1564109

[large-G675.FTW]

W E Wightman, *The Lacy Family in England and Normandy, 1066-1194*,
genealogical chart following p 260.

From same, p 17, 19: "The honour of Pontefract is the name later given to the
estates built up by the Lacy family, mainly by Ilbert I under the first two Norman kings. In 1086 the bulk of these estates were already to be found in
the south half of the West Riding of Yorkshire, held by Ilbert I as tenant-in-chief direct of the king, though there was also an appreciable quantity of land scattered over the counties of Lincoln, Nottingham, Buckingham, Oxford, counties of Lincoln, Nottingham, Buckingham, Oxford, Berkshire, and Surrey. ..... The military importance of this stretch of territory was enormous."

From same, p 55: "The first holder of the honour of Pontefract was Ilbert I
de Lacy, brother of the first lord of the honour of Weobley, Walter I. Proof of their relationship comes from their estate in NOrmandy. This single holding was held jointly by the descendants of Ilbert I and Walter I by the Norman tenure of parage, under which land was divided amongst the sons and daughters whilst at the same time remaining a single fee. Had it not been originally a family holding this tenure would not have applied, and the details of the dissolution of the joint fee show that the family link must have been via Ilbert and Walter as sons of the same father. The senior branch of the family was probably that of Ilbert of Pontefract. He followed
his Norman overlord into England, whereas Walter arrived in the train of
William fitz Osbern, much as a younger son might do. In all probability the
younger brother would have no obligation to follow his liege lord outside
Normandy and thus might choose to attach himself to the most convenient
leader he could find. An additional piece of evidence comes from the grant
of twenty- two acres of land at Montmain to the nunnery of St. Amand by
Emma, the mother of Ilbert de Lacy. She was categorically described as
Ilbert's mother, to distinguish her from the abbess of St. Amand, whose name
was also Emma. This implies either that Ilbert was the more important of
the two brothers in Normandy, and under the rules of tenure by parage
therefore the elder, or else that Walter was not Emma's son, but a cousin.
As this would have been impossible, in view of the later descent of the fee,
it is most likely that Ilbert was the elder. Little is known about either
of the brothers. They were not, for example, amongst the favoured few whose
participation at the battle of Hastings can be proved. Ilbert I was
probably born not later than 1045, though this is little more than a guess
based on the likely assumption that he came over in 1066, and was enfeoffed
as a tenant of Bishop Odo soon afterward. He was still alive shortly after
Odo's banishment on 14 November 1088. It is possible that he was alive in
or soon after 1091, but he was undoubtedly dead by the end of the reign of
Rufus, for by that time he had been succeeded by his son Robert I. Little
more is known about his family. His wife's name was Hawise, and that is the
total extent of information about her."

From same, p 58: "It has been frequently stated that the abbot of Selby from
1096/7 to 1122/3 was Hugh de Lacy, son of Ilbert I. ..... There is no medieval
evidence that the surname of Abbot Hugh was 'de Lacy', even though the
introduction and the index in the published edition of the Selby cartulary
use it. The error can be traced to Burton, who committed it for the first
time in 1758 [J. Burton, *Monastican Eboracense*, p 405]. Burton quoted as
his authority Dugdale's *Monasticon*, of nearly a century earlier, but
Dugdale only called him Abbot Hugh, with no surname -- and no
pre-Reformation account adds any surname either. Hugh de Lacy, as abbot of
Selby, is undoubtedly an eighteenth century promotion."