Re:Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland's wife
Millerf...@aol.com
Stringer:-
". Sciant omnes presentes et futuri has Litteras visuri [et] audituri . Quod
ego Alanus filius Roll(andi) . Dominus Galuuath' Scotie Constab(ularius) .
quitam clamaui . Rogero de lascy . Centrie Constab(ulario) [et] heredibus
suis . de me [et] heredibus meis . aduocationem ecclesie de kipeis . Hijs
Test(ibus) . Eustacio de Vescy . Roberto Walensi . Willelmo de bello monte .
hugone despensario . Thoma fratre suo . Gilberto fili(o) Cospatric . Radulfo
de Campania . Ricardo clerico de creuequor litterarum scriptore . [et]
multis aliis."
I translate:-
Let all those living and to come who may see or hear these writings know that
I Alan son of Roland Lord of Galloway, Constable of Scotland, have
quitclaimed to Roger de Lacy Constable of Chester and his heirs for me and my heirs the
advowson of Kippax these being witnesses Eustace de Vescy Robert Walensis
William Beaumont Hugh the Despencer Thomas his brother Gilbert son of Gospatric
Ralph de Campania (?Champagne) and many others.
The document as cited bears no explicit date, but it must evidently have been
made after the gift of Kippax as a marriage portion to Alan of Galloway:
before that gift Alan would have had no possible claim to surrender. Perhaps group
members more learned than I am may be able to tie the date down by reference
to the names of the witnesses?
Since we know, from materials already presented to the group, that the
advowson of Kippax had been gifted to an Abbey many years before, we might I think
deduce that Alan had been asked to surrender his claim back to the person who
had given the advowson to him, though without any right to do so. Even in those
long-distant days a donor of land normally warranted that neither he, nor
anybody through whom he claimed otherwise than for value, had parted with title
to the subject of his gift. If that is right, then Roger de Lacy/Chester would
seem to have been the donor of the marriage gift of Kippax, and therefore to
have been anxious to be released from liability as donor of property to which
he had no title. But I would accept that it might have been equally appropriate
for Alan to be asked to surrender a claim to the advowson available to him by
reason of a gift made by Roger's brother Richard.
I am somewhat surprised that Dr Stringer has not, as far as I have heard,
recorded the deed of gift of Kippax to Alan of Galloway. Have I perhaps missed
something? I do note that Mr Stewart owns a copy of Keith Stringer, 'Acts of
Lordship: The Records of the Lords of Galloway to 1234', in T. Brotherstone and
D. Ditchburn (ed.), Freedom and Authority: Scotland c.1050-c.1650, (East
Linton: Tuckwell Press, 2000). Is there ammunition in this resource with which to
blow down the walls of Doubting Castle?
MM
CED
Millerf...@aol.com wrote:
> Peter Stewart kindly presented the following document, edited by Dr Keith
> Stringer:-
To the Newsgroup:
As the document indicates, the quitclaim was early in use in English
law (check Blackstone). To give a quitclaim was (and in most
jurisdictions still is) a method of clearing cloud on title.
To give or receive a quitclaim is not considered an admission or
acknowledgement of any right or claim on the title of the property for
which that quitclaim was given. It simply is a means to clear the
title of the property of any claim, real or imagined, by the person
giving the quitclaim. Otherwise, it would be necessary to bring a suit
in court to establish title.
At any rate, court documents regarding land holdings during the reigns
of Kings Richard I and John should be subject to question. Remember,
the buy and selling of justice was one of the complaints of the barons
in Magna Carta.
CED
Peter Stewart
<Millerf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:216.a3616f...@aol.com...
As I mentioned in another post, Stringer placed it between 1200 and October
1211, perhaps in 1205 when most of the same witnesses occurred in another
charter (not of Alan).
> Since we know, from materials already presented to the group, that the
> advowson of Kippax had been gifted to an Abbey many years before, we might
> I think
> deduce that Alan had been asked to surrender his claim back to the person
> who
> had given the advowson to him, though without any right to do so.
This is not my view - Roger de Lacy may have asked Alan for the quitclaim as
head of his wife's family, because he was held responsible by the priory for
alienating the advowson (i.e. immediately to his brother Richard, but
perhaps intended for the maritagium of Roger's niece to reward Alan for the
family alliance) that had been given ca 1160 by his predecessor. Whether it
was given in perpetuity or not to the priory was maybe still in question,
since Roger's son was not convinced of the facts until many years later.
> Even in those
> long-distant days a donor of land normally warranted that neither he, nor
> anybody through whom he claimed otherwise than for value, had parted with
> title
> to the subject of his gift. If that is right, then Roger de Lacy/Chester
> would
> seem to have been the donor of the marriage gift of Kippax, and therefore
> to
> have been anxious to be released from liability as donor of property to
> which
> he had no title. But I would accept that it might have been equally
> appropriate
> for Alan to be asked to surrender a claim to the advowson available to him
> by
> reason of a gift made by Roger's brother Richard.
Agreed.
> I am somewhat surprised that Dr Stringer has not, as far as I have heard,
> recorded the deed of gift of Kippax to Alan of Galloway. Have I perhaps
> missed
> something? I do note that Mr Stewart owns a copy of Keith Stringer, 'Acts
> of
> Lordship: The Records of the Lords of Galloway to 1234', in T.
> Brotherstone and
> D. Ditchburn (ed.), Freedom and Authority: Scotland c.1050-c.1650, (East
> Linton: Tuckwell Press, 2000). Is there ammunition in this resource with
> which to
> blow down the walls of Doubting Castle?
No, the only other documents relating to Kippax are later directions from
Alan to the bailiff.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
> This is not my view - Roger de Lacy may have asked Alan for the quitclaim as
> head of his wife's family, because he was held responsible by the priory for
> alienating the advowson (i.e. immediately to his brother Richard, but
> perhaps intended for the maritagium of Roger's niece to reward Alan for the
> family alliance) that had been given ca 1160 by his predecessor. Whether it
> was given in perpetuity or not to the priory was maybe still in question,
> since Roger's son was not convinced of the facts until many years later.
No offense, Peter, but you still haven't resolved the manifest
chronological problem with your "theory." Until you do, it is
pointless to talk about Roger de Lacy's brother, Richard de Chester,
being the father-in-law of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway. It
simply doesn't work.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry,net
Peter Stewart
> No offense, Peter, but you still haven't resolved the manifest
> chronological problem with your "theory." Until you do, it is
> pointless to talk about Roger de Lacy's brother, Richard de Chester,
> being the father-in-law of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway. It
> simply doesn't work.
There is no "manifest" problem - Richardson tried to create the
misimpression of one, but his proposed chronology with Roger de Lacy
born "around 1176" immediately fell to bits.
Peter Stewart
Todd A. Farmerie
> No offense, Peter,
Given the history and the content, I rather doubt that.
but you still haven't resolved the manifest
> chronological problem with your "theory."
From what I have seen so far, the 'chronological problem' was rendered
'manifest' by an unsupported assumption as to Roger's date of birth. As
several have pointed out, chronology may be the key here - if it shows
that ths scribe was sloppy in his use of "sue" when Alan was
brother-in-law of John's father (and if we accept that John is of the
family of the Constables of Chester), then the Roger vs. Richard debate
is rendered moot with respect to Alan's wife, (although not with respect
to the identity of John of the plea). However, we need a full and
detailed analysis, not one that is based on nothing but electrons ("a
website shows that Roger was born . . .") or self-reference ("I show
Alan as born . . ."), or which begs the question ("if we take it that
Roger was born . . ."). That is all we have seen so far, and thus the
only thing manifest is the lack of authentic chronological data.
taf
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> From what I have seen so far, the 'chronological problem' was rendered
> 'manifest' by an unsupported assumption as to Roger's date of birth. As
> several have pointed out, chronology may be the key here - if it shows
> that ths scribe was sloppy in his use of "sue" when Alan was
> brother-in-law of John's father (and if we accept that John is of the
> family of the Constables of Chester), then the Roger vs. Richard debate
> is rendered moot with respect to Alan's wife, (although not with respect
> to the identity of John of the plea). However, we need a full and
> detailed analysis, not one that is based on nothing but electrons ("a
> website shows that Roger was born . . .") or self-reference ("I show
> Alan as born . . ."), or which begs the question ("if we take it that
> Roger was born . . ."). That is all we have seen so far, and thus the
> only thing manifest is the lack of authentic chronological data.
Richardson's unsupported idea that Roger de Lacy was born "around 1176"
does indeed run into some manifest problems: the succession of Roger as
constable of Chester in 1190 when his father died in Palestine, and the
Lacy inheritance going to him in 1194 when he adopted the surname of
these ancestors.
Unless Richardson can present examples of important functionaries in
palatinates aged only "around" 14, and of heirs receiving vast estates
and changing surnames at "around" 18, the indications would seem to be
that Roger was somewhat older than represented in Jim Weber's database
as endorsed by Richardson. Given the crowing that accompanied his
statement, a specific explanation of the rationale, or else a
withdrawal, is due.
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
p_m_s...@msn.com writes:
<< Unless Richardson can present examples of important functionaries in
palatinates aged only "around" 14, and of heirs receiving vast estates
and changing surnames at "around" 18, the indications would seem to be
that Roger was somewhat older than represented in Jim Weber's database
as endorsed by Richardson. Given the crowing that accompanied his
statement, a specific explanation of the rationale, or else a
withdrawal, is due. >>
Leo's great web site
has Alice de Mandeville marrying John de Lacy (later Constable of Chester) in
1157.
Peter Stewart states that Robert de Lacy succeeded as Constable of Chester in
1190 since his father died at the Siege of Acre in that year.
If those two statements are correct than we can say that Roger was born
1157/72 perhaps which would allow him to succeed as Constable at the age of 18 at
least.
I'm not sure what sorts of ages a person would have to reach in order to be a
"Constable".
Will Johnson
Chris Phillips
> Leo's great web site
> has Alice de Mandeville marrying John de Lacy (later Constable of Chester)
in
> 1157.
This would agree with your previous statement that Roger's maternal
grandmother was Rohese de Vere (assuming Alice de Mandeville is supposed to
be a daughter of Geoffrey de M by Rohese), but it does seem to be an error
(Leo cites Turton, Plantagenet Ancestry).
Certainly Keats-Rohan [Domesday Descendants, p. 250] shows the wife of John
de Lacy as "Alice daughter of Roger of Warkworth and Adelisa de Vere".
Complete Peerage [vol. 10, Appendix J, p. 116, note d] agrees, citing Rot.
de Dominabus [1185] for the information that Alice/Adelisa had a daughter
married to John, the Constable of Chester.
Chris Phillips