GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-09 > 1127764217


From: "Patricia Junkin" <>
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:50:17 -0400


All,

Assume we are discussing the same Alan here .

From Medieval Scotland, Crown, Lordship and community the essay,periphery
and Core: Alan of Galloway presented to Barrow and edited by Stringer:
p. 93 "In the circumstances, it would have been prudent for Alan to have
made some sort of accommodation with the de Lacy interest, and it was
possibly in 1219 (rather than 1229, the traditional date) that he married
Hugh's [de Lacy] daughter Rose."
Here the citation reads--Cf. K. J. Stringer. A New Wife for Alan of
Galloway. TDGNHAS 3rd. series, xlix (1972) p. 52 (where the argument should
turn on the degree of affinity, not consanguinity) This lady, evidently
called Rose, had in 1217 been placed in the custody of her uncle, the
Regent's ally Walter de Lacy: Register of the Priory of St. Bees ed. J.
Wilson (Surtees Soc. 1915, p. x and n. 5.

Alan of Galloway and the de Veteripontes were closely connected through the
de Morvilles.

Pat

----------
>From: "CED" <>
>To:
>Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
>Date: Mon, Sep 26, 2005, 3:10 PM
>

>
> 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?
>
>
> Kevin Bradford:
>
> The following exerpt is from a posting by Mr. Richardson in which he
> does not acknowledge K. J. Stringer's priority (thus giving the
> impression that it was his own correction). Later I found that
> Stringer was also making a similar "correction" at a much earlier date
> (1972). Apparently Mr. Richardson was copying Stringer without
> admitting that he was doing so; and he does not add any supporting
> evidence.
> (The hostage statement is worthless. Mr. Richardson seems to be
> unaware of King John's treatment of [or policies regarding]hostages,
> his sale of justice, and his treatment of the lands of his vassals. A
> suit in midst of King John's difficulty with his barons is questionable
> at best. How many of the persons mentioned in the document were rebels
> at the time?)
>
> By the way, I cannot find a statement in which Stringer explicitly
> makes the "correction"; it is found in the translated text.
>
> Beginning of quote:
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval From: (Douglas
> Richardson) - Date: 13 Sep 2002 18:55:39 -0700 Local: Fri, Sep 13 2002
> 8:55 pm Subject: Alan Fitz Roland's three marriages
> * * * * * * *
> [Note: The identity of Alan Fitz Roland';s first wife is proven by a
> suit dated 1214 regarding Kippax, co. York, in which Alan is stated to
> have married a sister of Richard [recte Roger], father of John [de
> Lacy] [constable] of Chester. The year previously in 1213, an unnamed
> daughter of Alan died as a hostage in the custody of Robert Fitz
> Roger, of Warkworth, co. Northumberland. It was customary in this
> period to place foreign born hostages with a near relative in England.
> Robert Fitz Roger in question was the maternal uncle of Alan of
> Galloway's first wife, and thus would have been closely related to
> Alan's child].
> End of quote.
>
> CED
>
>>
>> As one can see from the original documents, again cited below, there is
> no "recte Roger" within the body of these texts:
>>
>> 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, q!
> ui!
>> ' 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Claims by Mr. Richardson, in a rebuttal to my recent posting, that this
> "John of Chester" is actually John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, are curious
> indeed ["The defendant in the 1214 lawsuit was John de Lacy (died 1240)"].
> As many of us know, this John de Lacy's father was ROGER. The text of the
> suit in question clearly spells out that "John of Chester's" father was
"RICHARD."
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Kevin
>> Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet60/plantagenet01.htm
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CED <>
>> Sent: Sep 26, 2005 11:01 AM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
>>
>>
>> Douglas Richardson wrote:
>> > Dear CED ~
>> >
>> > So nice to hear from you again. To be perfectly honest, I've missed
>> > your posts.
>>
>> To the Newsgroup;
>>
>> So sorry that DR has missed my posts. I apologize for not posting; but
>> I have an excuse - my computer went kaplooey and I lost my hard drive.
>> DR could well have enjoyed some of my lost posts, the material for
>> which had not been backed up on CD.
>>
>> As you all know well, I let my words and logic stand for themselves.
>>
>> It is so nice finally to have DR admit that he is not the original
>> proponent of the identity of the first wife as being a Lacy. Among
>> scholarly conventions is one one that requires acknowledging the
>> priority of the first to propose a theory. As far as I can determine,
>> this is the first time that DR has acknowledged K. J. Stringer's
>> priority and DR's dependence upon Stringer's reseach. Would that he
>> had dug a bit deeper than _Essays on the Nobility of Medieval Scotland_
>> published in 1985.
>>
>> Stringer's contention that the first wife of Alan of Galloway was a
>> Lacy in that essay was based upon he earlier article (1972) published
>> in the Transactions of the Dumfrieshire and Galloway Natural History
>> and Antiquarian Society. The weakness of Stinger's argument
>> (dependence upon a correction of a medieval document) was apparent even
>> to Stringer himself; for, as is well known is scholarly circles, such a
>> correction should be corroborated with supporting evidence. This he
>> proposed was a consanguineous relationship within the prohibited degree
>> between the hypothetical Lacy first wife and the known Lacy third wife
>> of Alan of Galloway. That degree of kniship did not exist between the
>> two branches of the Lacy family in those generations. Stringer's lack
>> of information about the degree of kinship between them or the canon
>> law regarding consanguineous marriages should be explained before his
>> correction of the document can stand.
>>
>> CED
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Since I know you like definitions, perhaps you would be so good as to
>> > define for us the words in your post below: "qualified person" and
>> > "good work." Your words seem a bit vague, and I want to be sure I
>> > understand exactly what you are saying when you use these words.
>> >
>> > One other thing: If you had searched the newsgroup archives, you would
>> > quickly have determined that the identification of Alan Fitz Roland's
>> > first wife as a Lacy was first made by the noted historian, Keith J.
>> > Stringer, Ph.D., in his book, Essays on the Nobility of Medieval
>> > Scotland, published in 1985. Since Dr. Stringer first made the
>> > identification, not me, don't you think you are misrepresenting the
>> > facts when you allege that I have attempted to fit "pre-chosen persons"
>> > to fit a document? Or, do you now wish to "expose" Dr. Stringer's work
>> > as "bad" and him as "unqualified"? If so, please present your evidence
>> > to support your allegations. Also, please provide us with your
>> > credentials to prove you are in a position of knowledge to be able to
>> > determine the worth of Dr. Stringer's work.
>> >
>> > I'm eagerly looking forward to your reply.
>> >
>> > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>> >
>> > Website: www.royalancestry.net
>> >
>> >
>> > CED wrote:
>> >
>> > > Kevin Bradford:
>> > >
>> > > Congratulations on work well done. It is about time that a qualified
>> > > person attack this problem. DR's attempted correction of a document to
>> > > fit the pre-chosen persons had to be exposed by somebody whose
>> > > qualifications and motives were not suspect. Again: Good work!
>> > >
>> > > CED
>> > > >
>


This thread: