GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-12 > 1133566938


From: "Douglas Richardson" <>
Subject: Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
Date: 2 Dec 2005 15:42:18 -0800
References: <223.4781cd1.30c22f4a@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <223.4781cd1.30c22f4a@aol.com>


It depends on Ms. Thompson's evidence, Will. Mr. Farrer's statements
are very compelling.

DR


wrote:
> In a message dated 12/2/05 2:39:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> writes:
>
> << My copy is taken from The Lancashire Pipe
> Rolls ... and Early Lancaster Charters, edited by William Farrer,
> published in 1902, pp. 289-296. ....
> <snip>
>
> Regarding the dating of the charter, 1094, which date was "given to
> this charter by the monks of Sees," the editor, Mr. Farrer, states that
> the date is "supported by what is known of the grantor and the subjects
> of the grant." >>
>
>
> However Douglas, this ONE copy reviewed by Farrar in 1902 is now superceded
> by an analysis of *all* the charters gathered by "... Kathleen Thompson has
> collated all of the extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094
> (Monasteries and Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
> Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire, CXL,
> 201-225"
>
> Would you not agree? That a gathering together of all the copies and
> analysis of this in-context, would supercede the analysis of one ?
>
> Will Johnson


This thread: