Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway

Mr. Farmerie,

That is correct, I did *NOT* identifity Richard de Crevequor as the father of John de Lacy. Apparently Mr. Richardson, in his zeal to turn the intent of my posting into a personal attack against himself, misses not only the original point of my posting, but the entire body of evidence I presented. It's not about Mr. Richardson. This thread is about the evidence, and the evidence only. In order to make the conclusions fit his premise, Mr. Richardson's "John of Chester" must have a father named "Roger," else his de Lacy conclusions won't fit. This is the principal reason he insists the name "Richard" is in error in the document. Aside from Mr. Richardson's John de Lacy, there have been several others who have tried fitting the de Lacy tag onto Alan de Galloway's 1st wife. Most of these are a conflagration with his 3rd wife, and of those that aren't, no convincing evidence has been brought forth.

Aside from a straightforward reading of the Latin ("sui" in this context relates to the sister of the John), one salient clue of Richard's identification as "patris" carries with it only a forename, no surname or cognomen. I would be interested if anyone who reads medieval Latin could point out just where, in either of these documents, Richard de Crevequor's role in the process excludes him from being John of Chester's father. I have had the text *very* carefully examined, in its medieval context. Most primary medieval texts, in practice not in theory, identify individuals by location, nickname, or familial connections (e.g., "William of Malmesbury, "Geoffrey of Staunton," etc.). Where they don't make this distinction, there is usually a salient reason. You will note that in the context of the adjective "patris" in the evidence I cited, Richard patris of John has no surname or cognomen. That's because one wasn't necessary. These parties knew who "patris" was--Richard !
de Crevequor.

Best,

Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet60/plantagenet01.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sep 26, 2005 5:29 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@xxxxxxx 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

.

Relevant Pages