GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-09 > 1127770187


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:29:47 -0600
References: <26126651.1127524031732.JavaMail.root@elwamui-ovcar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <1127625555.533734.222600@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1127714156.963189.149110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1127746909.280227.324350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1127752053.763787.273910@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1127754056.061344.145180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1127768043.109452.279370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <1127768043.109452.279370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>


Douglas Richardson wrote:

> Lastly, perhaps you can explain to us how Mr. Bradford identified the
> father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron, as Richard de Crevecour,
> the attorney of Alan Fitz Roland.

Be fair. Mr. Bradford did NOT identify Richard de Crevecour as the
father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron. He concluded that John
of Chester (an person distinct from John de Lacys) was son of Richard de
Crevecour. Perhaps, though, you should ask Mr. Bradford about his
conclusions, rather than demanding the information of a third party.
And while you are at it, you could explain the justification for
identifying John de Lacy, son of Roger with this John of Chester, son of
Richard. (Just saying that the entry has made a mistake doesn't cut it.
On what basis do you conclude this is an error?) You know - actually
discuss the question.


> Aside to the newgroup lurkers: I predict that CED will ignore my
> request for the definitions of his words.

Umm, . . . . you have little standing to complain of this until you show
your willingness to respond to questions posed to you.

taf


This thread: