GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-10 > 1128902348
From: "Douglas Richardson" < >
Subject: Re: Richard de Chester, brother of Sir Roger de Lacy, Constable of Chester
Date: 9 Oct 2005 16:59:08 -0700
References: <1128844754.214416.306390@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <jt52f.11836$U51.8673@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <1128873465.381531.21120@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <RLg2f.12270$U51.517@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
In-Reply-To: <RLg2f.12270$U51.517@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> Um, what about Alan of Galloway, with his father-in-law named as Richard?
As you already know, I've stated my belief that this is a clerical
error in the Curia Regis Rolls. I find errors like this ALL the time
in ALL classes of medieval records.
Here's another one for you.
John, Constable of Chester (died 1190), issued a charter in the period,
c. 1175-1190 [see Hatton, Book of Seals (1950): 358-359]. It was
witnessed by "Rogero constabulario Cestrie . Ricardo et Galfrido
fratibus ipsius Rogeri."
The editor adds this note:
"It is evident, as Farrer points out, that the attestation "Rogero
constabulario Cestrie" must be a scribal error for "Rogero filio
constabularii Cestrie."
Scribal errors like this are par for the course for records of this
time period.
> And the evidence does NOT support that the people found in connection with
> Kippax were the "only" ones dealing with the manor. The evidence doesn't
> begin to substantiate what we can't know about this.
As far as the manor and advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire are concerned,
the only people in this family that I've found dealing with this
property in this time period are: (1) Sir Roger de Lacy, Constable of
Chester (died 1211); (2) Roger's son, John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln,
Constable of Chester (died 1240), and (3) Roger's grandson, Edmund de
Lacy, Earl of Lincoln (died 1258). There is no evidence to suggest
that Sir Roger de Lacy's younger brother, Richard de Chester, ever
married or had issue; in fact, it appears that on his death as a leper,
Richard's chief estate, More, Cheshire, passed back to his nephew, John
de Lacy.
To be even more specific, in the time period of John de Lacy, Earl of
Lincoln (died 1240), the only other male members of his immediate
family who appear in the records are his legitimate son and heir,
Edmund, and his illegitimate son, Peter de Chester (also known as Peter
de Lacy), a priest. As best I can tell, all three of Earl John's
uncles, Richard, Eustace, and Geoffrey (all surnamed "de Chester"),
appear to have died without issue; certainly without male issue.
As such, I must conclude that the first wife of Alan Fitz Roland was
the daughter of Sir Roger de Lacy (otherwise Roger de Chester),
Constable of Chester (died 1211), by his wife, Maud (said to be a
Clare). This is a correction for my book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005),
pg. 685.
> Peter Stewart
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
This thread:
| Re: Richard de Chester, brother of Sir Roger de Lacy, Constable of Chester by "Douglas Richardson" < > |