GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-09 > 1127856825


From: "Douglas Richardson " < >
Subject: Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway
Date: 27 Sep 2005 14:33:45 -0700
References: <1f5.13009891.306af5d6@aol.com> <1127851678.353758.224940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <2Ph_e.8939$7b6.2373@twister.nyroc.rr.com>
In-Reply-To: <2Ph_e.8939$7b6.2373@twister.nyroc.rr.com>


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: 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


This thread: