C.P. Addition: Margaret de Lacy, daughter of John de Lacy, Magna Carta baron

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

The authoritative Complete Peerage, 7 (1929): 676-680 (sub Lincoln)
includes a rather full account of the history of John de Lacy, Earl of
Lincoln (died 1240), who was one of the famous Magna Carta barons.
Regarding his children, Complete Peerage states that he had a son and
heir, Edmund, afterwards Earl of Lincoln, and one daughter, Maud, who
married c. 1237 Richard, Earl of Gloucester. He also had two younger
unidentified daughters who were ordered to be sent in 1243 to Windsor
Castle to be brought up with the King's daughters [Reference: C.P. 7
(1929): 680, footnote a].

The first record below is taken from the helpful A2A Catalogue
(http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp). It consists of the abstract
of a grant issued by Hawise de Quincy, Countess of Lincoln, of her
lands at Riby, Lincolnshire to her "niece" (that is, granddaughter)
Margaret, daughter of John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln. The grant can be
dated sometime before Hawise de Quincy's death in 1243.

The second record below is taken from the helpful online National
Archives catalogue
(http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp). It
indicates that Margaret, daughter of the late John de Lacy, Earl of
Lincoln, was granted lands in Riby, Lincolnshire by Aline widow of
Geoffrey de Thorley. This grant can be dated as sometime after the
death of Earl John de Lacy in 1240.

Reviewing these two records, it is evident that John de Lacy, Earl of
Lincoln, had a legitimate daughter, Margaret de Lacy, who survived him.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + +
Source: A2A Catalogue

Manuscripts Of The Earl Of Ancaster
Reference: 2ANC1/41/3
Notification of a grant.

Creation dates: 13th century

Scope and Content

Hawise de Queci (sic) countess of Lincoln in her widowhood to Margaret
her niece daughter of John de Lacy earl of Lincoln.

Property: all her land in Riby.

Witnesses: Elyas abbot of Revesby, Robert de Tatersal, Simon de Kime,
Robert de Bribi, William de Billesbi, Thomas de Turs, John de
Korkerincton, Helias de Houton.

Silk cords.

Elyas occurs as abbot of Revesby 1216 and 1231:

V.C.H. Lincs. II, 142.
+ + + + + + + + + +
Source: National Archives Catalogue

DL 25/2408

Aline late the wife of Geoffrey de Thorley, widow to Margaret daughter
of John de Lascy, late Earl of Lincoln: Grant of a toft and two oxgangs
in Riby, Lincolnshire, late of Emma Trussebut, her mother.

[CED]

Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> The authoritative Complete Peerage, 7 (1929): 676-680 (sub Lincoln)
> includes a rather full account of the history of John de Lacy, Earl of
> Lincoln (died 1240), who was one of the famous Magna Carta barons.

To the Newsgroup:

In the Preface to the First Edition of the Complete Peerage the editior
states that it is intended that the work be an "alphabetical 'synopsis'
of the entire Hereditary Peerage, exant, extinct, or dormant, of Great
Britain and the United Kingdom, as also of Scotland and Ireland
(including such peerages as have been created for life only by chater
or patent), containing a short account of each peer, and stating also
(where it can be ascertained) the date and place of birth, baptism,
marriage, death, and burial, not only of all the peers themselves, but
of their respective wives, together with other particulars, including
the name and description of the father and mother of each peer and
peeress."

The Second Edition differed from the First primarily in that baronies
by tenure have, except in a few cases, been omitted.

The Complete Peerage was not intended to be, nor should it be used as,
a work of genealogy. It is a useful source and tool for genealogists.
Even though many entries and, more often, notes include matters beyond
their original intention, failure to include such extraneous material
should not be considered omissions.

In like manner, Farrer's _Honours and Knights Fees_, as well as his and
Clay's _Early Yorkshire Charters_, both having been found useful by
genealogists, are not genealogical works. To treat them as such is to
stretch them beyond the scope intended by their editors.

Richardson seems to consider these books to be genealogical works. His
oft used terms and phrases, such as "failed," "omitted," and
"overlooked," when he posts corrections and additions to such works
imply derogation or disparagement, whether he intends the implication
or not.

We are fortunate that our literary foreparents produced such masterful
works at times when technology made their production most tedious and
difficult. To derogate or disparage them is to demonstrate lack of
respect for the work they did. Adding sarcasm to the implication
exhibits shameful egoism.

CED

[mj...@btinternet.com]

John Brandon wrote:

> CED wrote:
> > Richardson seems to consider these books to be genealogical works. His
> > oft used terms and phrases, such as "failed," "omitted," and
> > "overlooked," when he posts corrections and additions to such works
> > imply derogation or disparagement, whether he intends the implication
> > or not.
>

> I don't see that DR used the words "failed," "omitted," or "overlooked"
> in the cited post on Margaret de Lacy, so what in heaven's name are you
> carrying on about?

The post is headed "CP Addition".

While I think there is an argument that CP is a genealogical work, it's
emphasis is quite different from the normal 'Peerage' publication, in
that it seeks to trace titles rather than families. Accordingly it
doesn't normally provide details of a peer's children, other than those
integral to the succession of the title.

The information about identifying a daughter of John de Lacy, while
very interesting, is not strictly speaking a CP addition.

[mj...@btinternet.com]

Fair point.

[CED]

John Brandon wrote:
> CED wrote:

> > Richardson seems to consider these books to be genealogical works. His
> > oft used terms and phrases, such as "failed," "omitted," and
> > "overlooked," when he posts corrections and additions to such works
> > imply derogation or disparagement, whether he intends the implication
> > or not.

>

> I don't see that DR used the words "failed," "omitted," or "overlooked"
> in the cited post on Margaret de Lacy, so what in heaven's name are you
> carrying on about?

To the newsgroup:

I hear a familiar sound 'clique-claque, clique-claque.' Yes, it is
that of the hooves of an ass pulling a cart full of dung left by a
circus parade.

CED