GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-10 > 1129060022


From: "Douglas Richardson" < >
Subject: Re: Richard de Chester, brother of Sir Roger de Lacy, Constable of Chester
Date: 11 Oct 2005 12:47:02 -0700
References: <4f392g$13uj6h@mk-ironport-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com>
In-Reply-To: <4f392g$13uj6h@mk-ironport-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com>


Dear Peter ~

Thank you for your good post.

In answer to your question, the crux of the matter with the Richard de
Chester theory are the passage of his lands, the lack of issue, and the
tight chronology. We'll discuss each aspect in order below.

First, it appears that Richard de Chester had three pieces of property:
the manor of More, Cheshire, by gift of his brother; a tract of land in
Wethale (in Aston by Budworth), Cheshire; and a 1/4th interest in a
market at Burton upon Stather, Lincolnshire. What became of these
properties?

The tract at Wethale (in Aston by Budworth) was conveyed by Richard de
Chester to Adam de Dutton and his heirs.

The manor of More, Cheshire was back in the hands of his brother,
Roger's son, John de Lacy, before 1232.

The manor at Burton upon Stather, Lincolnshire was in the hands of his
brother, Roger's descendant, Alice, Countess of Lancaster, and her
husband in 1314, when they were granted a weekly market at the manor
there.

The passage of Richard de Chester's properties indicates to me that he
had no issue. Both pieces of property he presumably held at his death
reverted to his brother's descendants.

As to the manor and advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire, I find no evidence
that Richard de Chester ever had any association with this property.
In fact, just the opposite. I find that Richard de Chester's brother,
Roger, had land dealings there. And, Roger's son, John de Lacy,
quitclaimed his interest in the advowson there in 1232. No Richard de
Chester.

As far as chronology goes, it seems rather certain that Richard de
Chester's paternal grandmother, Aubrey de Lisours, was born in or
around 1130, at which date the Pipe Rolls show that her father fined
for his marriage to Aubrey's mother. We can reasonably certain that
Aubrey was born no earlier than 1130, as she married her third husband,
William Fitz Godric, about 1170, and had two sons, William and Thomas,
by that marriage.

Likewise, we know that Aubrey's son by her first marriage, John,
Constable of Chester, was born about 1145, as he obtained his lands in
1166. As such, Aubrey de Lisours can only have been about 14 or 15 at
the birth of her eldest son and heir, John, Constable of Chester.

It likewise appears reasonably certain that Richard de Chester's older
brother, Roger de Chester (afterwards Roger de Lacy), was born in or
about 1165, as he had a son, Robert, old enough to witness a royal
charter in 1205. Also, we know that Roger de Chester was at least aged
21 in 1190, at the time of his father, John, died in the Holy Land.

Even going with the eldest line of the Lacy family, you have an extreme
tight chronology if Roger de Lacy is to be the father of Alan Fitz
Roland's wife. This is indicated by the fact that Alan Fitz Roland was
born in or before 1175, he being of age before 1196. This makes him at
best ten years younger than Roger de Lacy, and possibly even closer in
age.

If we assume that Alan Fitz Roland's wife was the daughter of Roger de
Lacy's younger brother, Richard de Chester, the chronology is even
tighter. More over, there is no evidence that Richard de Chester had a
son, John de Chester, living in 1214, as the theory of Richard de
Chester posits. No such person occurs in the records. Assuming
Richard de Chester did have a son, John, the manor of More and the
market at Burton upon Stather should have descended to him and his
heirs. Yet both of these properties appear to have gone back to
Richard de Chester's brother's line.

Summarizing the evidence, I find the evidence persuasive and compelling
that Richard de Chester died without surviving issue, his lands
reverting to his older brother's line. Next, there is no evidence
Richard de Chester ever held Kippax and Scholes, Yorkshire, the
maritagium of Alan Fitz Roland's wife. And, finally, as I have
pointed out, the chronology is extremely tight, if not impossible for
Richard de Chester to be Alan Fitz Roland's father-in-law.

We can conjecture many possibilities, but we still have to return to
the evidence. In this case, I believe the weight of the evidence is
solid that Richard de Chester is not the father of Alan Fitz Roland's
wife. That leaves us but one remaining possibility: that Alan Fitz
Roland's wife was the daughter of Roger de Chester (also known as Roger
de Lacy), who died in 1211.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net


"Peter G R Howarth" wrote:

> Douglas Richardson [ ] wrote:
>
> >Peter Stewart wrote:
> >
> >> Once again, I am not reseaching this - and you can't goad or cajole
> >> me into doing so.
>
> >More sketchy and incomplete research, eh, Peter?
>
> Mr Richardson,
>
> This is an attempt to score a debating point rather than a genuine search
> for the truth. Peter Stewart has pointed out the weaknesses in your
> evidence. Why can you not accept that the theory you propound is a distinct
> possibility but is not yet a certainty? What is wrong with that?
>
> Peter G R Howarth
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/128 - Release Date: 10/10/2005


This thread: