NN (Alice?) de Lacy, Heiress of Kippax - Alice, Heiress of Kippax

Tagging Sharon Doubell: Sharon Doubell

We don't have proof of *anybody's* birth dates, is the problem.

John de Lacy's birth date has been guesstimated (by Cawley) as [1192]. If you figure around that, things get very tight for any sister of his to be wedded, bedded and produce either one or two daughters by 1206.

This is probably why the Washington Ancestry page preferred to set Alice as Roger's sister and John's aunt: http://washington.ancestryregister.com/FITZ_RICHARD200006.htm

It works the same either way, whether from father or brother: Kippax to Alice as maritagium, to her daughter as inheritance, and to her daughter's De Quincy husband jure uxoris.

Dr Keith Stringer, on whose researches so much of this argument depends, apparently did not originally commit himself as to the parentage of Alan de Galloway's first wife, and described her as "sister or dau[ghter] of Roger de Lacy, constable of Chester". https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/b75wVzcfDOg/m/...

The surviving record *explicitly said "Richard" [de Chester]*, not Roger, and ever since this was brought to their attention researchers have been jumping through hoops trying to explain why it is necessary to amend the record to "Roger".

Roger "de Hell" *did* have a younger brother named Richard, but about all that is known of him is that he contracted leprosy and died of it. And any attempt to work *him* into this just makes the chronology a bigger mess.

As far as setting a chronology, let's start with Aubreye de Lisours, whose first husband was Richard FitzEustace, Constable of Chester. (She's the conduit by which the "Lacy" name came into this family, as her mother was a Lacy.) FitzEustace has a firm death date of 1163, and Aubreye was on her third marriage by 1177 (she went through four husbands in all, and lived to see the year 1200).

Richard and Aubreye had one son for certain (John, constable of Chester) and probably three more children (son Robert, joined the Knights Hospitallers; daughter Sarah, married Robert de Aldworth; daughter Aubreye, married Henry Bisset).

John, constable of Chester in his turn, married Alice, probably the daughter of Roger FitzRichard of Warkworth, had (probably) four or more children, and went off to the Holy Land and got himself killed in October 1183 (text says "on Crusade", but there wasn't an active Crusade at the time, so it was a personal venture).

Our notorious Roger "de Hell" de Lacy was the first son and probably first child altogether, born no later than about 1173 (he was declared to be of age between 1193, when he became the heir of the Lacys and adopted the surname, and 1194/5, when he paid scutage for his properties in Yorkshire). That he is not on record prior to 1193 is an argument for an upper birth date of c. 1170.

There is *absolutely no way* that Roger "de Hell" could have been born as early as 1120. So forget *that!*

Strictly speaking, here's the first mention of Roger: “Johannes constabularius Cestrie” confirmed donations made by “Eustachii filii Johannis avi mei et uxoris illius Agnetis avie mee” to the nuns of Watton by charter dated to [1175/90], witnessed by “…Rogero [filio] constabulario Cestrie…”[445].

"Filio" has been filled in ex post facto - seems record-keeping up Yorkshire way was *very* poor in the 12th century. As to the dating of the charter, unless it's a later copy of the original (not unlikely, as there was a lot of that), it must have been drawn up before John de Chester took off for the Holy Land in 1183.

The record of John (fitzRoger) de Lacy's death comes from that "manuscript history of the Lacy family", with an explicit date of “XI Kal Aug 1240” - backed up by the Annals of Tewkesbury recording the death in Aug 1240 of “Johannes de Lacy comes Lyncolniæ”.

Aubreye de Lisours' longevity does not seem to have been passed on to her descendants - or else the males of the family kept getting themselves killed.

(Sharon): "Roger could have been born as early as 1141."

Oh no he couldn't. Aubreye de Lisours was his GRANDmother, not mother. And *her* highest recorded age, c. 1200, was "80", not 100-plus.

Aubreye born c. 1120, married before 1140, son John born about 1140-ish, and Roger wouldn't be showing up before 1160 at the *very* earliest (which is doubtful because there are *no* records of him acting as an independent adult prior to 1193).

Cawley doesn't want to believe that Aubreye de Lisours was born much before 1145, which makes the chronology much much tighter - probably too tight. https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISHNOBILITYMEDIEVAL3D-K.htm#Au...

Yes, I think she should be Roger's sister - the chronology works much better that way.

Curator has to do it, and I'm not one. (People tend to forget that.)

Thanks, Erica, it all makes more sense this way.