Re: Richard de Chester, brother of Sir Roger de Lacy, Constable of Chester
Douglas Richardson
Please find below a history of Richard de Chester, younger brother of
Sir Roger de Lacy (otherwise Roger de Chester) (died 1211), of
Pontefract, Yorkshire and Halton, Cheshire, hereditary Constable of
Chester. The records show that Richard de Chester was granted the
manor of More, Cheshire by the gift of his brother, Sir Roger de Lacy.
He afterwards became a leper and, on his death, he was buried at Norton
Priory, Cheshire. He presumably died without issue sometime before
1232, as
the manor of More was subsequently held by his nephew, John de Lacy
(otherwise John de Chester), Constable of Chester, afterwards Earl of
Lincoln.
I find no indication that Richard de Chester had any issue, or ever
married. I also find no record that he had any connection to the
manors of Kippax or Scholes, Yorkshire, the known maritagium of his
niece, _____, 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
I. RICHARD OF CHESTER, 2nd son of John, Constable of Chester (died
1190), by his wife, Alice, daughter of Roger Fitz Richard, of
Warkworth, Northumberland. Sometime prior to 1190, he witnessed a
charter of his father's to Lenton Priory, Nottinghamshire, as well as
a charter of his father's dated c.1175-1190 to Watton Priory.
Sometime after 1190, he was granted the manor of More, Cheshire by his
brother. He witnessed various charters of his brother, Roger de Lacy,
1190-c.1200, dated 1194, and 1200-1211. He granted Wethale (in Aston
by Budworth) to Adam de Dutton and his heirs. He died a leper and was
buried at Norton Priory, Cheshire. He presumably died without issue
sometime before 1232, when the manor of More in the hands of his
nephew, John de Lacy.
References:
George Ormerod, History of the County Palatine & City of Chester 1
(1819): 509-510, 543. William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 6(1)
(London, 1830): 315 (Norton Priory) (Pedigree and history of the
Founders: "Iste eciam Rogerus [de Lacy] habuit quendam fratrem,
Ricardum nomine; cui dedit villam de More; et hic postmodum fuit
leprosus, et sepulta est in capitulo canonicorum de Northton.").
Thomas Dunham Whitaker, An History of the Original Parish of Whalley
and Honor of Clitheroe 1 (4th ed., Manchester, 1872): 241, footnote 1.
W.A. Hulton ed., The Coucher Book or Chartulary of Whalley Abbey 1
(Chetham Soc. 10) (1947): 135-138; 2 (Chetham Soc. 11) (1847): 393-394;
(3 (Chetham Soc. 16) (1848): 802. William Farrer ed., Early Yorkshire
Charters 3 (1916): 199 (chart), 209-211. Hatton, Book of Seals (1950):
358. Geoffrey Barraclough ed., Facsimiles of Early Cheshire Charters
(1957): 18-20. C.J. Holdsworth ed., Rufford Charters 2 (Thoroton Soc.
Rec. Ser. 30) (1974): 217-218 (charter of Roger de Lacy).
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128844754.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Please find below a history of Richard de Chester, younger brother of
> Sir Roger de Lacy (otherwise Roger de Chester) (died 1211), of
> Pontefract, Yorkshire and Halton, Cheshire, hereditary Constable of
> Chester. The records show that Richard de Chester was granted the
> manor of More, Cheshire by the gift of his brother, Sir Roger de Lacy.
> He afterwards became a leper and, on his death, he was buried at Norton
> the manor of More was subsequently held by his nephew, John de Lacy
> (otherwise John de Chester), Constable of Chester, afterwards Earl of
> Lincoln.
>
> I find no indication that Richard de Chester had any issue, or ever
> married. I also find no record that he had any connection to the
> manors of Kippax or Scholes, Yorkshire, the known maritagium of his
> niece, _____, 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway.
Do you know that Richard still held More at his death? If not, how do you
know, for instance, that he hadn't exchanged this manor with his brother for
Kippax, so that it passed to John de Lacy by that means? How do you know
that Richard didn't have a son John who predeceased him? How do you
establish that he "presumably" had no issue, just because some charter
attestations and a dabble in _Monasticon_ didn't turn up any?
This is not a "history" of Richard de Chester, but so far merely a few
snippets and some unwarranted conclusions. The record of his leprosy &
burial from _Monasticon_ is an account of the founder's kin of Norton abbey
written in the 1340s, probably accurate as far as it goes but that doesn't
tell us nearly enough to flesh out a life around 150 years earlier and
whether or not the man had children.
You will have to do better than this before you can rule him out as
father-in-law of Alan of Galloway.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
basic details of his life. One piece of evidence I found even
indicates that Richard de Chester likely died without issue. I find no
evidence of an exchange of the manor of More for the manors of Kippax
and Scholes. In fact, just the opposite. The only people dealing with
Kippax in this time period are Richard de Chester's brother, Sir Roger
de Lacy, his brother's son, John de Lacy, and his brother's grandson,
Edmund de Lacy. That is supported by solid evidence.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
volu...@chello.nl
Richard of Chester's last mentioning dates of 1211. He died somewere
before 1232. 1211 is a date before 1232. The person Richard, father in
law of Alan of Galoway, seems to have been dead before 1214 when his
son John of Chester acts as his heir.
If you find a mentioning of Richard of Chester after 1214 you are then
on more solid ground. Brother Richard of Chester is then most likely
not father in law of Alan.
Hans Vogels
1. Kevin Bradford 24 sep 03:07
Onderwerp: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
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.
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
1. Millerfairfi...@aol.com 27 sep 21:22
Onderwerp: Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway
I have not been following the current controversy in any detail, but
can
offer the following translations, in case it helps the participants or
others who
may be following the debate.
Please bear in mind that I am ignorant of the parentage of Alan of
Galloway,
and of the identity of his wife, as also of any possible connection of
his
wife with the family of de Lacy: nor have I examined the original
documents, even
in photostat.
I have added punctuation to assist the reading.
pp 85-86 v7
Willelmus de Jonesbi Alanus de Camberton Adam de Hocton
tres milites de comitatu Cumberland missi ad Carleolum in occursum
Elene
de Morevil 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 [a transcription error
for
"posuit"] 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.
"William of Jonesby Alan of Camberton and Adam of Hocton, three knights
of
the county of Cumberland, sent to Carlisle to see what attorney Elena
de Morvill
wished to appoint in the hearing between herself and the Abbot of
Londores
about the advowson of Wissenden in the county of Rutland and to see
what
attorney the same Alan of Galloway wished to appoint in the hearing
between him and
John of Chester about a warranty of the charter of the land of Kippax
in the
county of York, say that Elena appointed in her place Adam of Torinton
or
Hamon the clerk against the Abbot of Londor concerning the plea about
the church
of Wissenden in the county of Rutland. And they say further that Alan
of
Galloway appointed [in his place] the same Hamon the clerk or Richard
of Crevecour
agianst John of Chester concerning the plea about a warranty of a
charter of
the land of Kippax in the county of York. The said knights were told to
depart
with no day fixed [for their further attendance]. And since William
Percy the
fourth knight, who ought to have testified with them as to the
attorneys of
the said persons, did not come it was deemed that he should be attached
that he
should [appear] on the day of Easter in three weeks. Later came William
Percy
and said the same.
p. 86, v. 7:
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.
Alan of Galloway brought himself on the fourth day by the said Hamon
the
clerk and Richard of Crevecour against John of Chester concerning the
plea that
the same John should warrant the charters of Richard his father which
Alan of
Galloway held as the marriage portion of his sister. And he [sc. John]
did not
come nor did he essoign himself [ie. ask for an adjounment] so a
summons [was
issued] and so let him be attached to appear at the said date.
I believe that the natural conclusion from this second passage is that
Alan
had married the sister of John of Chester, and had received a marriage
portion
by charter of John's father Richard. We can deduce from the first
passage that
the portion in question was land at Kippax, Yorks, which Douglas
Richardson
has identified as ancestral land of the family of de Lacy/Chester.
I am convinced that "Ricardi patris sui" in the second passage must be
referring to John's father and not Alan's. John must I think have been
the son and
heir of Richard, by then (I assume) deceased, and was being called upon
to
confirm or warrant the validity of his father's charter. I can think of
no
possible reason why John should be called on to validate a charter
granted by Alan's
father. And of course, since Alan could not marry his own sister,
"sororis
sue" must be a reference to a sister of John. So, in my view (for
however little
it may be worth) "sui" and "sue" both refer to the same individual John
of
Chester.
I have no view as to the identity of John's father Richard, nor as to
the
possibility that the scribe may have made an error as to the name of
John's
father, nor as to the identity of John of Chester himself. All these
matters I
leave with confidence to the scholars who adorn our group.
MM
1. Millerfairfi...@aol.com 28 sep 16:11
Onderwerp: Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway for Hans
Vogel
Dear Hans Vogel- you are quite right: I carelessly omitted my
translation of
the words " in occursum Elene de Morevil et Alani de Galweia filii
ejus".
Apologies and thanks to you and apologies to the rest of the group.
The missing words translate as "to meet Elena de Morevil and her son
Alan of
Galloway".
MM
6. Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com 27 sep 23:33
Onderwerp: Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway
Dear Vickie, Kevin, Michael, etc. ~
In answer to Vickie's question, the 1214 lawsuit from the Curia Regis
Rolls is the only source that I know of that indicates the identity of
Alan Fitz Roland's first wife. Michael Miller has kindly provided us a
full translation of that text.
The defendant in this case appears to have been John de Lacy (died
1240), later Earl of Lincoln, as we find elsewhere that he was known as
John of Chester in 1214, and also that he was subsequently dealing with
the advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire in 1233. As best I understand it,
the manor and advowson of Kippax were granted in marriage to Alan Fitz
Roland on his marriage to his first wife. It was this property that
was the subject of the 1214 lawsuit. So, we have the right people and
the right property matched to each other.
As you are aware, the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire subsequently descended
to Alan Fitz Roland's daughter, Ellen, and her husband, Roger de
Quincy, 2nd Earl of Winchester. That Roger de Quincy thought he and
his wife had the right to the advowson of Kippax is clear from two
documents, one dated 1233 which implies Roger had recently claimed the
right to present to Kippax, and the other, Roger's own charter dated c.
1254 in which he conveyed the manor and advowson of Kippax back to John
de Lacy's son and heir, Edmund de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln (see
Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals, pg. 288-289).
Insofar as the 1214 lawsuit itself is concerned, the statement is made
that Alan Fitz Roland had Kippax in marriage with "his sister." In the
previous few words in the lawsuit, there are two men mentioned, namely
John de Chester and his father, "Richard." As best I understand the
text, the words "his sister" can refer to EITHER John de Chester's
sister OR his father's sister.
If either situation is possible, then I think an examination of the
chronology of these two families would be a helpful guide to
understanding whose sister is intended. I show that Alan Fitz Roland
was born before 1175, he being of age in or before 1196. On Jim
Weber's great website, I find that John de Lacy's father, Roger de
Lacy, was born about 1176. In other words, Alan Fitz Roland was the
virtually the same age as Roger de Lacy. It is obvious then from the
chronology that Alan Fitz Roland is likely to have married Roger de
Lacy's sister, rather than his son, John de Lacy's sister.
If we accept that John de Chester in the 1214 lawsuit is John de Lacy
(and I do), then the only sensible conlusions that can be drawn are:
(1) The reference to John's father Roger being called Richard in the
lawsuit is a clerical error.
(2) The words "his sister" refer to Roger de Lacy's sister, not John de
Lacy's.
These conclusions are certainly in harmony with the known chronology.
We know elsewhere that Roger de Lacy's father, John Fitz Richard, died
in 1190. This then sets the earlier limit of Alan Fitz Roland's
marriage, as Alan received Kippax, Yorkshire in marriage evidently by
grant of Roger de Lacy.
Insofar as the error of Roger de Lacy's name in the Curis Regis lawsuit
is concerned, I can say that I have encountered errors of this nature
in all classes of medieval records. I don't even blink now when I find
them. I've just come to accept that medieval records were created by
infallible human beings who made mistakes just like you and I do.
As far as how the error happened, it was customary for medieval clerks
to abbreviate names in legal records. I posted an example of such a
document just yesterday. I suppose it is possible that in the original
pleading that John de Lacy's father was referred to only as "R."
Later, a clerk filled in the name and assumed that "R." stood for
Richard, whereas it really stood for Roger. That's purely a guess,
however. We don't have the original pleadings, just the brief
abstracts of the case notes. So we can only guess what happened.
This information probably doesn't answer all of your concerns, nor does
it mine. In essence, we have fragmented records of these people, with
an occasional error thrown in to keep things interesting. We know in
part, not in whole.
Bill Hofstadter
produce it, it doesn't exist.
Bill Hofstadter
On 2005-10-09 11:57:45 -0400, "Douglas Richardson"
Peter Stewart
> The few "snippets" of Richard de Chester's life which I posted give the
> basic details of his life. One piece of evidence I found even
> indicates that Richard de Chester likely died without issue. I find no
> evidence of an exchange of the manor of More for the manors of Kippax
> and Scholes. In fact, just the opposite. The only people dealing with
> Kippax in this time period are Richard de Chester's brother, Sir Roger
> de Lacy, his brother's son, John de Lacy, and his brother's grandson,
> Edmund de Lacy. That is supported by solid evidence.
Um, what about Alan of Galloway, with his father-in-law named as Richard?
Edmund de Lacy wasn't even born at the time in question.
And the evidence does NOT support that the people found in connection with
Kippax were the "only" ones dealing with the manor. The evidence doesn't
begin to substantiate what we can't know about this.
Why keep on revealing your lack of sensible method in this way? When you
find something pertaining to the case that for preconceived reasons you
would like to make, let us know - but SGM is a discerning audience, and
can't be fooled with overstatements and misinterpretations.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> Um, what about Alan of Galloway, with his father-in-law named as Richard?
As you already know, I've stated my belief that this is a clerical
error in the Curia Regis Rolls. I find errors like this ALL the time
in ALL classes of medieval records.
Here's another one for you.
John, Constable of Chester (died 1190), issued a charter in the period,
c. 1175-1190 [see Hatton, Book of Seals (1950): 358-359]. It was
witnessed by "Rogero constabulario Cestrie . Ricardo et Galfrido
fratibus ipsius Rogeri."
The editor adds this note:
"It is evident, as Farrer points out, that the attestation "Rogero
constabulario Cestrie" must be a scribal error for "Rogero filio
constabularii Cestrie."
Scribal errors like this are par for the course for records of this
time period.
> And the evidence does NOT support that the people found in connection with
> Kippax were the "only" ones dealing with the manor. The evidence doesn't
> begin to substantiate what we can't know about this.
As far as the manor and advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire are concerned,
the only people in this family that I've found dealing with this
property in this time period are: (1) Sir Roger de Lacy, Constable of
Chester (died 1211); (2) Roger's son, John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln,
Constable of Chester (died 1240), and (3) Roger's grandson, Edmund de
Lacy, Earl of Lincoln (died 1258). There is no evidence to suggest
that Sir Roger de Lacy's younger brother, Richard de Chester, ever
married or had issue; in fact, it appears that on his death as a leper,
Richard's chief estate, More, Cheshire, passed back to his nephew, John
de Lacy.
To be even more specific, in the time period of John de Lacy, Earl of
Lincoln (died 1240), the only other male members of his immediate
family who appear in the records are his legitimate son and heir,
Edmund, and his illegitimate son, Peter de Chester (also known as Peter
de Lacy), a priest. As best I can tell, all three of Earl John's
uncles, Richard, Eustace, and Geoffrey (all surnamed "de Chester"),
appear to have died without issue; certainly without male issue.
As such, I must conclude that the first wife of Alan Fitz Roland was
the daughter of Sir Roger de Lacy (otherwise Roger de Chester),
Constable of Chester (died 1211), by his wife, Maud (said to be a
Clare). This is a correction for my book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005),
pg. 685.
> Peter Stewart
Bill Hofstadter
<royala...@msn.com> said:
> As you already know, I've stated my belief that this is a clerical
> error in the Curia Regis Rolls. I find errors like this ALL the time
> in ALL classes of medieval records.
You certainly don't find them ALL of the time or the records would be
worthless. One cannot ASSume that it is an error without some proof.
Bill Hofstadter
Douglas Richardson
Dear Bill ~
Historians and genealogists all struggle with scribal errors and
erroneous testimony by medieval jurors. Such is the bane of medieval
records.
DR
Bill Hofstadter
period. Historians and genealogists struggle because the burden of
proof that is needed to assign an error to an original document. It
requires more than belief to ascribe an error. It requires evidence.
Without evidence it remains conjecture.
Bill Hofstadter
On 2005-10-09 20:27:52 -0400, "Douglas Richardson"
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128902348.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
> Peter Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Um, what about Alan of Galloway, with his father-in-law named as Richard?
>
> As you already know, I've stated my belief that this is a clerical
> error in the Curia Regis Rolls. I find errors like this ALL the time
> in ALL classes of medieval records.
This doesn't answer the question: what about Alan of Galloway? You stated:
"The only people dealing with Kippax in this time period are Richard de
Chester's brother, Sir Roger de Lacy, his brother's son, John de Lacy, and
his brother's grandson, Edmund de Lacy. That is supported by solid
evidence." But it isn't, and this is just another of your convenient
misstatements - Edmund de Lacy wasn't even born at the time in queston,
while Alan of Galloway is shown by solid evidence to have ben concerned in
Kippax, whatever his father-in-law's name might have been.
> Here's another one for you.
>
> John, Constable of Chester (died 1190), issued a charter in the period,
> c. 1175-1190 [see Hatton, Book of Seals (1950): 358-359]. It was
> witnessed by "Rogero constabulario Cestrie . Ricardo et Galfrido
> fratibus ipsius Rogeri."
>
> The editor adds this note:
>
> "It is evident, as Farrer points out, that the attestation "Rogero
> constabulario Cestrie" must be a scribal error for "Rogero filio
> constabularii Cestrie."
>
> Scribal errors like this are par for the course for records of this
> time period.
One error doesn't prove another. "Par for the course" is simply misleading,
as errors are the exception and not the standard in administrative and
personal records of the time.
>> And the evidence does NOT support that the people found in connection
>> with
>> Kippax were the "only" ones dealing with the manor. The evidence doesn't
>> begin to substantiate what we can't know about this.
>
> As far as the manor and advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire are concerned,
> the only people in this family that I've found dealing with this
> property in this time period are: (1) Sir Roger de Lacy, Constable of
> Chester (died 1211); (2) Roger's son, John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln,
> Constable of Chester (died 1240), and (3) Roger's grandson, Edmund de
> Lacy, Earl of Lincoln (died 1258). There is no evidence to suggest
> that Sir Roger de Lacy's younger brother, Richard de Chester, ever
> married or had issue; in fact, it appears that on his death as a leper,
> Richard's chief estate, More, Cheshire, passed back to his nephew, John
> de Lacy.
Again forgetting Alan of Galloway. The fact that you haven't found evidence
doesn't mean a thing - even if you were a comptent researcher this would be
a preposterous basis for your conclusion about Richard de Chester's likely
being unmarried or More passing to his nephew at his death. Have you failed
to note that Cheshire records are lacking in the Pipe Rolls from Michaelmas
1187 to the middle of 1237?
> To be even more specific, in the time period of John de Lacy, Earl of
> Lincoln (died 1240), the only other male members of his immediate
> family who appear in the records are his legitimate son and heir,
> Edmund, and his illegitimate son, Peter de Chester (also known as Peter
> de Lacy), a priest. As best I can tell, all three of Earl John's
> uncles, Richard, Eustace, and Geoffrey (all surnamed "de Chester"),
> appear to have died without issue; certainly without male issue.
And have you failed to notice that the mid-14th century writer of the Norton
abbey narrative in _Monasticon_ was relying on the archives of his own
house, and missed even the names of Roger de Lacy's younger brothers? Just
over a week ago you were explicitly taking my word for it that Richard
existed, so how exactly do you conclude from the littel research you have
undertaken since that he and his younger brothers were all apparently
unmarried and "certainly without male issue"? Just from their names
appearing as witnesses to a few charters? This is psychic genealogy on your
part?
> As such, I must conclude that the first wife of Alan Fitz Roland was
> the daughter of Sir Roger de Lacy (otherwise Roger de Chester),
> Constable of Chester (died 1211), by his wife, Maud (said to be a
> Clare). This is a correction for my book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005),
> pg. 685.
No, as such we must all conclude that you are determined to stick to your
new theory no matter what. This is merely a possibility, still far from
being established as fact.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Real historians and genealogists also struggle with the discipline of having
to prove their theories. Work is the bane of lazy & incompetent wannabes.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
You're starting to repeat yourself. All you're doing is giving me back
my own research, without doing any of your own. Unless you have new
evidence to put on the table, I believe it's time to move on.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
> Dear Peter ~
>
> You're starting to repeat yourself. All you're doing is giving me back
> my own research, without doing any of your own. Unless you have new
> evidence to put on the table, I believe it's time to move on.
I'm trying to get through to you that you haven't proved your case, despite
repeating faulty conclusions about an error in the records without taking
note of the posts from Bill Hofstadter and myself.
As to "research", I don't propose to do any on this matter. I was obliged to
report to the newsgroup that the text you quoted about Richard de Chester
was from a mid-14th century source, as either you didn't realise this or
didn't have the nous and professionalism to make it plain. Contracting
leprosy later in life doesn't mean he was unmarried beforehand, any more
than burial in Norton abbey is only open to childless corpses.
How many bachelors do you suppose held manors in Cheshire in the late 12th
century? And how many of them were identifiable with the named father-in-law
of great Scottish barons? Or how many do you find confused, as "par for the
course", with elder brothers who held important offices but were not
accorded the appropriate titles in relevant records?
If you won't attempt answers to these questions, & others that have been put
already, then of course the discussion won't "move on". No-one else is going
to do your work for you.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
As the newsgroup is fully aware, the Lacy identification of Alan Fitz
Roland's first wife has been in print since the early 1970's. It was
originally formulated by the distinguished historian, Dr. Keith
Stringer, on staff at Lancaster University in England. Contrary to
your statements, it is not in any way a "new theory." Nor, is it my
own.
If you have further concerns about this matter, I suggest you take it
up directly with Dr. Stringer. His e-mail address is:
Good luck in your sleuthing.
Best always, Douglas RIchardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
> As the newsgroup is fully aware, the Lacy identification of Alan Fitz
> Roland's first wife has been in print since the early 1970's. It was
> originally formulated by the distinguished historian, Dr. Keith
> Stringer, on staff at Lancaster University in England. Contrary to
> your statements, it is not in any way a "new theory." Nor, is it my
> own.
It is new to you since MCA was sent to the printers this year, and you
have adopted it as your fixed belief. This doesn't imply that you
initiated it.
> If you have further concerns about this matter, I suggest you take it
> up directly with Dr. Stringer. His e-mail address is:
Stringer works on Scottish history, not Cheshire genealogy. His name
and reputation are not fig-leaves to cover your naked follies in this
matter.
Stringer has also not made a bally-hoo on this newsgroup about
conjectures that he can't substantiate.
<snip>
> Good luck in your sleuthing.
Once again, I am not reseaching this - and you can't goad or cajole me
into doing so. I don't have any interest in what should turn out to be
the best attainable answer, except that this should be as solid as
possible and not merely spin applied to speculation.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> As the newsgroup is fully aware, the Lacy identification of Alan Fitz
> Roland's first wife has been in print since the early 1970's. It was
> originally formulated by the distinguished historian, Dr. Keith
> Stringer, on staff at Lancaster University in England. Contrary to
> your statements, it is not in any way a "new theory." Nor, is it my
> own.
It is new to you since MCA was sent to the printers this year, and you
have adopted it as your fixed belief. This doesn't imply that you
initiated it.
> If you have further concerns about this matter, I suggest you take it
> up directly with Dr. Stringer. His e-mail address is:
Stringer works on Scottish history, not Cheshire genealogy. His name
and reputation are not fig-leaves to cover your naked follies in this
matter.
Stringer has also not made a bally-hoo on this newsgroup about
conjectures that he can't substantiate.
<snip>
> Good luck in your sleuthing.
Once again, I am not reseaching this - and you can't goad or cajole me
Douglas Richardson
> Once again, I am not reseaching this - and you can't goad or cajole me
> into doing so.
More sketchy and incomplete research, eh, Peter?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
> Peter Stewart wrote:
>
>> Once again, I am not reseaching this - and you can't goad or cajole me
>> into doing so.
>
> More sketchy and incomplete research, eh, Peter?
No research at all - I didn't raise the matter and have no obligation to
study it.
Every time you post, without fail, you make a greater fool of yourself, and
the worst of it is that you are too far gone to realise this. Sketchiness is
inevitable at an early stage in any research, including yours, while
incompletion persists until it is finished. Subjects come up on SGM
according to other peoples priorities and schedules, and if only those who
had polished off their research entered into discussion we wouldn't have a
viable newsgroup.
When once I had something to add but from preliminary research (that I have
not been able to progress since as it happens) I was open & honest about the
extent and state of my research. You should try this some time - it might
help to leave you looking less hypocritical and incompetent.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
> When once I had something to add but from preliminary research (that I have
> not been able to progress since as it happens) I was open & honest about the
> extent and state of my research. You should try this some time - it might
> help to leave you looking less hypocritical and incompetent.
>
> Peter Stewart
Dear Peter ~
It's not necessary to call people names on the newsgroup such as
"moron" or "fool," or, disguise name calling by using adjectives such
as "hypocrital" and "incompetent" as you have above. Name calling is
name calling.
If you have personal issues with me (which you seem to have), I suggest
you take them to private.
In the meantime, unless you have additional evidence to add to the
discussion about Richard de Chester, I suggest we move onto something
else.
Peter Stewart
> It's not necessary to call people names on the newsgroup such as
> "moron" or "fool," or, disguise name calling by using adjectives such
> as "hypocrital" and "incompetent" as you have above. Name calling is
> name calling.
I decide what expressions are necessary for my purposes, not you.
And there is no "disguise" about what I wrote: as a newsgroup
correspondent you are a hypocrite and as a genealogist you are
incompetent.
SGM is hardly going to credit rules devised by someone who lambasts
others for posting private e-mails, but does exactly the same himself.
Don't you even begin to realise what a laughing-stock you have made of
yourself?
Peter Stewart
Peter G R Howarth
>Peter Stewart wrote:
>
>> Once again, I am not reseaching this - and you can't goad or cajole
>> me into doing so.
>More sketchy and incomplete research, eh, Peter?
Mr Richardson,
This is an attempt to score a debating point rather than a genuine search
for the truth. Peter Stewart has pointed out the weaknesses in your
evidence. Why can you not accept that the theory you propound is a distinct
possibility but is not yet a certainty? What is wrong with that?
Peter G R Howarth
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/128 - Release Date: 10/10/2005
Vickie Elam White
Which tidbits of info came from which sources?
Vickie Elam White
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128844754.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Please find below a history of Richard de Chester, younger brother of
> Sir Roger de Lacy (otherwise Roger de Chester) (died 1211), of
> Pontefract, Yorkshire and Halton, Cheshire, hereditary Constable of
> Chester. The records show that Richard de Chester was granted the
> manor of More, Cheshire by the gift of his brother, Sir Roger de Lacy.
> He afterwards became a leper and, on his death, he was buried at Norton
> Priory, Cheshire. He presumably died without issue sometime 1232, as
> the manor of More was subsequently held by his nephew, John de Lacy
> (otherwise John de Chester), Constable of Chester, afterwards Earl of
> Lincoln.
>
> I find no indication that Richard de Chester had any issue, or ever
> married. I also find no record that he had any connection to the
> manors of Kippax or Scholes, Yorkshire, the known maritagium of his
> niece, _____, 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> Website: www.royalancestry.net
>
> + + + + + + + + + + + + +
>
> I. RICHARD OF CHESTER, 2nd son of John, Constable of Chester (died
> 1190), by his wife, Alice, daughter of Roger Fitz Richard, of
> Warkworth, Northumberland. Sometime prior to 1190, he witnessed a
> charter of his father's to Lenton Priory, Nottinghamshire, as well as
> a charter of his father's dated c.1175-1190 to Watton Priory.
> Sometime after 1190, he was granted the manor of More, Cheshire by his
> brother. He witnessed various charters of his brother, Roger de Lacy,
> 1190-c.1200, dated 1194, and 1200-1211. He granted Wethale (in Aston
> by Budworth) to Adam de Dutton and his heirs. He died a leper and was
> buried at Norton Priory, Cheshire. He presumably died without issue
> sometime before 1232, when the manor of More in the hands of his
> nephew, John de Lacy.
>
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post.
In answer to your question, the crux of the matter with the Richard de
Chester theory are the passage of his lands, the lack of issue, and the
tight chronology. We'll discuss each aspect in order below.
First, it appears that Richard de Chester had three pieces of property:
the manor of More, Cheshire, by gift of his brother; a tract of land in
Wethale (in Aston by Budworth), Cheshire; and a 1/4th interest in a
market at Burton upon Stather, Lincolnshire. What became of these
properties?
The tract at Wethale (in Aston by Budworth) was conveyed by Richard de
Chester to Adam de Dutton and his heirs.
The manor of More, Cheshire was back in the hands of his brother,
Roger's son, John de Lacy, before 1232.
The manor at Burton upon Stather, Lincolnshire was in the hands of his
brother, Roger's descendant, Alice, Countess of Lancaster, and her
husband in 1314, when they were granted a weekly market at the manor
there.
The passage of Richard de Chester's properties indicates to me that he
had no issue. Both pieces of property he presumably held at his death
reverted to his brother's descendants.
As to the manor and advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire, I find no evidence
that Richard de Chester ever had any association with this property.
In fact, just the opposite. I find that Richard de Chester's brother,
Roger, had land dealings there. And, Roger's son, John de Lacy,
quitclaimed his interest in the advowson there in 1232. No Richard de
Chester.
As far as chronology goes, it seems rather certain that Richard de
Chester's paternal grandmother, Aubrey de Lisours, was born in or
around 1130, at which date the Pipe Rolls show that her father fined
for his marriage to Aubrey's mother. We can reasonably certain that
Aubrey was born no earlier than 1130, as she married her third husband,
William Fitz Godric, about 1170, and had two sons, William and Thomas,
by that marriage.
Likewise, we know that Aubrey's son by her first marriage, John,
Constable of Chester, was born about 1145, as he obtained his lands in
1166. As such, Aubrey de Lisours can only have been about 14 or 15 at
the birth of her eldest son and heir, John, Constable of Chester.
It likewise appears reasonably certain that Richard de Chester's older
brother, Roger de Chester (afterwards Roger de Lacy), was born in or
about 1165, as he had a son, Robert, old enough to witness a royal
charter in 1205. Also, we know that Roger de Chester was at least aged
21 in 1190, at the time of his father, John, died in the Holy Land.
Even going with the eldest line of the Lacy family, you have an extreme
tight chronology if Roger de Lacy is to be the father of Alan Fitz
Roland's wife. This is indicated by the fact that Alan Fitz Roland was
born in or before 1175, he being of age before 1196. This makes him at
best ten years younger than Roger de Lacy, and possibly even closer in
age.
If we assume that Alan Fitz Roland's wife was the daughter of Roger de
Lacy's younger brother, Richard de Chester, the chronology is even
tighter. More over, there is no evidence that Richard de Chester had a
son, John de Chester, living in 1214, as the theory of Richard de
Chester posits. No such person occurs in the records. Assuming
Richard de Chester did have a son, John, the manor of More and the
market at Burton upon Stather should have descended to him and his
heirs. Yet both of these properties appear to have gone back to
Richard de Chester's brother's line.
Summarizing the evidence, I find the evidence persuasive and compelling
that Richard de Chester died without surviving issue, his lands
reverting to his older brother's line. Next, there is no evidence
Richard de Chester ever held Kippax and Scholes, Yorkshire, the
maritagium of Alan Fitz Roland's wife. And, finally, as I have
pointed out, the chronology is extremely tight, if not impossible for
Richard de Chester to be Alan Fitz Roland's father-in-law.
We can conjecture many possibilities, but we still have to return to
the evidence. In this case, I believe the weight of the evidence is
solid that Richard de Chester is not the father of Alan Fitz Roland's
wife. That leaves us but one remaining possibility: that Alan Fitz
Roland's wife was the daughter of Roger de Chester (also known as Roger
de Lacy), who died in 1211.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Ginny Wagner
very old books that I'd like to OCR into text and then
format for some xml manipulation. Haven't used the OCR for
a decade probably so am not up on what is current and
whether it is worth using rather than pdf software ... got
that package for free a while back and notice it does allow
searches but unable to tag as to person vs place.
My unhappiness with the current search is that when I search
on Gorham I get every Gorham including the names of people I
don't want who were born in Gorham, etc. I want to be able
to tag as to place vs. person through xml but that means
taking these jpgs to text ... then searching as allowed in
Gedcom, etc. You know, use the DTD that is freely available
online. So, any advice would be welcome.
Thanks.
Ginny Wagner
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<< Aubrey de Lisours, was born in or around 1130, at which date the Pipe
Rolls show that her father fined
for his marriage to Aubrey's mother. We can reasonably certain that
Aubrey was born no earlier than 1130, as she married her third husband,
William Fitz Godric, about 1170, and had two sons, William and Thomas,
by that marriage.
Likewise, we know that Aubrey's son by her first marriage, John,
Constable of Chester, was born about 1145, as he obtained his lands in
1166. As such, Aubrey de Lisours can only have been about 14 or 15 at
the birth of her eldest son and heir, John, Constable of Chester. >>
This also hinges on the evidence that is supportive of this wife of Robert's
actually also being the mother of Aubrey.
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson
>
> This also hinges on the evidence that is supportive of this wife of Robert's
> actually also being the mother of Aubrey.
> Will Johnson
Dear Will ~
The evidence for Aubrey de Lisours' parentage and their marriage c.
1130 is very sound. Although there are several sources you could
consult, I suggest you read the material on the Lisours and Lacy
families in the published Rufford Charters.
Peter Stewart
> Dear Peter ~
>
> Thank you for your good post.
>
> In answer to your question, the crux of the matter with the Richard de
> Chester theory are the passage of his lands, the lack of issue, and the
> tight chronology. We'll discuss each aspect in order below.
>
> First, it appears that Richard de Chester had three pieces of property:
> the manor of More, Cheshire, by gift of his brother; a tract of land in
> Wethale (in Aston by Budworth), Cheshire; and a 1/4th interest in a
> market at Burton upon Stather, Lincolnshire. What became of these
> properties?
>
> The tract at Wethale (in Aston by Budworth) was conveyed by Richard de
> Chester to Adam de Dutton and his heirs.
>
> The manor of More, Cheshire was back in the hands of his brother,
> Roger's son, John de Lacy, before 1232.
>
> The manor at Burton upon Stather, Lincolnshire was in the hands of his
> brother, Roger's descendant, Alice, Countess of Lancaster, and her
> husband in 1314, when they were granted a weekly market at the manor
> there.
>
> The passage of Richard de Chester's properties indicates to me that he
> had no issue. Both pieces of property he presumably held at his death
> reverted to his brother's descendants.
Hardly - this only indicates that he had no issue recorded in the sources
you have checked. You could easily match this outcome by tracing just a few
possessions of someone for whom better records survive relating to other
manors, proving that there were descendants. As I suggested before, the gap
in Pipe Rolls for Cheshire means that a major potential source is lacking.
> As to the manor and advowson of Kippax, Yorkshire, I find no evidence
> that Richard de Chester ever had any association with this property.
> In fact, just the opposite. I find that Richard de Chester's brother,
> Roger, had land dealings there. And, Roger's son, John de Lacy,
> quitclaimed his interest in the advowson there in 1232. No Richard de
> Chester.
Ho hum - how many times do you need to be reminded that Richard is NAMED as
the father-in-law of Alan of Galloway, who quitclaimed the advowson of
Kippax to on behalf of himself AND HIS HEIRS to Richard's brother Roger AND
HIS HEIRS, without any suggestion that these might also be Alan's heirs or
that Roger might be his father-in-law. Against this, you have NO actual
evidence that "Richard" was a misnaming for "Roger" given for some unstated
reason without his title of constable. The lack of any record showing what
became of Kippax at relevant times, or why John de Lacy apparently did not
understand this later from his own recollection, cannot be adduced as
evidence that Richard de Chester never had anything to do with it, otr that
he had no issue.
> As far as chronology goes, it seems rather certain that Richard de
> Chester's paternal grandmother, Aubrey de Lisours, was born in or
> around 1130, at which date the Pipe Rolls show that her father fined
> for his marriage to Aubrey's mother. We can reasonably certain that
> Aubrey was born no earlier than 1130, as she married her third husband,
> William Fitz Godric, about 1170, and had two sons, William and Thomas,
> by that marriage.
>
> Likewise, we know that Aubrey's son by her first marriage, John,
> Constable of Chester, was born about 1145, as he obtained his lands in
> 1166. As such, Aubrey de Lisours can only have been about 14 or 15 at
> the birth of her eldest son and heir, John, Constable of Chester.
No, we can only say that he was constable of Chester BY 1166, not that he
attained his majority IN that year - Katherine Keats-Rohan says that John
succeeded his father in the year of the latter's death, i.e. 1163.
> It likewise appears reasonably certain that Richard de Chester's older
> brother, Roger de Chester (afterwards Roger de Lacy), was born in or
> about 1165, as he had a son, Robert, old enough to witness a royal
> charter in 1205. Also, we know that Roger de Chester was at least aged
> 21 in 1190, at the time of his father, John, died in the Holy Land.
>
> Even going with the eldest line of the Lacy family, you have an extreme
> tight chronology if Roger de Lacy is to be the father of Alan Fitz
> Roland's wife. This is indicated by the fact that Alan Fitz Roland was
> born in or before 1175, he being of age before 1196. This makes him at
> best ten years younger than Roger de Lacy, and possibly even closer in
> age.
>
> If we assume that Alan Fitz Roland's wife was the daughter of Roger de
> Lacy's younger brother, Richard de Chester, the chronology is even
> tighter. More over, there is no evidence that Richard de Chester had a
> son, John de Chester, living in 1214, as the theory of Richard de
> Chester posits. No such person occurs in the records. Assuming
> Richard de Chester did have a son, John, the manor of More and the
> market at Burton upon Stather should have descended to him and his
> heirs. Yet both of these properties appear to have gone back to
> Richard de Chester's brother's line.
Golly you are pig-headed - HOW DO YOU KNOW what transactions took place in
the family of Roger de Lacy after he came into the great possessions that
caused him to change his surname? HOW DO YOU KNOW that Roger didn't agree to
a marriage alliance with Alan of Galloway, and having only a niece available
for this at the time passed Kippax to his brother Richard - or exchanged it
for some other manor/s previously granted to him - to give her a suitable
maritagium in Yorkshire, that would be far more appropriate than property in
Cheshire?
All the chronological stuff above is just that, not solid evidence for
anything. Richard and Roger might have been twins for all you or I can know,
with NIL difference between them from this point of view.
> Summarizing the evidence, I find the evidence persuasive and compelling
> that Richard de Chester died without surviving issue, his lands
> reverting to his older brother's line. Next, there is no evidence
> Richard de Chester ever held Kippax and Scholes, Yorkshire, the
> maritagium of Alan Fitz Roland's wife.
The fact that a Richard is named as the father-in-law who must have directly
provided her maritagium IS a record that Richard probably held Kippax, if
only in the process of transferring it to Alan. You haven't found anything
pertinent, much less persuasive and compelling, to dismiss that possibility.
No amount of repetition can change that, only research. Your own unaided
research....
Peter Stewart
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
I happen to like OmniPage by Scan Soft. It has several output formats,
including MS Word. I don't know if it accepts Jpeg, and can't open it
right now to find out right now, as I haven't installed it on my new
computer yet (it's on the schedule but there are other priorities). It
will do BMP and PDF Image Files. It has worked well when I have used it
on the PDF files on the Knights of Edward I CDROM.
BTW Hook'em Horns!
Hope This Helps
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
Tim Forsythe
came free with my printer/scanner. It does accept jpg as an input and
converts extremely well. You will need to review the output for 1/l and
8/$, etc., mistakes. There is a learning mode that I have not used that may
overcome some of these.
Tim Forsythe
Austin, TX
Ginny,
BTW Hook'em Horns!
----------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 3466 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!