Confusion over John, Constable of Chester

[Richard C. Browning, Jr.]

To Douglas Richardson

Having been unable to access the list for several days due to family
matters (son home from Iraq on R/R, and having to prepare a PC for my
daughter), I have finally managed to wade through some 400+ posted to
SGM/Gen-Med. Among all the different threads were several concerning
Alan Fitz Roland, Lord of Galway, John, Constable of Chester, and the
wife of Alan.

In separate threads, you provide insight to the father of John,
Constable of Chester. In one thread you identify him as the son of
Roger de Lacy, and Alan Fitz Roland's wife as the sister of this Roger.

Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway

"The defendant, John of Chester, is the man of that name who is better
known as John de Lacy (died 1240), Earl of Lincoln, who was one of the
famous Magna Carta barons. He was occasionally known as John of Chester
in his early life, taking his name from his position as hereditary
Constable of Chester. His family held the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire.
The manor was given in marriage by John de Lacy's father, Roger de Lacy,
to Roger's sister, Alan Fitz Roland's first wife, whose given name is
unknown.

As far as the passage in the 1214 lawsuit is concerned, I believe the
reference to "Ricardi patris sui" [Richard his father] should read
"Rogeri patris suis." [Roger his father]. Slips like this are
occasionally found in the records of Curia Regis Rolls."

And in another you identify a John, John Fitz Richard, Constable of
Chester, son of Richard Fitz Eustace and the father of Alan's wife.

Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway

"In this case, the daughter of Alan Fitz Roland would be related to
Robert Fitz Roger as follows:

1. Richard Fitz Eustace, m. Aubrey de Lisours.
2. John Fitz Richard, Constable of Chester, m. Alice de Mandeville.
3. _____ de Lacy, m. Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway.
4. unnamed daughter of Alan Fitz Roland.

1. Richard Fitz Eustace, m. Aubrey de Lisours.
2. Roger Fitz Richard, m. Alice de Vere.
3. Robert Fitz Roger, lord of Warkworth, died 1214. "

My questions here are, are we talking about the same John, Constable of
Chester, and if so, why the inconsistency in the name of the father,
implied or otherwise and are these wives of Alan Fitz Roland the same
person or did he marry both the sister of John's father and then John's
daughter?

Thank you for the clarification
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, Tx

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Richard ~

There are two John's who were Constable of Chester in this time period.
The first one was the father of Roger de Lacy (otherwise Roger de
Chester). He died in 1190. He usually appears in records simply as
John Constable of Chester, although I believe I have seen him in a few
records as John de Chester. His wife's name was Alice. The second
John, Constable of Chester, was Roger de Lacy's son, John de Lacy
(otherwise John de Chester), who died in 1240. He was both Constable
of Chester and eventually Earl of Lincoln. He married Alice de l'Aigle
and Margaret de Quincy.

Originally I held the position that Alan Fitz Roland's 1st wife was the
sister of Roger de Lacy (died 1211), based on chronology and an
interpretation of the English transcript of the 1214 Curia Regis Rolls
lawsuit involving Alan's wife's maritagium. I understand that the
historian Dr. Stringer left it more open, saying Alan Fitz Roland
married either a sister or daughter of Roger de Lacy based on his
understanding of the Curia Regis Rolls text. However, Chris Phillips
has indicated that the Latin words for "his sister" [sororis sue] in
the 1214 lawsuit should refer back to subject of the sentence, in this
case, the defendant in the suit, John de Chester. Thus, it would
appear that Alan Fitz Roland's 1st wife (name not known) was the sister
of John de Lacy (otherwise John de Chester), not the sister of John's
father, Roger. Since Chris shared this important information, I've
discovered new evidence which proves that Roger de Lacy was born
earlier than I originally suspected. An earlier birthdate for Roger de
Lacy now permits him to be the father-in-law of Alan Fitz Roland.

The revised current arrangement of the family looks like this:

1. John, Constable of Chester, born say 1145, died 1190, married Alice.
2. Roger de Lacy (otherwise Roger de Chester), Constable of Chester,
born say 1165, died 1211, married Maud, said to be a Clare.
3. _____ de Lacy, m. say 1195/1200 Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway,
Constable of Scotland.
4. Ellen Fitz Alan of Galloway, born say 1205, married Roger de Quincy,
2nd Earl of Winchester.

I might point out that we have a rather interesting lineup of men in
this family, namely Roger de Lacy, born say 1165, Alan Fitz Roland,
born in or before 1175, and Roger de Quincy, born say 1185. Alan and
Roger were married to the daughter and granddaughter respectively of
Roger de Lacy, yet only about twenty years separate the three men from
one another. To say this is unusual is putting it mild. As a general
rule, a mimimum of 50 years difference in age separates a man from his
granddaughter's husband.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

[mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk]

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
(snip)

> I might point out that we have a rather interesting lineup of men in
> this family, namely Roger de Lacy, born say 1165, Alan Fitz Roland,
> born in or before 1175, and Roger de Quincy, born say 1185. Alan and
> Roger were married to the daughter and granddaughter respectively of
> Roger de Lacy, yet only about twenty years separate the three men from
> one another. To say this is unusual is putting it mild. As a general
> rule, a mimimum of 50 years difference in age separates a man from his
> granddaughter's husband.

Dear Douglas,

I think the new DNB gives Roger de Quincy's birthdate as c.1195, which
would alleviate matters slightly- although I can't now check that, or
how they worked it out. On the other hand, Genealogics gives his
birthdate as c.1200, and Jim Weber gives 1174, both citing several
sources, so there's a fair range of opinion. Presumably there would be
some leeway for the dating of the others too.

Matthew

[mj...@btinternet.com]

When looking at dates in secondary sources, it is ascertaining how they
worked it out that's important. We have seen in relation to this
matter how important primary records (and logical deduction) are to
establishing facts, or likely scenarios, rather than reliance on
supposition or, at times, tertiary sources such as websites, which
seldom agree amongst themselves.

In coming to his revised position - which with I largely concur,
subject to the question of Roger de Lacy's brother Richard still not
having been entirely removed as a possible father to Alan Fitz Roland's
first wife - Douglas has done some good work. His identification of
the 1205 charter from A2A as part of the material under consideration
was important, as was Chris's input on Latin phraseology. I am sure
Douglas would acknowledge that he had other assistance from various
fellow-posters in coming to this revised position, including Kevin
Bradford's initial questioning and Peter Stewart's logical approach. A
good example of collegiality at work.

MAR

[Chris Phillips]

mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
> His identification of
> the 1205 charter from A2A as part of the material under consideration
> was important, as was Chris's input on Latin phraseology. I am sure
> Douglas would acknowledge that he had other assistance from various
> fellow-posters in coming to this revised position, including Kevin
> Bradford's initial questioning and Peter Stewart's logical approach. A
> good example of collegiality at work.

I must say I assumed that several others, including the original poster, had
reached the same conclusion as I did from the use of "suus". I'm pleased if
it was useful for me to be explicit, but I certainly wouldn't want to claim
it as a profound insight!

Chris Phillips

[Leo van de Pas]

This is not a quibble, only an explanation. I have the birth as _estimated_
not circa 1200 for Roger de Quincy. What that means is that when you see in
my data base _circa_ that has been presented somewhere. Estimated is a guess
which should not be taken too literal. The reason I have to do this is that
people with a biography (or a portrait) on my website _must_ have a year of
birth . For those with a portrait that places the portraits in a time order
in _All Portraits_ The reason biography holders must have a year of birth is
because of something to do with my own data base, not the website, but it
flows over to the website. And so if you see estimated by a year of birth,
ignore it or be very careful.
Leo

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/30/05 7:42:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royala...@msn.com writes:

<< namely Roger de Lacy, born say 1165, Alan Fitz Roland,
born in or before 1175, and Roger de Quincy, born say 1185. Alan and
Roger were married to the daughter and granddaughter respectively of
Roger de Lacy, yet only about twenty years separate the three men from
one another. To say this is unusual is putting it mild. As a general
rule, a mimimum of 50 years difference in age separates a man from his
granddaughter's husband. >>

But I should point out these alledged birthyears are all .... made up !
For all we know John de Lacy, Constable of Chester had these children off a
later wife and they were born when he was well into his 50s.

You are tossing out birthyears as guesses and then building upon these as
foundation blocks.

Will Johnson

[mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk]

Dear Leo,

thanks for explaining that- you're right that I wasn't aware of the
significance of the estimates. But in fact your estimate isn't that far
off the DNB one! I think we'd all agree that we can only guess here.

Matthew

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Matthew ~

Thank you for your good post. Your comments are much appreciated.

According to my file notes, Roger de Quincy's parents, Saher de Quincy
and Margaret (or Margery) de Beaumont, were married before 1173.
Complete Peerage is silent about the date of their marriage. Roger is
supposed to have been their second of five sons. As such, I think a
birthdate of 1185 is quite acceptable for Roger.

This approximate birth date c. 1185 for Roger de Quincy is supported by
three other pieces of evidence. First, Complete Peerage 7 (1929): 532
shows that Roger de Quincy's maternal grandparents, Robert, Earl of
Leicester, and his wife, Pernel, were married before 1153-1159.
Second, Complete Peerage 7 (1929): 537 indicates that Earl Robert and
Pernel's eldest grandson, Simon de Montfort, was born about 1170.
Simon de Montfort was Roger de Quincy's first cousin. Lastly, my file
notes indicate that Roger de Quincy's older brother, Robert de Quincy's
wife, Hawise of Chester, was born in 1180.

Taken together, I think a good case can be made that Roger de Quincy
was born about 1185, not c. 1200, and not in 1174.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

[Peter Stewart]

<mj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1128096176.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

And the outcome at this point is Richardson's brazen statement in a post
today, "I've discovered new evidence which proves that Roger de Lacy was
born
earlier than I originally suspected". Very collegial indeed.

By the way, the belated learning by Richardson of the reflex reference in
"suus" as distinct from "eius" (incredible enough in itself for a
"professional" genealogist after years in the field) is neither here nor
there in this question, since he is positing a scribe who sloppily
substituted "Richard" for "Roger" and left out the identifying title of this
imposing personage. It would be far easier and more common for scribes to
make confusing and ambiguous statements from carelessness over pronouns.

Now, even after the discussion of the past few days, Richardson tells us
that he has "no idea" how a pipe roll entry at Michaelmas 1193 could have
erred in giving "Sub Michaelmas 1193: "Rogerus comes Cestr'". Has he not yet
woken up that there was a "Rogerus cons[tabularius] Cestrie" in 1193,
readily mistaken or misread for the earl, "Ranulfus comes Cestrie", in one
particular mention being recorded on the roll amongst a host of others? The
abbreviated title could have added to the ease of confusion - only the other
day John Ravilious posted a papal letter regarding "Alanus comestabularius".

This does not mean we can go forcing (or as Richardson would say,
"discovering") similar errors with names willy-nilly, even when identifying
or confused titles are omitted in highly specific contexts involving just a
few people, merely to suit a preconceived theory about equal rank in
marriage.

Peter Stewart

[JKent...@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/30/05 5:42:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
royala...@msn.com writes:

>According to my file notes, Roger de Quincy's parents, Saher de Quincy
>and Margaret (or Margery) de Beaumont, were married before 1173.
>Complete Peerage is silent about the date of their marriage. Roger is
>supposed to have been their second of five sons. <

Please name the five sons along with their birth dates. Thank you.

Jno

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/30/05 6:19:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
JKent...@aol.com writes:

Three sons and a daughter. Two of the sons were named Robert

Robert de Quincy, eldest son, d perhaps about 1217 (" a few years before his
father")
Hawise de Quincy, only daughter, married Hugh, 4th Earl of Oxford and she d
11 Feb 1262/3
Roger de Quincy, second son d 25 Apr 1264 mar by 1225 Helen FitzAlan dau of
Alan, Lord of Galloway
Robert de Quincy (another son by the same name) d Aug 1257 and married before
5 Dec 1237 Ellen verch Llewellyn of Wales

Will Johnson

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Newsgroup ~

There is a reference to Roger, Earl of Chester, in the Pipe Roll for
1193 and also in the Chancellor's Roll 1196 [References: Doris M.
Stenton, ed., The Great Roll of the Pipe for the Fifth Year of the
Reign of King Richard the First, Michaelmas 1193) (Pipe Roll. Soc. n.s.
3) (1927): 36; Doris M. Stenton, ed., The Chancellor's Roll for the
Eighth Year of the Reign of King Richard the First, Michaelmas 1195
(Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 7) (1930): 248].

No such person ever existed. These entries were evidently not a
mistake for either Ranulph, Earl of Chester, or Roger [de Lacy],
Constable of Chester, who were alive at the time. Rather, the debts
listed in the 1193 entry were subsequently corrected in 1195 and 1196
Pipe Rolls to read Hugh, Earl of Chester.

Errors such as this can be found in all classes of medieval English
records, including the Curia Regis Rolls.

[Chris Phillips]

Douglas Richardson wrote:
> This approximate birth date c. 1185 for Roger de Quincy is supported by
> three other pieces of evidence. First, Complete Peerage 7 (1929): 532
> shows that Roger de Quincy's maternal grandparents, Robert, Earl of
> Leicester, and his wife, Pernel, were married before 1153-1159.

Not that it makes very much difference to the chronology, but on this point
there is also Ray Phair's suggestion that the charter limiting the date of
the marriage of Robert and Pernel may have been rather later - perhaps
dating from as late as 1163:
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/p_leicester.shtml#p532a

Chris Phillips

[Peter Stewart]

<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128153868.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

This has no bearing on the separate question of a particular name without
title in a differnt kind of document altogether.

A general observation that mistakes were made by medieval clerks is only a
statement of the obvious. Making a fair copy from piles of account records
is highly conducive to lapses of concentration, and always has been - so
what?

The problem you are up against is that there is so far NO evidence whatever
that an error was made in naming Richard rather than Roger as the
father-in-law of Alan of Galloway.

The lack of other evidence for this person in connection with Alan, or with
a son John or Kippax is not in itself evidence, unless you wish to throw out
all unique surviving mentions of everyone else with the same dearth of
alternative sources confirming their existence & transactions.

Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com]

Dear Chris ~

Thank you for sharing this information. Much appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

[mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk]

Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
(edit)

> Lastly, my file
> notes indicate that Roger de Quincy's older brother, Robert de Quincy's
> wife, Hawise of Chester, was born in 1180.

Dear Douglas,

Wasn't a case made (I think in the festschrift for Charles Evans edited
by Lindsay L Brook) that the Robert who married Hawise of Chester was
of the previous generation? Maybe this has been refuted since,
apologies if so. The author didn't deny the existence of the Robert who
was eldest son of Saher the first earl, but maintained that he dsp in
1217, Margaret being his first cousin rather than daughter (daughter
instead of a Robert (decd. 1232) who was younger brother or
half-brother of earl Saher).

Matthew

[Chris Phillips]

mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Wasn't a case made (I think in the festschrift for Charles Evans edited
> by Lindsay L Brook) that the Robert who married Hawise of Chester was
> of the previous generation? Maybe this has been refuted since,
> apologies if so. The author didn't deny the existence of the Robert who
> was eldest son of Saher the first earl, but maintained that he dsp in
> 1217, Margaret being his first cousin rather than daughter (daughter
> instead of a Robert (decd. 1232) who was younger brother or
> half-brother of earl Saher).

As far as I know what happened was that Hawise's husband was originally
understood to be a son of Earl Saher (as reflected by vol. 7 of Complete
Peerage), but that Sidney Painter proposed instead that her husband was a
brother of Earl Saher. This convinced the author of the article on
Winchester which appeared in CP vol. 12, part 2.

However, the question was reexamined by Doris Grace Roth, in an article
entitled "Robert de Quincy, eldest son of the first Earl of Winchester" [The
Genealogist, vol.5, pp.221-225 (1984)], who produced evidence that Hawise's
husband was the son of Earl Saher after all. (The evidence had been in print
since the 17th century.)
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/winchester.shtml

If I remember correctly, there is no evidence that Earl Saher even had a
brother named Robert.

This version is accepted in the article by Richard D. Coram on Earl Saher in
the new edition of the Dictionary of National Biography - just as it was in
the original edition. Coram places Saher's marriage at about 1190.

Chris Phillips

[Richard C. Browning, Jr.]

Douglas,

Sorry for the delay, but again, family matters intervened.

Thanks for the clarification about this. If I understand this post
correctly then the John, from the posting, "Re: Style of Alan Fitz
Roland, lord of Galloway, John Fitz Richard was the father of both
Robert de Lacy and the unnamed wife of Alan Fitz Roland.

This would make the revised arrangement look like this

1. John, Constable of Chester, born say 1145, died 1190, married Alice.

2.a Roger de Lacy (otherwise Roger de Chester), Constable of Chester,

born say 1165, died 1211, married Maud, said to be a Clare.

2.b _____ de Lacy, m. say 1195/1200 Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway,
Constable of Scotland.
3. Ellen Fitz Alan of Galloway, born say 1205, married Roger de Quincy,
2nd Earl of Winchester.

If this is so, then is the charter which has caused all the
correspondence here referring to John, Constable of Chester, father of
Roger de Lacy, and not John, Constable of Chester, son of Roger de Lacy?

Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, Texas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com
> [mailto:royala...@msn.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 09:28
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Confusion over John, Constable of Chester
>

[mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk]

Dear Chris,

Thanks very much for explaining that. I should have thought to look at
your site- I'd seen that the new DNB had the traditional filiation, but
as it's proven to be patchy on some genealogy I wasn't sure what was
right anymore.

Matthew

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 1 Oct, bro...@anet-dfw.com ("Richard C. Browning, Jr.") wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com
> > [mailto:royala...@msn.com]
> > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 09:28
> > To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> > Subject: Re: Confusion over John, Constable of Chester

> > As a general rule, a mimimum of 50 years difference in age
> > separates a man from his granddaughter's husband.

Another of these rules that has no evidence behind it. It requires at
least 100 instances of birth dates of both a chap and his granddaughters
to establish a general rule. Where is a list of such instances?

Next we will have "The exception proves the rule" as a firm genealogical
principle.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          t...@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

[Richard C. Browning, Jr.]

All,

Please disregard this post, I misread this somehow and misinterpreted
the meaning.

Thank you and excuse the error.

Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, Tx