GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-09 > 1127848918
From:
Subject: Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:21:58 EDT
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
This thread:
| Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway by |