GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-09 > 1127761192


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:59:52 -0600
References: <8904460.1127758411457.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <8904460.1127758411457.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net>


Kevin Bradford wrote:
> Dear CED,
>
> We are told by Mr. Richardson in his Sept. 2002 posting, "the citation plainly states that Alan Fitz Roland had the manor of Kippax, Yorkshire, which Richard [recte Roger] [de Lacy] gave to his sister in marriage." Whose correction is "recte Roger?" Is it Mr. Stringer's? Is it Mr. Richardson's? Under what authority do modern genealogists change the wording in 13th century primary documents?
>
> As one can see from the original documents, again cited below, there is no "recte Roger" within the body of these texts:

[snip]

> 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.

Lest this fall through the cracks, the two versions also differ in that
in "Johannes warantizet cartas Ricardi patris sui quas Alanus de Galweye
habet de maritagio sororis sue", Mr. Bradford concludes that "sue"
refers to John, Mr. Richardson that it refers to Richard ("recte Roger").

taf


This thread: