GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-09 > 1127860731
From: "Peter Stewart" < >
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife, _____ de Lacy
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:38:51 GMT
References: <9577484.1127777011386.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <1127787297.377668.180490@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <U_2_e.15757$0E5.9068@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <1127795331.082021.132810@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1127797378.585232.39460@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1127830754.650979.45670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
I see the fog had thickened once more in SLC. Comments interspersed:
< > wrote in message
news: ...
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
> Peter Stewart wrote:
>> 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 think it's rather clear from the enormous sum of money being charged
> in the 1214 Pipe Roll record, that the indiovidual involved in this
> record was John de Lacy. I might also note that this entry is indexed
> by the modern editor under John de Lacy.
Neither point advanced here is proof that the person wasn't John de Lacy's
cousin John de Chester. A modern editor's opinion and the sum of money
involved are hardly conclusive: but even if it can be established that John
de Lacy was still occasionally called "John de Chester" throughout his life,
this doesn't go any way to changing the name of his father from Roger to
Richard, or confirming the unnecessary amendment from one to the other that
Richardson's case depends upon.
>> > 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.
>
> John de Lacy refers to himself as Constable of Chester in this charter.
> As such, this charter is dated before 1232, when John de Lacy became
> Earl of Lincoln. The charter was also witnessed by "Carolo abbate de
> Stanlaw." If a list of the abbots of Stanlaw can be found, it may be
> possible to obtain a better date for this charter.
You ought to know where to find a list of abbots from the early 13th
century. Obviously the range is narrowed to 1211-32 at least.
>> > 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.
>
> No, Peter, your point was that John de Lacy was not known as John de
> Chester after 1194. I have shown that to be incorrect. So, there is
> no reason to go looking for another individual when we know that John
> de Lacy was also known as John de Chester.
I 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".' This is NOT the same as misrepresented above, and in any case it
has NOT been shown to be incorrect. As for the reason 'to go looking for
another individual', the evidence under discussion related to a John de
Chester whose father was named Richard - prima facie this is NOT John de
Lacy, whose father was Roger.
> I don't have any particulars on John de Lacy's uncle, Richard de
> Chester, but I'll take your word for it that such an individual
> existed. I also have no evidence that Richard de Chester had a son,
> John de Chester. If you have such evidence, I would like to see it.
> When you have the opportunity, please produce this evidence.
You have been talking about this evidence for days: it is the SAME document
that you accept as proof for the marriage of John de Chester's sister to
Alan of Galloway. Her brother John was called upon to confirm the
transactions of his father Richard, at around the same time as John de Lacy,
his cousin, was discovering that his own claimed rights to Kippax were not
sound.
>> 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.
>
> On this point, I think you are on very weak ground. I know of no
> evidence that Roger de Lacy granted the manor and advowson of Kippax,
> Yorkshire to his brother, Richard de Chester. And, I know of no
> evidence that Richard de Chester had a son, John, living in 1214.
> Moreover, in 1232, when there was a dispute regarding the advowson of
> Kippax, it was John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln (formerly known as John de
> Chester), who quitclaimed his rights to this advowson to Pontefract
> Priory, NOT a kinsman named John de Chester. As such, I have to
> conclude that it was John de Lacy who was the John de Chester involved
> in the 1214 lawsuit.
I wonder what thread Richardson is reading. He knows of "no evidence" for
exactly the information contained in the evidence under review. He is so
bound up with the pre-suppositions he brought to this question that he can't
now see beyond these, or even see a reason not to announce his blinkerdom to
the newsgroup....
> As for Alan Fitz Roland, he could have married anyone in Scotland or
> England whose family was of the rank of earl. In your scenario, you're
> suggesting that Alan married a daughter of the younger brother of the
> Constable of Chester. Such a marriage would have been considered
> disparaging to someone of Alan Fitz Roland's rank.
>
> I find that when they could marry well, they did so, at least for their
> first marriage. And, this was Alan Fitz Roland's first marriage.
This is an argument from the person who once insisted that Roger Bigod
married Ida from the cadet Akeny branch of the Tosny family!
If Alan wanted to ally himself to the family of Roger de Lacy and only a
niece was available at the time, why on earth wouldn't she be acceptable? We
have NO evidence of a daughter of Roger in this question, but we do have
evidence of a daughter of his brother Richard.
>> 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.
>
> I find errors in the Curia Regis Rolls from time to time, so I know
> mistakes were made in the surviving texts. So, yes, it is entirely
> possible that the name Richard could have been incorrectly inserted for
> the name, Roger. The Curia Regis Rolls are not the original pleadings,
> but short summaries of the cases. We have to assume that clerical
> errors took place when transcribing the details of the pleadings, just
> as errors occur today. The last time I filed in court, the clerk made
> an error which later had to be corrected. To err in legal records is
> human, to forgive is divine.
On this basis it is just as possible that "Richard" was an error for any
other name. However, we know there was a Richard de Chester, who from other
circumstantial evidence could have been part of the problem that his nephew
John de Lacy ran into when he found that his rights to Kippax were not as he
had supposed.
If errors in the primary record are to be established these need to be
proved with solid reasoning, not merely forced to fit an arbitrary scheme
that involves renaming more than one person.
Peter Stewart
This thread:
| Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife, _____ de Lacy by "Peter Stewart" < > |