N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Kevin Bradford
The following correction to Douglas Richardson's _Magna Charta ancestry_ [Boston: GPC, 2004], p. 685, updates the identification of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway's 1st wife, and as a consequence will undoubtedly change many people's GEDCOMs. In the aforementioned work, Mr. Richardson says the following about Alan Fitz Roland's 1st wife:
"_____, daughter of John Fitz Richard, of Pontefract, Yorkshire, hereditary Constable of Chester"
This statement, when corrected in the text, should read:
"_____, daughter of Richard de Crevequor."
In his post to SGM under date of 13 Sep. 2002, Mr. Richardson gives as the source for his statement the _Curia Regis Rolls_, 7 (1935): 85-86 ("suit by Alan of Galloway re: Kippax, co. York which he had in marriage with the aunt of John [de Lacy] [brackets are Mr. Richardson's], constable of Chester)."
I have a copy of this document in my possession, dated 1214 CE, which reads as follows:
Cumb’.—Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton’ Adam de Hocton’, tres milites de comitatu Cumberland’ missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene de Morevill’ et Alani de Galweia filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden’ in comitatu Roteland’ et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr’ de warantia carte de terra de Kippes in comitatu Ebor’, dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de Torinton’ vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de Londor’ de placito ecclesie de Wissenden’ in comitatu Roteland’. Dicunt etiam quod Alanus de Galweye posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor versus Johannem de Cestr’ de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in comitatu Ebor’. Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die. Et quoniam Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit, qui!
debuit testificasse simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum, consideratum est quod atachietur quod sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas. Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.
The above document shows Richard de Crevequor acting together in a suit with his son-in-law, John of Chester [not to be confused with the constable, as see below]
As proof of the relationship of Alan Fitz Roland de Galloway [Galweye] to his father-in-law, Richard de Crevequor, there is a maritagium suit in the same source [_Curia Regis Rolls_], further down on p. 86, under date of 1214 CE, which reads:
Ebor’.—Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr’ de placito quod idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc., et summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.
The above document reads:
Yorks.--Through the agency of the aforesaid Hamon the Clerk and Richard of Crevequor, Alan of Galweye [Galloway] acted on the fourth day against John of Chester concerning the plea that the same John guarantees the documents of Richard his father which Alan of Galway has concerning the marriage of his sister: he himself did not appear or give an excuse for his non-appearance, and a summons (was issued). For that reason an attachment was made with a fixed expiry.
In the above suit, the actual relationships between these parties are spelled out in clear detail. Alan Fitz Richard de Galloway's wife was a sister of one John of Chester, whose father was Richard de Crevequor. Attempting to match John [de Lacy], constable of Chester, with the John of the maritagium, turns out to be a chronological non sequitur: John de Lacy, hereditary Constable of Chester, died in 1190; his father, Richard Fitz Eustace, died in 1163. The suits in question date from the 1st part of the 13th c.
Elsewhere in SGM [13 Sept. 2002], Mr. Richardson claims that Alan of Galloway "was actually known in his lifetime as Alan Fitz Roland." This is only partially correct. The two suits I have quoted here show that he was also referred to as "Alan of Galloway."
In light of these suits, the statement in the Scots Peerage that Alan's 1st wife was "said to be a daughter of Reginald, Lord of the Isles" [SP 4:141], can be effectively disregarded.
All the best,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet60/plantagenet01.htm
Cliff Watts
>> [Boston: GPC, 2004], <<
If we're correcting things, let's put GPC in Baltimore and date the book
2005.
--
Cliff Watts
Written at Westborough, MA
CED
Kevin Bradford wrote:
> Fellow Genealogists,
Kevin Bradford:
Congratulations on work well done. It is about time that a qualified
person attack this problem. DR's attempted correction of a document to
fit the pre-chosen persons had to be exposed by somebody whose
qualifications and motives were not suspect. Again: Good work!
CED
>
> The following correction to Douglas Richardson's _Magna Charta ancestry_ [Boston: GPC, 2004], p. 685, updates the identification of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway's 1st wife, and as a consequence will undoubtedly change many people's GEDCOMs. In the aforementioned work, Mr. Richardson says the following about Alan Fitz Roland's 1st wife:
>
> "_____, daughter of John Fitz Richard, of Pontefract, Yorkshire, hereditary Constable of Chester"
>
> This statement, when corrected in the text, should read:
>
> "_____, daughter of Richard de Crevequor."
>
> In his post to SGM under date of 13 Sep. 2002, Mr. Richardson gives as the source for his statement the _Curia Regis Rolls_, 7 (1935): 85-86 ("suit by Alan of Galloway re: Kippax, co. York which he had in marriage with the aunt of John [de Lacy] [brackets are Mr. Richardson's], constable of Chester)."
>
> I have a copy of this document in my possession, dated 1214 CE, which reads as follows:
>
> Cumb'.-Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton' Adam de Hocton', tres milites de comitatu Cumberland' missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene de Morevill' et Alani de Galweia filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden' in comitatu Roteland' et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr' de warantia carte de terra de Kippes in comitatu Ebor', dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de Torinton' vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de Londor' de placito ecclesie de Wissenden' in comitatu Roteland'. Dicunt etiam quod Alanus de Galweye posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor versus Johannem de Cestr' de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in comitatu Ebor'. Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die. Et quoniam Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit, qui!
> debuit testificasse simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum, consideratum est quod atachietur quod sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas. Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.
>
> The above document shows Richard de Crevequor acting together in a suit with his son-in-law, John of Chester [not to be confused with the constable, as see below]
>
> As proof of the relationship of Alan Fitz Roland de Galloway [Galweye] to his father-in-law, Richard de Crevequor, there is a maritagium suit in the same source [_Curia Regis Rolls_], further down on p. 86, under date of 1214 CE, which reads:
>
> Ebor'.-Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr' de placito quod idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc., et summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
My book is entitled Magna Carta Ancestry, not Magna Charta Ancestry.
It was published in Baltimore in 2005, not Boston in 2004.
As for your rendering of the Latin, you seem to have gotten things
twisted around a bit. Richard de Crevequer was the attorney for the
plaintiff, Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway. He was NOT the
father of the defendant, John of Chester. And, he was certainly NOT
the father-in-law of the plaintiff, Alan Fitz Roland.
The defendant, John of Chester, is the man of that name who is better
known as John de Lacy (died 1240), Earl of Lincoln, who was one of the
famous Magna Carta barons. He was occasionally known as John of
Chester in his early life, taking his name from his position as
hereditary Constable of Chester. His family held the manor of Kippax,
Yorkshire. The manor was given in marriage by John de Lacy's father,
Roger de Lacy, to Roger's sister, Alan Fitz Roland's first wife, whose
given name is unknown.
As far as the passage in the 1214 lawsuit is concerned, I believe the
reference to "Ricardi patris sui" [Richard his father] should read
"Rogeri patris suis." [Roger his father]. Slips like this are
occasionally found in the records of Curia Regis Rolls.
I don't have my notes in front of me, but as I recall, following the
1214 lawsuit you have mentioned, there was also a later wrangling over
the advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire by Alan Fitz Roland's son-in-law,
Roger de Quincy. Roger de Quincy was the husband of Alan's elder
daughter and co-heiress, Ellen Fitz Alan of Galloway. When I have
access to my notes, I'll post the pertinent citations for you.
In any event, this is not a chronological non sequitur. You have
mistakenly confused John Fitz Richard (died 1190), hereditary Constable
of Chester, with his grandson, John de Lacy (died 1240), also
hereditary Constable of Chester. The defendant in the 1214 lawsuit was
John de Lacy (died 1240), NOT his grandfather. I clearly stated this
in the citations in my book:
"Curia Regis Rolls_, 7 (1935): 85-86 ("suit by Alan of Galloway re:
Kippax, co. York which he had in marriage with the aunt of John [de
Lacy], constable of Chester)." END OF QUOTE.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Kevin Bradford wrote:
> Fellow Genealogists,
>
> The following correction to Douglas Richardson's _Magna Charta ancestry_ [Boston: GPC, 2004], p. 685, updates the identification of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway's 1st wife, and as a consequence will undoubtedly change many people's GEDCOMs. In the aforementioned work, Mr. Richardson says the following about Alan Fitz Roland's 1st wife:
>
> "_____, daughter of John Fitz Richard, of Pontefract, Yorkshire, hereditary Constable of Chester"
>
> This statement, when corrected in the text, should read:
>
> "_____, daughter of Richard de Crevequor."
>
> In his post to SGM under date of 13 Sep. 2002, Mr. Richardson gives as the source for his statement the _Curia Regis Rolls_, 7 (1935): 85-86 ("suit by Alan of Galloway re: Kippax, co. York which he had in marriage with the aunt of John [de Lacy] [brackets are Mr. Richardson's], constable of Chester)."
>
> I have a copy of this document in my possession, dated 1214 CE, which reads as follows:
>
> Cumb'.-Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton' Adam de Hocton', tres milites de comitatu Cumberland' missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene de Morevill' et Alani de Galweia filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden' in comitatu Roteland' et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr' de warantia carte de terra de Kippes in comitatu Ebor', dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de Torinton' vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de Londor' de placito ecclesie de Wissenden' in comitatu Roteland'. Dicunt etiam quod Alanus de Galweye posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor versus Johannem de Cestr' de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in comitatu Ebor'. Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die. Et quoniam Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit, qui!
> debuit testificasse simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum, consideratum est quod atachietur quod sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas. Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.
>
> The above document shows Richard de Crevequor acting together in a suit with his son-in-law, John of Chester [not to be confused with the constable, as see below]
>
> As proof of the relationship of Alan Fitz Roland de Galloway [Galweye] to his father-in-law, Richard de Crevequor, there is a maritagium suit in the same source [_Curia Regis Rolls_], further down on p. 86, under date of 1214 CE, which reads:
>
> Ebor'.-Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr' de placito quod idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc., et summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
As a followup to my original message, I thought I'd post the following
items from the helpful National Archives Catalogue which sheds some
light on the subsequent history of the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire. As
I indicated in my earlier post, the manor of Kippax was the maritagium
of Alan Fitz Roland's first wife, _____ de Lacy. Sir Roger de Quincy,
Earl of Winchester, named below was the husband of Ellen, daughter and
co-heiress of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway. Sir Roger de Quincy
obtained his interest in the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire through his
wife, Ellen's mother, the first wife of Alan Fitz Roland.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: National Archives Catalogue
(http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp)
Document #1:
DL 27/203
Date: 1253.
Agreement (chirograph) between Lord Roger de Quency, earl of
Winchester, constable of Scotland, and Edmund de Lascy his kinsman:
Roger grants Edmund the manor of Kippax and Scholes for a pair of
gloves in grey fur at Christmas; provided the earl's previous grants of
land there to John de Lungvilers and Robert de Walecote be ratified:
[Yorks]. Edmund grants Roger his manors of Kneesall and Wadenhoe with
the wapentake of Kneesall; reserving the homage and services of all
holding by knight service; with reversion to Edmund: [Notts],
[Northants]. If the manors of Kippax and Scholes are not worth £10,
Edmund may have to assign to Roger more land in their neighbourhood.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Document #2:
C 148/109
Date: 1256
Subject: Agreement, indented, whereby Sir William Lungeespee grants to
Henry son of Sir Edmund de Lacy and Margaret daughter of the said
William, in free marriage, his manors of Bicester and Middleton Stoney
(Middelton), and the said Edmund grants her, for life, his manors of
Skyppes and Scales (Kippax and Scoles) Counties: Oxfordshire &
Yorkshire West Riding
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Those interested in the earlier history of the manor of Kippax,
Yorkshire can find it listed among the lands holdings of Ilbert de Lacy
in the Domesday Book of Yorkshire in 1086:
http://www.milsom100.freeserve.co.uk/thwebrus/lacyland.htm
The manor subsequently fell by lineal descent to Roger de Lacy (died
1211), hereditary Constable of Chester, who granted it in marriage to
his sister, ____, the first wife of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
So nice to hear from you again. To be perfectly honest, I've missed
your posts.
Since I know you like definitions, perhaps you would be so good as to
define for us the words in your post below: "qualified person" and
"good work." Your words seem a bit vague, and I want to be sure I
understand exactly what you are saying when you use these words.
One other thing: If you had searched the newsgroup archives, you would
quickly have determined that the identification of Alan Fitz Roland's
first wife as a Lacy was first made by the noted historian, Keith J.
Stringer, Ph.D., in his book, Essays on the Nobility of Medieval
Scotland, published in 1985. Since Dr. Stringer first made the
identification, not me, don't you think you are misrepresenting the
facts when you allege that I have attempted to fit "pre-chosen persons"
to fit a document? Or, do you now wish to "expose" Dr. Stringer's work
as "bad" and him as "unqualified"? If so, please present your evidence
to support your allegations. Also, please provide us with your
credentials to prove you are in a position of knowledge to be able to
determine the worth of Dr. Stringer's work.
I'm eagerly looking forward to your reply.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
CED
Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> Dear CED ~
>
> So nice to hear from you again. To be perfectly honest, I've missed
> your posts.
To the Newsgroup;
So sorry that DR has missed my posts. I apologize for not posting; but
I have an excuse - my computer went kaplooey and I lost my hard drive.
DR could well have enjoyed some of my lost posts, the material for
which had not been backed up on CD.
As you all know well, I let my words and logic stand for themselves.
It is so nice finally to have DR admit that he is not the original
proponent of the identity of the first wife as being a Lacy. Among
scholarly conventions is one one that requires acknowledging the
priority of the first to propose a theory. As far as I can determine,
this is the first time that DR has acknowledged K. J. Stringer's
priority and DR's dependence upon Stringer's reseach. Would that he
had dug a bit deeper than _Essays on the Nobility of Medieval Scotland_
published in 1985.
Stringer's contention that the first wife of Alan of Galloway was a
Lacy in that essay was based upon he earlier article (1972) published
in the Transactions of the Dumfrieshire and Galloway Natural History
and Antiquarian Society. The weakness of Stinger's argument
(dependence upon a correction of a medieval document) was apparent even
to Stringer himself; for, as is well known is scholarly circles, such a
correction should be corroborated with supporting evidence. This he
proposed was a consanguineous relationship within the prohibited degree
between the hypothetical Lacy first wife and the known Lacy third wife
of Alan of Galloway. That degree of kniship did not exist between the
two branches of the Lacy family in those generations. Stringer's lack
of information about the degree of kinship between them or the canon
law regarding consanguineous marriages should be explained before his
correction of the document can stand.
CED
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Sorry, dear one, but you're going to have to provide your definitions
of "qualified person" and "good work." Your words and logic do NOT
stand for themselves. It is important that we examine your words
closely to determine if you are correctly using your language. I know
you will oblige me, as you have high ethical standards and will want to
make sure that everyone correctly understands what you mean. Frankly,
I suspect you are misusing the adjectives "qualified" and "good."
You've also displayed one major error in logic in this thread. So, to
be on the safe side, please provide your definitions.
I note once again that you have failed to provide us your credentials.
Are you in a position of training and knowledge to review Dr.
Stringer's work, or are you simply an armchair wannabe? Please state
your credentials, so we can see if you have the depth and training to
call Dr. Stringer "unqualified." Personally, I think you are the one
who is "unqualified," not Dr. Stringer. But, I could be wrong. For
your sake, I hope I am.
So, the spotlight is on you CED. Once again, we ask for your
definitions and credentials, please. The favor of your reply is much
appreciated.
Todd A. Farmerie
> So, the spotlight is on you CED. Once again, we ask for your
> definitions and credentials, please. The favor of your reply is much
> appreciated.
Seeing as you have time to badger CED, perhaps you also have time to
explain which of the cited documents led you to conclude that John
Raynsford married the widow of Thomas Riche. The favor of your reply is
much appreciated.
taf
CED
> of "qualified person" and "good work." Your words and logic do NOT
> stand for themselves. It is important that we examine your words
> closely to determine if you are correctly using your language. I know
> you will oblige me, as you have high ethical standards and will want to
> make sure that everyone correctly understands what you mean. Frankly,
> I suspect you are misusing the adjectives "qualified" and "good."
> You've also displayed one major error in logic in this thread. So, to
> be on the safe side, please provide your definitions.
To the Newsgroup:
Since DR does so nicely insist, I repeat my compliments to Kevin
Bradford from my first message in this thread:
"Congratulations on work well done. It is about time that a
qualified
person attack this problem. DR's attempted correction of a document to
fit the pre-chosen persons had to be exposed by somebody whose
qualifications and motives were not suspect. Again: Good work! "
These words can in no way be construed, as DR is attempting to do, as
any statement about K. J. Stringer or any of his works. I have read a
number of works by Stringer; and, for the most part, I find them well
written, based on sound reseach. However, in one instance I have
raised a question.
DR has a long history of twisting words and arguments for his own
purposes. His present attempt is too obvious to merit further response
on that matter.
However, he has failed to respond on the substance of my latest posting
- Stringer's article (1972) published in the Transactions of the
Dumfrieshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society.
If he does not respond on the substance (Stringer's 1972 article), we
can safely assume that wants an exchange of flaming language. In that
I will not be a participant.
CED
Kevin Bradford
We are told by Mr. Richardson in his Sept. 2002 posting, "the citation plainly states that Alan Fitz Roland had the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire, which Richard [recte Roger] [de Lacy] gave to his sister in marriage." Whose correction is "recte Roger?" Is it Mr. Stringer's? Is it Mr. Richardson's? Under what authority do modern genealogists change the wording in 13th century primary documents?
As one can see from the original documents, again cited below, there is no "recte Roger" within the body of these texts:
Cumb’.—Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton’ Adam de Hocton’, tres milites de comitatu Cumberland’ missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene de Morevill’ et Alani de Galweia filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden’ in comitatu Roteland’ et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr’ de warantia carte de terra de Kippes in comitatu Ebor’, dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de Torinton’ vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de Londor’ de placito ecclesie de Wissenden’ in comitatu Roteland’. Dicunt etiam quod Alanus de Galweye posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor versus Johannem de Cestr’ de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in comitatu Ebor’. Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die. Et quoniam Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit, qui!
' debuit testificasse simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum, consideratum est quod atachietur quod sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas. Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.
Ebor’.—Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr’ de placito quod idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc., et summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.
Claims by Mr. Richardson, in a rebuttal to my recent posting, that this "John of Chester" is actually John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, are curious indeed ["The defendant in the 1214 lawsuit was John de Lacy (died 1240)"]. As many of us know, this John de Lacy's father was ROGER. The text of the suit in question clearly spells out that "John of Chester's" father was "RICHARD."
Best,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet60/plantagenet01.htm
Richard Smyth at Road Runner
behind the multi-national Wikipedia project? I was interested in a point he
made about one of their ironclad rules. They do not accept submissions for
their encyclopedias that contain original research. The main reason (Wales
gave several) is that editors of encyclopedic works are expected to vet
entries on the basis of what has been published in peer-reviewed literature.
They cannot and cannot be expected to act as peer reviewers themselves.
Here are two dictionary definitions of "encyclopedia":
Compact Oxford English: a book or set of books giving information on many
subjects or on many aspects of one subject, typically arranged
alphabetically.
Merriam-Webster: a work that contains information on all branches of
knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually
in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject
Richardson's work on the Plantagenet ancestries of colonial American
families and his work on Magna Carta ancestries fit these definitions; they
are comprehensive treatments of their respective subjects and both are
arranged alphabetically. How Richardson would describe these works is
irrelevant to one's understanding of what in fact they are.
I picked a bone with Richardson over his inclusion of original research in
these works, but that was criticism at the extreme margins of his
enterprise. I have never doubted his sincerity or that he simply disagrees
with me about what should be in such works. To believe otherwise one would
have to believe that he advertises actions that he recognized to be wrong.
Agains this background, I would be remiss if I did not try to defend
Richardson against the following charge by CED:
> It is so nice finally to have DR admit that he is not the original
> proponent of the identity of the first wife as being a Lacy. Among
> scholarly conventions is one that requires acknowledging the
> priority of the first to propose a theory.
There is absolutely no such scholarly convention governing the type of work
which Richardson's books represent. His citations are clearly meant to
inform the reader who wants to know about further reading on the subject and
not to document each matter of fact. Should the author of my Britannica
article on the English Beauchamp family have acknowledged that he is not the
original proponent of the identity of Payn, second son of Hugh de Beauchamp?
The question answers itself.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
sm...@nc.rr.com
WJho...@aol.com
writes:
<< They do not accept submissions for
their encyclopedias that contain original research. The main reason (Wales
gave several) is that editors of encyclopedic works are expected to vet
entries on the basis of what has been published in peer-reviewed literature.
They cannot and cannot be expected to act as peer reviewers themselves. >>
As far as wikipedia, this is a rather moot point. The vast majority of
articles are not reviewed whatsoever except by other individual contributors, like
me, you or your great-aunt Tillie. It is only on the extreme, confrontational
articles (see for instance Baha U'llah) that "moderators" actually step-in to
try to exert any control at all.
In my own personal experience with wikipedia (I've contributed or edited
about 400 articles so far) only two to my knowledge have had any "moderator"
input. Baha U'llah and Jesus Christ. I'm sure you can tell why.
Will Johnson
Todd A. Farmerie
> Dear CED,
>
> We are told by Mr. Richardson in his Sept. 2002 posting, "the citation plainly states that Alan Fitz Roland had the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire, which Richard [recte Roger] [de Lacy] gave to his sister in marriage." Whose correction is "recte Roger?" Is it Mr. Stringer's? Is it Mr. Richardson's? Under what authority do modern genealogists change the wording in 13th century primary documents?
>
> As one can see from the original documents, again cited below, there is no "recte Roger" within the body of these texts:
[snip]
> Ebor’.—Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr’ de placito quod idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc., et summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.
Lest this fall through the cracks, the two versions also differ in that
in "Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye
habet de maritagio sororis sue", Mr. Bradford concludes that "sue"
refers to John, Mr. Richardson that it refers to Richard ("recte Roger").
taf
CED
Kevin Bradford wrote:
> Dear CED,
>
> We are told by Mr. Richardson in his Sept. 2002 posting, "the citation plainly states that Alan Fitz Roland had the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire, which Richard [recte Roger] [de Lacy] gave to his sister in marriage." Whose correction is "recte Roger?" Is it Mr. Stringer's? Is it Mr. Richardson's? Under what authority do modern genealogists change the wording in 13th century primary documents?
Kevin Bradford:
The following exerpt is from a posting by Mr. Richardson in which he
does not acknowledge K. J. Stringer's priority (thus giving the
impression that it was his own correction). Later I found that
Stringer was also making a similar "correction" at a much earlier date
(1972). Apparently Mr. Richardson was copying Stringer without
admitting that he was doing so; and he does not add any supporting
evidence.
(The hostage statement is worthless. Mr. Richardson seems to be
unaware of King John's treatment of [or policies regarding]hostages,
his sale of justice, and his treatment of the lands of his vassals. A
suit in midst of King John's difficulty with his barons is questionable
at best. How many of the persons mentioned in the document were rebels
at the time?)
By the way, I cannot find a statement in which Stringer explicitly
makes the "correction"; it is found in the translated text.
Beginning of quote:
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval From: royalances...@msn.com (Douglas
Richardson) - Date: 13 Sep 2002 18:55:39 -0700 Local: Fri, Sep 13 2002
8:55 pm Subject: Alan Fitz Roland's three marriages
* * * * * * *
[Note: The identity of Alan Fitz Roland';s first wife is proven by a
suit dated 1214 regarding Kippax, co. York, in which Alan is stated to
have married a sister of Richard [recte Roger], father of John [de
Lacy] [constable] of Chester. The year previously in 1213, an unnamed
daughter of Alan died as a hostage in the custody of Robert Fitz
Roger, of Warkworth, co. Northumberland. It was customary in this
period to place foreign born hostages with a near relative in England.
Robert Fitz Roger in question was the maternal uncle of Alan of
Galloway's first wife, and thus would have been closely related to
Alan's child].
End of quote.
CED
>
> As one can see from the original documents, again cited below, there is no "recte Roger" within the body of these texts:
>
> Cumb'.-Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton' Adam de Hocton', tres milites de comitatu Cumberland' missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene de Morevill' et Alani de Galweia filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden' in comitatu Roteland' et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr' de warantia carte de terra de Kippes in comitatu Ebor', dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de Torinton' vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de Londor' de placito ecclesie de Wissenden' in comitatu Roteland'. Dicunt etiam quod Alanus de Galweye posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor versus Johannem de Cestr' de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in comitatu Ebor'. Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die. Et quoniam Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit, qui!
> ' debuit testificasse simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum, consideratum est quod atachietur quod sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas. Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.
>
> Ebor'.-Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr' de placito quod idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc., et summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.
CED
Richard Smyth:
My criticism of DR is not about what he publishes in his books. I have
never seen one. My criticism is about his posting on this newsgroup
where he makes claims to expertise and academic qualifications. In
those circumstances piority is of great importance.
CED
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
How typical of you to turn tail and run when the heat gets turned up.
If you're going to make wild allegations, I'm afraid you will have to
stand and answer for your misspoken words and unfounded logic.
For starters, I once again ask that you provide us with your definition
of a "qualified person" and "good work." If Dr. Stringer, a trained
historian with a superior reputation, is not "qualified" and capable of
"good work," then I'd hate to guess who you think falls into that
category. Since you now admit that you were aware that Dr. Stringer
was the author of the original conclusion about Alan Fitz Roland's
wife, then perhaps you can tell us why you failed to mention that fact
in your original post. And, why did you attack me, and not Dr.
Stringer? Your statements to the contrary, I gave Dr. Stringer full
credit for his discovery here on the newsgroup back in 2002. And, as
you are fully aware, I also posted additional evidence which confirmed
his findings.
When you have the opportunity, I ask once again that you state your
credentials to offer us a review of Dr. Stringer's work. I suspect you
have no credentials, but I could be wrong. I hope for your sake that
you have something in your background besides an uninformed opinion.
SImply reading Dr. Stringer's works doesn't make you a scholar, or make
you qualified to pass judgement on his work.
Lastly, perhaps you can explain to us how Mr. Bradford identified the
father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron, as Richard de Crevecour,
the attorney of Alan Fitz Roland. This conclusion is beyond me.
Surely you know that the Crevecour family never owned Kippax,
Yorkshire. As I have posted, this property belonged to the Lacy family
since the time of the Domesday survey in 1086. And, are you suggesting
that Alan Fitz Roland, the plaintiff in 1214, had the father of the
defendant as his own attorney? Surely you gest. If this is not what
you are saying, please say so and tell us that Mr. Bradford's
conclusions are wrong.
Aside to the newgroup lurkers: I predict that CED will ignore my
request for the definitions of his words. He will not post his
qualifications. He will dodge the statement about Richard de Crevecour
being John de Lacy's father. He will ignore the fact that the Lacy
family were the owners of Kippax, Yorkshire. He will ignore Mr.
Bradford's conclusion that the plaintiff, Alan Fitz Roland's attorney
was the father of the defendant. He will also fail to admit that his
real motive in posting in this thread was to attack me personally, not
to address the question of the identity of Alan Fitz Roland's wife.
I think that about covers it, CED. The ball as they say is now in your
court.
Best always, Douglas RIchardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
CED
To the Newsgroup:
I repeat my previous statement:
"However, he has failed to respond on the substance of my latest
posting
- Stringer's article (1972) published in the Transactions of the
Dumfrieshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society.
If he does not respond on the substance (Stringer's 1972 article), we
can safely assume that wants an exchange of flaming language. In that
I will not be a participant. "
CED
>
Todd A. Farmerie
> Lastly, perhaps you can explain to us how Mr. Bradford identified the
> father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron, as Richard de Crevecour,
> the attorney of Alan Fitz Roland.
Be fair. Mr. Bradford did NOT identify Richard de Crevecour as the
father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron. He concluded that John
of Chester (an person distinct from John de Lacys) was son of Richard de
Crevecour. Perhaps, though, you should ask Mr. Bradford about his
conclusions, rather than demanding the information of a third party.
And while you are at it, you could explain the justification for
identifying John de Lacy, son of Roger with this John of Chester, son of
Richard. (Just saying that the entry has made a mistake doesn't cut it.
On what basis do you conclude this is an error?) You know - actually
discuss the question.
> Aside to the newgroup lurkers: I predict that CED will ignore my
> request for the definitions of his words.
Umm, . . . . you have little standing to complain of this until you show
your willingness to respond to questions posed to you.
taf
CED
To the Newsgroup:
To be honest, I have been collecting materials to counter a number of
DR's propositions, awaiting appropriate opportunities for their
productive use. The loss of my hard drive has been unfortunate in that
regard. However, when it came to the matter of Alan of Galloway, it
just happened that I had hard copy in my library. So, when the
opportunity to expose DR came about, I used it.
CED
PS: I wonder whether Alan of Galloway had any conception of a surname.
When Alan needed to identify himself, he could use either his
patronymic (son of Roland) or his title (of Galloway), neither of which
was considered a surname. Why DR insists upon the use of the
patronymic as if it were a surname, a usage or concept unknown at that
time, is a wonder in itself.
CED
CED
Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> Dear CED ~
>
> How typical of you to turn tail and run when the heat gets turned up.
> If you're going to make wild allegations, I'm afraid you will have to
> stand and answer for your misspoken words and unfounded logic.
>
> For starters, I once again ask that you provide us with your definition
> of a "qualified person" and "good work." If Dr. Stringer, a trained
> historian
To the newsgroup:
I doubt that K. J. Stringer would describe himself as a "trained
historian." Historians, as good historians know, are not "trained."
The term "trained" implies job training or some other preparation for
manual work. No good historian would consider him- or her-self
"trained" for the profession. Stringer is a good historian.
DR does consider himself to be a "trained" historian, almost as if he
were a puppy.
CED
Kevin Bradford
That is correct, I did *NOT* identifity Richard de Crevequor as the father of John de Lacy. Apparently Mr. Richardson, in his zeal to turn the intent of my posting into a personal attack against himself, misses not only the original point of my posting, but the entire body of evidence I presented. It's not about Mr. Richardson. This thread is about the evidence, and the evidence only. In order to make the conclusions fit his premise, Mr. Richardson's "John of Chester" must have a father named "Roger," else his de Lacy conclusions won't fit. This is the principal reason he insists the name "Richard" is in error in the document. Aside from Mr. Richardson's John de Lacy, there have been several others who have tried fitting the de Lacy tag onto Alan de Galloway's 1st wife. Most of these are a conflagration with his 3rd wife, and of those that aren't, no convincing evidence has been brought forth.
Aside from a straightforward reading of the Latin ("sui" in this context relates to the sister of the John), one salient clue of Richard's identification as "patris" carries with it only a forename, no surname or cognomen. I would be interested if anyone who reads medieval Latin could point out just where, in either of these documents, Richard de Crevequor's role in the process excludes him from being John of Chester's father. I have had the text *very* carefully examined, in its medieval context. Most primary medieval texts, in practice not in theory, identify individuals by location, nickname, or familial connections (e.g., "William of Malmesbury, "Geoffrey of Staunton," etc.). Where they don't make this distinction, there is usually a salient reason. You will note that in the context of the adjective "patris" in the evidence I cited, Richard patris of John has no surname or cognomen. That's because one wasn't necessary. These parties knew who "patris" was--Richard !
de Crevequor.
Best,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet60/plantagenet01.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
Sent: Sep 26, 2005 5:29 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> Lastly, perhaps you can explain to us how Mr. Bradford identified the
> father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron, as Richard de Crevecour,
> the attorney of Alan Fitz Roland.
Be fair. Mr. Bradford did NOT identify Richard de Crevecour as the
father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron. He concluded that John
of Chester (an person distinct from John de Lacys) was son of Richard de
Crevecour. Perhaps, though, you should ask Mr. Bradford about his
conclusions, rather than demanding the information of a third party.
And while you are at it, you could explain the justification for
identifying John de Lacy, son of Roger with this John of Chester, son of
Richard. (Just saying that the entry has made a mistake doesn't cut it.
On what basis do you conclude this is an error?) You know - actually
discuss the question.
> Aside to the newgroup lurkers: I predict that CED will ignore my
> request for the definitions of his words.
Umm, . . . . you have little standing to complain of this until you show
Patricia Junkin
Assume we are discussing the same Alan here .
From Medieval Scotland, Crown, Lordship and community the essay,periphery
and Core: Alan of Galloway presented to Barrow and edited by Stringer:
p. 93 "In the circumstances, it would have been prudent for Alan to have
made some sort of accommodation with the de Lacy interest, and it was
possibly in 1219 (rather than 1229, the traditional date) that he married
Hugh's [de Lacy] daughter Rose."
Here the citation reads--Cf. K. J. Stringer. A New Wife for Alan of
Galloway. TDGNHAS 3rd. series, xlix (1972) p. 52 (where the argument should
turn on the degree of affinity, not consanguinity) This lady, evidently
called Rose, had in 1217 been placed in the custody of her uncle, the
Regent's ally Walter de Lacy: Register of the Priory of St. Bees ed. J.
Wilson (Surtees Soc. 1915, p. x and n. 5.
Alan of Galloway and the de Veteripontes were closely connected through the
de Morvilles.
Pat
----------
>From: "CED" <lees...@cox.net>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
>Date: Mon, Sep 26, 2005, 3:10 PM
>
> Willelmus de Percy quartus miles non venit, q!
> ui!
>> ' debuit testificasse simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum,
> consideratum est quod atachietur quod sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas.
> Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.
>>
>> Ebor'.-Alanus de Galweye per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de
> Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr' de placito quod
> idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye
> habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc.,
> et summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.
>>
>> Claims by Mr. Richardson, in a rebuttal to my recent posting, that this
> "John of Chester" is actually John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, are curious
> indeed ["The defendant in the 1214 lawsuit was John de Lacy (died 1240)"].
> As many of us know, this John de Lacy's father was ROGER. The text of the
> suit in question clearly spells out that "John of Chester's" father was
"RICHARD."
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Kevin
>> Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet60/plantagenet01.htm
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CED <lees...@cox.net>
>> Sent: Sep 26, 2005 11:01 AM
>> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>> Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
>>
>>
>> Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
>> > Dear CED ~
>> >
>> > So nice to hear from you again. To be perfectly honest, I've missed
>> > your posts.
>>
>> To the Newsgroup;
>>
>> So sorry that DR has missed my posts. I apologize for not posting; but
>> I have an excuse - my computer went kaplooey and I lost my hard drive.
>> DR could well have enjoyed some of my lost posts, the material for
>> which had not been backed up on CD.
>>
>> As you all know well, I let my words and logic stand for themselves.
>>
>> It is so nice finally to have DR admit that he is not the original
>> proponent of the identity of the first wife as being a Lacy. Among
>> scholarly conventions is one one that requires acknowledging the
>> priority of the first to propose a theory. As far as I can determine,
>> this is the first time that DR has acknowledged K. J. Stringer's
>> priority and DR's dependence upon Stringer's reseach. Would that he
>> had dug a bit deeper than _Essays on the Nobility of Medieval Scotland_
>> published in 1985.
>>
>> Stringer's contention that the first wife of Alan of Galloway was a
>> Lacy in that essay was based upon he earlier article (1972) published
>> in the Transactions of the Dumfrieshire and Galloway Natural History
>> > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>> >
>> > Website: www.royalancestry.net
>> >
>> >
Kevin Bradford
KB
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
As I recall, Alan Fitz Roland used the following style in all of his
charters as published by Dr. Keith Stringer:
Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway, Constable of Scotland.
"Fitz Roland" was not a surname. It was a patronymic. Alan was rarely
called Alan of Galloway. In fact, I have never seen any charter issued
by him as Alan of Galloway. Rather, he is always Alan Fitz Roland.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Richard Smyth at Road Runner
> The main reason (Wales
> gave several) is that editors of encyclopedic works are expected to vet
> entries on the basis of what has been published in peer-reviewed
literature.
> They cannot and cannot be expected to act as peer reviewers themselves.
>>
>
> As far as wikipedia, this is a rather moot point. The vast majority of
> articles are not reviewed whatsoever except by other individual
contributors, like
> me, you or your great-aunt Tillie. It is only on the extreme,
confrontational
> articles (see for instance Baha U'llah) that "moderators" actually step-in
to
> try to exert any control at all.
> In my own personal experience with wikipedia (I've contributed or edited
> about 400 articles so far) only two to my knowledge have had any
"moderator"
> input.
I accept the possibility that you are in a position to contradict Wales. I
am not. I have had experience with a Wiki, but not with the Wikapedia
project. However Wales and you may be saying the same thing. He said that
in the vast majority of the cases material that is inappropriate (because,
for example, it is allegedly original research) is removed almost
immediately by someone who is not part of what he would regard as an
editorial board constituted by him or by anyone else. He actually cited a
figure, something like six minutes, as what a study showed is the average
length of time something inappropriate goes without getting removed. Wales
seems to think that the editorial boards in a given area of these
"multi-language encyclopedia projects" are self-constituting. Perhaps he is
delusional, as many in the grip of a vision seem to be. In any event how
the Wikipedia project actually operates is beside the point. The question
is whether one should expect that a review article or a more encyclopedic
review of our knowledge in some area will not contain original research.
The question of who enforces such a rule in a particular case is irrelevant.
CED now says that it was Richardson's email to Gen-Medieval that should have
contained an acknowledgment of the original source of his information. That
proposition is too absurd to be worth pursuing. Anyway, Richardson now says
that he had offered the information about the source in an earlier posting.
That, if true, moots CED's complaint, but it does not answer my concerns
about the standards by which Richardson's books should be judged.
On a more personal note, I am awed and humbled by the fact that there are
400 subjects on which you are able to claim competence. It reminds me of a
joke about a philosophy professor from Tulane who had an interview with
Einstein. At the conclusion, to be polite, Einstein said, "This has been
very interesting. You must send me something to read. You have written a
book, haven't you?" To which the philosopher replied, "Sir, I have written
15 books." "Humm," said Einstein, "Very suspicious." I take that, by the
way, to be a joke about philosophers, and not about Tulane.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
sm...@nc.rr.com
Kevin Bradford
Here are two references (brought to the newsgroup's attention by yourself in September 2002), in which Alan's contemporaries describe him as "Alan of Galloway." Unless, of course, you can demonstrate to the group that these charters do not reference the same person, Alan Fitz Roland (which I would be very interested in, if so), then I submit these are admissable as evidence that, during his lifetime, Alan was also known as "Alan of Galloway" or "Alan de Galweye." These transcripts are taken directly from the Curia Regis Rolls, which I trust will be appreciated as a refresher in this question:
1214
pp. 85-86, v. 7:
m.18
Cumb’.—Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton’ Adam de Hocton’, tres milites de comitatu Cumberland’ missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene de Morevill’ et ALANI de GALWEIA filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissenden’ in comitatu Roteland’ et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestr’ de warantia carte de terra de Kippes in comitatu Ebor’, dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de Torinton’ vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de Londor’ de placito ecclesie de Wissenden’ in comitatu Roteland’. Dicunt etiam quod ALANUS DE GALWEYE posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor versus Johannem de Cestr’ de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in comitatu Ebor’. Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die. Et quoniam Willelmus de Pe!
rcy quartus miles non venit, qui debuit testificasse simul cum ipsis atornatos predictorum, consideratum est quod atachietur quod sit a die Pasche in tres septimanas. Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.
p. 86, v. 7:
m. 18 (cont.)
Ebor’.—ALANUS DE GALWEYE per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestr’ de placito quod idem Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas ALANUS DE GALWEYE habet de maritagio sororis sue: et ipse non venit vel se essoniavit etc., et summonitio etc. Et ideo atachietur quod sit ad predictum terminum etc.
All the best,
Kevin Bradford
Patricia Junkin
Douglas, I have this 1213 instrument regarding Scots hostages:
Teste me ipso apud Bellum XIII die Jun. Robt. de Veteriponte quod as eundem
diem habeat Wm filium cometes Patricii et obsidem regis Scottorum. Et
sciendum est quod filia Alani de Galewya quae fuit in custodia Robt filii
Rogeri Mortua est Et filius W, Cumin qui fuit in custodia Eustachii de Vescy
quitus est Rott. Litt Clausarum
Pat
----------
>From: "Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com" <royala...@msn.com>
>Subject: Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway
>Date: Mon, Sep 26, 2005, 9:13 PM
>
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> As I recall, Alan Fitz Roland used the following style in all of his
> charters as published by Dr. Keith Stringer:
>
> Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway, Constable of Scotland.
>
> "Fitz Roland" was not a surname. It was a patronymic. Alan was rarely
> called Alan of Galloway. In fact, I have never seen any charter issued
> by him as Alan of Galloway. Rather, he is always Alan Fitz Roland.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> Website: www.royalancestry.net
>
Jwc...@aol.com
Alan`s gaelic subjects
probably called him Ailean mac Lachlan.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Kevin Bradford
Interesting. A good demonstration of the risks of contemporary researchers insisting upon their own standardizations of rather fluid medieval naming patterns.
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Jwc...@aol.com
Sent: Sep 26, 2005 9:55 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Ginny Wagner
Politics ... not sure of the name of the book, but it was a
collection of articles, of which his, Prospographical
Problems of English libri vitae was one. Anyhoo, I would
surely like to get in touch with him.
He mentions folio 10v of the Thorney Libri and included a
page from it which has led me to very much want to see this
libri if it is at all possible ... or to browse it online
... etc. In addition, if he has the time and inclination,
I'd love to ask him about the marriages he cites as examples
of continental names, etc., in his article.
If anyone knows him, or how to get in touch with him or,
failing that, how to gain access to, not the readily
accessible Thorney Annals by Cyril Hart (which are
interesting), but the primary docs or an English translation
of folio 10v I'd appreciate hearing from you. Thanks in
advance.
Ginny Wagner
ginny...@austin.rr.com
Peter Stewart
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:4338...@news.ColoState.EDU...
> Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
>
>> Lastly, perhaps you can explain to us how Mr. Bradford identified the
>> father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron, as Richard de Crevecour,
>> the attorney of Alan Fitz Roland.
>
> Be fair. Mr. Bradford did NOT identify Richard de Crevecour as the father
> of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron. He concluded that John of Chester
> (an person distinct from John de Lacys) was son of Richard de Crevecour.
> Perhaps, though, you should ask Mr. Bradford about his conclusions, rather
> than demanding the information of a third party. And while you are at it,
> you could explain the justification for identifying John de Lacy, son of
> Roger with this John of Chester, son of Richard. (Just saying that the
> entry has made a mistake doesn't cut it. On what basis do you conclude
> this is an error?) You know - actually discuss the question.
Since we know that Roger, constable of Chester (died 1211, who took the
surname Lacy and was father of father of John de Lacy, constable of Chester
& earl of Lincoln) had previously been known like his brothers as "de
Chester", and that one of his brothers was named Richard, why can't "John de
Chester" be the latter's son, and Alan of Galloway's first wife the daughter
of this Richard de Chester, given Kippax from his family otherwise called
Lacy?
I haven't followed the thread, but on reading just the posts from Kevin and
Todd I don't see why a more elaborate theory is needed on the slender
evidence available, much less a supposed "correction" of the relevant name,
from Richard to Roger, in the document providing this.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Y22_e.15678$0E5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Since we know that Roger, constable of Chester (died 1211, who took the
> surname Lacy and was father of father of John de Lacy, constable of
> Chester & earl of Lincoln)
Make that just one "father of" John de Lacy - Roger was not his grandfather,
despite my fingers mindlessly adding a generation to the line.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Point One: The manor of Kippax, Yorkshire was owned by Ilbert de Lacy
at the time of the Domesday survey and passed by lineal descent to
Roger de Lacy (died 1211), hereditary Constable of Chester. The said
Roger de Lacy in turn gave it in marriage to his sister, the first wife
of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway.
Point Two: Over the course of the centuries, the advowson of Kippax,
Yorkshire was granted by Henry de Lacy c. 1160 to Pontefract Abbey.
Henry de Lacy was the great-grand-uncle and antecedant of Roger de
Lacy, Constable of Chester, who died in 1211. A brief extract of Henry
de Lacy's charter is given below:
"To archbishop Roger and all sons of Holy Church, Henry de Lacy,
greeting. Know ... that I have granted and ... confirmed ... to the
monks of Pontefract, the church of Kippax, etc." [Reference: Richard
Holmes, ed. The Chartulary of St. John of Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch.
Soc. Record Series 25) (1899): 31].
Point Three: Following the granting of the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire
to Alan Fitz Roland in marriage with the sister of Roger de Lacy, the
manor passed by inheritance to Alan Fitz Roland's daughter, Ellen, and
her husband, Sir Roger de Quincy. In 1233 there was a dispute about
the advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire which involved Pontefract Priory,
Roger de Quincy and his wife's nephew, John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln.
Here are brief extracts of the two pertinent documents:
Document #1. Date: 1233. "To the reverand father in Christ, and very
dear lord, W[alter], by the grace of God, archbishop of York, and
primate of England, John de Lascy, earl of Lincoln and constable of
Chester, greeting in the Lord ... We make known to your fatherhood that
having seen the deeds and charters of my father, Roger de Lascy, and of
my ancestors, piously granted by those ancestors to God and St. John
the Evangelist of Pontefract, and to my monks there serving God,
concerning the church of Kippax, the truth has been shown itself to be
other than we believed ... we have remitted to them for ever all the
right and claim that we claimed to have in the said church of Kippax
..." [Reference: Richard Holmes, ed. The Chartulary of St. John of
Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Record Series 25) (1899): 39-40].
Document #2. Date: 1233. To all, &c. ... W[alter] ..., archbishop of
York, &c. Know that whereas the contention raised between our dear
sons, the prior and convent of Pontefract, on the one part, and the
noble man, Roger de Quenci, on the other, concerning the last
presentation of the church of Kippax, has been ended by the judgement
of the court of the lord king, we at the presentation of the said prior
and convent who recovered possesion of the patrongae of the said
church, as the lord Henry, the illustrious king of England, has
signified to us by his letter .." [Reference: Richard Holmes, ed. The
Chartulary of St. John of Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Record
Series 25) (1899): 74-75].
Point Four: The manor and advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire were
subsequently exchanged in 1254 by Roger de Quincy, Earl of Winchester,
with Edmund de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, for other property in cos.
Northampton, Nottingham, and Yorkshire [Reference: John Parker ed. Feet
of Fines for the County of York from 1246 to 1272 (Yorkshire Arch. Soc.
Record Series 82) (1932): 193; see also Sir Christopher Hatton's Book
of Seals (1950): 288-289].
Point Five: The defendant in the 1214 lawsuit regarding the manor of
Kippax, Yorkshire was John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, not an
unidentified John of Chester. This identification is confirmed by John
de Lacy's subsequent release of the advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire as
stated above. He is called "John of Chester" in the 1214 lawsuit,
which was his style at the time. An example of this style can be found
in the Pipe Roll for the same year, 1214. An abstract of this record
reads as follows:
Date: Michaelmas 1214. Sub Yorkshire.
"Johannes de Cestr' r.c. de MM et DCCC li. pro habendis terris que
fuerunt patris sui . sicut continetur ibidem. In thes. Nichil."
[Reference: Patricia M. Barnes ed. The Great Roll of the Pipe for the
Sixteenth Year of the Reign of King John, Michaelmas 1214 (Pipe Roll
Soc. n.s. 35) (1962): 93].
Point Six: Richard de Crevecour was the attorney of Alan Fitz Roland,
lord of Galloway, in 1214. It can not be construed in any way he was
the father of the defendant, John de Lacy.
Point Seven: I find no evidence that Richard de Crevecour or his family
ever owned the advowson and manor of Kippax, Yorkshire. Instead, as
shown above, the manor and the advowson were held by the Lacy family,
until this property was granted in marriage by Roger de Lacy to his
sister, the wife of Alan Fitz Roland. The manor of Kippax afterwards
passed as stated above by inheritance to Alan Fitz Roland's daughter,
Ellen, wife of Sir Roger de Quincy.
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127787297.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Here is a discussion of the evidence:
>
> Point One: The manor of Kippax, Yorkshire was owned by Ilbert de Lacy
> at the time of the Domesday survey and passed by lineal descent to
> Roger de Lacy (died 1211), hereditary Constable of Chester. The said
> Roger de Lacy in turn gave it in marriage to his sister, the first wife
> of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway.
>
> Point Two: Over the course of the centuries, the advowson of Kippax,
> Yorkshire was granted by Henry de Lacy c. 1160 to Pontefract Abbey.
> Henry de Lacy was the great-grand-uncle and antecedant of Roger de
> Lacy, Constable of Chester, who died in 1211. A brief extract of Henry
> de Lacy's charter is given below:
Henry de Lacy was related in exactly the same way to Roger the Constable's
brother Richard de Chester.
> "To archbishop Roger and all sons of Holy Church, Henry de Lacy,
> greeting. Know ... that I have granted and ... confirmed ... to the
> monks of Pontefract, the church of Kippax, etc." [Reference: Richard
> Holmes, ed. The Chartulary of St. John of Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch.
> Soc. Record Series 25) (1899): 31].
>
> Point Three: Following the granting of the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire
> to Alan Fitz Roland in marriage with the sister of Roger de Lacy, the
> manor passed by inheritance to Alan Fitz Roland's daughter, Ellen, and
> her husband, Sir Roger de Quincy. In 1233 there was a dispute about
> the advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire which involved Pontefract Priory,
> Roger de Quincy and his wife's nephew, John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln.
> Here are brief extracts of the two pertinent documents:
>
> Document #1. Date: 1233. "To the reverand father in Christ, and very
> dear lord, W[alter], by the grace of God, archbishop of York, and
> primate of England, John de Lascy, earl of Lincoln and constable of
> Chester, greeting in the Lord ... We make known to your fatherhood that
> having seen the deeds and charters of my father, Roger de Lascy, and of
> my ancestors, piously granted by those ancestors to God and St. John
> the Evangelist of Pontefract, and to my monks there serving God,
> concerning the church of Kippax, the truth has been shown itself to be
> other than we believed ... we have remitted to them for ever all the
> right and claim that we claimed to have in the said church of Kippax
> ..." [Reference: Richard Holmes, ed. The Chartulary of St. John of
> Pontefract (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Record Series 25) (1899): 39-40].
Leaving aside the arbitrary & so far unjustified decision that Alan of
Galloway's wife must have been sister rather than daughter to the man called
Richard in the only available evidence, who is renamed Roger above, we don't
know from this "Document #1" what truth had been shown to be other than John
de Lacy had believed, in other words what was the basis of his mistaken &
eventually withdrawn claim. For all I know this could have been, or could
have included, that John de Lacy's father Roger was discovered to have given
Kippax to his (Roger's) brother Richard de Chester, who had then given it
with his (Richard's) daughter to Alan of Galloway.
The earlier and later evidence about Kippax does nothing to alter this
possibility, that seems to fit the evidence without conveniently changing
names. 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". Meanwhile, a namesake first cousin, son of Richard de Chester, has
not yet been ruled out of contention as the brother (NB not nephew on the
evidence presented) of Alan's first wife.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
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".
Dear Peter ~
My research shows that John de Lacy (died 1240), Constable of Chester,
later Earl of Lincoln, was known as John de Chester as late as 1214:
Date: Michaelmas 1214. Sub Yorkshire.
"Johannes de Cestr' r.c. de MM et DCCC li. pro habendis terris que
fuerunt patris sui . sicut continetur ibidem. In thes. Nichil."
[Reference: Patricia M. Barnes ed. The Great Roll of the Pipe for the
Sixteenth Year of the Reign of King John, Michaelmas 1214 (Pipe Roll
Soc. n.s. 35) (1962): 93].
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].
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.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for posting this record. Much appreciated.
As you have noted, the unnamed daughter of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of
Galloway, was a hostage in 1213 and placed in the care of Robert Fitz
Roger. My examination of the long lists of Scottish hostages indicates
that they were primarily placed under the care of their English
kinsfolk.
In this case, the daughter of Alan Fitz Roland would be related to
Robert Fitz Roger as follows:
1. Richard Fitz Eustace, m. Aubrey de Lisours.
2. John Fitz Richard, Constable of Chester, m. Alice de Mandeville.
3. _____ de Lacy, m. Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway.
4. unnamed daughter of Alan Fitz Roland.
1. Richard Fitz Eustace, m. Aubrey de Lisours.
2. Roger Fitz Richard, m. Alice de Vere.
3. Robert Fitz Roger, lord of Warkworth, died 1214.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
> Peter Stewart 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".
>
> Dear Peter ~
>
> My research shows that John de Lacy (died 1240), Constable of Chester,
> later Earl of Lincoln, was known as John de Chester as late as 1214:
>
> Date: Michaelmas 1214. Sub Yorkshire.
> "Johannes de Cestr' r.c. de MM et DCCC li. pro habendis terris que
> fuerunt patris sui . sicut continetur ibidem. In thes. Nichil."
> [Reference: Patricia M. Barnes ed. The Great Roll of the Pipe for the
> Sixteenth Year of the Reign of King John, Michaelmas 1214 (Pipe Roll
> Soc. n.s. 35) (1962): 93].
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 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Peter Stewart
CED
To the Newsgroup:
DR again is using the term "surname" with respect to persons who were
unlikely to have understood the concept of a surname. Does he have
evidence that either "Chester" or "Lacy" were meant to be surnames at
the time those words were used?
The least ambiguous use of the term is to show that more than two
generations used the same patronymic or place-name associated with the
family by reason of their being attached thereto.
CED
Chris Phillips
> I read an article by John S. Moore in Family Roots in
> Politics ... not sure of the name of the book, but it was a
> collection of articles, of which his, Prospographical
> Problems of English libri vitae was one. Anyhoo, I would
> surely like to get in touch with him.
His contact page on the University of Bristol website is here:
http://tinyurl.com/9uply
Chris Phillips
Kevin Bradford
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Kevin Bradford <planta...@earthlink.net>
Sent: Sep 27, 2005 6:21 AM
To: Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife, _____ de Lacy
The charter, of course, does not say that. "Sister" is placed in direct relationship to "John of Chester," so Mr. Richardson's premise here is left without adequate support.
KB
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com>
Sent: Sep 26, 2005 11:27 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
names. 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
Peter Stewart
"Kevin Bradford" <planta...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2324847.112781656...@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net...
>
> -----Forwarded Message-----
> From: Kevin Bradford <planta...@earthlink.net>
> Sent: Sep 27, 2005 6:21 AM
> To: Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com>
> Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife,
> _____ de Lacy
>
> The charter, of course, does not say that. "Sister" is placed in
> direct relationship to "John of Chester," so Mr. Richardson's
> premise here is left without adequate support.
That is certainly my view - a number of points in my posts, including this,
have not been addressed, any more than others from yourself and Todd.
It should be noted that medieval scribes did sometimes get muddled with
ambiguous personal pronouns, just as writers do in English & many other
languages today, but so far we have been given no persuasive reason to
suppose this happened in the document you posted.
Besides this aspect, there is also no adequate support for the proposed
amendment of "Richard" to "Roger", so that we haven't yet moved on from
CED's remark early in the thread about "attempted correction of a document
to fit the pre-chosen persons".
Peter Stewart
Kevin Bradford
Yes, exactly so. The ambiguity of the documents lends to various interpretations, and is the initial reason for my serious speculation that de Crevequor was the party of interest, wherein Mr. Richardson has insinuated a position of attorney for the man which doesn't exist in the text. Ergo, in reviewing the parade of inconclusive documents presented, we seem no further ahead on this subject than to say that the *only* statement with any kind of direct knowledge, found in the 1214 maritagium, states that the lady's father was "Richard," father of "a" John of Chester (which John of Chester, and, as long as we are discussing errors, how certain can we be that John of Chester shouldn't read something else? Mr. Richardson takes this subject down a slippery slope, from which it is difficult to recover). We cannot be about the business of "correcting" primary medieval texts--we either accept them as they are, or we don't.
Best,
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com>
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> It should be noted that medieval scribes did sometimes get muddled
> with ambiguous personal pronouns, just as writers do in English &
> many other languages today, but so far we have been given no
> persuasive reason to suppose this happened in the document you
> posted.
This raises an interesting point. Our Dear Friend (DR for short)
regularly refers to these charters as if they had been written by the
principal signatory. I have difficulty believing that. For a start
not many of these signatories were that literate in those times.
Further, they had a job to do (whoring, hunting, killing, whatever) and
would not have bothered with filling in forms. Finally and over most
ages, this sort of thing was left to the lawyers and the result
presented for signature(s) and seal(s) when done.
What then was the most common method of production of these charters?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
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.
> > 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.
> > 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 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> Peter Stewart
Patricia Junkin
I am a little confused by the following given the following A2A citation:
BCM/D/5/1/19 - date: [Hen. III, 1233] Witnesses: P[eter des Roches] bishop
of Winchester, J[ohn the Scot], earl of Chester and Huntingdon, J[ohn de
Lacy], earl of Lincoln and constable of Chester, H[umphrey de Bohun], earl
of Hereford, Walter de Lascy, Henry de Aldithel, Walter de Bello Campo,
Ralph son of Nicholas, John son of Philip, Geoffrey Dispenser, William de
Picheford.
Here it appears that John le Scot was the earl of Chester while John de Laci
was the constable, therefore both are "of Chester." Since I study the Scots,
how can one differentiate one from the other if no other facts are present?
Thank you,
Pat
----------
>From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife, _____
de Lacy
>Date: Tue, Sep 27, 2005, 1:02 AM
>
> Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
>> Peter Stewart 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".
>>
>> Dear Peter ~
>>
>> My research shows that John de Lacy (died 1240), Constable of Chester,
>> later Earl of Lincoln, was known as John de Chester as late as 1214:
>>
>> Date: Michaelmas 1214. Sub Yorkshire.
>> "Johannes de Cestr' r.c. de MM et DCCC li. pro habendis terris que
>> fuerunt patris sui . sicut continetur ibidem. In thes. Nichil."
>> [Reference: Patricia M. Barnes ed. The Great Roll of the Pipe for the
>> Sixteenth Year of the Reign of King John, Michaelmas 1214 (Pipe Roll
>> Soc. n.s. 35) (1962): 93].
>
> 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 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Peter Stewart
>
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
The Latin text in the 1214 Curia Regis Rolls item states that Ellen de
Morville, mother of Alan Fitz Roland, appointed Adam de Torrington or
Hamon the Clerk as her attorneys in a plea, and that Ellen's son, Alan,
appointed the same Hamon the Clerk OR Richard de Crevequor as his
attornies in another plea:
".. dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de Torinton' vel Hamonem
Clericum versus abbatem de Londor' de placito ecclesie de
Wissenden' in comitatu Roteland'. Dicunt etiam quod Alanus de
Galweye posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor
versus Johannem de Cestr' de placito warantie carte de terra in
Kipesc in comitatu Ebor'."
The Latin is very clear. Richard de Crevecour was Alan Fitz Roland's
attorney, NOT his father-in-law.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalanmcestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for your post. You've asked a very good question.
The person who is called "J[ohn the Scot]" in the record you posted
actually appears in contemporary records as John de Scotia [John of
Scotland], or as John, Earl of Chester and Huntingdon.
John de Lacy was Earl of Lincoln and hereditary constable of Chester.
In his early life, he was known as John de Chester, or simply as John
son of the Constable. In later life, he was known as John de Lacy,
Earl of Lincoln and Constable of Chester.
So, there was no confusion between the two men.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Vickie Elam White
of these for us? It has been nearly 30 years since I
studied Latin.
Vickie Elam White
"Kevin Bradford" <planta...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8766005.112778576...@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net...
> Dear Mr. Richardson,
>
> Here are two references (brought to the newsgroup's attention by yourself
in September 2002), in which Alan's contemporaries describe him as "Alan of
Galloway." Unless, of course, you can demonstrate to the group that these
charters do not reference the same person, Alan Fitz Roland (which I would
be very interested in, if so), then I submit these are admissable as
evidence that, during his lifetime, Alan was also known as "Alan of
Galloway" or "Alan de Galweye." These transcripts are taken directly from
the Curia Regis Rolls, which I trust will be appreciated as a refresher in
this question:
>
> 1214
> pp. 85-86, v. 7:
> m.18
> Cumbâ?T.â?"Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Cambertonâ?T Adam de Hoctonâ?T,
tres milites de comitatu Cumberlandâ?T missi ad Carleolum in occursum Elene
de Morevillâ?T et ALANI de GALWEIA filii ejus ad videndum quem atornatum
ipsa Elena facere voluisset etc. in loquela que est inter ipsam et abbatem
de Londores de advocatione ecclesie de Wissendenâ?T in comitatu Rotelandâ?T
et ad videndum quem atornatum idem Alanus facere voluerit etc. in loquela
que est inter ipsum et Johannem de Cestrâ?T de warantia carte de terra de
Kippes in comitatu Eborâ?T, dicunt quod Elena point loco suo Adam de
Torintonâ?T vel Hamonem Clericum versus abbatem de Londorâ?T de placito
ecclesie de Wissendenâ?T in comitatu Rotelandâ?T. Dicunt etiam quod ALANUS
DE GALWEYE posuit etc. eundem Hamonem Clericum vel Ricardum de Crevequor
versus Johannem de Cestrâ?T de placito warantie carte de terra in Kipesc in
comitatu Eborâ?T. Et dictum est illis tribus militibus quod eant sine die.
Et quoniam Willelmus de Pe!
> rcy quartus miles non venit, qui debuit testificasse simul cum ipsis
atornatos predictorum, consideratum est quod atachietur quod sit a die
Pasche in tres septimanas. Post venit Willelmus de Percy et dixit idem.
> p. 86, v. 7:
>
> m. 18 (cont.)
> Eborâ?T.â?"ALANUS DE GALWEYE per predictos Hamonem Clericum et Ricardum de
Crevequor optulit se quarto die versus Johannem de Cestrâ?T de placito quod
Vickie Elam White
Huntingdon, d. of David of Huntingdon and Maud of
Chester? Their marriage date is listed as 1209 in
AR7. Was the daughter who died in 1213 a product
of Alan's first or second marriage?
And is it of any consequence that this second marriage
had a Chester connection?
Vickie Elam White
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127796141.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for your good post. You've asked an excellent question.
I believe it was customary for the king to ask for a person's eldest
son and heir as hostage. Failing having a son, the king accepted a
man's daughter, presumably the eldest daughter. Occasionally, the king
demanded more than one son as hostage as indicated below:
"In 1205 ... King John had demanded the eldest son of William Marshal
as hostage, and two years later, when the latter was about to set off
for Ireland, John also sought delivery of his second son; but the
Marshal's wife, Isabella, daughter of Strongbow and Affe, publicly
warned him against doing so at a council of the Marshal's men held just
before his departure." END OF QUOTE.
I don't think the practice of taking one's eldest son was set in stone,
however. I note that the famous William Marshal was taken as hostage
for his father by King Stephen. William was the eldest son by his
father's 2nd marriage, but he had two older half-brothers, both sons of
his father:
"King Stephen held John [le Marshal]'s son William as hostage for his
father's good behavior during a granted truce." END OF QUOTE.
All things being equal, the daughter of Alan Fitz Roland who was held
hostage in 1213 was probably his eldest daughter. If so, she would be
the child of his first wife, _____ de Lacy. Alan had another daughter,
Ellen, by his first wife who was living at the time, but she was not
the daughter taken as hostage.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancesty.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
In my post yesterday (see copy below), I set forth the relationship
between Alan Fitz Roland's daughter and Robert Fitz Roger, her
guardian, in 1213. Since my laptop with my database is in the shop for
repairs, I relied on Leo van de Pas' great database to develop the
kinship. However, checking Jim Weber's database today, I find Jim
gives a slightly different relationship between the two parties. I
believe Jim's version is more correct. So, Leo may want to review this
matter with Jim.
Here is Jim Weber's version:
1. Roger Fitz Richard, d. 1178, m. Alice de Vere.
2. Alice Fitz Roger, married John Fitz Richard, Constable of Chester.
3. _____ de Lacy, m. Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway.
4. unnamed daughter of Alan Fitz Roland.
1. Roger Fitz Richard, d. 1178, m. Alice de Vere.
2. Robert Fitz Roger, lord of Warkworth, died 1214.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Vickie Elam White
That certainly does seem like a simple solution per
the KISS principle -- Keep It Simple, Stupid. <smile>
More fun to say better than Ocam's Razor. <smile>
Do we know anything about this Richard de Chester?
Vickie Elam White
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:xi2_e.15716$0E5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
volu...@chello.nl
"Point One: The manor of Kippax, Yorkshire was owned by Ilbert de Lacy
at the time of the Domesday survey and passed by lineal descent to
Roger de Lacy (died 1211), hereditary Constable of Chester. The said
Roger de Lacy in turn gave it in marriage to his sister, the first wife
of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway."
This looks to me like a statement, not a fact. We have seen several
documents on Alan of Galoway [Alan Fitz Roland] and the mannor of
Kippax. Could you please enlighten me on the documented change of hands
or inheretances that cement your point one statement.
Hans Vogels
Vickie Elam White
"More fun to say better?" Geez, where is my mind!
Vickie
"Vickie Elam White" <VEW...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Vji_e.15795$Xl2....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Peter Stewart
"Vickie Elam White" <VEW...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Vji_e.15795$Xl2....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> That certainly does seem like a simple solution per
> the KISS principle -- Keep It Simple, Stupid. <smile>
> More fun to say better than Ocam's Razor. <smile>
>
> Do we know anything about this Richard de Chester?
I don't, but had assumed that Richardson would as he has supposedly
researched the subject since discovering this personage in Stringer's work.
However, he now says that he is taking my word for Richard's existence, so
apparently the due homework hasn't been done after all, yet again, again.
Richard de Chester was evidently the next eldest of Roger de Lacy's
brothers, as he witnessed before the two others at least twice.
One example can be found in _Facsimiles of Early Cheshire Charters_, edited
by Geoffrey Barraclough (1957), p. 18 - a charter of Roger from between 1200
& 1211: "ego Rogerus de Lasci, constabularius Cestrie...Hiis testibus:
Ricardo de Cestria, Eustachio de Cestria, Gaufrido de Cestria...".
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127830754....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> 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
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Peter Stewart wrote:
> 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.
Yes, you made a tiny mistake. No biggie.
> 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....
My what?
> >> 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.
You seem to have forgotten about John de Lacy dealing with the advowson
of Kippax, Yorkshire in 1233. This record proves that he is the same
individual as John de Chester in the 1214 lawsuit. If the manor and
advowson were granted away to a cadet branch, then the head of the
cadet branch should have answered to Pontefract Priory in 1233, not
John de Lacy. I don't know of any evidence that a cadet branch ever
held Kippax, Yorkshire. If you know of such evidence, please, please
let me know.
> Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<snip of the usual rubbish>
> I don't know of any evidence that a cadet branch ever held Kippax,
> Yorkshire. If you know of such evidence, please, please let me
> know.
We all know already the evidence that Alan of Galloway received Kippax
from his wife's father, named Richard and described as father also of
John. The only persons fitting those names who could have belonged to
the Lacy lineage at the appropriate time were Roger de Lacy's younger
brother Richard de Chester, and a son of his. There is no mystery about
"such evidence": it is the subject of the entire discussion.
Richardson wants to stuff it & carve it like another of his
genealogical turkeys, but unfortunately for him Uriah has absconded
with the cooking implements, and these will have to be sought along
with him....in Turkey!
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I see you're doing the usual bob and weave we get from you, when you're
asked to produce some evidence, and have none. That plus the normal
insults. When you have some evidence to put on the table, by all
means, let's renew the discussion.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Leo van de Pas
answer can I pose the following questions----how much more bobbing and
weaving can we get. If you can't give an answer, that is your ususal
"bobbing and weaving" response. I am sure there are quite a few people
waiting to see you, for once, give a reply.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife,
_____ de Lacy
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Please call me Douglas, not Richardson. Thank you.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I see that the noted historian, Dr. Keith Stringer, has written an
article published in 2000 concerning the charters of the the early
Lords of Galloway:
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),
pp. 203-34.
Has anyone seen this article?
Peter Stewart
> I see you're doing the usual bob and weave we get from you, when
> you're asked to produce some evidence, and have none. That plus
> the normal insults. When you have some evidence to put on the
> table, by all means, let's renew the discussion.
This from Richardson is once again a blatant insult to the intelligence
& patience of the entire newsgroup: the evidence he is demanding is
ALREADY on the table. HE HAS USED IT HIMSELF to substantiate the
marriage of Alan of Galloway to his first wife, only he preferred to
try amending & manipulating it into something else regarding her
immediate relationships.
The evidence for Richard de Chester as her father and a John de Chester
as her brother is every bit as good and clear as the other portion that
Richardson chooses to admit for his purposes.
Stringer made an unwarranted assumption that John de Chester must have
been the same as John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, although accepting that
his father's name was Richard instead of Roger. However, we know that
John de Lacy was son of Roger de Lacy, constable of Chester. If the
John de Chester in 1214 had been constable of Chester that is how he
would normally have been described; and if he had been the son of Roger
his father most probably would have been named & titled as Roger the
Constable or Roger de Lacy - not just "R." with a copyist left to fill
in the blank and mistakenly give Richard.
The simple way to interpret the evidence about Alan of Galloway's wife
is as written - that she was daughter of (Roger's brother) Richard, and
herself had a brother named John. I have said the same thing from the
start, no bobbing, no weaving, and no agenda apart from getting at the
facts.
On the other hand, nothing that Richardson has proposed lends any
substance to his wilful and unnecessary contradiction of this. It is
pure ego on his part, misplaced, stupid and boring, as ever.
He appears to think that the disposal of a property is not evidence of
its being held, unless we also have evidence of its acquisition. This
is absurd. Kippax was trasferred from Richard to Alan along with the
former's daughter in marriage. How and when it came to Richard, with or
without the advowson, cannot be known. That doesn't mean it can be
denied without firm evidence, flying in the face of the text posted
here by Kevin Bradford.
I do not intend to go on discussing this matter in the absence of any
further evidence. If Richardson can't admit that he has no case, and
persists in baseless charges against anyone who points this out, then
someone else can deal with the nuisance for a change.
I am not the designated pest control help for SGM - this chore should
be shared around. If people are unwilling to do this, they will soon
end up with the newsgroup they deserve - a farrago of self-serving
nonsense from Richardson and his minions, much of it unchallenged in
the record because no-one left here is prepared to undertake the toil.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
As a followup to my earlier post regarding the manor of Scholes,
Yorkshire being a Lacy property, I found the following two items just
now in the helpful online National Archives catalogue
(http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp):
DL 25/2167
John de Wescy to Sir Edmund de Lascy, Constable of Chester: Grant of
the assart he held of him in Scholes (Scales): (Yorks, W.R.)
DL 25/2160
Alfred de Suleigny to Henry de Lascy, Earl of Lincoln: Grant, indented,
of land in Manston in exchange for land in Scholes (Scales): (Yorks,
W.R.)
The grantees in the above two documents were the son and grandson
respectively of John de Lacy (otherwise known as John de Chester) (died
1240), Earl of Lincoln, hereditary Constable of Chester.
volu...@chello.nl
Could we rightly assume that the in 1213 mentioned unnamed daughter of
Alan of Galoway was then still very young (1-6 years). The age period
that Medieval clercs define as "infantia"?
There are continental examples that suggest that when children were
named in documents (instruments/charters) they were at least in the age
period of 7-13 years ("pueritia").
Hans Vogels
Leo van de Pas
You have here a request to me, would you like me to ignore it as much as you
ignore the questions of others?
----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife,
_____ de Lacy
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Please call me Douglas, not Richardson. Thank you!
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
< The simple way to interpret the evidence about Alan of Galloway's
wife
< is as written - that she was daughter of (Roger's brother) Richard,
and
< herself had a brother named John. I have said the same thing from the
< start, no bobbing, no weaving, and no agenda apart from getting at
the
< facts.
Dear Peter ~
Your theory has one gigantic hole in it. It's called chronology, which
is the backbone of medieval genealogy. If we take it that John de
Lacy's father, Roger de Lacy, was born about 1176, then Roger's younger
brother, Richard de Chester, can have been born no earlier than 1178.
Presuming Richard being a younger son married before the age of 20, it
would be 1198 or later before his children were born. If Richard de
Chester had a daughter, she would be the same age as Alan Fitz Roland's
children, NOT the age of his wife. Thus, your theory is off by a whole
generation. Yikes!
The short end of it: Your theory falls to the ground, crashes, and
burns. Game over. So sorry.
One last thing: Please call me Douglas, not Richardson. Thank you!
Peter Stewart
of SGM readers before me.
No-one has bothered to point out the extreme folly of Richardson's stating
"If we take it..." and then proceeding to assume that his unfounded
supposition must be true. Any and every reader of SGM could have done this.
No-one has bothered to question the arbitrary statement that Roger de Lacy
was "born about 1176". Many readers could have done this, asking why his
father John the Constable would have departed on crusade, dying at the siege
of Acre in 1190, if his eldest son and heir was only about 14 at the time,
or how Roger could have succeeded & acted as constable of Chester, without
any recorded hint of a problem, at the same age.
Why do you all sit around waiting for someone else to take up such
elementary points? This is a discussion GROUP, not a dialogue.
Is no-one offended by the delinquency of Richardson crowing "Yikes! The
short end of it: Your theory falls to the ground, crashes, and burns. Game
over. So sorry." when nothing remotely of the sort has taken place?
I am shortly going to leave this newsgroup, and the reason is NOT
Richardson's inanities, but rather the passivity and complicity of readers
who consistently remain quiet about them. This in my view is irresponsible,
and I don't choose to go on corresponding with a lot of people who won't
pull their weight.
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127891999.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Chris Phillips
> Your theory has one gigantic hole in it. It's called chronology, which
> is the backbone of medieval genealogy. If we take it that John de
> Lacy's father, Roger de Lacy, was born about 1176, then Roger's younger
> brother, Richard de Chester, can have been born no earlier than 1178.
> Presuming Richard being a younger son married before the age of 20, it
> would be 1198 or later before his children were born. If Richard de
> Chester had a daughter, she would be the same age as Alan Fitz Roland's
> children, NOT the age of his wife. Thus, your theory is off by a whole
> generation. Yikes!
For what it's worth, I do agree with previous posters that the natural
reading of the Curia Regis entry is that Alan's wife is the sister of John,
not of his father "Richard". (Though CP xii/2, p. 271, note g, commenting on
a similar case, says that "in medieval Latin suus might be used for ejus"
and ends up relying on the context for the correct interpretation.)
It does seem sensible to look at the chronology, but I wonder how secure Jim
Weber's estimate of 1176 for Roger's birthdate is. CP vii 676 has his son
John born c. 1192 (on the basis that he had livery of his inheritance in
1213), and in a footnote says that Roger was given the honor of Pontefract
by his grandmother in 1194 (when on Jim's reckoning he would be only about
18). There seems to be scope for Roger to have been born earlier than 1176,
which would make it more plausible for Alan's wife to be either his daughter
or a daughter of his brother Richard.
I can't find anything particularly helpful on the chronology in the books I
have here. The closest I can find is that Roger's maternal grandmother,
Alice de Vere, was said to be either 60 or 80 in 1185, and married Roger's
grandfather after the death of her first husband, Robert of Essex, who was
dead by 1146. At least there's nothing in that to prevent Roger having been
born, say, 10 years earlier, in the mid 1160s.
Chris Phillips
mj...@btinternet.com
I have followed this thread as closely as I can. Peter thinks that his
theory is a possibility. Douglas thinks his theory is the only one.
It seems to me the jury is still out: the issue of Roger vs Richard is
not conclusive, and therefore Peter's theory may work - it certainly
can't be discarded. I am not persuaded by Peter's argument, but I
don't think he himself is convinced it is necessarily correct - just
that it is a possibility. With respect, Douglas seems to be the
dogmatic one here, which is unfortunate. A reasonable, open mind is an
essential tool to this kind of research.
One thing about Douglas's position that I don't understand is the
following:
"If we take it that John de Lacy's father, Roger de Lacy, was born
about 1176, then Roger's younger brother, Richard de Chester, can have
been born no earlier than 1178.
Presuming Richard being a younger son married before the age of 20, it
would be 1198 or later before his children were born. If Richard de
Chester had a daughter, she would be the same age as Alan Fitz Roland's
children, NOT the age of his wife."
Firstly, it would be instructive to state how it is known that Roger de
Lacy was born about 1176. When I posit such assertions, I always try
to record my source or my logic, otherwise a "fact" is created where
none may have been established.
Secondly (and perhaps I am being stupid) if Roger was born in 1176 and
had a daughter old enough to be Alan FitzRoland's wife, why would the
daughter of Richard (born 1178) be the same age as Alan FitzRoland's
children - is this not a non sequitur?
One final point - and again, with the greatest respect - it does seem
to be unfortunate that Douglas at times does not answer direct
questions in relation to the positions he posits - that does undermine
his seeing "bobbing and weaving" in others.
I greatly respect Peter's contributions, his deep knowledge, and his
clear logic. I also respect Douglas's contributions, and admire his
preparedness to speculate - but I wish Douglas would resist the
tempations (which I am sure affects many of us) to present this
speculation as facts or regard their being questioned as an attack, and
I would respect him the more if he answered questions more often!
Best wishes
Michael
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127887794....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> I see that the noted historian, Dr. Keith Stringer, has written an
> article published in 2000 concerning the charters of the the early
> Lords of Galloway:
>
> 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),
> pp. 203-34.
>
> Has anyone seen this article?
Yes, I have a copy - and you should have checked this BEFORE throwing
opinions around rather than trying to get someone else to fill you in now.
There are several charters of Alan relating to Kippax, one of particular
interest regarding the advowson.
Peter Stewart
mj...@btinternet.com
first wife was sister of Roger (?and Richard) rather than daughter or
grand-daughter, so I was being dim.
The chronology would therefore appear to be quite important in this
case. Other than websites, what is the primary evidence or logical
deduction behind the supposed birthdates of the Chester/Lacy family?
Peter Stewart
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:dhdm11$nv2$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Douglas Richardson wrote:
>> Your theory has one gigantic hole in it. It's called chronology, which
>> is the backbone of medieval genealogy. If we take it that John de
>> Lacy's father, Roger de Lacy, was born about 1176, then Roger's younger
>> brother, Richard de Chester, can have been born no earlier than 1178.
>> Presuming Richard being a younger son married before the age of 20, it
>> would be 1198 or later before his children were born. If Richard de
>> Chester had a daughter, she would be the same age as Alan Fitz Roland's
>> children, NOT the age of his wife. Thus, your theory is off by a whole
>> generation. Yikes!
>
> For what it's worth, I do agree with previous posters that the natural
> reading of the Curia Regis entry is that Alan's wife is the sister of
> John,
> not of his father "Richard". (Though CP xii/2, p. 271, note g, commenting
> on
> a similar case, says that "in medieval Latin suus might be used for ejus"
> and ends up relying on the context for the correct interpretation.)
>
> It does seem sensible to look at the chronology, but I wonder how secure
> Jim
> Weber's estimate of 1176 for Roger's birthdate is.
Thank you, Chris.
Are you suggesting that Richardson's examination of the Lacy family
chronology, the basis for his sneering, consistented of looking up Jim
Weber's database?
And even at that, not stopping to question how Roger the Constable came into
the great Lacy inheritance and adopted this surname in 1194, at the age of
only "around" 18?
By the way, as Kevin has pointed out already, "suus" was used twice in the
same sentence and Richardson insistes that the possessive pronoun referred
to a different person each time, yet has given no better rationale for this
that the arbitrary & highly dubious chronology he proposed.
Thanks also to Michael for his kind post - unlike him, I do not respect
Richardson, although I do think the man is capable of doing better. However,
he will have little incentive to try when he can come to a supine newsgroup,
full of politely quiet readers, and act as badly as he has lately with
virtual impunity.
As I said, I do not intend to keep on carrying a large share of the burden
of pointing out his absurdities and dishonesties, especially in a field that
doesn't interest me in the least such as the late 12th/early 13th centuries
in England & Scotland. Equally I don't see why Leo should have to carry the
burden he does of pointing out the ethical & professional deficiencies in
Richardson's behaviour.
Peter Stewart
Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart wrote:
> Are you suggesting that Richardson's examination of the Lacy family
> chronology, the basis for his sneering, consistented of looking up Jim
> Weber's database?
I understood from his previous post on the chronology that this was where
the 1176 estimate for Roger's birthdate came from.
Chris Phillips
R. Battle
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Peter Stewart wrote:
> This trash has sat on my server for hours now, and presumably reached a lot
> of SGM readers before me.
<snip>
But probably not read by the majority of them, either because they only
check the group sporadically or else they are not following the thread.
Speaking only for myself, I tend to read only about 10% of the newsgroup
postings--those with interesting subject lines or from particular authors
and those in threads which, for whatever reason (usually one of the two
mentioned), I was following before. I suspect that is true for most of us
who occasionally contribute and don't just lurk all of the time. In this
particular case, I am more-or-less following the thread, but by the time I
read the message to which you are referring a couple of replies had
already appeared (see below).
> Why do you all sit around waiting for someone else to take up such
> elementary points? This is a discussion GROUP, not a dialogue.
True; but I think that the repetition of points already raised by others
can tend to distract from the flow of discussion (assuming that there is
one, of course). Before I reply to a post I always check to see if any
other replies have already been made, and then look at them to see if I
have anything to add to what has been said. Immediately after I read the
post to which you were objecting, I read your reply (to which I am now
replying) as well as Chris Phillips', both of which pointed out the error
of building upon the shaky 1176 foundation. For me to raise the same
issue would therefore be redundant. In a way, you're a victim of your own
success--I rarely find anything to add to what you've said.
> Is no-one offended by the delinquency of Richardson crowing "Yikes! The
> short end of it: Your theory falls to the ground, crashes, and burns. Game
> over. So sorry." when nothing remotely of the sort has taken place?
Of course, both for that and for the immaturity of its sentiment and
wording.
> I am shortly going to leave this newsgroup, and the reason is NOT
> Richardson's inanities, but rather the passivity and complicity of readers
> who consistently remain quiet about them. This in my view is irresponsible,
> and I don't choose to go on corresponding with a lot of people who won't
> pull their weight.
<snip>
I hope you'll reconsider; but if you do leave, I hope you'll pass along
your address just in case I ever start working on continental genealogy.
:-)
-Robert Battle
Tim Powys-Lybbe
wrote:
I had the good fortune not to read DR's initial post as I have
kill-filed him.
But I have seen his remarks quoted and in particular various requests
of his for proper evidence. If he merely took this off an internet
site, then it shows that his hypocrisy has not changed since I commented
extensively on it a few months back.
I have also, as one or two may have noted, given away his book which I
ordered in error some years ago. I could not bring myself to refer to
a work that claimed to be scholarly and yet did not follow scholarly
practices; more hypocrisy of course.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<Snip of The Hypocrite's latest CU>
> Why do you all sit around waiting for someone else to take up such
> elementary points? This is a discussion GROUP, not a dialogue.
>
> Is no-one offended by the delinquency of Richardson crowing "Yikes! The
> short end of it: Your theory falls to the ground, crashes, and burns. Game
> over. So sorry." when nothing remotely of the sort has taken place?
>
> I am shortly going to leave this newsgroup, and the reason is NOT
> Richardson's inanities, but rather the passivity and complicity of readers
> who consistently remain quiet about them. This in my view is irresponsible,
> and I don't choose to go on corresponding with a lot of people who won't
> pull their weight.
I will be sorry if you should depart from our midst. Three reasons.
First I have enjoyed your obvious serious knowledge and capability with
early, particularly early continental european documents. I have
always marvelled at those who can get their head around even classical
latin, but medieval latin with all its abbreviations and never mind the
ghastly script is several times more demanding. Not merely this, of
course, but also the very extensive knowledge of the people that you
manage to carry in your head, another failure of my braincell that I
have ever admired in others.
Second the generous help you have given those who have been making
enquiries in your areas of speciality.
Thirdly I have hugely enjoyed the lambasting (ghastly word but all
newspapers, even The Times, seem to be using it now) given to The
Hypocrite. I will confess that I have occasionally felt guilty about
this enjoyment as it so often expressed so well what seemed fit, though
over the top for discreet English discourse. On the other hand I have
also been entertained by odd Australians whose command of delightful
invective has come naturally, eloquently and just as vitriolically from
the touchline of the rugby field (for such was the style of the man who
eventually became headmaster of my sons' school).
But while I do not see the need for you to carry on the crusade to
correct The Hypocrite, I wonder if you might stay with us by putting
him, as I have done, on a kill-file. I suspect that someone else might
yet take up the cudgels of clear reasoning and honesty; after all this
did happen when Paul Reed retired from the scene.
A final reason for staying with this group is the marvellous
improvements in the last year or so in the content of the postings. A
few years ago we did well if we could find a morsel from CP. But now
hardly a day passes without some cogent and apposite extracts from
primary sources, thereby radically extending our genealogical
knowledge. I remain humbled by the sheer competence of it all.
Peter G R Howarth
treating discussions on this newsgroup as a debating game where he must win
by any means, fair or foul, and instead to use evidence and logic correctly
in an attempt, with others, to reach the truth. Too often, he drags others
down to his level.
The reason I have not contributed to this particular thread before is that I
receive posts in batches through Gen-Med and by the time I have read one of
his 'bobbing and weaving' posts it has already been responded to by someone
else, very often Peter Stewart, who is far more competent than I am.
Frequently I feel that I am much too late to make any valid contribution to
the discussion.
This does not mean that I do not support all those who attempt to get
Richardson to accept the normal standards of discussion. Why can he not
bring himself to say, for example-
"I accept that is a weakness in my argument, but ." or
"Here are the two sides to the argument, (a) and (b). On the whole I am
inclined to (b)" or
"I see what you mean. Damn! that's another theory gone down in flames."
These are not signs of weakness, but of maturity of thought and a genuine
desire for the truth.
Peter G R Howarth
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Stewart [p_m_s...@msn.com] wrote Wed 28/09/2005 09:51
>This trash has sat on my server for hours now, and presumably reached
>a lot of SGM readers before me.
>
>No-one has bothered to point out the extreme folly of Richardson's
>stating "If we take it..." and then proceeding to assume that his
>unfounded supposition must be true. Any and every reader of SGM could
>have done this.
>
>No-one has bothered to question the arbitrary statement that Roger de
>Lacy was "born about 1176". Many readers could have done this, asking
>why his father John the Constable would have departed on crusade,
>dying at the siege of Acre in 1190, if his eldest son and heir was
>only about 14 at the time, or how Roger could have succeeded & acted
>as constable of Chester, without any recorded hint of a problem, at
>the same age.
>
>Why do you all sit around waiting for someone else to take up such
>elementary points? This is a discussion GROUP, not a dialogue.
>
>Is no-one offended by the delinquency of Richardson crowing "Yikes!
>The short end of it: Your theory falls to the ground, crashes, and
>burns. Game over. So sorry." when nothing remotely of the sort has
>taken place?
>
>I am shortly going to leave this newsgroup, and the reason is NOT
>Richardson's inanities, but rather the passivity and complicity of
>readers who consistently remain quiet about them. This in my view is
>irresponsible, and I don't choose to go on corresponding with a lot
>of people who won't pull their weight.
>
>Peter Stewart
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.8/113 - Release Date: 27/09/2005
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
With all due respect, I don't think my interpretation regarding the
identity of Alan Fitz Roland's first wife is "the only one." I have
never thought that. If you have a theory of your own, by all means,
please advance it along with your evidence.
I think it goes without saying that if we're going to continue to
discuss the various problems involving the earlier baronial families of
England, we'll have to raise the level of discussion a lot higher.
Indeed the further back you go in time, the fewer the records you have,
the more Latin you encounter, and the more murkier things get. Unless
some posters start acting a lot more collegial, I suspect it's going to
get very rocky around here. Especially since the entire arrangement of
a family can hinge on the interpretation of one ambiguous document.
In answer to your question about chronology, and, no, you are not being
stupid, I've stated my "opinion" that Alan Fitz Roland married a sister
of Roger de Lacy (died 1211), NOT his daughter. If Alan married
Roger's daughter as you have set it out, I believe you would encounter
the SAME chronological problem that besets Mr. Stewart's theory. This
is a non sequitur (Latin meaning: it does not follow).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
It isn't necessary for you to express your opinions about Douglas
Richardson whenever you post. We already know your views about him -
you've expressed them here repeatedly.
This particular thread is about the identity of Alan Fitz Roland's
first wife. Do you have anything tangible to add to the discussion,
Tim? If so, please post away. Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for your good post.
When you have a moment, can you explain the use of the Latin words,
"suo" versus "eius," in context with the Curia Regis Rolls document? I
think this would be helpful.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
> For what it's worth, I do agree with previous posters that the natural
Vickie Elam White
getting old. Can we just stick to the agenda here?
Can we try to explore the descent of Kippax down
through the years, in order to find out when -- or if --
it was Richard's to give or it it was Roger's to give?
Thanks.
Vickie Elam White
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Sometime ago, the ever helpful Dave Utzinger posted the following
information to the newsgroup. Since it directly concerns Roger de
Lacy, Constable of Chester, and his son, John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln,
I thought I'd repost it again. Special thanks go to Dave for posting
this information.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Sidney Painter (Studies in the History of the English Feudal Barony)
did a [preliminary] study of baronial incomes between 1160 and 1320
(chapter VII). Of fifty-four barons he tallied figures for during a
part of that period, Roger de Lacy, constable of Chester, had the
highest income in England at his death in 1210 (800 pounds per annum).
Next was William, Earl of Gloucester at 700 pounds, Robert, Earl of
Leicester, at 560 pounds, and then Earl William de Mandeville at 504
pounds per annum. So this would explain, in part, why John de Lacy was
vaulted to the peerage when the opportunity presented itself without
much dispute. The palatine Earl of Chester only had an annual income of
327 pounds per annum in Henry II's reign. [Ref: Dave Utzinger 5 Jan
1999 msg to SGM]
CED
Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> Dear Leo ~
>
> Please call me Douglas, not Richardson. Thank you.
>
To the Newsgroup:
Is there any other participant in the group who demands that posters
use her or his given name, rather than her or his surname? Is DR so in
need of affection that he derives pleasure from other's using the
familiar name, rather than a formal name (even though the use of the
familiar would be hypocritical)? It could be that, if he so insists,
we could use "Uriah."
CED
volu...@chello.nl
It takes one to know one.
Hans Vogels
norenxaq
>
> I am shortly going to leave this newsgroup, and the reason is NOT
> Richardson's inanities, but rather the passivity and complicity of readers
> who consistently remain quiet about them.
people will join or not join a particular discussion as they see fit regardless
of whether someone else thinks they should
> This in my view is irresponsible,
your choice, but it isn't
>
> and I don't choose to go on corresponding with a lot of people who won't
> pull their weight.
>
> Peter Stewart
>
if you have problems with certain theories or people, express them (which you
do), but don't expect others to join in.
volu...@chello.nl
A fine example of your education are those words.
Hans Vogels
volu...@chello.nl
Hans Vogels
Leo van de Pas
think too often Richardson goes over board and needs to be pulled in line.
This should not be done all the time by the same few. Richardson has just
expressed his believe in numbers, we need numbers to impress him whether
people approve or disapprove of his behaviour.
I firmly believe in _remaining silent is agreeing_ and remaining silent
only gives support to Richardson.
mwelc...@yahoo.com
They Can't Peter has called them stupied. Yeah he's going to win
Brownie points on that one.
Mike
Todd A. Farmerie
> This trash has sat on my server for hours now, and presumably reached a lot
> of SGM readers before me.
>
> No-one has bothered to point out the extreme folly of Richardson's stating
> "If we take it..." and then proceeding to assume that his unfounded
> supposition must be true. Any and every reader of SGM could have done this.
Curiously, my server shows his post and your response being posted to
soc.gen.med 48 minutes apart. Considering that some posters (present
company included) sometimes go 24 hours or longer between readings of
the group (by which time many points have been sufficiently addressed by
other posters that there is no sense in tediously repeating them).
Expecting numerous responses within hours is perhaps asking a level of
commitment to the group few can match.
taf