GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-10 > 1128997601


From: "Peter Stewart" <>
Subject: Re: Keats-Rohan & the Gant family
Date: 10 Oct 2005 19:26:41 -0700
References: <1128903724.641332.141140@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1128904417.717696.21280@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1128908511.787696.155360@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1128912468.256598.30450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1128937497.309121.77060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1128952005.152318.59440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1128953062.836279.308300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1128983039.707429.14670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1128993602.872389.301340@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>


Richardson wrote:

<snip>

> Insofar as VCH Lancaster's statement that William Fitz Neal's sister,
> Agnes, used the surname, Gant, Ormerod (who was the source) actually
> stated that it was William Fitz Neal's daughter who was known as Agnes
> de Gant. I'm prepared to accept Ormerod's statement at face value that
> Agnes used the surname Gant. While Ormerod has his flaws, he was
> certainly knowledgeable enough about all of these people and should
> have been able to recognize the woman who he encountered in a charter
> using the name, Agnes de Gant. Having said that, I find it doubtful
> that Agnes daughter of William Fitz Neal would have employed the
> surname, Gant, unless her mother was a member of that family. But, if
> so, that brings us to another problem, namely, that Agnes' father,
> William Fitz Neal, was called "nepote" [nephew or kinsman] not
> "sororius" [brother-in-law] by Walter de Gant. For Agnes' mother to be
> a Gant, then William Fitz Neal should be "sororius" to Walter de Gant,
> not "nepote."

And why not simply assume (without blinking, of course) that a scribal
error is responsible for the surname "de Gant"?

> Rather than glide over this problem, I think a solution is at hand. In
> a post I made yesterday, I pointed out that in an undated charter of
> John, Constable of Chester (died 1190), his son Roger witnessed the
> charter as "Rogero constabulario Cestrie." Farrer, Loyd and Stenton
> all believed that this was a scribal error in the charter, evidently
> believing it to be impossible for a father and son to both be constable
> at the same time. However, IF it was possible, then we may be onto our
> solution. I suspect this charter was issued shortly before John,
> Constable of Chester, left on crusade in the Holy Land, where he
> eventually died. The charter is witnessed by John's eldest three sons.
> This suggests to me the charter was issued towards the end of John's
> life, when his sons were of the age to be witnesses. If so, then
> perhaps his son, Roger, was appointed to officiate in the office of
> Constable in his stead during John's absence in the Holy Land. Ergo,
> two constables.

Don't trip over yourself in haste to find a convenient solution - do
you know that the document with two constables is an original, not a
later copy made when the son Roger had succeeded his father and
anachronistically giving him the office in a document from his father's
time?

It's only a week since you were insisting that Roger must have been a
minor at the time his father died in 1190, and now you are arguing for
him and his younger brothers all to have been of age before John had
even departed on crusade (as suggested to you but rejected at the
time), again without blinking.

Peter Stewart

This thread: