
sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.

"William of Jonesby Alan of Camberton and Adam of Hocton, three knights of
the county of Cumberland, sent to Carlisle to see what attorney Elena de Morvill
wished to appoint in the hearing between herself and the Abbot of Londores
about the advowson of Wissenden in the county of Rutland and to see what
attorney the same Alan of Galloway wished to appoint in the hearing between him and
John of Chester about a warranty of the charter of the land of Kippax in the
county of York, say that Elena appointed in her place Adam of Torinton or
Hamon the clerk against the Abbot of Londor concerning the plea about the church
of Wissenden in the county of Rutland. And they say further that Alan of
Galloway appointed [in his place] the same Hamon the clerk or Richard of Crevecour
agianst John of Chester concerning the plea about a warranty of a charter of
the land of Kippax in the county of York. The said knights were told to depart
with no day fixed [for their further attendance]. And since William Percy the
fourth knight, who ought to have testified with them as to the attorneys of
the said persons, did not come it was deemed that he should be attached that he
should [appear] on the day of Easter in three weeks. Later came William Percy
and said the same.

p. 86, v. 7:
Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor
optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr de placito quod idem Johannes
warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye habet de maritagio
sororis sue et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc. et summonitio etc. Et ideo
atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.

Alan of Galloway brought himself on the fourth day by the said Hamon the
clerk and Richard of Crevecour against John of Chester concerning the plea that
the same John should warrant the charters of Richard his father which Alan of
Galloway held as the marriage portion of his sister. And he [sc. John] did not
come nor did he essoign himself [ie. ask for an adjounment] so a summons [was
issued] and so let him be attached to appear at the said date.

I believe that the natural conclusion from this second passage is that Alan
had married the sister of John of Chester, and had received a marriage portion
by charter of John's father Richard. We can deduce from the first passage that
the portion in question was land at Kippax, Yorks, which Douglas Richardson
has identified as ancestral land of the family of de Lacy/Chester.

I am convinced that "Ricardi patris sui" in the second passage must be
referring to John's father and not Alan's. John must I think have been the son and
heir of Richard, by then (I assume) deceased, and was being called upon to
confirm or warrant the validity of his father's charter. I can think of no
possible reason why John should be called on to validate a charter granted by Alan's
father. And of course, since Alan could not marry his own sister, "sororis
sue" must be a reference to a sister of John. So, in my view (for however little
it may be worth) "sui" and "sue" both refer to the same individual John of
Chester.

I have no view as to the identity of John's father Richard, nor as to the
possibility that the scribe may have made an error as to the name of John's
father, nor as to the identity of John of Chester himself. All these matters I
leave with confidence to the scholars who adorn our group.
MM

Vickie Elam White

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 27 sep 2005 21:14:05

Thank you so much for your translation and comments.

Vickie Elam White

<Millerfairfield@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1f5.13009891.306af5d6@aol.com...
I have not been following the current controversy in any detail, but can
offer the following translations, in case it helps the participants or
others who
may be following the debate.
Please bear in mind that I am ignorant of the parentage of Alan of
Galloway,
and of the identity of his wife, as also of any possible connection of his
wife with the family of de Lacy: nor have I examined the original
documents, even
in photostat.
I have added punctuation to assist the reading.

pp 85-86 v7
Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton Adam de Hocton
tres milites de comitatu Cumberland missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene
de Morevil et Alani de Galweia filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum
ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem
de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden in comitatu Roteland
et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela
que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr de warantia carte de terra de
Kippes in comitatu Ebor dicunt quod Elena point [a transcription error for
"posuit"] loco suo Adam de Torinton vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de
Londor de placito ecclesie de Wissenden in comitatu Roteland Dicunt etiam
quod
Alanus de Galweye posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de
Crevequor
versus Johannem de Cestr de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in
comitatu Ebor Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die.
Et quoniam Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit qui debuit
testificasse
simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum consideratum est quod atachietur
quod
sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit
idem.

"William of Jonesby Alan of Camberton and Adam of Hocton, three knights of
the county of Cumberland, sent to Carlisle to see what attorney Elena de
Morvill
wished to appoint in the hearing between herself and the Abbot of Londores
about the advowson of Wissenden in the county of Rutland and to see what
attorney the same Alan of Galloway wished to appoint in the hearing
between him and
John of Chester about a warranty of the charter of the land of Kippax in
the
county of York, say that Elena appointed in her place Adam of Torinton or
Hamon the clerk against the Abbot of Londor concerning the plea about the
church
of Wissenden in the county of Rutland. And they say further that Alan of
Galloway appointed [in his place] the same Hamon the clerk or Richard of
Crevecour
agianst John of Chester concerning the plea about a warranty of a charter
of
the land of Kippax in the county of York. The said knights were told to
depart
with no day fixed [for their further attendance]. And since William Percy
the
fourth knight, who ought to have testified with them as to the attorneys
of
the said persons, did not come it was deemed that he should be attached
that he
should [appear] on the day of Easter in three weeks. Later came William
Percy
and said the same.

p. 86, v. 7:
Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor
optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr de placito quod idem
Johannes
warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye habet de
maritagio
sororis sue et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc. et summonitio etc. Et
ideo
atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.

Alan of Galloway brought himself on the fourth day by the said Hamon the
clerk and Richard of Crevecour against John of Chester concerning the plea
that
the same John should warrant the charters of Richard his father which
Alan of
Galloway held as the marriage portion of his sister. And he [sc. John] did
not
come nor did he essoign himself [ie. ask for an adjounment] so a summons
[was
issued] and so let him be attached to appear at the said date.

I believe that the natural conclusion from this second passage is that
Alan
had married the sister of John of Chester, and had received a marriage
portion
by charter of John's father Richard. We can deduce from the first passage
that
the portion in question was land at Kippax, Yorks, which Douglas
Richardson
has identified as ancestral land of the family of de Lacy/Chester.

I am convinced that "Ricardi patris sui" in the second passage must be
referring to John's father and not Alan's. John must I think have been the
son and
heir of Richard, by then (I assume) deceased, and was being called upon to
confirm or warrant the validity of his father's charter. I can think of no
possible reason why John should be called on to validate a charter granted
by Alan's
father. And of course, since Alan could not marry his own sister, "sororis
sue" must be a reference to a sister of John. So, in my view (for however
little
it may be worth) "sui" and "sue" both refer to the same individual John of
Chester.

I have no view as to the identity of John's father Richard, nor as to the
possibility that the scribe may have made an error as to the name of
John's
father, nor as to the identity of John of Chester himself. All these
matters I
leave with confidence to the scholars who adorn our group.
MM

Vickie Elam White

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 27 sep 2005 21:19:10

Douglas,

Now that we have the needed translations, perhaps
you can help with this piece --

You had mentioned that Roger de Lacy gave Kippax
as a maritagium. Since he died in 1211, we know it
was given before then. But could you tell us when this
was done and perhaps transcribe the text, with citations,
that you found?

Thanks.

Vickie Elam White

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127851678.353758.224940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Thank you, Michael. The Latin translation you provided is much
appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:
I have not been following the current controversy in any detail, but can
offer the following translations, in case it helps the participants or
others who
may be following the debate.
Please bear in mind that I am ignorant of the parentage of Alan of
Galloway,
and of the identity of his wife, as also of any possible connection of
his
wife with the family of de Lacy: nor have I examined the original
documents, even
in photostat.
I have added punctuation to assist the reading.

pp 85-86 v7
Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton Adam de Hocton
tres milites de comitatu Cumberland missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene
de Morevil et Alani de Galweia filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum
ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et
abbatem
de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden in comitatu Roteland
et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in
loquela
que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr de warantia carte de terra de
Kippes in comitatu Ebor dicunt quod Elena point [a transcription error
for
"posuit"] loco suo Adam de Torinton vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem
de
Londor de placito ecclesie de Wissenden in comitatu Roteland Dicunt
etiam quod
Alanus de Galweye posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de
Crevequor
versus Johannem de Cestr de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in
comitatu Ebor Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die.
Et quoniam Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit qui debuit
testificasse
simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum consideratum est quod atachietur
quod
sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas Post venit Willelmus de Percy et
dixit idem.

"William of Jonesby Alan of Camberton and Adam of Hocton, three knights
of
the county of Cumberland, sent to Carlisle to see what attorney Elena de
Morvill
wished to appoint in the hearing between herself and the Abbot of
Londores
about the advowson of Wissenden in the county of Rutland and to see what
attorney the same Alan of Galloway wished to appoint in the hearing
between him and
John of Chester about a warranty of the charter of the land of Kippax in
the
county of York, say that Elena appointed in her place Adam of Torinton
or
Hamon the clerk against the Abbot of Londor concerning the plea about
the church
of Wissenden in the county of Rutland. And they say further that Alan of
Galloway appointed [in his place] the same Hamon the clerk or Richard
of Crevecour
agianst John of Chester concerning the plea about a warranty of a
charter of
the land of Kippax in the county of York. The said knights were told to
depart
with no day fixed [for their further attendance]. And since William
Percy the
fourth knight, who ought to have testified with them as to the attorneys
of
the said persons, did not come it was deemed that he should be attached
that he
should [appear] on the day of Easter in three weeks. Later came William
Percy
and said the same.

p. 86, v. 7:
Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de
Crevequor
optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr de placito quod idem
Johannes
warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye habet de
maritagio
sororis sue et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc. et summonitio etc.
Et ideo
atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.

Alan of Galloway brought himself on the fourth day by the said Hamon the
clerk and Richard of Crevecour against John of Chester concerning the
plea that
the same John should warrant the charters of Richard his father which
Alan of
Galloway held as the marriage portion of his sister. And he [sc. John]
did not
come nor did he essoign himself [ie. ask for an adjounment] so a summons
[was
issued] and so let him be attached to appear at the said date.

I believe that the natural conclusion from this second passage is that
Alan
had married the sister of John of Chester, and had received a marriage
portion
by charter of John's father Richard. We can deduce from the first
passage that
the portion in question was land at Kippax, Yorks, which Douglas
Richardson
has identified as ancestral land of the family of de Lacy/Chester.

I am convinced that "Ricardi patris sui" in the second passage must be
referring to John's father and not Alan's. John must I think have been
the son and
heir of Richard, by then (I assume) deceased, and was being called upon
to
confirm or warrant the validity of his father's charter. I can think of
no
possible reason why John should be called on to validate a charter
granted by Alan's
father. And of course, since Alan could not marry his own sister,
"sororis
sue" must be a reference to a sister of John. So, in my view (for
however little
it may be worth) "sui" and "sue" both refer to the same individual John
of
Chester.

I have no view as to the identity of John's father Richard, nor as to
the
possibility that the scribe may have made an error as to the name of
John's
father, nor as to the identity of John of Chester himself. All these
matters I
leave with confidence to the scholars who adorn our group.
MM

Gjest

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 sep 2005 21:23:04

I have not been following the current controversy in any detail, but can
offer the following translations, in case it helps the participants or others who
may be following the debate.
Please bear in mind that I am ignorant of the parentage of Alan of Galloway,
and of the identity of his wife, as also of any possible connection of his
wife with the family of de Lacy: nor have I examined the original documents, even
in photostat.
I have added punctuation to assist the reading.

pp 85-86 v7
Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton Adam de Hocton
tres milites de comitatu Cumberland missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene
de Morevil et Alani de Galweia filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum
ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem
de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden in comitatu Roteland
et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela
que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr de warantia carte de terra de
Kippes in comitatu Ebor dicunt quod Elena point [a transcription error for
"posuit"] loco suo Adam de Torinton vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de
Londor de placito ecclesie de Wissenden in comitatu Roteland Dicunt etiam quod
Alanus de Galweye posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor
versus Johannem de Cestr de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in
comitatu Ebor Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die.
Et quoniam Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit qui debuit testificasse
simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum consideratum est quod atachietur quod
sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.

"William of Jonesby Alan of Camberton and Adam of Hocton, three knights of
the county of Cumberland, sent to Carlisle to see what attorney Elena de Morvill
wished to appoint in the hearing between herself and the Abbot of Londores
about the advowson of Wissenden in the county of Rutland and to see what
attorney the same Alan of Galloway wished to appoint in the hearing between him and
John of Chester about a warranty of the charter of the land of Kippax in the
county of York, say that Elena appointed in her place Adam of Torinton or
Hamon the clerk against the Abbot of Londor concerning the plea about the church
of Wissenden in the county of Rutland. And they say further that Alan of
Galloway appointed [in his place] the same Hamon the clerk or Richard of Crevecour
agianst John of Chester concerning the plea about a warranty of a charter of
the land of Kippax in the county of York. The said knights were told to depart
with no day fixed [for their further attendance]. And since William Percy the
fourth knight, who ought to have testified with them as to the attorneys of
the said persons, did not come it was deemed that he should be attached that he
should [appear] on the day of Easter in three weeks. Later came William Percy
and said the same.

p. 86, v. 7:
Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor
optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr de placito quod idem Johannes
warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye habet de maritagio
sororis sue et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc. et summonitio etc. Et ideo
atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.

Alan of Galloway brought himself on the fourth day by the said Hamon the
clerk and Richard of Crevecour against John of Chester concerning the plea that
the same John should warrant the charters of Richard his father which Alan of
Galloway held as the marriage portion of his sister. And he [sc. John] did not
come nor did he essoign himself [ie. ask for an adjounment] so a summons [was
issued] and so let him be attached to appear at the said date.

I believe that the natural conclusion from this second passage is that Alan
had married the sister of John of Chester, and had received a marriage portion
by charter of John's father Richard. We can deduce from the first passage that
the portion in question was land at Kippax, Yorks, which Douglas Richardson
has identified as ancestral land of the family of de Lacy/Chester.

I am convinced that "Ricardi patris sui" in the second passage must be
referring to John's father and not Alan's. John must I think have been the son and
heir of Richard, by then (I assume) deceased, and was being called upon to
confirm or warrant the validity of his father's charter. I can think of no
possible reason why John should be called on to validate a charter granted by Alan's
father. And of course, since Alan could not marry his own sister, "sororis
sue" must be a reference to a sister of John. So, in my view (for however little
it may be worth) "sui" and "sue" both refer to the same individual John of
Chester.

I have no view as to the identity of John's father Richard, nor as to the
possibility that the scribe may have made an error as to the name of John's
father, nor as to the identity of John of Chester himself. All these matters I
leave with confidence to the scholars who adorn our group.
MM

Gjest

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 sep 2005 21:38:29

Dear M.M.,

Did you not leave out a smal part in the translation?

pp 85-86 v7
"ad Carleolum in occursum Elene de Morevil et Alani de Galweia filii
ejus ad videndum quem atornatum ipsa Elena",

"to Carlisle to see what attorney Elena de Morvill".

Hans Vogels

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 27 sep 2005 22:33:45

Dear Vickie, Kevin, Michael, etc. ~

In answer to Vickie's question, the 1214 lawsuit from the Curia Regis
Rolls is the only source that I know of that indicates the identity of
Alan Fitz Roland's first wife. Michael Miller has kindly provided us a
full translation of that text.

The defendant in this case appears to have been John de Lacy (died
1240), later Earl of Lincoln, as we find elsewhere that he was known as
John of Chester in 1214, and also that he was subsequently dealing with
the advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire in 1233. As best I understand it,
the manor and advowson of Kippax were granted in marriage to Alan Fitz
Roland on his marriage to his first wife. It was this property that
was the subject of the 1214 lawsuit. So, we have the right people and
the right property matched to each other.

As you are aware, the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire subsequently descended
to Alan Fitz Roland's daughter, Ellen, and her husband, Roger de
Quincy, 2nd Earl of Winchester. That Roger de Quincy thought he and
his wife had the right to the advowson of Kippax is clear from two
documents, one dated 1233 which implies Roger had recently claimed the
right to present to Kippax, and the other, Roger's own charter dated c.
1254 in which he conveyed the manor and advowson of Kippax back to John
de Lacy's son and heir, Edmund de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln (see
Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals, pg. 288-289).

Insofar as the 1214 lawsuit itself is concerned, the statement is made
that Alan Fitz Roland had Kippax in marriage with "his sister." In the
previous few words in the lawsuit, there are two men mentioned, namely
John de Chester and his father, "Richard." As best I understand the
text, the words "his sister" can refer to EITHER John de Chester's
sister OR his father's sister.

If either situation is possible, then I think an examination of the
chronology of these two families would be a helpful guide to
understanding whose sister is intended. I show that Alan Fitz Roland
was born before 1175, he being of age in or before 1196. On Jim
Weber's great website, I find that John de Lacy's father, Roger de
Lacy, was born about 1176. In other words, Alan Fitz Roland was the
virtually the same age as Roger de Lacy. It is obvious then from the
chronology that Alan Fitz Roland is likely to have married Roger de
Lacy's sister, rather than his son, John de Lacy's sister.

If we accept that John de Chester in the 1214 lawsuit is John de Lacy
(and I do), then the only sensible conlusions that can be drawn are:

(1) The reference to John's father Roger being called Richard in the
lawsuit is a clerical error.

(2) The words "his sister" refer to Roger de Lacy's sister, not John de
Lacy's.

These conclusions are certainly in harmony with the known chronology.

We know elsewhere that Roger de Lacy's father, John Fitz Richard, died
in 1190. This then sets the earlier limit of Alan Fitz Roland's
marriage, as Alan received Kippax, Yorkshire in marriage evidently by
grant of Roger de Lacy.

Insofar as the error of Roger de Lacy's name in the Curis Regis lawsuit
is concerned, I can say that I have encountered errors of this nature
in all classes of medieval records. I don't even blink now when I find
them. I've just come to accept that medieval records were created by
infallible human beings who made mistakes just like you and I do.

As far as how the error happened, it was customary for medieval clerks
to abbreviate names in legal records. I posted an example of such a
document just yesterday. I suppose it is possible that in the original
pleading that John de Lacy's father was referred to only as "R."
Later, a clerk filled in the name and assumed that "R." stood for
Richard, whereas it really stood for Roger. That's purely a guess,
however. We don't have the original pleadings, just the brief
abstracts of the case notes. So we can only guess what happened.

This information probably doesn't answer all of your concerns, nor does
it mine. In essence, we have fragmented records of these people, with
an occasional error thrown in to keep things interesting. We know in
part, not in whole.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Vickie Elam White wrote:
< Douglas,
<
< Now that we have the needed translations, perhaps
< you can help with this piece --
<
< You had mentioned that Roger de Lacy gave Kippax
< as a maritagium. Since he died in 1211, we know it
< was given before then. But could you tell us when this
< was done and perhaps transcribe the text, with citations,
< that you found?
<
< Thanks.
<
< Vickie Elam White

Gjest

Re: Cudworth /Lewknor/Echingham

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 sep 2005 23:10:03

Dear Robert,
The Mowbray`s certainly possessed Braose ancestry and so
that of Llewelyn Fawr, Prince of Wales, however while William the Lion, King
of Scots was an ancestor of Margaret (Braose) Camoys via her mother Mary de
Roos, a different wife of William de Braose, Baron of Bramber and Gower, Aline de
Multon was mother of his son and heir William de Braose who probably by one
Agnes fathered Aline de Braose who was wed to John Mowbray, 2nd Baron Mowbray
of Thirsk. William the Lion was however an ancestor via Roos, Welles, Hoo and
Lewknor.
While not certain, there is a possiblity that Aline de Multon was a
descendant of Scots King Duncan II d 1094, eldest son of King Malcolm III by his
first wife Ingibiorg, daughter of Finn Aarneson and formerly wife of Malcolm`s
father`s own cousin Jarl Thorfinn II Sigurdsson of Orkney.
The Line from Llewelyn runs thus:
1 Llewelyn Fawr by (identity of mother uncertain)
2 Margred ferch Llewelyn Fawr married John de Braose, Lord of
Bramber and Gower.son of William de Braose and Maud de Clare (desc King Henry
I, England)
3 William de Braose, Lord of Bramber and Gower married 1st
Aline de Multon, 2nd Agnes de Moels, 3rd Mary de Roos
4(by 1) William de Braose married 1st (prob)Agnes, 2nd
Elizabeth de Sully
5 (by 1) Aline de Braose married John de Mowbray, 2nd Baron
Mowbray
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Sources AR 7 line 170, MCA Brewes, Welles

Peter Stewart

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 sep 2005 23:45:49

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127856825.008917.275830@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

<chomp of repetitive special pleading>

Insofar as the error of Roger de Lacy's name in the Curis Regis lawsuit
is concerned, I can say that I have encountered errors of this nature
in all classes of medieval records. I don't even blink now when I find
them. I've just come to accept that medieval records were created by
infallible human beings who made mistakes just like you and I do.

"Infallible" beings can't make mistakes, but purchasers of Ricahrdson's
books should take careful not of his statement that he doesn't "blink"
befere deciding that the primary evidence can be altered to suit his needs.

By the way, he offers no explanation of this curious point in his case: if
the "John de Chester" who did not contest the claims of Alan of Galloway in
1214 were the same man as John de Lacy who discovered the truth about Kippax
in 1233, just what became of his memory in between these occasions?

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 27 sep 2005 23:53:32

Dear Newsgroup ~

In 1254 Roger de Quincy, 2nd Earl of Winchester, exchanged the manors
of Kippax and Scholes, Yorkshire with Edmund de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln.
I assume that Kippax and Scholes both formed the maritagium of Roger's
wife's mother, ____ de Lacy, the first wife of Alan Fitz Roland, lord
of Galloway.

The information below is taken from a Genuki website. It indicates
that Scholes, Yorkshire is a hamlet in the township and parish of
Barwick in Elmet, Yorkshire, which property was owned by the Lacy
family. No surprise there.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + +
Source: http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/WRY/Barwickinelmet

"BARWICK IN ELMET, a parish-town, in the lower-division of Skyrack,
liberty of Pontefract; 7 miles from Tadcaster and Wetherby, 8 from
Leeds, 16 from York. Pop. 1,481. The Church is a rectory, dedicated to
All-Saints, in the deanry of the Ainsty, value, £33. 12s. 6d. Patron,
the King, as Duke of Lancaster.

This place is said to have been the seat of the Kings of
Northumberland, and Dr. Whitaker supposes it to have been founded by
the great Edwin; "the great extent and magnificence of this
fortification, which is four furlongs in circumference, and contains an
area of more that thirteen acres, sufficiently prove that it has been a
royal work." The mount, called Hall Tower Hill, hath been encompassed
by a double trench; on this mount most probably stood the royal
mansion: it is now the only part that remains. This manor was
afterwards part of the possessions of the Lacys; Roger de Lacy having
married the sister of William de Vesey, Rector of the parish. From the
Lacys it descended to the Dukes of Lancaster, to which duchy it has
been ever since annexed.

Elmet was not conquered from the Britons till Edwin's reign, in 560, by
the Saxons. --Turner's Anglo Saxons."

Information on the following places in this Parish is contained on a
supplementary page.

* Barnbow
* Cross Gates
* Hobberley House
* Kiddal
* Kiddal Inn
* Lazencroft
* Morwick
* Potterton
* Red Hall
* Roundhay
* Schole's Plain
* Scholes: a hamlet in the township and parish of Barwick in
Elmet, liberty of Pontefract; 6 miles NE. of Leeds, 9 from Wetherby,"
* Scholes Grange
* Stank House
* Stanks
* Barnbow
* Cross Gates
* Hobberley House
* Kiddal
* Kiddal Inn
* Lazencroft
* Morwick
* Potterton
* Red Hall
* Roundhay
* Schole's Plain
* Scholes: a hamlet in the township and parish of Barwick in
Elmet, liberty of Pontefract; 6 miles NE. of Leeds, 9 from Wetherby,"
* Scholes Grange
* Stank House
* Stanks

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 27 sep 2005 23:55:05

Dear Vickie, Kevin, Michael, etc. ~

In answer to Vickie's question, the 1214 lawsuit from the Curia Regis
Rolls is the only source that I know of that indicates the identity of
Alan Fitz Roland's first wife. Michael Miller has kindly provided us a
full translation of that text.

The defendant in this case appears to have been John de Lacy (died
1240), later Earl of Lincoln, as we find elsewhere that he was known as
John of Chester in 1214, and also that he was subsequently dealing with
the advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire in 1233. As best I understand it,
the manor and advowson of Kippax were granted in marriage to Alan Fitz
Roland on his marriage to his first wife. It was this property that
was the subject of the 1214 lawsuit. So, we have the right people and
the right property matched to each other.

As you are aware, the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire subsequently descended
to Alan Fitz Roland's daughter, Ellen, and her husband, Roger de
Quincy, 2nd Earl of Winchester. That Roger de Quincy thought he and
his wife had the right to the advowson of Kippax is clear from two
documents, one dated 1233 which implies Roger had recently claimed the
right to present to Kippax, and the other, Roger's own charter dated c.
1254 in which he conveyed the manor and advowson of Kippax back to John
de Lacy's son and heir, Edmund de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln (see
Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals, pg. 288-289).

Insofar as the 1214 lawsuit itself is concerned, the statement is made
that Alan Fitz Roland had Kippax in marriage with "his sister." In the
previous few words in the lawsuit, there are two men mentioned, namely
John de Chester and his father, "Richard." As best I understand the
text, the words "his sister" can refer to EITHER John de Chester's
sister OR his father's sister.

If either situation is possible, then I think an examination of the
chronology of these two families would be a helpful guide to
understanding whose sister is intended. I show that Alan Fitz Roland
was born before 1175, he being of age in or before 1196. On Jim
Weber's great website, I find that John de Lacy's father, Roger de
Lacy, was born about 1176. In other words, Alan Fitz Roland was the
virtually the same age as Roger de Lacy. It is obvious then from the
chronology that Alan Fitz Roland is likely to have married Roger de
Lacy's sister, rather than his son, John de Lacy's sister.

If we accept that John de Chester in the 1214 lawsuit is John de Lacy
(and I do), then the only sensible conlusions that can be drawn are:

(1) The reference to John's father Roger being called Richard in the
lawsuit is a clerical error.

(2) The words "his sister" refer to Roger de Lacy's sister, not John de
Lacy's.

These conclusions are certainly in harmony with the known chronology.

We know elsewhere that Roger de Lacy's father, John Fitz Richard, died
in 1190. This then sets the earlier limit of Alan Fitz Roland's
marriage, as Alan received Kippax, Yorkshire in marriage evidently by
grant of Roger de Lacy.

Insofar as the error of Roger de Lacy's name in the Curis Regis lawsuit
is concerned, I can say that I have encountered errors of this nature
in all classes of medieval records. I don't even blink now when I find
them. I've just come to accept that medieval records were created by
fallible human beings who made mistakes just like you and I do.

As far as how the error happened, it was customary for medieval clerks
to abbreviate names in legal records. I posted an example of such a
document just yesterday. I suppose it is possible that in the original
pleading that John de Lacy's father was referred to only as "R."
Later, a clerk filled in the name and assumed that "R." stood for
Richard, whereas it really stood for Roger. That's purely a guess,
however. We don't have the original pleadings, just the brief
abstracts of the case notes. So we can only guess what happened.

This information probably doesn't answer all of your concerns, nor does
it mine. In essence, we have fragmented records of these people, with
an occasional error thrown in to keep things interesting. We know in
part, not in whole.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Vickie Elam White wrote:

< Douglas,
<
< Now that we have the needed translations, perhaps
< you can help with this piece --
<
< You had mentioned that Roger de Lacy gave Kippax
< as a maritagium. Since he died in 1211, we know it
< was given before then. But could you tell us when this
< was done and perhaps transcribe the text, with citations,
< that you found?

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 28 sep 2005 00:08:59

Peter Stewart wrote:

By the way, he offers no explanation of this curious point in his case: if
the "John de Chester" who did not contest the claims of Alan of Galloway in
1214 were the same man as John de Lacy who discovered the truth about Kippax
in 1233, just what became of his memory in between these occasions?

Peter Stewart

I have two better questions for you. If the advowson of Kippax,
Yorkshire was granted by Henry de Lacy c. 1160 to Pontefract Priory,
then why did Roger de Quincy think he was entitled to present to the
living of Kippax in 1233.

And, if it was settled in the king's court in 1233 that the advowson
rightfully belonged to Pontefract Priory, then why did Roger de Quincy
mention the Kippax advowson in his charter to Edmund de Lacy, Earl of
Lincoln, in 1254? He refers to "suo maneria de Kypex et de Scales ...
cum aduocacione ecclesie de Kypex."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Gjest

Re: Estate of Robert Brooke d 1646

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 sep 2005 01:09:02

In my continuing saga of trying to reconstruct these families using only
primary documents, I have posted a page here :
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... rooke.html

which has all the various place-names mentioned in documents of the Brooke
family that appear to possibly have been part of Robert Brooke's estate at his
death.

My research isn't complete, I just started, but I though other people might
want to view this.

By the way, there is a statement that this Robert married twice, Joane Weld
and Elizabeth Culpepper and that his son John was by Joane. I found a document
where his widow Elizabeth call's John her son.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography - Free Access

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 sep 2005 01:20:02

In a message dated 9/27/2005 8:24:19 AM Eastern Standard Time [that is today,
Tuesday], free-oxforddnb@oup.com writes:
Thank you for registering for free access to the Oxford Dictionary of
National Biography. This special free access period marks the Oxford DNB's first
birthday and runs until midnight on 25 September (UK time). By registering, you
will now be able to enjoy free access to the Oxford DNB's 55,000 biographies of
the men and women who have shaped the history of Britain.
How do I gain access?
Simply click on the link below. This confirms your registration, and will
take you into the dictionary.

Sign me in to the Oxford DNB
Once you have confirmed your registration, you can sign into the dictionary
as often as you like. Either use the link above, or go to our sign in page and
enter your email address in the sign in box there.
Note that your sign in allows only one person to use the dictionary
I did so on Tuesday, Sept. 27 about 7 p.m. and was informed:

"It's no longer possible to register for Free Access"

Frankly, I have no desire to deal with Oxford DNB any more, especially after
seeing the discussion here of their errors.

Charlie McNett

Patricia Junkin

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 28 sep 2005 01:28:01

Could this be William of Joneby? Joneby/Jonebi/Johnby, Cumberland is near
Greystoke.
Pat
----------
From: "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway
Date: Tue, Sep 27, 2005, 4:07 PM


Thank you, Michael. The Latin translation you provided is much
appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:
I have not been following the current controversy in any detail, but can
offer the following translations, in case it helps the participants or others
who
may be following the debate.
Please bear in mind that I am ignorant of the parentage of Alan of Galloway,
and of the identity of his wife, as also of any possible connection of his
wife with the family of de Lacy: nor have I examined the original documents,
even
in photostat.
I have added punctuation to assist the reading.

pp 85-86 v7
Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton Adam de Hocton
tres milites de comitatu Cumberland missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene
de Morevil et Alani de Galweia filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum
ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem
de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden in comitatu Roteland
et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela
que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr de warantia carte de terra de
Kippes in comitatu Ebor dicunt quod Elena point [a transcription error for
"posuit"] loco suo Adam de Torinton vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de
Londor de placito ecclesie de Wissenden in comitatu Roteland Dicunt etiam
quod
Alanus de Galweye posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de
Crevequor
versus Johannem de Cestr de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in
comitatu Ebor Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die.
Et quoniam Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit qui debuit testificasse
simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum consideratum est quod atachietur quod
sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit
idem.

"William of Jonesby Alan of Camberton and Adam of Hocton, three knights of
the county of Cumberland, sent to Carlisle to see what attorney Elena de
Morvill
wished to appoint in the hearing between herself and the Abbot of Londores
about the advowson of Wissenden in the county of Rutland and to see what
attorney the same Alan of Galloway wished to appoint in the hearing
between him and
John of Chester about a warranty of the charter of the land of Kippax in the
county of York, say that Elena appointed in her place Adam of Torinton or
Hamon the clerk against the Abbot of Londor concerning the plea about the
church
of Wissenden in the county of Rutland. And they say further that Alan of
Galloway appointed [in his place] the same Hamon the clerk or Richard of
Crevecour
agianst John of Chester concerning the plea about a warranty of a charter of
the land of Kippax in the county of York. The said knights were told to
depart
with no day fixed [for their further attendance]. And since William Percy the
fourth knight, who ought to have testified with them as to the attorneys of
the said persons, did not come it was deemed that he should be attached that
he
should [appear] on the day of Easter in three weeks. Later came William Percy
and said the same.

p. 86, v. 7:
Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor
optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr de placito quod idem Johannes
warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye habet de
maritagio
sororis sue et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc. et summonitio etc. Et
ideo
atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.

Alan of Galloway brought himself on the fourth day by the said Hamon the
clerk and Richard of Crevecour against John of Chester concerning the plea
that
the same John should warrant the charters of Richard his father which Alan
of
Galloway held as the marriage portion of his sister. And he [sc. John] did
not
come nor did he essoign himself [ie. ask for an adjounment] so a summons [was
issued] and so let him be attached to appear at the said date.

I believe that the natural conclusion from this second passage is that Alan
had married the sister of John of Chester, and had received a marriage
portion
by charter of John's father Richard. We can deduce from the first passage
that
the portion in question was land at Kippax, Yorks, which Douglas Richardson
has identified as ancestral land of the family of de Lacy/Chester.

I am convinced that "Ricardi patris sui" in the second passage must be
referring to John's father and not Alan's. John must I think have been
the son and
heir of Richard, by then (I assume) deceased, and was being called upon to
confirm or warrant the validity of his father's charter. I can think of no
possible reason why John should be called on to validate a charter
granted by Alan's
father. And of course, since Alan could not marry his own sister, "sororis
sue" must be a reference to a sister of John. So, in my view (for however
little
it may be worth) "sui" and "sue" both refer to the same individual John of
Chester.

I have no view as to the identity of John's father Richard, nor as to the
possibility that the scribe may have made an error as to the name of John's
father, nor as to the identity of John of Chester himself. All these matters
I
leave with confidence to the scholars who adorn our group.
MM

Gjest

Re: Oxford DNB - free access weekend

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 sep 2005 01:46:01

In a message dated 9/27/2005 1:17:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jo.payne@oup.com writes:
I am writing to you because you had a frustrating time during Oxford DNB's
free access weekend, to explain what happened, to apologize, and to let you know
what we are going to do.
Our system for registration depended on emails being received swiftly and
surely. Though this happened for the several thousand people who did successfully
sign in for free access, it did not happen in your case. Some of our
confirmation emails were arrested by spam filters; the links disappeared from others;
and our emails to AOL users were delayed for the whole weekend.
I am very sorry, then, whatever the details of your particular case, that you
did not manage successfully to use the dictionary over the free access
weekend.
We are therefore proposing to repeat the opportunity of free access to the
dictionary, in the near future, for all those who attempted to register but did
not successfully access the dictionary.
I shall write to you again shortly to explain when this will happen, and how
to sign in to the dictionary when it does.
With best wishes
Rupert Mann
-----
Dr Rupert Mann
Electronic Publication Manager, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography


Jo Payne
Project manager, Oxford DNB
http://www.oxforddnb.com
guess I will give them a try after all. thanks. Charlie McNett

Gjest

Re: Robert Brooke gains livery 1601

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 sep 2005 02:10:02

Dear Will,
I recall reading a post recently in which a mother granted
wardship of her son to a member of another gentry family. In a more recent case
one of my ancestors in America died in the War of 1812. his wife was
executrix of his estate with two of her adult sons as sureties. A year or so later her
20 year old son and daughter petitioned that a local merchant be appointed
their guardian. He accepted and the mother petitioned that her younger children
(down to toddlers) also be placed under his guardianship though They continued
to live with her.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Peter Stewart

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 sep 2005 02:48:33

I wrote:

By the way, he offers no explanation of this curious point in his case: if
the "John de Chester" who did not contest the claims of Alan of Galloway in
1214 were the same man as John de Lacy who discovered the truth about Kippax
in 1233, just what became of his memory in between these occasions?

Peter Stewart

Richardson failed to respond and instead wrote:

I have two better questions for you. If the advowson of Kippax,
Yorkshire was granted by Henry de Lacy c. 1160 to Pontefract Priory,
then why did Roger de Quincy think he was entitled to present to the
living of Kippax in 1233.

And, if it was settled in the king's court in 1233 that the advowson
rightfully belonged to Pontefract Priory, then why did Roger de Quincy
mention the Kippax advowson in his charter to Edmund de Lacy, Earl of
Lincoln, in 1254? He refers to "suo maneria de Kypex et de Scales ...
cum aduocacione ecclesie de Kypex."

What has this to do with the trail by which the manor of Kippax itself,
rather than the advowson, came to Alan of Galloway and then later to
Roger de Quincy?

These questions can't be answered unless perhaps the charter of Alan of
Galloway's father-in-law comes to light. If Kippax was transferred with
all its appurtenances, not excluding the advowson that had been granted
to Pontefract priory some decades before, then that might have caused
part of the trouble in 1214 and again in 1233.

The question remains: why would one & the same John have left the
claims pressed by Alan of Galloway uncontested in 1214 and yet tried to
make different claims himself in relation to Kippax in 1233 until he
learned something contrary to his position?

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Estate of Robert Brooke d 1646

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 sep 2005 03:57:02

In a message dated 9/27/05 4:08:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:

<< By the way, there is a statement that this Robert married twice, Joane
Weld
and Elizabeth Culpepper and that his son John was by Joane. I found a
document
where his widow Elizabeth call's John her son. >>

There is a DNB entry for Lady Elizabeth Brooke (nee Colepepper). It does not
mention her husband Robert Brooke having been a widower when she married him.
They married in 1620 (DNB) and Elizabeth herself was b Jan 1601 at Wigsale,
Surrey to Thomas Colepepper and a daughter of Stephen Slaney [as found] (DNB).

This immediately made me sit up, because the alledged Joanne Weld is supposed
to be a daughter of Mary Slayney.

Reviewing, what little documents I've collected I find one that is relevant
to this question. I suggest that its possible some person made the leap that
Robert Brooke had married a Weld and was thus acting as son-in-law in the below
will.

However, I will believe it will bear fruit to consider that this person is
not his mother-in-law, but rather his Great-aunt-in-law.

Robert Brooke married Elizabeth Colepepper, dau of Thomas Colepepper and a
Miss Slayney dau of Sir Stephen Slayney who (Stephen ) was heir to his sister
Mary (Slayney) Weld of Berkhamsted.
If true, and if this document was that which was used to show an earlier
marriage of Robert Brooke, then this construction elimitates that possibility
and allows all his children to be off Elizabeth Colepepper as her DNB article
implies (through omission if nothing else).
Also it makes clear that the Mary Brooke who is dealing with all the
lands, is Elizabeth (Colepepper) Brooke's surviving eldest daughter who apparently
never married.

Will Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------

Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies: Artificial collection of title
deeds and estate papers including court rolls of several Hertfordshire manors,
together with title deeds of the Hertfordshire estate of Lord Winterton of
Shillinglee Park, West Sussex, [1279] - [C1880]
Artificial collection of title deeds and estate papers including court rolls
of several Hertfordshire manors, together with title deeds of the
Hertfordshire estate of Lord Winterton of Shillinglee Park, West Sussex, [1279]-[C1880]
Catalogue Ref. DE/Z120
Creator(s): Moulton family, book and document dealers of London

TITLE DEEDS
HERTFORDSHIRE
ESSENDON; LITTLE BERKHAMSTED

FILE - Bargain and sale - ref. DE/Z120/43734 - date: 1 Feb 1624-5
[from Scope and Content] By Sir Robert Brooke of Yoxford, Suffolk, kt, Sir
William Litton of Knebworth, kt, Peter Fesant (signature Phesaunt) of Grays Inn,
Middx, esq, executors of the will of Dame Mary Weld late of London, widow of
Sir Humfrey Weld, kt, and Dame Anne Litton (wife of Sir William Litton and
daughter of Stephen Slayney, esq, who was brother and heir of Dame Mary Weld) to
William Smythesby of East Berkhamsted, esq, of lands in Essendon and (Little)
Berkhamsted formerly the property of Dame Mary Weld.

Kevin Bradford

Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 28 sep 2005 03:57:03

I have updated my database to reflect the status of the parentage of Alan's 1st wife (i.e., Richard [of Chester]). Looking forward to see if more details can be found for this individual.

Best,

Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Sent: Sep 27, 2005 6:14 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway


"Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Vji_e.15795$Xl2.14603@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Peter,

That certainly does seem like a simple solution per
the KISS principle -- Keep It Simple, Stupid. <smile
More fun to say better than Ocam's Razor. <smile

Do we know anything about this Richard de Chester?

I don't, but had assumed that Richardson would as he has supposedly
researched the subject since discovering this personage in Stringer's work.
However, he now says that he is taking my word for Richard's existence, so
apparently the due homework hasn't been done after all, yet again, again.

Richard de Chester was evidently the next eldest of Roger de Lacy's
brothers, as he witnessed before the two others at least twice.

One example can be found in _Facsimiles of Early Cheshire Charters_, edited
by Geoffrey Barraclough (1957), p. 18 - a charter of Roger from between 1200
& 1211: "ego Rogerus de Lasci, constabularius Cestrie...Hiis testibus:
Ricardo de Cestria, Eustachio de Cestria, Gaufrido de Cestria...".

Peter Stewart

Kevin Bradford

Re: Family of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 28 sep 2005 03:57:04

From: Vickie Elam White <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com>
Sent: Sep 27, 2005 11:52 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway


<Is Alan's second wife still considered to be Margaret
Huntingdon, d. of David of Huntingdon and Maud of
Chester?>

I've not seen a disagreement amongst the several sources I've examined.

<Their marriage date is listed as 1209 in
AR7. Was the daughter who died in 1213 a product
of Alan's first or second marriage?>

According to SP 4:141-42, this daughter was a child of the 1st marriage.


And is it of any consequence that this second marriage
had a Chester connection?

Unless it can be shown that Maud of Chester is somehow affiliated with the Yorkshire manors in question, probably not.

Best,

Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm

Gjest

Re: Henry VIII's fertility: separating fact from fiction

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 sep 2005 05:16:02

Dear Todd,
I know King James VI and I at least thought He had
Porphyria and wrote about his condition likening the color of his urine to a certain
type of wine. Of course He may have been a hypocondriac.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Dora Smith

Re: Re: Henry VIII's fertility: separating fact from fiction

Legg inn av Dora Smith » 28 sep 2005 05:16:03

John:

Thanks for your comments+ACE-

William of Gloucester was who I was referring to. I can find the book if
anyone wants the information on it+ADs- it is only in the back of my filing
cabinet somewhere. Once it was diagnosed, William took proper care of it
and had no further serious problems. Porphyria is deadly mostly to people
who do not know they have it+ACE- George VI also appears to have avoided
acutely aggravating it once he left the military. World War I was the
first time military recruits were routinely dosed and sprayed with this and
that, the cadets' diet was literally crazy, ale may have been consumed
instead of water, and there was surely large amounts of lead in the ships'
fuel+ACE- His doctors seem to have been gifted with a measure of common
sense. Despite the surgical wrong paths that are very common with people
with undiagnosed porphyria, suspecting one abdominal emergency after
another, the treatment strategy - rest and a nutritionally adequate bland
diet, avoiding medicines - was right on target.

I actually am not that familiar with his father. I know that his health
was worse than George VI's, and that there was no consideration of a
military career in his case. Alcohol aggravates porphyria.

Mood and anxiety disorders, and drug and alcohol abuse are common problems
with people who have porphyria+ADs- they often have subclinical brain damage
similar to that caused by lead poisoning. At various points in history it
even got names, like +ACI-Angevin temper+ACI-. (Stephen of England had abrupt
attacks that were completely mysterious and exactly resemble severe
porphyria.)

There is no proof of the nature of Prince John's illness. His family hid
him away. Epilepsy is itself a neurological condition - and it cannot by
itself injure the brain. I am inclined to suspect homozygous porphyria,
but it could have been something else. Problems soon after birth,
however, support thinking it was homozygous porphyria.

Do you happen to have more information about his birth? This is
tantalizing. I am wondering why you specifically think something went
wrong in childbirth.

Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, Texas
villandra+AEA-austin.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: +ACI-John Parsons+ACI- +ADw-carmi47+AEA-msn.com+AD4-
To: +ADw-GEN-MEDIEVAL-L+AEA-rootsweb.com+AD4-
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 8:43 PM
Subject: FW: Re: Henry VIII's fertility: separating fact from fiction


+AD4- Thank you, Dora, for this interesting information. I've interlineated a
few
+AD4- comments below.
+AD4-
+AD4- +AD4-From: +ACI-Dora Smith+ACI- +ADw-villandra+AEA-austin.rr.com+AD4-
+AD4- +AD4-To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L+AEA-rootsweb.com
+AD4- +AD4-Subject: Re: Henry VIII's fertility: separating fact from fiction
+AD4- +AD4-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:53:27 -0500
+AD4-
+AD4- +AFs-snip+AF0-
+AD4-
+AD4- +AD4-What is more, the high levels of lead and alcohol children ingested in
+AD4- +AD4-those
+AD4- +AD4-days almost certainly contributed to the high rate of porphyria-type
+AD4- +AD4-illness
+AD4- +AD4-in royal children, such that it did not take two of the defective gene to
+AD4- +AD4-produce life-threatening attacks of illness before puberty. A nephew
of
+AD4- +AD4-George VI of England was medically confirmed to have porphyria+ADs- I have
the
+AD4- +AD4-book by the man who interviewed the doctor.
+AD4-
+AD4- Prince William of Gloucester (1941-72) was diagnosed w/porphyria in
+AD4- adulthood when he arrived in Africa, went out into the midday sun (mad
dogs
+AD4- +ACY- Englishmen...) and immediately broke out in blisters. He died not of
any
+AD4- form of illness, but in an airplane crash.
+AD4-
+AD4- George VI's attacks of
+AD4- +AD4-illness (as an adult) were more classically typical of porphyria than
were
+AD4- +AD4-George III's very severe and highly aggravated attacks. Months-long
+AD4- +AD4-attacks of abdominal pain and vomiting with extreme restlessness and
+AD4- +AD4-anxiety. George VI had his first attack as an infant+ADs- the alcoholic
+AD4- +AD4-nurse
+AD4- +AD4-wasn't feeding him, wasn't keeping him (and probably also the nursery)
+AD4- +AD4-clean, in an environment surely heavily painted with lead paint, and
dosed
+AD4- +AD4-the kids with alcohol and probably stronger stuff to keep them from
crying.
+AD4- +AD4-Both he and David were affected, and it is not well known that the father
+AD4- +AD4-of
+AD4- +AD4-the porphyric nephew had even worse health than George VI's.
+AD4-
+AD4- But Prince Henry, first duke of Gloucester, badly undermined his health by
+AD4- severe drinking, which led to his parking several of his cars in ditches,
+AD4- something the papers in those days politely ignored though it probably
+AD4- didn't help with his insurance premiums. He was the heaviest drinker
among
+AD4- all George V's sons, and that's saying something.
+AD4-
+AD4- +AD4-The youngest
+AD4- +AD4-child, John, had severe progressive neurological damage adn died just
+AD4- +AD4-before
+AD4- +AD4-puberty. Both parents were perfectly inbred descendants of the 18th
+AD4- +AD4-century kings of England and Prussia.
+AD4-
+AD4- John's neurological damage was caused by extremely violent epileptic
+AD4- seizures that presumably resulted from birth injuries. Queen Mary was in
+AD4- labor for some 50 hours before his birth. It is not certain that John's
+AD4- heredity, albeit heavily inbred, had anything to do with his tragic
history.
+AD4- The immediate cause of his death in 1919 was severe heart strain caused
by
+AD4- an exceptionally violent seizure. His seizures had become increasingly
+AD4- violent as he reached puberty, which is not uncommon in juvenile
epileptics.
+AD4-
+AD4- Regards
+AD4-
+AD4- John P.
+AD4-
+AD4-

Gjest

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 sep 2005 07:26:22

Dear Douglas,

Could we rightly assume that the in 1213 mentioned unnamed daughter of
Alan of Galoway was then still very young (1-6 years). The age period
that Medieval clercs define as "infantia"?

There are continental examples that suggest that when children were
named in documents (instruments/charters) they were at least in the age
period of 7-13 years ("pueritia").

Hans Vogels

Gjest

Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 sep 2005 10:28:05

In fairness, isn't the jury still out on this one?

Peter Stewart

Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 sep 2005 10:52:59

<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1127899685.746570.261840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
In fairness, isn't the jury still out on this one?

Yes, or rather the jury will be able to go out & deliberate once Richardson
presents some evidence and/or cogent argument for his case - so far he was
wilfully ignored elements of the evidence that don't suit his theory, and
demanded more from others while pretending that none has yet been shown.

We are still waiting for any good reason why a document naming Alan of
Galloway's father-in-law as Richard cannot be right about this, when we know
there was a Richard in the family that held Kippax before it passed with
marriage to Alan. The advowson was separated from the manor, and apparently
had been so since ca 1160, although Alan quitclaimed this to Roger de Lacy
between January 1201 & October 1211 (perhaps in 1205). Whether he described
Roger on this occasion as his wife's uncle, or father, or neither, remains
to be seen.

However, this hasn't stopped or even slowed Richardson from expressing
certainties on the subject.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 sep 2005 13:06:53

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%Jt_e.18368$0E5.12503@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1127899685.746570.261840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
In fairness, isn't the jury still out on this one?

Yes, or rather the jury will be able to go out & deliberate once
Richardson presents some evidence and/or cogent argument for his case - so
far he was wilfully ignored elements of the evidence that don't suit his
theory, and demanded more from others while pretending that none has yet
been shown.

We are still waiting for any good reason why a document naming Alan of
Galloway's father-in-law as Richard cannot be right about this, when we
know there was a Richard in the family that held Kippax before it passed
with marriage to Alan. The advowson was separated from the manor, and
apparently had been so since ca 1160, although Alan quitclaimed this to
Roger de Lacy between January 1201 & October 1211 (perhaps in 1205).
Whether he described Roger on this occasion as his wife's uncle, or
father, or neither, remains to be seen.

I now have a copy of this, and the answer is "Neither".

It is not without interest, however. The full text follows, as edited by
Stringer:

". Sciant omnes presentes et futuri has Litteras visuri [et] audituri . Quod
ego Alanus filius Roll(andi) . Dominus Galuuath' Scotie Constab(ularius) .
quitam clamaui . Rogero de lascy . Centrie Constab(ulario) [et] heredibus
suis . de me [et] heredibus meis . aduocationem ecclesie de kipeis . Hijs
Test(ibus) . Eustacio de Vescy . Roberto Walensi . Willelmo de bello monte .
hugone despensario . Thoma fratre suo . Gilberto fili(o) Cospatric . Radulfo
de Campania . Ricardo clerico de creuequor litterarum scriptore . [et]
multis aliis."

A few things are notable in this perfectly ordinary document: Roger de Lacy
might be more likely to have received some mention of the relationship if he
were father instead of uncle to Alan's wife, but there is no definite
indication in omitting this. He might have sought the quitclaim for any
number of reasons as head of the Lacy family whose predecessor had given the
advowson to Pontefract priory some 40 or so years earlier, whether or not
Roger or his brother had transferred this explicitly by an oversight, or
simply failed to exclude it, in the maritagium of either man's daughter.

It would, however, be a little more odd if Alan had quitclaimed the advowson
to Roger and his heirs on behalf of himself and his heirs if these two sets
overlapped - in other words, Alan's heirs could be quitclaiming to
themselves if Roger were their grandfather/ancestor rather than a collateral
relative. But again, not too much can be read into this.

By the way, Stringer identified Richard the clerk as of Troqueer in
Dumfries, evidently not the same as Richard de Crevecour.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 sep 2005 13:28:32

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:xHv_e.18525$0E5.9865@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<snip>

The full text follows, as edited by Stringer:

". Sciant omnes presentes et futuri has Litteras visuri [et] audituri .
Quod ego Alanus filius Roll(andi) . Dominus Galuuath' Scotie
Constab(ularius) . quitam clamaui . Rogero de lascy . Centrie
Constab(ulario)

Apologies for the typo - it is "Rogero de lascy . Cestrie Constab(ulario)".

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway for Hans Voge

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 sep 2005 16:14:02

Dear Hans Vogel- you are quite right: I carelessly omitted my translation of
the words " in occursum Elene de Morevil et Alani de Galweia filii ejus".
Apologies and thanks to you and apologies to the rest of the group.
The missing words translate as "to meet Elena de Morevil and her son Alan of
Galloway".
MM

Peter G R Howarth

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

Legg inn av Peter G R Howarth » 28 sep 2005 16:32:01

I too have in my small way previously tried vainly to get Richardson to stop
treating discussions on this newsgroup as a debating game where he must win
by any means, fair or foul, and instead to use evidence and logic correctly
in an attempt, with others, to reach the truth. Too often, he drags others
down to his level.

The reason I have not contributed to this particular thread before is that I
receive posts in batches through Gen-Med and by the time I have read one of
his 'bobbing and weaving' posts it has already been responded to by someone
else, very often Peter Stewart, who is far more competent than I am.
Frequently I feel that I am much too late to make any valid contribution to
the discussion.

This does not mean that I do not support all those who attempt to get
Richardson to accept the normal standards of discussion. Why can he not
bring himself to say, for example-
"I accept that is a weakness in my argument, but ." or
"Here are the two sides to the argument, (a) and (b). On the whole I am
inclined to (b)" or
"I see what you mean. Damn! that's another theory gone down in flames."
These are not signs of weakness, but of maturity of thought and a genuine
desire for the truth.

Peter G R Howarth

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Stewart [p_m_stewart@msn.com] wrote Wed 28/09/2005 09:51

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


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.8/113 - Release Date: 27/09/2005

Vickie Elam White

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

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 28 sep 2005 16:46:13

OK, all this chest-beating and penis-waving is really
getting old. Can we just stick to the agenda here?

Can we try to explore the descent of Kippax down
through the years, in order to find out when -- or if --
it was Richard's to give or it it was Roger's to give?

Thanks.


Vickie Elam White

William Marshall

Re: Parentage of Simon, duke of Lorraine (was Re: any childr

Legg inn av William Marshall » 28 sep 2005 17:00:02

John,

Thanks for pointing this out. I'll fix it in my next update.

The problem is that ES VI #129 clearly says that Simon I was the
son of Ditrich II by his _second_ wife, which contradicted
Moriarty's _Plantagenet Ancestry_ page 130 (son by _first_ wife).
Being more recent, I took ES as "corrected". Bad move.

You are certainly correct that I haven't referenced many primary
sources for the medieval period, except for those that I see
quoted on gen-med. I'm still filling in primary sources in
my post-medieval database, and hope to do the same to the medieval
one in the future.

Bill Marshall
wtm@research.att.com

-----original message-----
Date: 28 Sep 2005 04:13:04 -0700
From: "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <1127905984.373558.211010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Parentage of Simon, duke of Lorraine (was Re: any children of Roger Hauteville..)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Dear CEW, et al.,

Thanks for that note concerning Bill Marshall's website (URL
below).

While only having a brief look, I have not noted any use of
primary sources in the pedigrees I reviewed. I did note the following
problem: Simon, duke of Lorraine (d. 1138/9) is shown as the son of
Thierry/Diderick of Lorraine by his 2nd wife Gertrude of Flanders,
which would make his wife Adelheid/Adelaide of Brabant his half-sister
[1]. It is quite clear that Simon was the son of his father's first
marriage to Hedwig von Formbach. See Leo's website, Genealogics, under
the ID for Simon, duke of Lorraine (I00026284) [2]. There was also
some extended discussion on SGM earlier this year [3].

Cheers,

John


NOTES

[1] the problematic part of the pedigree can be viewed in a number of
ways; see the following:


http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... &id=I16933

[2] http://www.genealogics.org

[3] Leo van de Pas, Peter Stewart and others, <Thierry d'Alsace, Count
of Flanders>, SGM, Jan 2005.





CE Wood wrote:
Please see Bill Marshall's extremely well documented website:
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... &id=I11334
et sequalae.

CE Wood


"Paul K Davis" wrote:
I should also ask, is there firm evidence of the birth dates of Irene's
children by Philip?

-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]

Chris Phillips

John of Chester debate

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 28 sep 2005 17:48:13

Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:
The debate boils down to this- given that this lady was the sister of
John
of Chester, was her father Richard of Chester (who is known to have
existed,
but not reliably shown to have had a son named John) or his elder brother
Roger
(who did have a son named John)?
Mr Richardson thinks that her father was Roger, and that the report which
I
recently ventured to translate has erred in giving his name as Richard. Mr
Stewart prefers to accept the report as accurate, and has shared with the
group
some convincing evidence as to the existence of Richard, Roger's younger
brother, but not as yet any evidence (apart from the text of the report)
to show that
Richard did have a son named John. Mr Richardson rejects Mr Stewart's
view,
but has I believe greatly overstated a chronological argument, as both Mr
Phillips and Mr Andrewes-Reading have independently pointed out: why is
it not
just as possible for the lady's father to have been the daughter of the
younger
rather than the elder brother?

If I understand correctly, the complicating factor is that Douglas
Richardson is also suggesting that Alan's wife was a sister, not a daughter,
of "Richard" (which he thinks is an error for Roger). So the chronological
argument is supposed to distinguish between two generations, not between an
elder and a younger brother. As I've said, I think better information is
needed about the Lacy chronology if this argument is to stick.

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V05 #864

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 sep 2005 18:30:02

Peter Stewart wrote:-
<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.

I should be sorry if Mr Stewart were to leave this group. Like other members,
I have greatly appreciated the depth of his learning and the strength of his
critical reasoning. But is he not too severe in rebuking those of us who do
not feel able to "pull their weight"? To take an instance, I and many others,
especially Chris Phillips and Michael Andrewes-Reading, have tried to take a
balanced view about the current controversy concerning the parentage of Alan of
Galloway's wife.

The debate boils down to this- given that this lady was the sister of John
of Chester, was her father Richard of Chester (who is known to have existed,
but not reliably shown to have had a son named John) or his elder brother Roger
(who did have a son named John)?
Mr Richardson thinks that her father was Roger, and that the report which I
recently ventured to translate has erred in giving his name as Richard. Mr
Stewart prefers to accept the report as accurate, and has shared with the group
some convincing evidence as to the existence of Richard, Roger's younger
brother, but not as yet any evidence (apart from the text of the report) to show that
Richard did have a son named John. Mr Richardson rejects Mr Stewart's view,
but has I believe greatly overstated a chronological argument, as both Mr
Phillips and Mr Andrewes-Reading have independently pointed out: why is it not
just as possible for the lady's father to have been the daughter of the younger
rather than the elder brother?

What I would hope is that both Mr Stewart and Mr Richardson should remain in
contact with this group, preferably without acrimonious exchanges. Mr
Richardson's remark "Yikes! The short end of it: Your theory falls to the ground,
crashes, and burns. Game over. So sorry." is an example of language which justly
infuriates Mr Stewart, and which has also offended me. But in fairness Mr
Stewart has been quite often prepared to hurl insults at Mr Richardson, which I
have found equally, or more, offensive, even when (as usually) his criticisms
have a foundation in fact and logic.

Those of us who try to avoid insulting people, and who do not contribute to
threads where we have little or nothing to offer, cannot fairly be accused of
"passivity and complicity": as Wittgenstein said, "Wovon mann nicht reden kann,
davon muss mann schweigen". I said on this thread recently that I have no
expert knowledge about the family of Alan of Galloway. Why then am I and all
those in a similar position to be accused of remaining irresponsibly quiet?
MM

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Henry VIII's fertility: separating fact from fiction

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 28 sep 2005 19:10:38

Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Dear Todd,
I know King James VI and I at least thought He had
Porphyria and wrote about his condition likening the color of his urine to a certain
type of wine. Of course He may have been a hypocondriac.

One really must be a little careful here - he described his urine as the
color of his favorite wine, and that the same thing happened to his
mother. This is certainly consistent with porphyria, but James most
certainly did not "think he had porphyria", as no such disease was known
to 16th/17th century medicine. (And there are other things which result
in discoloration of the urine.)

There is a whole branch of medical 'investigation' that revolves around
trying to determine what diseases famous people from history might have
suffered from (and hence how specific medical coditions may have
affected history). Practitioners comb the historical record and preform
differential diagnosis to come up with a theory as to what it might have
been. (In recent years Lincoln and Poe have likewise attracted
attention.) However, one must always bear in mind that without test on
surviving tissue samples, these retrospective diagnoses can never be
proven - in fact, that is part of the attraction of them, as they can
never be proven wrong either. Unfortunately, in part out of
simplification (who wants to read the qualified details when a simple
statement of fact will suffice) and in part out of sensationalism, they
are too readily adopted as fact.

taf

John Brandon

Re: Henry VIII's fertility: separating fact from fiction

Legg inn av John Brandon » 28 sep 2005 19:20:05

One really must be a little careful here - he described his urine as the
color of his favorite wine, and that the same thing happened to his
mother.

Maybe his favorite wine was Chardonnay ... (?)

Tony Hoskins

Re: Henry VIII's fertility: separating fact from fiction

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 28 sep 2005 20:20:02

"these retrospective diagnoses can never be proven - in fact, that is
part of the attraction of them, as they can never be proven wrong
either. Unfortunately, in part out of simplification (who wants to read
the qualified details when a simple statement of fact will suffice) and
in part out of sensationalism, they are too readily adopted as fact."

Indeed so. I am alarmed at the attraction and appeal of such _Chariots
of the Gods_ -style chimera among for many.

Tony

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 sep 2005 20:28:02

Peter Stewart kindly presented the following document, edited by Dr Keith
Stringer:-

". Sciant omnes presentes et futuri has Litteras visuri [et] audituri . Quod
ego Alanus filius Roll(andi) . Dominus Galuuath' Scotie Constab(ularius) .
quitam clamaui . Rogero de lascy . Centrie Constab(ulario) [et] heredibus
suis . de me [et] heredibus meis . aduocationem ecclesie de kipeis . Hijs
Test(ibus) . Eustacio de Vescy . Roberto Walensi . Willelmo de bello monte .
hugone despensario . Thoma fratre suo . Gilberto fili(o) Cospatric . Radulfo
de Campania . Ricardo clerico de creuequor litterarum scriptore . [et]
multis aliis."

I translate:-
Let all those living and to come who may see or hear these writings know that
I Alan son of Roland Lord of Galloway, Constable of Scotland, have
quitclaimed to Roger de Lacy Constable of Chester and his heirs for me and my heirs the
advowson of Kippax these being witnesses Eustace de Vescy Robert Walensis
William Beaumont Hugh the Despencer Thomas his brother Gilbert son of Gospatric
Ralph de Campania (?Champagne) and many others.
The document as cited bears no explicit date, but it must evidently have been
made after the gift of Kippax as a marriage portion to Alan of Galloway:
before that gift Alan would have had no possible claim to surrender. Perhaps group
members more learned than I am may be able to tie the date down by reference
to the names of the witnesses?
Since we know, from materials already presented to the group, that the
advowson of Kippax had been gifted to an Abbey many years before, we might I think
deduce that Alan had been asked to surrender his claim back to the person who
had given the advowson to him, though without any right to do so. Even in those
long-distant days a donor of land normally warranted that neither he, nor
anybody through whom he claimed otherwise than for value, had parted with title
to the subject of his gift. If that is right, then Roger de Lacy/Chester would
seem to have been the donor of the marriage gift of Kippax, and therefore to
have been anxious to be released from liability as donor of property to which
he had no title. But I would accept that it might have been equally appropriate
for Alan to be asked to surrender a claim to the advowson available to him by
reason of a gift made by Roger's brother Richard.

I am somewhat surprised that Dr Stringer has not, as far as I have heard,
recorded the deed of gift of Kippax to Alan of Galloway. Have I perhaps missed
something? I do note that Mr Stewart owns a copy of Keith Stringer, 'Acts of
Lordship: The Records of the Lords of Galloway to 1234', in T. Brotherstone and
D. Ditchburn (ed.), Freedom and Authority: Scotland c.1050-c.1650, (East
Linton: Tuckwell Press, 2000). Is there ammunition in this resource with which to
blow down the walls of Doubting Castle?

MM

CED

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

Legg inn av CED » 28 sep 2005 20:30:10

Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:
Peter Stewart kindly presented the following document, edited by Dr Keith
Stringer:-

To the Newsgroup:

As the document indicates, the quitclaim was early in use in English
law (check Blackstone). To give a quitclaim was (and in most
jurisdictions still is) a method of clearing cloud on title.

To give or receive a quitclaim is not considered an admission or
acknowledgement of any right or claim on the title of the property for
which that quitclaim was given. It simply is a means to clear the
title of the property of any claim, real or imagined, by the person
giving the quitclaim. Otherwise, it would be necessary to bring a suit
in court to establish title.

At any rate, court documents regarding land holdings during the reigns
of Kings Richard I and John should be subject to question. Remember,
the buy and selling of justice was one of the complaints of the barons
in Magna Carta.

CED
". Sciant omnes presentes et futuri has Litteras visuri [et] audituri . Quod
ego Alanus filius Roll(andi) . Dominus Galuuath' Scotie Constab(ularius) .
quitam clamaui . Rogero de lascy . Centrie Constab(ulario) [et] heredibus
suis . de me [et] heredibus meis . aduocationem ecclesie de kipeis . Hijs
Test(ibus) . Eustacio de Vescy . Roberto Walensi . Willelmo de bello monte .
hugone despensario . Thoma fratre suo . Gilberto fili(o) Cospatric . Radulfo
de Campania . Ricardo clerico de creuequor litterarum scriptore . [et]
multis aliis."

I translate:-
Let all those living and to come who may see or hear these writings know that
I Alan son of Roland Lord of Galloway, Constable of Scotland, have
quitclaimed to Roger de Lacy Constable of Chester and his heirs for me and my heirs the
advowson of Kippax these being witnesses Eustace de Vescy Robert Walensis
William Beaumont Hugh the Despencer Thomas his brother Gilbert son of Gospatric
Ralph de Campania (?Champagne) and many others.
The document as cited bears no explicit date, but it must evidently have been
made after the gift of Kippax as a marriage portion to Alan of Galloway:
before that gift Alan would have had no possible claim to surrender. Perhaps group
members more learned than I am may be able to tie the date down by reference
to the names of the witnesses?
Since we know, from materials already presented to the group, that the
advowson of Kippax had been gifted to an Abbey many years before, we might I think
deduce that Alan had been asked to surrender his claim back to the person who
had given the advowson to him, though without any right to do so. Even in those
long-distant days a donor of land normally warranted that neither he, nor
anybody through whom he claimed otherwise than for value, had parted with title
to the subject of his gift. If that is right, then Roger de Lacy/Chester would
seem to have been the donor of the marriage gift of Kippax, and therefore to
have been anxious to be released from liability as donor of property to which
he had no title. But I would accept that it might have been equally appropriate
for Alan to be asked to surrender a claim to the advowson available to him by
reason of a gift made by Roger's brother Richard.

I am somewhat surprised that Dr Stringer has not, as far as I have heard,
recorded the deed of gift of Kippax to Alan of Galloway. Have I perhaps missed
something? I do note that Mr Stewart owns a copy of Keith Stringer, 'Acts of
Lordship: The Records of the Lords of Galloway to 1234', in T. Brotherstone and
D. Ditchburn (ed.), Freedom and Authority: Scotland c.1050-c.1650, (East
Linton: Tuckwell Press, 2000). Is there ammunition in this resource with which to
blow down the walls of Doubting Castle?

MM

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 28 sep 2005 21:30:46

The Lacy identity of Alan of Galloway's first wife was proposed by
Stringer in 1972 (Dumfries & Galloway NHAS Transactions Vol XLIX). The
evidence adduced by Stringer is sixfold:

1 In 1254 Roger de Quincy granted Kippax to Edmund de Lacy. Quincy was
the husband of Alan's eldest daughter Helen, who we know was not a
daughter by Margaret of Huntingdon as Helen was not an heir to Earl
John, Margaret's brother, and who we know inherited the Constableship
of Scotland, and so was an elder half sister of Dervorguilla.

2 In ca 1223 Alan ordered his bailiff to take possession, apparently as
an escheat, of Swillington, which pertained to Kippax.

3 The Curia Regis Rolls of 1214 show Alan acting against John de Lacy
(father of Edmund) "de warantia carte de terra de Kippes".
Stringer quotes in English that " John de Chester shall warrant the
charters of his father Richard (per Stringer recte Roger) which Alan
.... has anent the maritagium of his sister (the "his" is not
specific between father and son and Stringer says "sister or dau of
Roger de Lacy, constable of Chester")

4 A letter of Pope Honorius III of March 1222 states that Alan had
married within the prohibited degrees of consanguinuity. His later
wife was the daughter of Hugh de Lacy, Earl of Ulster (of the Weobley
Lacys), so an earlier Lacy wife (of the Pontefract Lacys) would fit the
bill.

5 Stringer also suggests that there would not appear to be a suitable
earlier marriage in Alan's pedigree to allow for him and his
descendants to hold Kippax.

6 He also refers to the Close Rolls 1242-47, apparently showing, but
without quotation, that Helen of Galloway's maritagium was in the
Honour of Pontefract.

It seems to me that if the scribe had in his notes written "R", it
could have been for Roger when he wrote it, but when he transcribed it
in the quote in item 3, he expanded it to the more usual Richard.

However, the argument is more complex and more persuasive than anyone
has yet (to my memory) suggested. Clearly once such a case as this has
been made and accepted, those who later propose it do not feel the
necessity to rehearse the whole argument, whether this is actually
necessary or not.

The quote above
". Sciant omnes presentes et futuri has Litteras visuri [et] audituri
.. Quod ego Alanus filius Roll(andi) . Dominus Galuuath' Scotie
Constab(ularius) . quitam clamaui . Rogero de lascy . Centrie
Constab(ulario) [et] heredibus suis . de me [et] heredibus meis .
aduocationem ecclesie de kipeis . Hijs Test(ibus) . Eustacio de Vescy .
Roberto Walensi . Willelmo de bello monte . hugone despensario . Thoma
fratre suo . Gilberto fili(o) Cospatric . Radulfo de Campania . Ricardo
clerico de creuequor litterarum scriptore . [et]
multis aliis."

is not sourced, but I assume it to be another piece of unattributed
evidence of which Stringer was unaware when he wrote the 1972 article.
At all events, it would seem to support his argument.

Finally as to the identity of "Ricardo clerico de creuequor
litterarum scriptore" T and C are notoriously interchangeable, or
alternatively confusable, and to anyone familiar with Galloway this
must be Troqueer. Richard is clearly the priest of Troqueer. Old
forms of Troqueer have for "Tro" "Treve", from the Brythonic
"tref", a place, as in Threve, Terregles and many other Galwegian
place names.

Chris Phillips

Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 28 sep 2005 21:49:53

Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
4 A letter of Pope Honorius III of March 1222 states that Alan had
married within the prohibited degrees of consanguinuity. His later
wife was the daughter of Hugh de Lacy, Earl of Ulster (of the Weobley
Lacys), so an earlier Lacy wife (of the Pontefract Lacys) would fit the
bill.

Thank you for that interesting summary of Stringer's arguments.

But I'm afraid I don't understand this one at all. If two of Alan's wives
were related by blood, wouldn't that mean that he had married within the
prohibited degrees of _affinity_, not of consanguinity?

Chris Phillips

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 sep 2005 21:53:01

In a message dated 9/28/05 2:11:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

<< Date: 9/28/05 2:11:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: p_m_stewart@msn.com (Peter Stewart)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

This trash has sat on my server for hours now, and presumably reached a lot
of SGM readers before me. >>


All I can say in response Peter, is look up at the *time* according to my
clock. Two in the morning.
Usually I do all my responding between about 11 AM and 3PM my local time :)
So Richardson's post and your response were both done in my private time.

I cannot read Latin, so I haven't commented on that part, but I would have
raised the issue of the assumed date of birth of Roger. In fact I see I have to
go back and re-source the dates I'm showing for this family because I have
obvious contradictions in my file at this point. For example I'm showing
Roger's maternal grandmother as Rohese de Vere when Chris just stated her name was
Alice. So now I have to root around in Leo's database and see what the correct
(per him) info might be.
Will Johnson

Chris Phillips

Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 28 sep 2005 22:23:55

Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
4 A letter of Pope Honorius III of March 1222 states that Alan had
married within the prohibited degrees of consanguinuity. His later
wife was the daughter of Hugh de Lacy, Earl of Ulster (of the Weobley
Lacys), so an earlier Lacy wife (of the Pontefract Lacys) would fit the
bill.

I replied:
Thank you for that interesting summary of Stringer's arguments.

But I'm afraid I don't understand this one at all. If two of Alan's wives
were related by blood, wouldn't that mean that he had married within the
prohibited degrees of _affinity_, not of consanguinity?


On the other hand, the marriage we are discussing looks consanguineous. Can
anyone confirm from a reliable source that Alan's maternal grandmother
Beatrice de Beauchamp, was the daughter of Payn de Beauchamp and Rohese de
Vere? (I can see this only in online sources, which I wouldn't like to trust
without confirmation.)

If that's correct, Alan and John were 3rd cousins, as Roger de Lacy's
maternal grandmother, Alice de Vere, was Rohese's sister.

Not that this helps, because the marriage would be within the 4th degree
whether Alan's wife was the sister of John, son of Roger, or the sister of
another John, son of Richard (or the sister of Roger himself, for that
matter).

Chris Phillips

Chris Phillips

Re: Evidence re. the identity.... [brief question]

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 28 sep 2005 22:32:28

DorPartsch@aol.com wrote:
Confused lurker, here, with my Lacy generations mixed up. Who were Roger
and Richard's parents? Thanks ~

Roger's parents were John, constable of Chester (son of Richard fitz Eustace
and Aubreye de Lisours), and Alice (daughter of Roger of Warkworth and Alice
de Vere) [Keats-Rohan, Domesday Descendants, p. 250].

Chris Phillips

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 sep 2005 22:39:01

Dear Douglas and Others,
We know from the various postings on
this subject that the lady in question was definitely a member of the family
which around 1200 and probably earlier sometimes called themselves de Cestrie /
de Chester on account of They being of the immediate family of the hereditary
Constable of Chester. In MCA under Quincy You identify the first wife of Alan,
Lord of Galloway and Constable of Scotland as a daughter of John Fitz
richard, Constable of Chester and despite documentary evidence to the contrary (viz
the lawsuit of Alan of Galloway and John de Chester in 1213) which indicates
1) He is the brother-in-law of Alan and 2) the son of a Richard (perhaps a
mistake for Roger the lately deceased ( d 1211) Constable or perhaps not as the
next eldest son of that generation was apparently named Richard and sometimes
used the surname de Cestrie as did brothers Eustace and Geoffrey. might not
each of them used the alias de Lascy in common as well ?) We often here of a
family having gained a share in a certain manor. was that an exclusively female
situation or did brothers on occasion share more or less equally in a manor and
it`s rents as well ? You seem to be of the belief that a younger son couldn`t
borrow a large sum from the money lenders, have saved it over time or won it
in a tournament. So We know now that Alan`s wife was a granddaughter of John
Fitz richard and a daughter of either Roger de Lacy or his brother Richard de
Chester and until someone can find the marriage agreement her parentage and
hopefully her given name won`t be resolved completely.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Henry VIII's fertility: separating fact from fiction

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 sep 2005 22:54:01

Dear John,
Unfortunately, I only have my memory to go on. I beleve the
wine in question was called alicante.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

John P. Ravilious

Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 28 sep 2005 22:57:14

Dear Chris,

I show Beatrice de Beauchamp as great-grandmother of Alan of
Galloway; further, that she was daughter of Robert de Beauchamp (d. bef
1137) and sister of Payn. This would (if correct) take out the
possible de Vere relationship between Alan of Galloway and the Lacy
constable(s).

There are significant lacunae in the ancestry of both Roger fitz
John de Lacy and Alan of Galloway - I show only 5 of 8
great-grandparents of Alan of Galloway as being currently identified.
Even given (after 1215) that this was apparently a problem of
consanguinity with 4 degrees, we are missing too much information.

Should anyone wish to see a 4 or 5 generation AT for either Alan
of Galloway or Roger de Lacy, please let me know and I will post same
(not being done at present in the interest of bandwidth conservation).

Cheers,

John



Chris Phillips wrote:
Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
4 A letter of Pope Honorius III of March 1222 states that Alan had
married within the prohibited degrees of consanguinuity. His later
wife was the daughter of Hugh de Lacy, Earl of Ulster (of the Weobley
Lacys), so an earlier Lacy wife (of the Pontefract Lacys) would fit the
bill.

I replied:
Thank you for that interesting summary of Stringer's arguments.

But I'm afraid I don't understand this one at all. If two of Alan's wives
were related by blood, wouldn't that mean that he had married within the
prohibited degrees of _affinity_, not of consanguinity?


On the other hand, the marriage we are discussing looks consanguineous. Can
anyone confirm from a reliable source that Alan's maternal grandmother
Beatrice de Beauchamp, was the daughter of Payn de Beauchamp and Rohese de
Vere? (I can see this only in online sources, which I wouldn't like to trust
without confirmation.)

If that's correct, Alan and John were 3rd cousins, as Roger de Lacy's
maternal grandmother, Alice de Vere, was Rohese's sister.

Not that this helps, because the marriage would be within the 4th degree
whether Alan's wife was the sister of John, son of Roger, or the sister of
another John, son of Richard (or the sister of Roger himself, for that
matter).

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V05 #864

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 sep 2005 22:59:42

Comments interspersed:

<Millerfairfield@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1f9.13329a54.306c1ea1@aol.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:-
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.

I should be sorry if Mr Stewart were to leave this group. Like other
members,
I have greatly appreciated the depth of his learning and the strength of
his
critical reasoning. But is he not too severe in rebuking those of us who
do
not feel able to "pull their weight"? To take an instance, I and many
others,
especially Chris Phillips and Michael Andrewes-Reading, have tried to take
a
balanced view about the current controversy concerning the parentage of
Alan of
Galloway's wife.

I didn't mean that silent readers should necessarily take up issues about
the genealogical evidence, but rather that if more people shared their views
on Richardson's habit of distorting the facts or other people's statements
about these, and his all-too-often groundless and/or specious reasoning &
outright hypocrisy - that do NOT required any specialised knowledge to
spot - then he MIGHT learn to behave better.

The debate boils down to this- given that this lady was the sister of John
of Chester, was her father Richard of Chester (who is known to have
existed,
but not reliably shown to have had a son named John) or his elder brother
Roger
(who did have a son named John)?
Mr Richardson thinks that her father was Roger, and that the report which
I
recently ventured to translate has erred in giving his name as Richard. Mr
Stewart prefers to accept the report as accurate, and has shared with the
group
some convincing evidence as to the existence of Richard, Roger's younger
brother, but not as yet any evidence (apart from the text of the report)
to show that
Richard did have a son named John. Mr Richardson rejects Mr Stewart's
view,
but has I believe greatly overstated a chronological argument, as both Mr
Phillips and Mr Andrewes-Reading have independently pointed out: why is
it not
just as possible for the lady's father to have been the daughter of the
younger
rather than the elder brother?

We have only one source for the daughter of a holder of Kippax marrying Alan
of Galloway, and yet this doesn't appear inadequate to Richardson or others.
We have the same source as evidence that Alan received Kippax from someone
named Richard who had a son named John. Kippax belonged to the Lacy
inheritance that fell to the family of the constable of Chester, whose
father was named John & who had a brother named Richard. This is already
better evidence than we have for many nother medieval personages. As for
whether a John de Chester, son of Richard, existed - the rescords otherwise
assumed to relate to John de Lacy under the surname "de Chester" need to be
re-examined to see if a second namesake was involved. Once Roger assumed the
name "de Lacy" in 1194, is it not clear to me that his son & heir retained
"de Chester" instead, or in addition, although anomalies in usage are always
likely enough.

What I would hope is that both Mr Stewart and Mr Richardson should remain
in
contact with this group, preferably without acrimonious exchanges. Mr
Richardson's remark "Yikes! The short end of it: Your theory falls to the
ground,
crashes, and burns. Game over. So sorry." is an example of language
which justly
infuriates Mr Stewart, and which has also offended me. But in fairness Mr
Stewart has been quite often prepared to hurl insults at Mr Richardson,
which I
have found equally, or more, offensive, even when (as usually) his
criticisms
have a foundation in fact and logic.

Those of us who try to avoid insulting people, and who do not contribute
to
threads where we have little or nothing to offer, cannot fairly be accused
of
"passivity and complicity": as Wittgenstein said, "Wovon mann nicht reden
kann,
davon muss mann schweigen". I said on this thread recently that I have no
expert knowledge about the family of Alan of Galloway. Why then am I and
all
those in a similar position to be accused of remaining irresponsibly
quiet?

I am certainly NOT asking for other peeople to start insulting each other.
Chris Phillips for one never does this, and yet manages to make his
invariably sensible & helpful views clear when he expresses them. Many
others could achieve something for the newsgroup just by saying occasionally
"I don't agree with either side of this argument/shouting match, but I can
see who pushed it off the rails. Hypocrisy and misrepresentations are
unacceptable, and these are coming from one side. Insults are unacceptable
and these are coming from both sides." This is in part what you have said
here, and no-one could take exception to it.

I don't enjoy slanging, and wish to take part in a forum where this is
unnecessary. But I will not sit silently by while Leo, myself or others are
lied to and lied about, by Brandon, Hines, Richardson or anyone else.

I am frequently characterised as a lone voice, writing from spleen or envy,
and this is patent tosh - but it is rare for anyone but me to point it out.
Why? If other voices joined in, at least one line of dishonesty would be
closed off. If more people spoke up, Richardson would see that he needlessly
damages his own standing, when I and everyone else can recognise that he is
capable of contributing genuinely to the discourse. Then he just might -
purely from self-interest, which is not running short for him - conform to
normal, reasonable standards.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 28 sep 2005 23:13:38

John P. Ravilious wrote:
I show Beatrice de Beauchamp as great-grandmother of Alan of
Galloway; further, that she was daughter of Robert de Beauchamp (d. bef
1137) and sister of Payn. This would (if correct) take out the
possible de Vere relationship between Alan of Galloway and the Lacy
constable(s).


Yes, you're quite right. In my excitement I carelessly omitted a generation
of Morvilles. So Beatrice was Alan's great grandmother, not his grandmother.

And looking at the chronology, the relationship I found on the Internet -
claiming Beatrice as a daughter of Payn de Beauchamp by Rohese de Vere - is
clearly quite impossible chronologically. Oh well - at least I was right to
be cautious about that!

One problem with this consanguinity clue is that - according to Nat Taylor's
online reference (http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/consang.htm) - up until
1215 marriage was theoretically prohibited up to the 7th degree (not the 4th
as was the case later on). I don't know how many of Alan's marriages took
place before 1215, but evidently the one we're discussing did. So the
relationship could be a very distant one indeed.

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Evidence re. the identity.... [brief question]

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 sep 2005 23:21:02

In a message dated 9/28/2005 4:11:11 AM Central Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:

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.



Confused lurker, here, with my Lacy generations mixed up. Who were Roger
and Richard's parents? Thanks ~

Peter Stewart

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

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 sep 2005 23:21:04

<Millerfairfield@aol.com> wrote in message
news:216.a3616fd.306c3a47@aol.com...
Peter Stewart kindly presented the following document, edited by Dr Keith
Stringer:-

". Sciant omnes presentes et futuri has Litteras visuri [et] audituri .
Quod
ego Alanus filius Roll(andi) . Dominus Galuuath' Scotie Constab(ularius) .
quitam clamaui . Rogero de lascy . Centrie Constab(ulario) [et] heredibus
suis . de me [et] heredibus meis . aduocationem ecclesie de kipeis . Hijs
Test(ibus) . Eustacio de Vescy . Roberto Walensi . Willelmo de bello monte
.
hugone despensario . Thoma fratre suo . Gilberto fili(o) Cospatric .
Radulfo
de Campania . Ricardo clerico de creuequor litterarum scriptore . [et]
multis aliis."

I translate:-
Let all those living and to come who may see or hear these writings know
that
I Alan son of Roland Lord of Galloway, Constable of Scotland, have
quitclaimed to Roger de Lacy Constable of Chester and his heirs for me and
my heirs the
advowson of Kippax these being witnesses Eustace de Vescy Robert Walensis
William Beaumont Hugh the Despencer Thomas his brother Gilbert son of
Gospatric
Ralph de Campania (?Champagne) and many others.
The document as cited bears no explicit date, but it must evidently have
been
made after the gift of Kippax as a marriage portion to Alan of Galloway:
before that gift Alan would have had no possible claim to surrender.
Perhaps group
members more learned than I am may be able to tie the date down by
reference
to the names of the witnesses?

As I mentioned in another post, Stringer placed it between 1200 and October
1211, perhaps in 1205 when most of the same witnesses occurred in another
charter (not of Alan).

Since we know, from materials already presented to the group, that the
advowson of Kippax had been gifted to an Abbey many years before, we might
I think
deduce that Alan had been asked to surrender his claim back to the person
who
had given the advowson to him, though without any right to do so.

This is not my view - Roger de Lacy may have asked Alan for the quitclaim as
head of his wife's family, because he was held responsible by the priory for
alienating the advowson (i.e. immediately to his brother Richard, but
perhaps intended for the maritagium of Roger's niece to reward Alan for the
family alliance) that had been given ca 1160 by his predecessor. Whether it
was given in perpetuity or not to the priory was maybe still in question,
since Roger's son was not convinced of the facts until many years later.

Even in those
long-distant days a donor of land normally warranted that neither he, nor
anybody through whom he claimed otherwise than for value, had parted with
title
to the subject of his gift. If that is right, then Roger de Lacy/Chester
would
seem to have been the donor of the marriage gift of Kippax, and therefore
to
have been anxious to be released from liability as donor of property to
which
he had no title. But I would accept that it might have been equally
appropriate
for Alan to be asked to surrender a claim to the advowson available to him
by
reason of a gift made by Roger's brother Richard.

Agreed.

I am somewhat surprised that Dr Stringer has not, as far as I have heard,
recorded the deed of gift of Kippax to Alan of Galloway. Have I perhaps
missed
something? I do note that Mr Stewart owns a copy of Keith Stringer, 'Acts
of
Lordship: The Records of the Lords of Galloway to 1234', in T.
Brotherstone and
D. Ditchburn (ed.), Freedom and Authority: Scotland c.1050-c.1650, (East
Linton: Tuckwell Press, 2000). Is there ammunition in this resource with
which to
blow down the walls of Doubting Castle?

No, the only other documents relating to Kippax are later directions from
Alan to the bailiff.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 29 sep 2005 00:20:17

Dear Alex, Chris, and John ~

Thank you for your good posts. You've all made wonderful comments.

The letter of Pope Honorius III dated March 1222 regarding Alan's
marriage that was within the prohibited degrees of consanguinuity
concerns Alan's 2nd marriage to Margaret of Huntingdon, NOT his first
marriage to _____ de Lacy. Alan was severly criticised for contracting
this marriage, as he did not obtain the proper dispensation when he
married Margaret.

As best I understand it, Alan and Margaret were related by common
descent from William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Surrey (died 1138), and
his wife, Isabel (or Elizabeth) de Vermandois. If someone has the
particulars, perhaps they can plot out the exact kinship involved
between Alan and Margaret.

Margaret's part of the descent goes as follows:

1. William de Warenne, d. 1138, m. Isabel (or Elizabeth) de Vermandois.
2. Ada de Warenne, m. Henry of Scotland, Earl of Huntingdon.
3. David of Scotland, Earl of Huntingdon, m. Maud of Chester
4. Margaret of Huntingdon, m. Alan Fitz Roland.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson royala

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 29 sep 2005 00:26:58

Peter Stewart wrote:

This is not my view - Roger de Lacy may have asked Alan for the quitclaim as
head of his wife's family, because he was held responsible by the priory for
alienating the advowson (i.e. immediately to his brother Richard, but
perhaps intended for the maritagium of Roger's niece to reward Alan for the
family alliance) that had been given ca 1160 by his predecessor. Whether it
was given in perpetuity or not to the priory was maybe still in question,
since Roger's son was not convinced of the facts until many years later.

No offense, Peter, but you still haven't resolved the manifest
chronological problem with your "theory." Until you do, it is
pointless to talk about Roger de Lacy's brother, Richard de Chester,
being the father-in-law of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway. It
simply doesn't work.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry,net

Peter Stewart

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

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 sep 2005 00:31:39

Richardson wrote:

No offense, Peter, but you still haven't resolved the manifest
chronological problem with your "theory." Until you do, it is
pointless to talk about Roger de Lacy's brother, Richard de Chester,
being the father-in-law of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway. It
simply doesn't work.

There is no "manifest" problem - Richardson tried to create the
misimpression of one, but his proposed chronology with Roger de Lacy
born "around 1176" immediately fell to bits.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 29 sep 2005 00:52:40

Dear James ~

Thanks for your terrific post. Much appreciated.

The descent you've posted below for Alan Fitz Roland would make Alan
and his 2nd wife, Margaret of Huntingdon, related in the 4th and 3rd
degree of consanguinity. Such a marriage would have required a
dispensation, which this couple did not obtain at the time of their
marriage in 1209.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
< Dear Douglas, Chris, Leo, Peter et al,
< According to
AR 7
< lines 34 and 88 it runs as follows;
< 1 William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Warenne and Surrey
married
< Isabel de Vermandois
< 2 Gundred de Warenne married William I de Lancaster,
Baron
< of Kendal
< 3 Avice de Lancaster married Sir Richard de
Morville, Kt. of
< Lauder, Constable of Scotland
< 4 Elena de Morville married Roland Fitz uchtred,
Lord of
< Galloway
< 5 Alan Fitz Roland, Lord of Galloway succeeded as
Constable
< of Scotland
< Sincerely,
< James W Cummings
< Dixmont, Maine USA

Todd A. Farmerie

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

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 29 sep 2005 01:06:05

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

No offense, Peter,

Given the history and the content, I rather doubt that.

but you still haven't resolved the manifest
chronological problem with your "theory."

From what I have seen so far, the 'chronological problem' was rendered
'manifest' by an unsupported assumption as to Roger's date of birth. As
several have pointed out, chronology may be the key here - if it shows
that ths scribe was sloppy in his use of "sue" when Alan was
brother-in-law of John's father (and if we accept that John is of the
family of the Constables of Chester), then the Roger vs. Richard debate
is rendered moot with respect to Alan's wife, (although not with respect
to the identity of John of the plea). However, we need a full and
detailed analysis, not one that is based on nothing but electrons ("a
website shows that Roger was born . . .") or self-reference ("I show
Alan as born . . ."), or which begs the question ("if we take it that
Roger was born . . ."). That is all we have seen so far, and thus the
only thing manifest is the lack of authentic chronological data.

taf

Peter Stewart

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

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 sep 2005 01:37:28

Todd Farmerie wrote:

<snip>

From what I have seen so far, the 'chronological problem' was rendered
'manifest' by an unsupported assumption as to Roger's date of birth. As
several have pointed out, chronology may be the key here - if it shows
that ths scribe was sloppy in his use of "sue" when Alan was
brother-in-law of John's father (and if we accept that John is of the
family of the Constables of Chester), then the Roger vs. Richard debate
is rendered moot with respect to Alan's wife, (although not with respect
to the identity of John of the plea). However, we need a full and
detailed analysis, not one that is based on nothing but electrons ("a
website shows that Roger was born . . .") or self-reference ("I show
Alan as born . . ."), or which begs the question ("if we take it that
Roger was born . . ."). That is all we have seen so far, and thus the
only thing manifest is the lack of authentic chronological data.

Richardson's unsupported idea that Roger de Lacy was born "around 1176"
does indeed run into some manifest problems: the succession of Roger as
constable of Chester in 1190 when his father died in Palestine, and the
Lacy inheritance going to him in 1194 when he adopted the surname of
these ancestors.

Unless Richardson can present examples of important functionaries in
palatinates aged only "around" 14, and of heirs receiving vast estates
and changing surnames at "around" 18, the indications would seem to be
that Roger was somewhat older than represented in Jim Weber's database
as endorsed by Richardson. Given the crowing that accompanied his
statement, a specific explanation of the rationale, or else a
withdrawal, is due.

Peter Stewart

John P. Ravilious

Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 29 sep 2005 01:38:25

Dear Doug, James, et al.,

Unfortunately, the consanguinity lies in another direction (or with
another spouse along the way).

1. Isabel de Vermandois was married (1st) to Robert de Beaumont,
Earl of Leicester and Count of Meulan. Robert d. (a monk) at the abbey
of Preaux, 5 June 1118, so that the earliest Isabel married (2ndly)
William de Warenne, earl of Surrey was in mid-1118. At the earliest,
Gundreda de Warenne their daughter might have been born say 1119-1125.

2. Gundreda de Warenne was married (1st) to Roger de Newburgh, earl
of Warwick, who d. 12 June 1153. She then married (2ndly), before 1156
[
ES III Tafel 699] to William de Lancaster, of Kendal. I show one
daughter, Isabel (m. to Ivo de Vipont) of this marriage. The marriage
occurred at the earliest, say mid-1153, so we might find issue (Isabel
and any possible siblings) born at the earliest say 1154.

3. Hawise de Lancaster, daughter of William de Lancaster, was wife
of Richard de Morville by 1171/2: I show that 'In 1171/2, Richard de
Morville offered 200 marks to have recognition of his claim to the
lands of his wife Avicia, a daughter of William I of Lancaster..'
[courtesy Nicholas Vincent, citing Pipe Roll 18 Henry II, Pipe Roll
Society, 18 (1894), p. 65, and Furness Coucher Book Volume 2, part 11,
334-38].

4. Most importantly, while I have seen no firm chronology to date,
it appears most likely Alan of Galloway was himself born say 1170-1180
(and possibly earlier), with his being active in the 1190's, and
married (1stly) say 1195/1205.

The range from the (approximate) birth of Gundreda de Warenne to
the (approximate) birth of Alan of Galloway runs between say 61 years
(1119 to 1180) and say 44 years (1126 to 1170). If the descent shown
in the prior message, from Gundreda de Warenne to Alan of Galloway,
were accurate this would give an average of 20.3 to 14.7 years over 3
generations. This would not be fatal to the suggestion, but more
problematically, from Hawise de Lancaster (born say 1154-1160 under the
suggested descent) to Alan of Galloway (again using an approximate
birth range of say 1170-1180) would give us a range of say 26 years
(1154 to 1180) and 10 years (1160 to 1170), an average of 13 to 5 years
over 2 generations. This clearly does not work.

Hawise de Lancaster was certainly the daughter of William de
Lancaster by a spouse prior to Gundreda de Warenne. The source of the
consanguinity between Alan of Galloway and Margaret of Huntingdon
(Scotland) lies in another relationship.

Cheers,

John


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

Thanks for your terrific post. Much appreciated.

The descent you've posted below for Alan Fitz Roland would make Alan
and his 2nd wife, Margaret of Huntingdon, related in the 4th and 3rd
degree of consanguinity. Such a marriage would have required a
dispensation, which this couple did not obtain at the time of their
marriage in 1209.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Douglas, Chris, Leo, Peter et al,
According to
AR 7
lines 34 and 88 it runs as follows;
1 William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Warenne and Surrey
married
Isabel de Vermandois
2 Gundred de Warenne married William I de Lancaster,
Baron
of Kendal
3 Avice de Lancaster married Sir Richard de
Morville, Kt. of
Lauder, Constable of Scotland
4 Elena de Morville married Roland Fitz uchtred,
Lord of
Galloway
5 Alan Fitz Roland, Lord of Galloway succeeded as
Constable
of Scotland
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 sep 2005 01:43:02

Dear Douglas, Chris, Leo, Peter et al,
According to AR 7
lines 34 and 88 it runs as follows;
1 William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Warenne and Surrey married
Isabel de Vermandois
2 Gundred de Warenne married William I de Lancaster, Baron
of Kendal
3 Avice de Lancaster married Sir Richard de Morville, Kt. of
Lauder, Constable of Scotland
4 Elena de Morville married Roland Fitz uchtred, Lord of
Galloway
5 Alan Fitz Roland, Lord of Galloway succeeded as Constable
of Scotland
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

CED

Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway

Legg inn av CED » 29 sep 2005 02:43:38

Chris Phillips wrote:
John P. Ravilious wrote:
I show Beatrice de Beauchamp as great-grandmother of Alan of
Galloway; further, that she was daughter of Robert de Beauchamp (d. bef
1137) and sister of Payn. This would (if correct) take out the
possible de Vere relationship between Alan of Galloway and the Lacy
constable(s).


Yes, you're quite right. In my excitement I carelessly omitted a generation
of Morvilles. So Beatrice was Alan's great grandmother, not his grandmother.

And looking at the chronology, the relationship I found on the Internet -
claiming Beatrice as a daughter of Payn de Beauchamp by Rohese de Vere - is
clearly quite impossible chronologically. Oh well - at least I was right to
be cautious about that!

One problem with this consanguinity clue is that - according to Nat Taylor's
online reference (http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/consang.htm) - up until
1215 marriage was theoretically prohibited up to the 7th degree (not the 4th
as was the case later on). I don't know how many of Alan's marriages took
place before 1215, but evidently the one we're discussing did. So the
relationship could be a very distant one indeed.


Chris,

The Pope's letter expressing Rome's concern was dated after the decree
of the Lateran Council in 1215. Would the Pope be concerning himself
with a marriage, illegal when the parties entered into it, but no
longer illegal?

CED
> Chris Phillips

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 sep 2005 03:00:03

In a message dated 9/28/05 5:41:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

<< Unless Richardson can present examples of important functionaries in
palatinates aged only "around" 14, and of heirs receiving vast estates
and changing surnames at "around" 18, the indications would seem to be
that Roger was somewhat older than represented in Jim Weber's database
as endorsed by Richardson. Given the crowing that accompanied his
statement, a specific explanation of the rationale, or else a
withdrawal, is due. >>

Leo's great web site
has Alice de Mandeville marrying John de Lacy (later Constable of Chester) in
1157.

Peter Stewart states that Robert de Lacy succeeded as Constable of Chester in
1190 since his father died at the Siege of Acre in that year.

If those two statements are correct than we can say that Roger was born
1157/72 perhaps which would allow him to succeed as Constable at the age of 18 at
least.

I'm not sure what sorts of ages a person would have to reach in order to be a
"Constable".

Will Johnson

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»