General Notes

Name Suffix:<NSFX> Lord Pontefract
Name Suffix:<NSFX> De Pontefract
[large-G675.FTW]
W E Wightman, *The Lacy Family in England and Normandy, 106
6-1194*,
genealogical chart following p 260.
From same, p 17, 19:  "The honour of Pontefract is the nam
e later given to the
estates built up by the Lacy family, mainly by Ilbert I und
er the first two Norman kings.  In 1086 the bulk of these e
states were already to be found in
the south half of the West Riding of Yorkshire, held by Ilb
ert I as tenant-in-chief direct of the king, though there w
as also an appreciable quantity of land scattered over th
e counties of Lincoln, Nottingham, Buckingham, Oxford, cou
nties of Lincoln, Nottingham, Buckingham, Oxford, Berkshire
, and Surrey.  .....  The military importance of this stret
ch of territory was enormous."
From same, p 55:  "The first holder of the honour of Pontef
ract was Ilbert I
de Lacy, brother of the first lord of the honour of Weobley
, Walter I. Proof of their relationship comes from their es
tate in NOrmandy.  This single holding was held jointly b
y the descendants of Ilbert I and Walter I by the Norman te
nure of parage, under which land was divided amongst the so
ns and daughters whilst at the same time remaining a singl
e fee. Had it not been originally a family holding this ten
ure would not have applied, and the details of the dissolut
ion of the joint fee show that the family link must have be
en via Ilbert and Walter as sons of the same father.  The s
enior branch of the family was probably that of Ilbert of P
ontefract.  He followed
his Norman overlord into England, whereas Walter arrived i
n the train of
William fitz Osbern, much as a younger son might do.  In al
l probability the
younger brother would have no obligation to follow his lieg
e lord outside
Normandy and thus might choose to attach himself to the mos
t convenient
leader he could find.  An additional piece of evidence come
s from the grant
of twenty- two acres of land at Montmain to the nunnery o
f St. Amand by
Emma, the mother of Ilbert de Lacy.  She was categoricall
y 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 mor
e important of
the two brothers in Normandy, and under the rules of tenur
e 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 de
scent of the fee,
it is most likely that Ilbert was the elder.  Little is kno
wn about either
of the brothers.  They were not, for example, amongst the f
avoured few whose
participation at the battle of Hastings can be proved.  Ilb
ert I was
probably born not later than 1045, though this is little mo
re than a guess
based on the likely assumption that he came over in 1066, a
nd was enfeoffed
as a tenant of Bishop Odo soon afterward.  He was still ali
ve shortly after
Odo's banishment on 14 November 1088.  It is possible tha
t he was alive in
or soon after 1091, but he was undoubtedly dead by the en
d of the reign of
Rufus, for by that time he had been succeeded by his son Ro
bert 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 a
bbot 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', eve
n though the
introduction and the index in the published edition of th
e Selby cartulary
use it. The error can be traced to Burton, who committed i
t for the first
time in 1758 [J. Burton, *Monastican Eboracense*, p 405]
.  Burton quoted as
his authority Dugdale's *Monasticon*, of nearly a century e
arlier, but
Dugdale only called him Abbot Hugh, with no surname -- an
d no
pre-Reformation account adds any su