Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway
Millerf...@aol.com
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
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Vickie Elam White
Vickie Elam White
<Millerf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1f5.130098...@aol.com...
Vickie Elam White
Now that we have the needed translations, perhaps
you can help with this piece --
You had mentioned that Roger de Lacy gave Kippax
as a maritagium. Since he died in 1211, we know it
was given before then. But could you tell us when this
was done and perhaps transcribe the text, with citations,
that you found?
Thanks.
Vickie Elam White
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127851678.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
volu...@chello.nl
Did you not leave out a smal part in the translation?
pp 85-86 v7
"ad Carleolum in occursum Elene de Morevil et Alani de Galweia filii
ejus ad videndum quem atornatum ipsa Elena",
"to Carlisle to see what attorney Elena de Morvill".
Hans Vogels
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
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.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1127856825.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<chomp of repetitive special pleading>
> 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.
"Infallible" beings can't make mistakes, but purchasers of Ricahrdson's
books should take careful not of his statement that he doesn't "blink"
befere deciding that the primary evidence can be altered to suit his needs.
By the way, he offers no explanation of this curious point in his case: if
the "John de Chester" who did not contest the claims of Alan of Galloway in
1214 were the same man as John de Lacy who discovered the truth about Kippax
in 1233, just what became of his memory in between these occasions?
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
In 1254 Roger de Quincy, 2nd Earl of Winchester, exchanged the manors
of Kippax and Scholes, Yorkshire with Edmund de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln.
I assume that Kippax and Scholes both formed the maritagium of Roger's
wife's mother, ____ de Lacy, the first wife of Alan Fitz Roland, lord
of Galloway.
The information below is taken from a Genuki website. It indicates
that Scholes, Yorkshire is a hamlet in the township and parish of
Barwick in Elmet, Yorkshire, which property was owned by the Lacy
family. No surprise there.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + +
Source: http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/WRY/Barwickinelmet
"BARWICK IN ELMET, a parish-town, in the lower-division of Skyrack,
liberty of Pontefract; 7 miles from Tadcaster and Wetherby, 8 from
Leeds, 16 from York. Pop. 1,481. The Church is a rectory, dedicated to
All-Saints, in the deanry of the Ainsty, value, £33. 12s. 6d. Patron,
the King, as Duke of Lancaster.
This place is said to have been the seat of the Kings of
Northumberland, and Dr. Whitaker supposes it to have been founded by
the great Edwin; "the great extent and magnificence of this
fortification, which is four furlongs in circumference, and contains an
area of more that thirteen acres, sufficiently prove that it has been a
royal work." The mount, called Hall Tower Hill, hath been encompassed
by a double trench; on this mount most probably stood the royal
mansion: it is now the only part that remains. This manor was
afterwards part of the possessions of the Lacys; Roger de Lacy having
married the sister of William de Vesey, Rector of the parish. From the
Lacys it descended to the Dukes of Lancaster, to which duchy it has
been ever since annexed.
Elmet was not conquered from the Britons till Edwin's reign, in 560, by
the Saxons. --Turner's Anglo Saxons."
Information on the following places in this Parish is contained on a
supplementary page.
* Barnbow
* Cross Gates
* Hobberley House
* Kiddal
* Kiddal Inn
* Lazencroft
* Morwick
* Potterton
* Red Hall
* Roundhay
* Schole's Plain
* Scholes: a hamlet in the township and parish of Barwick in
Elmet, liberty of Pontefract; 6 miles NE. of Leeds, 9 from Wetherby,"
* Scholes Grange
* Stank House
* Stanks
* Barnbow
* Cross Gates
* Hobberley House
* Kiddal
* Kiddal Inn
* Lazencroft
* Morwick
* Potterton
* Red Hall
* Roundhay
* Schole's Plain
* Scholes: a hamlet in the township and parish of Barwick in
Elmet, liberty of Pontefract; 6 miles NE. of Leeds, 9 from Wetherby,"
* Scholes Grange
* Stank House
* Stanks
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
> By the way, he offers no explanation of this curious point in his case: if
> the "John de Chester" who did not contest the claims of Alan of Galloway in
> 1214 were the same man as John de Lacy who discovered the truth about Kippax
> in 1233, just what became of his memory in between these occasions?
>
> Peter Stewart
I have two better questions for you. If the advowson of Kippax,
Yorkshire was granted by Henry de Lacy c. 1160 to Pontefract Priory,
then why did Roger de Quincy think he was entitled to present to the
living of Kippax in 1233.
And, if it was settled in the king's court in 1233 that the advowson
rightfully belonged to Pontefract Priory, then why did Roger de Quincy
mention the Kippax advowson in his charter to Edmund de Lacy, Earl of
Lincoln, in 1254? He refers to "suo maneria de Kypex et de Scales ...
cum aduocacione ecclesie de Kypex."
Patricia Junkin
Greystoke.
Pat
----------
>From: "Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com" <royala...@msn.com>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway
>Date: Tue, Sep 27, 2005, 4:07 PM
>
> Thank you, Michael. The Latin translation you provided is much
> appreciated.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> Website: www.royalancestry.net
>
>
> Millerf...@aol.com wrote:
>> 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
Peter Stewart
> > By the way, he offers no explanation of this curious point in his case: if
> > the "John de Chester" who did not contest the claims of Alan of Galloway in
> > 1214 were the same man as John de Lacy who discovered the truth about Kippax
> > in 1233, just what became of his memory in between these occasions?
>
> > Peter Stewart
Richardson failed to respond and instead wrote:
> I have two better questions for you. If the advowson of Kippax,
> Yorkshire was granted by Henry de Lacy c. 1160 to Pontefract Priory,
> then why did Roger de Quincy think he was entitled to present to the
> living of Kippax in 1233.
>
> And, if it was settled in the king's court in 1233 that the advowson
> rightfully belonged to Pontefract Priory, then why did Roger de Quincy
> mention the Kippax advowson in his charter to Edmund de Lacy, Earl of
> Lincoln, in 1254? He refers to "suo maneria de Kypex et de Scales ...
> cum aduocacione ecclesie de Kypex."
What has this to do with the trail by which the manor of Kippax itself,
rather than the advowson, came to Alan of Galloway and then later to
Roger de Quincy?
These questions can't be answered unless perhaps the charter of Alan of
Galloway's father-in-law comes to light. If Kippax was transferred with
all its appurtenances, not excluding the advowson that had been granted
to Pontefract priory some decades before, then that might have caused
part of the trouble in 1214 and again in 1233.
The question remains: why would one & the same John have left the
claims pressed by Alan of Galloway uncontested in 1214 and yet tried to
make different claims himself in relation to Kippax in 1233 until he
learned something contrary to his position?
Peter Stewart