GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-09 > 1127862539


From: "Douglas Richardson " <>
Subject: Re: Style of Alan Fitz Roland lord of Galloway
Date: 27 Sep 2005 16:08:59 -0700
References: <1f5.13009891.306af5d6@aol.com> <1127851678.353758.224940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <2Ph_e.8939$7b6.2373@twister.nyroc.rr.com> <1127856825.008917.275830@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <xYj_e.17919$0E5.7233@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
In-Reply-To: <xYj_e.17919$0E5.7233@news-server.bigpond.net.au>


Peter Stewart wrote:

> 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."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net


This thread: