Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Kevin Bradford
Best,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet60/plantagenet01.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com>
Sent: Sep 27, 2005 6:14 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
"Vickie Elam White" <VEW...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Vji_e.15795$Xl2....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Peter,
>
> 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
mj...@btinternet.com
Peter Stewart
<mj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1127899685.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> In fairness, isn't the jury still out on this one?
Yes, or rather the jury will be able to go out & deliberate once Richardson
presents some evidence and/or cogent argument for his case - so far he was
wilfully ignored elements of the evidence that don't suit his theory, and
demanded more from others while pretending that none has yet been shown.
We are still waiting for any good reason why a document naming Alan of
Galloway's father-in-law as Richard cannot be right about this, when we know
there was a Richard in the family that held Kippax before it passed with
marriage to Alan. The advowson was separated from the manor, and apparently
had been so since ca 1160, although Alan quitclaimed this to Roger de Lacy
between January 1201 & October 1211 (perhaps in 1205). Whether he described
Roger on this occasion as his wife's uncle, or father, or neither, remains
to be seen.
However, this hasn't stopped or even slowed Richardson from expressing
certainties on the subject.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%Jt_e.18368$0E5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> <mj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:1127899685.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> In fairness, isn't the jury still out on this one?
>
> Yes, or rather the jury will be able to go out & deliberate once
> Richardson presents some evidence and/or cogent argument for his case - so
> far he was wilfully ignored elements of the evidence that don't suit his
> theory, and demanded more from others while pretending that none has yet
> been shown.
>
> We are still waiting for any good reason why a document naming Alan of
> Galloway's father-in-law as Richard cannot be right about this, when we
> know there was a Richard in the family that held Kippax before it passed
> with marriage to Alan. The advowson was separated from the manor, and
> apparently had been so since ca 1160, although Alan quitclaimed this to
> Roger de Lacy between January 1201 & October 1211 (perhaps in 1205).
> Whether he described Roger on this occasion as his wife's uncle, or
> father, or neither, remains to be seen.
I now have a copy of this, and the answer is "Neither".
It is not without interest, however. The full text follows, as edited by
Stringer:
". Sciant omnes presentes et futuri has Litteras visuri [et] audituri . Quod
ego Alanus filius Roll(andi) . Dominus Galuuath' Scotie Constab(ularius) .
quitam clamaui . Rogero de lascy . Centrie Constab(ulario) [et] heredibus
suis . de me [et] heredibus meis . aduocationem ecclesie de kipeis . Hijs
Test(ibus) . Eustacio de Vescy . Roberto Walensi . Willelmo de bello monte .
hugone despensario . Thoma fratre suo . Gilberto fili(o) Cospatric . Radulfo
de Campania . Ricardo clerico de creuequor litterarum scriptore . [et]
multis aliis."
A few things are notable in this perfectly ordinary document: Roger de Lacy
might be more likely to have received some mention of the relationship if he
were father instead of uncle to Alan's wife, but there is no definite
indication in omitting this. He might have sought the quitclaim for any
number of reasons as head of the Lacy family whose predecessor had given the
advowson to Pontefract priory some 40 or so years earlier, whether or not
Roger or his brother had transferred this explicitly by an oversight, or
simply failed to exclude it, in the maritagium of either man's daughter.
It would, however, be a little more odd if Alan had quitclaimed the advowson
to Roger and his heirs on behalf of himself and his heirs if these two sets
overlapped - in other words, Alan's heirs could be quitclaiming to
themselves if Roger were their grandfather/ancestor rather than a collateral
relative. But again, not too much can be read into this.
By the way, Stringer identified Richard the clerk as of Troqueer in
Dumfries, evidently not the same as Richard de Crevecour.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> The full text follows, as edited by Stringer:
>
> ". Sciant omnes presentes et futuri has Litteras visuri [et] audituri .
> Quod ego Alanus filius Roll(andi) . Dominus Galuuath' Scotie
> Constab(ularius) . quitam clamaui . Rogero de lascy . Centrie
> Constab(ulario)
Apologies for the typo - it is "Rogero de lascy . Cestrie Constab(ulario)".
Peter Stewart
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Stringer in 1972 (Dumfries & Galloway NHAS Transactions Vol XLIX). The
evidence adduced by Stringer is sixfold:
1 In 1254 Roger de Quincy granted Kippax to Edmund de Lacy. Quincy was
the husband of Alan's eldest daughter Helen, who we know was not a
daughter by Margaret of Huntingdon as Helen was not an heir to Earl
John, Margaret's brother, and who we know inherited the Constableship
of Scotland, and so was an elder half sister of Dervorguilla.
2 In ca 1223 Alan ordered his bailiff to take possession, apparently as
an escheat, of Swillington, which pertained to Kippax.
3 The Curia Regis Rolls of 1214 show Alan acting against John de Lacy
(father of Edmund) "de warantia carte de terra de Kippes".
Stringer quotes in English that " John de Chester shall warrant the
charters of his father Richard (per Stringer recte Roger) which Alan
... has anent the maritagium of his sister (the "his" is not
specific between father and son and Stringer says "sister or dau of
Roger de Lacy, constable of Chester")
4 A letter of Pope Honorius III of March 1222 states that Alan had
married within the prohibited degrees of consanguinuity. His later
wife was the daughter of Hugh de Lacy, Earl of Ulster (of the Weobley
Lacys), so an earlier Lacy wife (of the Pontefract Lacys) would fit the
bill.
5 Stringer also suggests that there would not appear to be a suitable
earlier marriage in Alan's pedigree to allow for him and his
descendants to hold Kippax.
6 He also refers to the Close Rolls 1242-47, apparently showing, but
without quotation, that Helen of Galloway's maritagium was in the
Honour of Pontefract.
It seems to me that if the scribe had in his notes written "R", it
could have been for Roger when he wrote it, but when he transcribed it
in the quote in item 3, he expanded it to the more usual Richard.
However, the argument is more complex and more persuasive than anyone
has yet (to my memory) suggested. Clearly once such a case as this has
been made and accepted, those who later propose it do not feel the
necessity to rehearse the whole argument, whether this is actually
necessary or not.
The quote above
". Sciant omnes presentes et futuri has Litteras visuri [et] audituri
. Quod ego Alanus filius Roll(andi) . Dominus Galuuath' Scotie
Constab(ularius) . quitam clamaui . Rogero de lascy . Centrie
Constab(ulario) [et] heredibus suis . de me [et] heredibus meis .
aduocationem ecclesie de kipeis . Hijs Test(ibus) . Eustacio de Vescy .
Roberto Walensi . Willelmo de bello monte . hugone despensario . Thoma
fratre suo . Gilberto fili(o) Cospatric . Radulfo de Campania . Ricardo
clerico de creuequor litterarum scriptore . [et]
multis aliis."
is not sourced, but I assume it to be another piece of unattributed
evidence of which Stringer was unaware when he wrote the 1972 article.
At all events, it would seem to support his argument.
Finally as to the identity of "Ricardo clerico de creuequor
litterarum scriptore" T and C are notoriously interchangeable, or
alternatively confusable, and to anyone familiar with Galloway this
must be Troqueer. Richard is clearly the priest of Troqueer. Old
forms of Troqueer have for "Tro" "Treve", from the Brythonic
"tref", a place, as in Threve, Terregles and many other Galwegian
place names.
Chris Phillips
> 4 A letter of Pope Honorius III of March 1222 states that Alan had
> married within the prohibited degrees of consanguinuity. His later
> wife was the daughter of Hugh de Lacy, Earl of Ulster (of the Weobley
> Lacys), so an earlier Lacy wife (of the Pontefract Lacys) would fit the
> bill.
Thank you for that interesting summary of Stringer's arguments.
But I'm afraid I don't understand this one at all. If two of Alan's wives
were related by blood, wouldn't that mean that he had married within the
prohibited degrees of _affinity_, not of consanguinity?
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
> > 4 A letter of Pope Honorius III of March 1222 states that Alan had
> > married within the prohibited degrees of consanguinuity. His later
> > wife was the daughter of Hugh de Lacy, Earl of Ulster (of the Weobley
> > Lacys), so an earlier Lacy wife (of the Pontefract Lacys) would fit the
> > bill.
I replied:
> Thank you for that interesting summary of Stringer's arguments.
>
> But I'm afraid I don't understand this one at all. If two of Alan's wives
> were related by blood, wouldn't that mean that he had married within the
> prohibited degrees of _affinity_, not of consanguinity?
On the other hand, the marriage we are discussing looks consanguineous. Can
anyone confirm from a reliable source that Alan's maternal grandmother
Beatrice de Beauchamp, was the daughter of Payn de Beauchamp and Rohese de
Vere? (I can see this only in online sources, which I wouldn't like to trust
without confirmation.)
If that's correct, Alan and John were 3rd cousins, as Roger de Lacy's
maternal grandmother, Alice de Vere, was Rohese's sister.
Not that this helps, because the marriage would be within the 4th degree
whether Alan's wife was the sister of John, son of Roger, or the sister of
another John, son of Richard (or the sister of Roger himself, for that
matter).
Chris Phillips
John P. Ravilious
I show Beatrice de Beauchamp as great-grandmother of Alan of
Galloway; further, that she was daughter of Robert de Beauchamp (d. bef
1137) and sister of Payn. This would (if correct) take out the
possible de Vere relationship between Alan of Galloway and the Lacy
constable(s).
There are significant lacunae in the ancestry of both Roger fitz
John de Lacy and Alan of Galloway - I show only 5 of 8
great-grandparents of Alan of Galloway as being currently identified.
Even given (after 1215) that this was apparently a problem of
consanguinity with 4 degrees, we are missing too much information.
Should anyone wish to see a 4 or 5 generation AT for either Alan
of Galloway or Roger de Lacy, please let me know and I will post same
(not being done at present in the interest of bandwidth conservation).
Cheers,
John
Chris Phillips
John P. Ravilious wrote:
> I show Beatrice de Beauchamp as great-grandmother of Alan of
> Galloway; further, that she was daughter of Robert de Beauchamp (d. bef
> 1137) and sister of Payn. This would (if correct) take out the
> possible de Vere relationship between Alan of Galloway and the Lacy
> constable(s).
Yes, you're quite right. In my excitement I carelessly omitted a generation
of Morvilles. So Beatrice was Alan's great grandmother, not his grandmother.
And looking at the chronology, the relationship I found on the Internet -
claiming Beatrice as a daughter of Payn de Beauchamp by Rohese de Vere - is
clearly quite impossible chronologically. Oh well - at least I was right to
be cautious about that!
One problem with this consanguinity clue is that - according to Nat Taylor's
online reference (http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/consang.htm) - up until
1215 marriage was theoretically prohibited up to the 7th degree (not the 4th
as was the case later on). I don't know how many of Alan's marriages took
place before 1215, but evidently the one we're discussing did. So the
relationship could be a very distant one indeed.
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for your good posts. You've all made wonderful comments.
The letter of Pope Honorius III dated March 1222 regarding Alan's
marriage that was within the prohibited degrees of consanguinuity
concerns Alan's 2nd marriage to Margaret of Huntingdon, NOT his first
marriage to _____ de Lacy. Alan was severly criticised for contracting
this marriage, as he did not obtain the proper dispensation when he
married Margaret.
As best I understand it, Alan and Margaret were related by common
descent from William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Surrey (died 1138), and
his wife, Isabel (or Elizabeth) de Vermandois. If someone has the
particulars, perhaps they can plot out the exact kinship involved
between Alan and Margaret.
Margaret's part of the descent goes as follows:
1. William de Warenne, d. 1138, m. Isabel (or Elizabeth) de Vermandois.
2. Ada de Warenne, m. Henry of Scotland, Earl of Huntingdon.
3. David of Scotland, Earl of Huntingdon, m. Maud of Chester
4. Margaret of Huntingdon, m. Alan Fitz Roland.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Jwc...@aol.com
According to AR 7
lines 34 and 88 it runs as follows;
1 William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Warenne and Surrey married
Isabel de Vermandois
2 Gundred de Warenne married William I de Lancaster, Baron
of Kendal
3 Avice de Lancaster married Sir Richard de Morville, Kt. of
Lauder, Constable of Scotland
4 Elena de Morville married Roland Fitz uchtred, Lord of
Galloway
5 Alan Fitz Roland, Lord of Galloway succeeded as Constable
of Scotland
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thanks for your terrific post. Much appreciated.
The descent you've posted below for Alan Fitz Roland would make Alan
and his 2nd wife, Margaret of Huntingdon, related in the 4th and 3rd
degree of consanguinity. Such a marriage would have required a
dispensation, which this couple did not obtain at the time of their
marriage in 1209.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
John P. Ravilious
Unfortunately, the consanguinity lies in another direction (or with
another spouse along the way).
1. Isabel de Vermandois was married (1st) to Robert de Beaumont,
Earl of Leicester and Count of Meulan. Robert d. (a monk) at the abbey
of Preaux, 5 June 1118, so that the earliest Isabel married (2ndly)
William de Warenne, earl of Surrey was in mid-1118. At the earliest,
Gundreda de Warenne their daughter might have been born say 1119-1125.
2. Gundreda de Warenne was married (1st) to Roger de Newburgh, earl
of Warwick, who d. 12 June 1153. She then married (2ndly), before 1156
[
ES III Tafel 699] to William de Lancaster, of Kendal. I show one
daughter, Isabel (m. to Ivo de Vipont) of this marriage. The marriage
occurred at the earliest, say mid-1153, so we might find issue (Isabel
and any possible siblings) born at the earliest say 1154.
3. Hawise de Lancaster, daughter of William de Lancaster, was wife
of Richard de Morville by 1171/2: I show that 'In 1171/2, Richard de
Morville offered 200 marks to have recognition of his claim to the
lands of his wife Avicia, a daughter of William I of Lancaster..'
[courtesy Nicholas Vincent, citing Pipe Roll 18 Henry II, Pipe Roll
Society, 18 (1894), p. 65, and Furness Coucher Book Volume 2, part 11,
334-38].
4. Most importantly, while I have seen no firm chronology to date,
it appears most likely Alan of Galloway was himself born say 1170-1180
(and possibly earlier), with his being active in the 1190's, and
married (1stly) say 1195/1205.
The range from the (approximate) birth of Gundreda de Warenne to
the (approximate) birth of Alan of Galloway runs between say 61 years
(1119 to 1180) and say 44 years (1126 to 1170). If the descent shown
in the prior message, from Gundreda de Warenne to Alan of Galloway,
were accurate this would give an average of 20.3 to 14.7 years over 3
generations. This would not be fatal to the suggestion, but more
problematically, from Hawise de Lancaster (born say 1154-1160 under the
suggested descent) to Alan of Galloway (again using an approximate
birth range of say 1170-1180) would give us a range of say 26 years
(1154 to 1180) and 10 years (1160 to 1170), an average of 13 to 5 years
over 2 generations. This clearly does not work.
Hawise de Lancaster was certainly the daughter of William de
Lancaster by a spouse prior to Gundreda de Warenne. The source of the
consanguinity between Alan of Galloway and Margaret of Huntingdon
(Scotland) lies in another relationship.
Cheers,
John
WJho...@aol.com
writes:
<< Hawise de Lancaster was certainly the daughter of William de
Lancaster by a spouse prior to Gundreda de Warenne. The source of the
consanguinity between Alan of Galloway and Margaret of Huntingdon
(Scotland) lies in another relationship. >>
I agree with John, but I'd like to point out something that is a bit more
specific.
If Alan of Galloway is to be born at the latest in 1180, then his grandmother
cannot be younger than 30 years older than him. To force her to be only 26
years older is really impossible. This only allows Avice (Hawise) de Lancaster
to be born at the latest in 1150, at least 3 years *after* her alledged
mother remarried to William de Lancaster, Lord of Kendal.
The only way to resurrent this lineage would be to make a claim that Gundred
and Robert divorced and she remarried promptly to William. But I suspect this
is unlikely. So I'm moving Avice to a child of a prior marriage of William's.
Will Johnson
Jwc...@aol.com
If the idea that Crinan,
father of Duncan I, King of Scots and Maldred, lord of Carlisle and Allerdale were
brothers is accepted then Margaret daughter of David son of Henry son of
David son of Malcolm son of Duncan married her 5th cousin Alan son of Roland son
of Uchtred by Gunnild daughter of Waltheof son of Gospatric (first of the
Dunbars) son of Maldred
CED
Chris,
The Pope's letter expressing Rome's concern was dated after the decree
of the Lateran Council in 1215. Would the Pope be concerning himself
with a marriage, illegal when the parties entered into it, but no
longer illegal?
CED
> Chris Phillips
Alex Maxwell Findlater
to Margaret (who died in 1218), but to the last wife. Perhaps he meant
affinity. At all events he quotes the source of the letter, Vet Mon,
ie Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum Historiam Illustrantia, ed A
Theiner (1864), pp 20-21, saying it is also calendared in Anderson's
Early Sources of Scottish History (1922).
Chris Phillips
> The range from the (approximate) birth of Gundreda de Warenne to
> the (approximate) birth of Alan of Galloway runs between say 61 years
> (1119 to 1180) and say 44 years (1126 to 1170). If the descent shown
> in the prior message, from Gundreda de Warenne to Alan of Galloway,
> were accurate this would give an average of 20.3 to 14.7 years over 3
> generations. This would not be fatal to the suggestion, but more
> problematically, from Hawise de Lancaster (born say 1154-1160 under the
> suggested descent) to Alan of Galloway (again using an approximate
> birth range of say 1170-1180) would give us a range of say 26 years
> (1154 to 1180) and 10 years (1160 to 1170), an average of 13 to 5 years
> over 2 generations. This clearly does not work.
>
> Hawise de Lancaster was certainly the daughter of William de
> Lancaster by a spouse prior to Gundreda de Warenne. The source of the
> consanguinity between Alan of Galloway and Margaret of Huntingdon
> (Scotland) lies in another relationship.
And looking at Keats-Rohan's "Domesday Descendants", the difficulty is worse
still, because she says [p. 539] that Hawise married firstly William II
Peverel of Nottingham. Also that William became a monk in 1154 [p. 1069], so
if this is correct of course she could not be a daughter of Gundred's second
marriage, considering that her first husband died in 1153!
Accordingly, K.-R. does make Gundred the _second_ wife of William de
Lancaster, allowing Hawise to be the daughter of his previous wife, as you
suggest. (She actually describes Gundred as widow _or daughter_ of Roger,
Earl of Warwick, but in the light of the discussion of the identity of
Roger's wife in CP ix p. 585, note e, I don't see how "daughter" is
possible. And adding an extra generation obviously wouldn't help to fix the
difficulty with the consanguinity argument.)
Chris Phillips
wils...@paradise.net
Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester. Fitz Roy / Elizabeth of England
Maud, of Gloucester. de Caen / Uchtred, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Fergus
Hugh, 6th Earl of Chester, de Kevelioc / Roland, Fitz Uchtred
Matilda,Lady. of Chester / Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
is the third cousin, once removed of
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
**************************************
William I, the Conqueror, King of England
Gundred of England / Henry I, King of England
William, 2nd Earl de Warenne / Elizabeth of England
Ada de Warenne / Uchtred, Lord . Fitz Fergus
David, 9th Earl of Huntingdon / Roland, Lord of Galloway.Fitz Uchtred
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon / Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
is the fourth cousin of
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
Brendan Wilson
>Margaret's part of the descent goes as follows:
>
>1. William de Warenne, d. 1138, m. Isabel (or Elizabeth) de Vermandois.
>2. Ada de Warenne, m. Henry of Scotland, Earl of Huntingdon.
>3. David of Scotland, Earl of Huntingdon, m. Maud of Chester
>4. Margaret of Huntingdon, m. Alan Fitz Roland.
>
>Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
>Website: www.royalancestry.net
To Reply: remove [.] from around the dot. Stops Spam
Researching: Lowther, Westmoreland. Clifford, Cumberland /Yorkshire. Brennan, Kilhile, Ballyhack Wexford. Fitzgibbon, Kingsland French Park Rosscommon,Ireland. Prendergast & Donohue, Cappoquin Lismore, Waterford. Starr & Turner, Romford Essex,England.
Peters, Hamburg & Ballarat Victoria.Lund, Hamburg.Lowther & McCormack,Dublin.
The...@aol.com
Dear Brendan,
The first descent you show (for Alan of Galloway) is widely
accepted, but unproven to date. If we could fill in all the other
lacunae in his near ancestry, the consanguinity in this case would
provide further support for the suggestion that the wife of Fergus
of Galloway was an illegitimate daughter of Henry I of England.
*There is a competing theory of her having been a
daughter/granddaughter of Malcolm III of Scots, likewise with no
documentation in hand other than those known references by Hoveden
& c.
~ An interesting question re: this, if the consanguinity
that was troubling in 1222 was current (i.e. 4th degree or
closer), this descent would still not be a problem: the
relationship would have been 4th degree on Alan's side and
5th degree on Margaret's. It appears there is another
relationship, not yet discerned.....
The second descent has been shown to be erroneous, in that
Gundred(a), wife of William de Warenne, was definitely not a
daughter of William the Conqueror. I'm certain there was
discussion on this point at various times in SGM (look for
Gundred(a), Gerbod, Ghent,....).
Cheers,
John
Sep 29, 5:49 am show options
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: wilso...@paradise.net[.]nz
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:49:38 +1200
Local: Thurs, Sep 29 2005 5:49 am
Subject: Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips wrote:
> Accordingly, K.-R. does make Gundred the _second_ wife of William de
> Lancaster, allowing Hawise to be the daughter of his previous wife, as
you
> suggest. (She actually describes Gundred as widow _or daughter_ of Roger,
> Earl of Warwick, but in the light of the discussion of the identity of
> Roger's wife in CP ix p. 585, note e, I don't see how "daughter" is
> possible. And adding an extra generation obviously wouldn't help to fix
the
> difficulty with the consanguinity argument.)
I must take that back, because looking again at the charter quoted by CP,
the"daughter" interpretation does seem possible:
"In Farrer's Lancashire Pipe Rolls and Early Charters, at p. 392, is a
charter by which William de Lancaster "assensu Willelmi filii mei et heredis
et Gundrede uxoris mee" makes a gift "pro animabus ... Margarete filiae
comitisse"; the first two witnesses are "Willelmo filio meo et herede,
Gundrea filia comitisse." From this it is inferred that William had a son
and heir by a first wife, and afterwards married the Countess Gundred (of
Warwick), who was already by her first husband the mother of Margaret and
Gundred." [CP ix 585, note e]
CP is suggesting here that "the countess" is William's wife Gundred, and on
the basis of other circumstantial evidence that her daughter Gundred was the
wife of Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk (d. 1176/7).
But as the gift is given with the consent of his son William and his wife
Gundred, and his son William is the first witness, wouldn't it be natural to
assume that his wife Gundred was the second? In that case she would be not
the widow of the Earl of Warwick, but the daughter of "the countess",
whoever that might be.
However, the problem with the "daughter" interpretation is that - as CP
points out - the Coucher Book of Furness Abbey (Dugdale, Monasticon, vol. v,
p. 249) does state that William de Lancaster married Gundred, widow of
Roger,
earl of Warwick. This comes from a bit of narrative following one of
William's charters, which says:
"Iste fuit primus Willielmus qui se fecit vocari, per licentiam domini
regis, Willielmum de Lancaster, baronem de Kendale, qui prius vocabatur de
Tailboys. Qui desponsavit Gundredam comitissam Warwic, qui quidem Willielmus
genuit de Gundreda praedicta Willielmum secundum."
Whether this is correct or not, it is certainly inconsistent with CP's
interpretation of the charter, which would attribute William II de Lancaster
to a previous wife, not to Gundreda.
I find it difficult to know what to make of this. Maybe someone can offer
some more definite information?
(NB. the CP account of Warwick [xii/2 362] says that Gundred, the widow of
Roger E of Warwick, was living in 1166, citing Red Book Exch. i 326. And a
footnote refers to Early Yorkshire Charters viii 10 for their alleged
daughters Gundred and Margaret.)
Chris Phillips
Patricia Junkin
On item 2 below, Ivo de Vipont who married Isabel Lancaster b.
c."mid-1153." William de Vipont who married 2)Maud de Morville had Ivo, b.
ca. 1155-60. He died 1239. This seems consistent with your dating.
Pat
----------
>From: "John P. Ravilious" <the...@aol.com>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
>Date: Wed, Sep 28, 2005, 8:38 PM
>
> The range from the (approximate) birth of Gundreda de Warenne to
> the (approximate) birth of Alan of Galloway runs between say 61 years
> (1119 to 1180) and say 44 years (1126 to 1170). If the descent shown
> in the prior message, from Gundreda de Warenne to Alan of Galloway,
> were accurate this would give an average of 20.3 to 14.7 years over 3
> generations. This would not be fatal to the suggestion, but more
> problematically, from Hawise de Lancaster (born say 1154-1160 under the
> suggested descent) to Alan of Galloway (again using an approximate
> birth range of say 1170-1180) would give us a range of say 26 years
> (1154 to 1180) and 10 years (1160 to 1170), an average of 13 to 5 years
> over 2 generations. This clearly does not work.
>
> Hawise de Lancaster was certainly the daughter of William de
> Lancaster by a spouse prior to Gundreda de Warenne. The source of the
> consanguinity between Alan of Galloway and Margaret of Huntingdon
> (Scotland) lies in another relationship.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
>
> Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
>> Dear James ~
>>
>> Thanks for your terrific post. Much appreciated.
>>
>> The descent you've posted below for Alan Fitz Roland would make Alan
>> and his 2nd wife, Margaret of Huntingdon, related in the 4th and 3rd
>> degree of consanguinity. Such a marriage would have required a
>> dispensation, which this couple did not obtain at the time of their
>> marriage in 1209.
>>
>> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>>
>> Website: www.royalancestry.net
>>
>>
>> Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
>> < Dear Douglas, Chris, Leo, Peter et al,
>> < According to
>> AR 7
>> < lines 34 and 88 it runs as follows;
>> < 1 William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Warenne and Surrey
>> married
>> < Isabel de Vermandois
>> < 2 Gundred de Warenne married William I de Lancaster,
>> Baron
>> < of Kendal
>> < 3 Avice de Lancaster married Sir Richard de
>> Morville, Kt. of
>> < Lauder, Constable of Scotland
>> < 4 Elena de Morville married Roland Fitz uchtred,
>> Lord of
>> < Galloway
>> < 5 Alan Fitz Roland, Lord of Galloway succeeded as
>> Constable
>> < of Scotland
John P. Ravilious
Thanks for those added details, and interpretation.
The possibility that William 'II' may have been the son of William
'I' by Gundreda should be reviewed in light of this additional claim.
It does seem, to me at least, that William 'I' was married to Gundreda
'the countess' and not her daughter. Besides the complicated marital
history of the daughter, Gundreda de Newburgh [1], the fact that the
witnesses to the charter you cite included "Willelmo filio meo et
herede, Gundrea filia comitisse " would seem quite strange. William
'II' is identified as 'my son and heir', so (A) why would the wife of
William 'I' be named after him? Also, (B) why would the charter not
name her as 'my wife' in addition to calling her 'daughter of the
countess', if this was one and the same individual?
The open item seems to me, at present, to be identifying the
mother of William 'II'. How seems it to you (at present, anyway) ...?
Cheers,
John
Todd A. Farmerie
> Henry I, King of England
>
> Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester. Fitz Roy / Elizabeth of England
>
> Maud, of Gloucester. de Caen / Uchtred, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Fergus
>
> Hugh, 6th Earl of Chester, de Kevelioc / Roland, Fitz Uchtred
>
> Matilda,Lady. of Chester / Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
>
> Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
>
> Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
>
> is the third cousin, once removed of
>
> Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
> **************************************
Unfortunately it is only speculation that Elizabeth "of England" was
illegitimate daughter of Henry I.
> William I, the Conqueror, King of England
>
> Gundred of England / Henry I, King of England
>
> William, 2nd Earl de Warenne / Elizabeth of England
>
> Ada de Warenne / Uchtred, Lord . Fitz Fergus
>
> David, 9th Earl of Huntingdon / Roland, Lord of Galloway.Fitz Uchtred
>
> Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon / Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
>
> Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
> is the fourth cousin of
> Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
And this is worse than speculation. Gundred, wife of William de Warenne
is known not to have been daughter of William the Conqueror, that being
based on a forged foundation legend of a religious house.
taf
Chris Phillips
John P. Ravilious wrote:
> The possibility that William 'II' may have been the son of William
> 'I' by Gundreda should be reviewed in light of this additional claim.
> It does seem, to me at least, that William 'I' was married to Gundreda
> 'the countess' and not her daughter. Besides the complicated marital
> history of the daughter, Gundreda de Newburgh [1], the fact that the
> witnesses to the charter you cite included "Willelmo filio meo et
> herede, Gundrea filia comitisse " would seem quite strange. William
> 'II' is identified as 'my son and heir', so (A) why would the wife of
> William 'I' be named after him? Also, (B) why would the charter not
> name her as 'my wife' in addition to calling her 'daughter of the
> countess', if this was one and the same individual?
I don't think it's so strange that his wife should appear after his son. She
does so in the consent clause, after all, and if the property in question
was inheritable the son's interest could be viewed as more material than the
wife's.
As for point (B), maybe so. But on the other hand, if the gift was by the
consent of both, and the son witnessed, why not the wife?
Maybe it would be a mistake to speculate too much without seeing the text of
the charter, but I do wonder (depending when and where it was dated) why on
the received genealogy, Gundred the daughter would have been available to
witness it at all, and why she wouldn't have been "Countess Gundred"
herself, as the wife of the Earl of Norfolk. But there's a lot about these
Gundreds that puzzles me.
Perhaps it's also worth noting that if "Gundred the countess" is William de
Lancaster's wife, there is no reason to suppose the countess herself was a
Gundred (beyond what the Furness Coucher Book says about William marrying
Gundred Countess of Warwick, of course).
I see in some old notes that Cris Nash back in 2002 said that Clay had
refuted a suggestion by Farrer that William had married the daughter rather
than the mother, so maybe this has all been settled a long time ago.
Keats-Rohan doesn't appear to refer to either, so I can't tell whether she
didn't accept the refutation or just wasn't aware of it.
> The open item seems to me, at present, to be identifying the
> mother of William 'II'. How seems it to you (at present, anyway) ...?
I don't know about the chronology of William II, but as far as William's
daughter Hawise is concerned - it seems clearly impossible for Gundred the
widow of Roger Earl of Warwick to be her mother. I can't see how Gundred the
wife of Hugh Earl of Norfolk could be married to William de Lancaster at
all. But I suppose if it's a question of a Gundred the daughter of an
unidentified countess, anything's possible.
Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:dhgmh8$vih$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
This is assuming that everyone whose consent is recorded in a charter gave
it on the occasion, and was present to witness the document - but that is
not the case.
On the basis of this charter alone I don't see a problem with William de
Lancaster noting the (prior) consent of his wife Countess Gundred, who may
have been absent on the day and in a sense represented by the attestation of
her daughter Gundred. It would be unusual to vary "uxor mea" to "filia
comitisse" for designating the same person in the same document.
> However, the problem with the "daughter" interpretation is that - as CP
> points out - the Coucher Book of Furness Abbey (Dugdale, Monasticon, vol.
> v,
> p. 249) does state that William de Lancaster married Gundred, widow of
> Roger,
> earl of Warwick. This comes from a bit of narrative following one of
> William's charters, which says:
>
> "Iste fuit primus Willielmus qui se fecit vocari, per licentiam domini
> regis, Willielmum de Lancaster, baronem de Kendale, qui prius vocabatur de
> Tailboys. Qui desponsavit Gundredam comitissam Warwic, qui quidem
> Willielmus
> genuit de Gundreda praedicta Willielmum secundum."
>
> Whether this is correct or not, it is certainly inconsistent with CP's
> interpretation of the charter, which would attribute William II de
> Lancaster
> to a previous wife, not to Gundreda.
If this interpretation is based solely on the language in the charter quoted
above, it is unwarranted: sons and heirs are frequently named by their
fathers along with their mothers, but describing the last only as wives
rather than also as mothers. The relationship to the principal of the
charter was the important matter.
Peter Stewart
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<snip>
> This is assuming that everyone whose consent is recorded in a charter gave
> it on the occasion, and was present to witness the document - but that is
> not the case.
It must have been difficult to get all the important people together to
sign and seal a document. So I wonder if the role of "witness" was in
fact that of being present when the originator's seal was applied, or
whether the witnesses were more co-authorisors and might sign
and/or seal at a later time?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Peter Stewart
> It must have been difficult to get all the important people together to
> sign and seal a document. So I wonder if the role of "witness" was in
> fact that of being present when the originator's seal was applied, or
> whether the witnesses were more co-authorisors and might sign
> and/or seal at a later time?
I don't know how we could prove there were instances of absentees
recorded in witness lists, unless the same person showed up at two
different locations within too short a time to move between the places.
But if this had been acceptable practice, I think witness lists in
general would look very different from what we find. Any interested
party could be nominated, in the expectation that they would comply
later - and there would surely be plenty of disputes in the legal
record that would make the anomaly plain.
There are documents where the witnesses might not have been all
together in a room, due to bad blood amongst them or from other
circumstances unknown to us. However, the transaction would not have
been regarded as complete & valid until all named as witnesses had
given assent in the presence of the written record.
It is the same today, where legal papers can be signed in different
places at different times by the parties involved, as long as they all
take a direct part in the extended process.
Peter Stewart
William Marshall
> 4 A letter of Pope Honorius III of March 1222 states that Alan had
> married within the prohibited degrees of consanguinuity. His later
> wife was the daughter of Hugh de Lacy, Earl of Ulster (of the Weobley
> Lacys), so an earlier Lacy wife (of the Pontefract Lacys) would fit the
> bill.
I'm confused by this statement. I thought this whole discussion
was about one wife of Alan, and whether she was the daughter
of Hugh de Lacy, Earl of Ulster, or whether she was the daughter
or sister of Roger de Lacy, Constable of Chester. When Alan
Lord of Galloway later married Margaret of Huntingdon, wasn't
that his _second_ marriage, or was it his third?
Also, all the discussion in these several threads has been
directed toward the identification of the Lacy family as that of
Pontefract. Weis AR7 cites "Orpen, Ireland under the Normans III
chart p. 286" for Alan's first wife being a daughter of Hugh de Lacy,
Earl of Ulster (died 1243) by his first wife, Lesceline, dau. of
Bertram de Verdun. What evidence was cited by Orpen? Has it
been completely disproven such that the only alternative left is
the dau. or sister of Roger de Lacy of Pontefract? (AR7 citation
to Trans. of the Dumfrieshire & Galloway Nat. Hist Soc. 49: 49-55,
which I presume to be the 1972 article by Stringer).
Bill Marshall
w...@research.att.com
John P. Ravilious
Following is the text concerning Alan of Galloway's 3rd marriage,
dated 30 March 1222. As opposed to what little detail we usually find
in either a supplication to the Holy See or a dispensation, this does
not specify any relationship between Alan and his wife (it also does
not name his wife), but refers to the problem as involving both
consanguinity and affinity ["consanguinitatis et affinitatis "].
Hope this is of interest.
Cheers,
John
XLVIII.
Iudicibus, ut causam matrimonii Alani comestabularii regni
Scotiae audiant. Reg. An. VI. epist. 331.
HONORIUS EPISCOPUS etc. Venerabilibus fratribus .... Eboracensi
Archiepiscopo et .... Karleolensi et .... Oxonensi Episcopis, salutem
etc. Olim dilectus filius frater Iacobus capellanus et penitentiarius
noster, tunc apostolice sedis legatus, et Ep'i quamplures Regni
Scotie suis nobis litteris intimarunt, quod nobilis vir Alanus
Comestabularius Regni eiusdem eo gradu consanguinitatis et affinitatis
sue attineret uxori, quod sine mortali peccato illi non posset
carnaliter commisceri. Idem quoque legatus, quid esset in huiusmodi
causa facturus, per suas nos duxit litteras consulendos. Quare moti ex
hiis pariter et inducti legato ipsi scripsimus, ut predicti Regni
convocatis Ep'is, quos crederet evocandos, communicato quoque illorum
et aliorum prudentum consilio, si constaret eidem computatis canonice
gradibus et distinctis, quod predicti vir et uxor in gradu sibi
prohibito attinerent, super hoc faceret, prout secundum deum
prospiceret expedire. Sane cum procurator ipsius nobilis cum obtentis
a nobis super hoc litteris remearet, quoniam ad legatum eundem
applicuit, cum in itinere foret ad nostram presentiam redeundi, ad nos
infecto negotio iterum est reversus, suppliciter postulans et humiliter
ac instanter exposcens, ut ne sustinuisset in vacuum tot labores,
negotium ipsum viris decretis committere dignaremur. Nos autem licet
favore matrimonii hac sicut alia vice difficiles aliquandiu fuissemus,
ne tamen negaremus iustitiam, in qua sumus omnibus debitores, et quam
fieri super hoc procurator ipse attentius postulabat, fraternitati
vestre in virtute obedientie districte precipiendo mandamus, quatenus
habituri pre oculis solum deum, et reddituri de hoc in die districti
examinis rationem, convocatis episcopis et aliis viris honestis, quos
videritis evocandos, audiatis causam, in qua cum omni circumspectione
ac diligentia processuri, nichil unquam de contingentibus omittendo, ut
circumveniri et tandem redargui non possitis. Cum huiusmodi factum ex
causis quibusdam, quas audivimus, non valeamus non habere suspectum,
cum ea, qua decet, maturitate consilii, appellatione postposita,
faciatis, quod secundum deum et animarum salutem fuerit faciendum.
Quod si non omnes hiis exequendis potueritis interesse, tu ea, frater
archiep'e, cum eorum altero etc. Datum Anagnie III. Kal. Aprilis,
Pontificatus nostri anno sexto. ' [1]
NOTES
[1] Augustinus Theiner, ed. Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum
(Osnabruck: Otto Zeller, 1969), pp. 20-21.
Chris Phillips wrote:
> John P. Ravilious wrote:
> > The possibility that William 'II' may have been the son of William
> > 'I' by Gundreda should be reviewed in light of this additional claim.
> > It does seem, to me at least, that William 'I' was married to Gundreda
> > 'the countess' and not her daughter. Besides the complicated marital
> > history of the daughter, Gundreda de Newburgh [1], the fact that the
> > witnesses to the charter you cite included "Willelmo filio meo et
> > herede, Gundrea filia comitisse " would seem quite strange. William
> > 'II' is identified as 'my son and heir', so (A) why would the wife of
> > William 'I' be named after him? Also, (B) why would the charter not
> > name her as 'my wife' in addition to calling her 'daughter of the
> > countess', if this was one and the same individual?
>
>
> I don't think it's so strange that his wife should appear after his son. She
> does so in the consent clause, after all, and if the property in question
> was inheritable the son's interest could be viewed as more material than the
> wife's.
<<<<<<<<<<< SNIP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Alex Maxwell Findlater
case may be:
1 ____ de Lacy, probably sister of John de Lacy of Pontefract,
Constable of Chester, by whom he had an eldest daughter Helen, who
married Roger de Quincy Earl of Winchester
2 Margaret of Huntingdon, whom he married in 1209 and who died in
1218, who transmitted the Royal blood to John Balliol
3 ______ de Lacy, dau of Hugh de Lacy, Earl of Ulster of the
Weobley branch of Lacys; no known offspring.
The article yuo quote from TDGNHAS 49, 49 is the Stringer article of
1972. He quotes the letter from the Pope. Thanks for quoting it, John.
Peter Stewart
"Alex Maxwell Findlater" <maxwellf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128073745....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> We are talking about three wives, either proven or not accepted, as the
> case may be:
>
> 1 ____ de Lacy, probably sister of John de Lacy of Pontefract,
> Constable of Chester, by whom he had an eldest daughter Helen, who
> married Roger de Quincy Earl of Winchester
Can you tell us what particular aspect/s of the discussion led you to this
conclusion?
It seems to me that Alan's wife was "possibly sister of John de Lacy", but
far from "probably" so. If her father had been called "Richard the
Constable", for instance, there would be good grounds to amend his name to
Roger - but he wasn't.
Peter Stewart