Roger fitz Richard of Warkworth
David Paul Meyer
Is the Roger fitz Richard, Lord of Warkworth, d. 1177, who married Alice de Vere and had a son; Robert, the same person as the Roger fitz Richard who had a daughter, Alice, who married John fitz Richard of Chester, Baron of Pontefract?
If so, is Alice de Vere the mother of both children?
I would also appreciate finding more about his father Richard and his mother Jane Bigod. Are her parents Roger Bigod and Alice de Toeni?
Thank you!
Yours truly,
David, on the central coast, California, USA
Chris Phillips
David Paul Meyer wrote:
> Is the Roger fitz Richard, Lord of Warkworth, d. 1177, who married Alice
de Vere and had a son; Robert, the same person as the Roger fitz Richard who
had a daughter, Alice, who married John fitz Richard of Chester, Baron of
Pontefract?
> If so, is Alice de Vere the mother of both children?
> I would also appreciate finding more about his father Richard and his
mother Jane Bigod. Are her parents Roger Bigod and Alice de Toeni?
Alice, wife of John, constable of Chester, was a daughter of Alice de Vere,
and I think is believed that her father was Roger fitz Richard (although it
has been a matter of some argument in the past).
Keat-Rohan, Domesday Descendants, p. 948, has some discussion on Roger's
connection with the Bigods (although I can't see anything on Roger's
father - but perhaps there is an entry on him tucked away somewhere in the
book).
Essentially, she says Roger was described as a "nepos" of earl Hugh Bigod,
which may indicate that Roger's mother was an otherwise unknown daughter of
Roger Bigod, but she suggests that alternatively she could have been a
sister or niece of Roger. I can't see any indication of her name in
Keats-Rohan's text - so I'm not sure where _Jane_ Bigod comes from.
She also says that he is said to have had an uncle called Thomas de
Candelent. She quotes an article by C. T. Clay ("The ancestry of the early
lords of Warkworth", Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., 32 (1954), 65-71), in
which he suggests this should be read as Canteloup. But Keats-Rohan says
that Candelent is the Domesday form of Candlet, Suffolk, which Norman the
sheriff held of Roger Bigod in 1086. She adds that "Roger's charter for
Rochester made a grant for Norman's soul as Roger and his wife's predecessor
in manors they were granting", and goes on to suggest "a family link" may
have been forged between the Bigods and the issue of Norman.
This links up with the question of whether Roger Bigod had two wives, both
called Alice, or only one. Keats-Rohan, while presenting the above evidence
about Roger fitz Richard, Norman the sheriff and Thomas de Candelent, argues
against previous belief that Roger Bigod had only one wife, Alice de Tosny.
She does say, though, only that it is "fairly clear" this was the case, and
emphasises that the evidence is "very limited" [Domesday People, p. 396].
The statements about Roger's relationships to earl Hugh Bigod and to Thomas
Candelent both come from a work written by Alice de Vere's brother William,
in or about 1163.
If Roger had two wives, it would be tempting to make Roger fitz Richard's
mother a child of the first, and to make the first wife a half-sister of
Thomas de Candelent and a descendant of Norman the sheriff, which would
explain everything neatly. (Presumably this occurred to Keats-Rohan as well,
though she doesn't discuss the idea in so many words!)
One odd thing is that Roger Bigod's daughter Gunnor (who would be a daughter
of the first marriage if there were two) married Robert fitz Swein, and is
now believed to be the mother of Alice de Vere's previous husband, Robert of
Essex. So Alice's first husband really would be a "nepos" of earl Hugh
Bigod. Could the statement that her second husband was such a "nepos" arise
from a misunderstanding or miscopying? (The work in which the statement is
made exists only as extracts made by the antiquary Leland.)
Otherwise, there is a potential difficulty in that, if Roger fitz Richard's
mother was a daughter of Roger Bigod, he would be a first cousin of Alice's
first husband. There were rules prohibiting marriages between those related
by "affinity", just as there were for consanguinity. Marriages between a
husband and wife who were first cousins were extremely rare, I think. Does
anyone know how likely it would have been for a woman in the 11th century to
marry two men who were first cousins?
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
I wrote:
> Keat-Rohan, Domesday Descendants, p. 948, has some discussion on Roger's
> connection with the Bigods (although I can't see anything on Roger's
> father - but perhaps there is an entry on him tucked away somewhere in the
> book).
Actually, Roger's father is listed as Ricardus Filius Eustachii [Domesday
Descendants, p. 885]:
Son of Eustache fitz John and Agnes, sister and coheir of William fitz
William, constable of Chester. He married Albereda, daughter and heiress of
Robert de Lisoriis ... He died in 1157.
(Complete Peerage, in a chart pedigree of the Lacy family (vol. 7, p. 677),
miscalls him Robert, and says he died 1163.)
The ancestry can be traced further - Richard's father Eustace was the son of
John "monoculus" (one-eyed), a Domesday tenant, himself the son of Richard
fitz Ranulf, and the nephew of Waleran fitz Ranulf, another Domesday tenant
(DD 885, 918; DP 284, 446).
Chris Phillips
ADRIANC...@aol.com
"They come to Warkworth, nor deign to stay there
For the castle was weak, the wall and the trench,
And Roger, the son of Richard, a valiant knight,
Had it in charge; but he could not defent it."
My source ascribes this to "Fantosme", who or what that is, I know not.
Adrian
The...@aol.com
Dear Chris, et al.,
I wonder if the ancestry of Roger fitz Richard of Warkworth is
being confused, in DD and/or elsewhere, with that of the Lacys,
constables of Chester. I show the Warkworth line as being
derived from a collateral line of de Bigod.
See how the following fits into your records:
________________________________________
1 Robert de Lisours
----------------------------------------
Occ: lord of Sprotborough
Father: Fulk de Lisours
of Sprotborough, co. York[1]
Spouse: Aubrey de Lacy, heiress (in her issue) of Lacy lands
Father: Robert de Lacy, lord of Pontefract
Mother: Maud
Marr: ca 1130[1]
Children: Aubrey (->1194)
1.1a Aubrey de Lisours*
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 21 Apr 1194[1]
heiress of Sprotborough, and in her issue of the Lacy estates
(after 1194)[1]
she m. lstly Robert FitzEustace,
2nd William de Clairfait,
3rd William FitzGodric[1]
Spouse: William fitz Godric[1] [3rd husband]
Death: bef 1195[1]
Father: Godric fitz Ketilborn
Marr: ca 1170[1]
Children: William (<1177->1218)
Other Spouses Robert fitz Eustace
1.1a.1 William FitzWilliam
----------------------------------------
Birth: bef 1177
Death: aft 9 Feb 1218[1]
Occ: lord of Sprotborough
of Sprotborough, West Riding, co. Yorks.
by fine dated 21 April 1194, Roger the Constable (grandson of John
the constable of Chester and Aubrey de Lisours)
'released to her [Aubrey de Lisours] and her son William
[FitzWilliam]all the lands which belonged to Robert de Lisours
her father', CP Vol. V p. 519n[1]
Spouse: Ela de Warenne
Father: Hamelin de Anjou (-1202), Earl of Surrey
Mother: Isabel de Warenne (-ca1203), Countess of Surrey
Children: Thomas (->1252)
1.1a.1.1 Thomas FitzWilliam
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 1252[1]
Occ: lord of Emley and Sprotborough
knt., of Sprotborough, West Riding, co. York[2]
had livery of his land in Riton as early as 23 Feb 1223/24 (CP
Vol II, Bertram, p. 162n)[1]
first known holder of Emley, 1253: had ' a grant of free warren,
market and fair at Emley in 1253 '[1]
Spouse: Agnes Bertram
Father: Roger Bertram (-1241)
Mother: Agnes
Children: Sir William (-<1295)
Denise
Roger
1.1b Aubrey de Lisours* (See above)
----------------------------------------
Spouse: Robert fitz Eustace[1] [1st Husband]
Death: 1163[1]
Father: Eustace fitz John (-1157)
Mother: Agnes
Children: John (-1190)
Aubrey
Other Spouses William fitz Godric
1.1b.1 John fitz Robert
----------------------------------------
Death: 1190[1]
Occ: Constable of Chester[1]
Spouse: Alice fitz Roger[1],[3]
Father: Roger fitz Richard (-1178)
Mother: Alice (Adeliza) de Vere (<1141->1184)
Children: Roger fitz John (-1211)
Robert (-<1208)
NN
1.1b.1.1 Roger fitz John de Lacy[1],[3]
----------------------------------------
Death: 1211[1]
Occ: lord of Pontefract
Constable of Chester
received honour of Pontefract from grandmother Aubreye de Lisours,
1194 (thereupon took the name de Lacy)[1]
according to Visitation pedigree, gave manor of Flamborough, co. York
to his younger brother Robert 'le Constable'[4]
'.. by a fine dated 21 Apr. [1194], Roger the Constable, Aubrey's
grandson by her first husband, released to her and her son William
[FitzWilliam] all the lands which had belonged to Robert de Lisours
her father [Duchy of Lancaster, Great Couchet, ii, fo. 284 d].'
CP Vol. V (FitzWilliam), p. 519[1]
Spouse: Maud de Clere[1]
Father: NN de Clere
Children: John (~1192-1240)
1.1b.1.2 Robert le Constable[5]
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 1208[5]
of Flamborough, co. Yorks.
according to the Visitation of Yorkshire, this Robert received the
manor of Flamborough as a gift from his brother John:
(p. 64) 'Rogerus Lacy dedit villam de Flamburgh Roberto fratri suo.'
'Robert Counstable Lord of Flamboroo, ex dono Rogeri fratris
sui.'[4]
Children: William
1.1b.1.3 NN 'filia John'
----------------------------------------
1st wife (identity not proven)[1],[6]
identified in Scots Peerage as a daughter of Ranald mac
Somerled, Lord of the Isles[6]; however,
Douglas Richardson has identified her as a de Lacy, as he
wrote of Alan of Galloway on 13 Sept 2002,
' He married possibly in 1200 _____ OF CHESTER (descendant
of Charlemagne), daughter of John [Fitz Richard] of Chester
(died 1190), hereditary Constable of Chester, Baron of Pontefract,
co. York, by Alice, daughter of Roger Fitz Richard, of
Warkworth, co. Northumberland. She had as her maritagium
the manor of Kippax, co. Yorkshire...'[7]
Spouse: Alan of Galloway, Lord of Galloway
Death: 1234[6]
Father: Roland of Galloway (-1200)
Mother: Elena de Morville (-1217)
Children: Elena [Helen] (->1245)
1.1b.2 Aubrey fitz Eustace[8]
----------------------------------------
stated by Douglas Richardson to be first wife of Henry Biset, and
daughter of 'Richard Fitz Eustace, (ancestor of the Lacy family),
with whom he [Henry Biset] had land in Emsal, Marton, Plumtree and
the whole town of Harworth, co. Nottingham in frank marriage'[8]
[Richard an apparent error for Robert, as indicated herein]
Spouse: Henry Biset
Death: bef 11 Dec 1213[8]
Father: Manasser Biset (<1133-ca1176)
Mother: Alice de Cany
Children: Margaret
William
John
----------------------------------------
1. "The Complete Peerage," G. E. Cokayne, 1910 -
The Complete Peerage of England Scotland Ireland Great Britain
and the United Kingdom.
2. "Visitations of the North, Part III," Publications of the Surtees
Society,Vol. CXLIV, Northumberland Press Ltd., Newcastle, 1930,
78 et seq.
3. Stewart Baldwin, "Oldest Female Line?," Nov 20, 1996,
GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
4. "The Visitation of Yorkshire," Harleian Soc., William Flower,
Esquire, Norroy King of Arms, Harleian Series, Vol. 16, Mitchell
and Hughes, Printers, London, 1881.
5. J. C. B. Sharp, "Constable Connections!," Sept 15, 2000,
GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com citing C. T. Clay, Early Yorkshire
Charters, xii, pp. 142-151.
6. "The Scots Peerage," Sir James Balfour Paul, ed., 1904-1914 (9 vols).
7. Douglas Richardson, "Alan Fitz Roland's three marriages," Sept
13, 2002, GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com, cites among other sources
Curia Regis Rolls, 7 (1935): 85-86, suit by Alan of Galloway re.
Kippax. See also, further discussion of this identification by
Bryant Smith.
8. Douglas Richardson, "Sir Roger La Zouche," 26 March 1999,
GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com, dcr...@aol.com {later:
royala...@aol.com}.
___________________________
The interrelationships between Lacy, FitzRoger and FitzWilliam
sound somewhat too intermingled to me.
Best regards,
John *
* John P. Ravilious
Chris Phillips
> I wonder if the ancestry of Roger fitz Richard of Warkworth is
> being confused, in DD and/or elsewhere, with that of the Lacys,
> constables of Chester. I show the Warkworth line as being
> derived from a collateral line of de Bigod.
I think I'm the only one who was confused, actually.
I must have had a brainstorm of some kind, because my last message was
giving the ancestry of Alice's husband John, constable of Chester, not her
father, Roger fitz Richard. Richard fitz Eustace was the father of John, not
the father of Roger.
I do apologise, and I hope I haven't sown too much confusion.
Chris Phillips
PS However, there is certainly a contradiction between CP and Keats-Rohan,
the former calling John's father Robert fitz Eustace, and the latter Richard
fitz Eustace. I suspect this is a slip on CP's part.
David Paul Meyer
Wow! You're all great and I appreciate your help very much.
My only question, regarding Richard, or is it Robert, fitz Eustace, came already answered.
This is a terrific example of those "gems of wisdom" that we are here for.
Cristopher Nash
Yes, and the confusion spreads far wider than any you could have
created, Chris. I'll stick below a part of a crude note I wrote
myself re Richard Fitz Eustace years ago (back in the days when I was
including Burke ['BED'] and DNB, and not intended for circulation!).
(I reckon I'm among - forgiving - friends.) It comes purely in the
interests of recording something of the history of a typical series
of skidmarks among genealogists, so that Chris can forgive himself
without let or delay. I'm not prepared to stand by any 'conclusions'
on matters of fact reported in this antique note (having not updated
my thinking on the case in the years since) other than the fact of
those exemplary skidmarks. For my money the only point-as-to-fact
worth carrying forward appears in the 1st short para.
Cris
>Richard Fitz Eustace - constable of Chester. NOT 'Robert'
>FitzEustace. (Estab'd by Paul Reed, GEN:Med postings 2-3 July 98,
>prior to the note below.)
---------
>Who is the fa of John de Lacy (below) & whether he is desc. from the
>same parents as those of the family of FitzRobert (of Warkworth
>-->Clavering) is an issue fraught with confusion.
>BED ('Clavering') 121, says the families of FitzRobert of Warkworth
>(-->Clavering) & the family of John de Lacy both descend via Richard
>FitzEustace. Gives Richard FitzEustice & wife (2d after Beatrice
>da. of Yvo de Vesci) Albreda da of Robert de Lizures [elsewhere
>Lizours/Lisours]. Gives as Richard's parents Eustace FitzJohn (s.
>of John 'Monoculus' de Burgh, nephew & h. of Serlo de Burgh, &
>grandson of Eustace de Burgh) & Agnes da of William FitzNigel, Baron
>of Halton, Constable of Chester - & descendants as shown. Hodgson,
>_Northumberland Co. Hist_ gives Richard FitzEustace [giving same
>pedigree], as does Round. DNB ('Eustace FitzJohn (d. 1157)')
>appears to agree with BED - says that Eustace, judge & constable of
>Chester, is s. of John de Burgh & nephew of Serlo de Burgh, lord of
>Knaresborough, & bro of Pain FitzJohn, & gives same 2 wives
>(Beatrice & Agnes) & says by his 2d w. left a s. Richard
>FitzEustace, the ancestor of the Claverings and Lacies.
>A kink is that Clay (1913) calls Roger s. of Richard FitzEustace
>Roger FitzRoger. This is a misprint. Clay himself claims him to be
>s. of Richard Fitz-Eustace, & in fact 3 lines above, Clay does call
>him Roger FitzRichard.
>Note now: Hodgson, Northb Co Hist, having given pedigree used (in
>part) by Clay, says in fn: "The evidence on which Roger
>[FitzRichard] is made son of Richard FitzEustace is not very strong,
>and it is remarkable that the Lacies, if an elder line [which it
>argues, NB], should have used a label over arms which the Claverings
>bore with no difference." Hodgson text says Roger did receive Wark
>but by gift from Henry II, not by inheritance.
>On John de Lacy - claimed to be bro of Roger FitzRichard, see Round,
>whose "Who was Alice de Vere?" Trans Essex Arch Soc n.s. vol 3,
>243-51 (1885-89) & his _Geoffrey of Mandeville_ make case for her 2
>marriages (1) to Robert de Essex - but not Robert fa of Henry of
>Essex, but rather, another by that name & (2) Roger FitzRichard -
>but leaves the John de Lacy case to be decided. ("...It is clear
>that Roger FitzRichard cannot have been brother, as alleged, to John
>'de Laci,' and that his origin must be sought elsewhere" (248) -
>i.e. elsewhere than as s. of Richard FitzEustace.
>CP XII, pt 2 (1959), 274n ('Vescy' - giving geneal. of Payn FitzJohn
>& his bro. Eustace FitzJohn) accepts that while Eustace FitzJohn is
>fa. of Richard FitzEustace & that the latter is fa. of John,
>Constable of Chester (John having succeeded Richard's stepfather):
>'That Richard FitzEustace was the father of Roger FitzRichard, lord
>of Warkworth, 2nd husband of Alice de Vere, was proved to be a
>fallacy by Round in Essex Arch Soc, Trans, N.S. III, p 248".
>Note that the CP XII 268-85 pedigree giving Eustace
>FitzJohn->Richard FitzEustace & Aubreye de Lisours->John, constable
>of Chester->"second line of Lascy" is accepted in _Early Yorkshire
>Families_ (Yorks Arch Rec Ser. vol 135, pp 99-100 & chart fac. p.
>99), in 1973 - but without giving Richard a son Roger etc (i.e.
>without the Warkworth line).
>This would all seem to be thrown into a cocked hat by Wightman
>(1966), 178 & ped chart ('Fam of Lacy of Pontefact, 1066-1194')
>which - while he accepts CP & Hist of Northumberland - clearly has
>the endorsement in general of Clay, Le Patourel & other more recent
>writers (see Pref). He says w/o hesitation (nor evident looking
>back - no refs here to Round) that the fa of John, Constable of
>Chester (d.1190) is (not Richard FitzEustace, whose name he mentions
>nowhere in the book) but ROBERT FitzEustace by Aubrey de Lisours (da
>of Robert de Lisours & Aubrey de Lacy, sis. of Ilbert II de Lacy &
>da of Robert I de Lacy). That this Robert FitzEustace is s. of
>Eustace FitzJohn, bro of Payn Fitzjohn (both sons of John
>'Monoculous').
>This appears so radically diff a pedigree from Clay, BED, Round &
>Hist of Northumberland (even tho this latter is one of the 2 refs he
>gives!) that I feel it must be a slip - which he has inherited from
>CP VII ('Lincoln'), 677 (his other reference), where a chart appears
>which he has clearly simply copied line-for-line, & which does call
>this husb of Aubreye de Lisours (etc) "Robert" instead of Richard.
>This being the case, while (with the exception of this [?gaffe])
>Northumberland/Wightman may in the end be right or it doesn't
>matter, I'm afraid Wightman can't be taken as a source of fresh
>research of special value on this particular generation of Lacy.
>Reasoning:
>The choice of 'Richard' or 'Robert' FitzEustace appears largely to
>depend on which line the author is interested in. If
>Warkworth-Clavering, then 'Richard' is chosen; if Lacy, 'Robert' is
>chosen. The outcome for me being that there may be two sons of
>Eustace, 1 Richard 1 Robert, 1 the head of the Warkworth-Clavering
>line, the other the head of the Lacy line. (This would seem to be
>Round's arg &, implicitly tho with anxiety, Hodgson's.) The real
>problem is that both claim the man to be husb of Aubrey de Lisours.
>Only further study could resolve this. I say 'or it doesn't matter'
>largely because so far as Lacy line is concerned, their
>_estates/titles_ clearly stem from Lisours/Lacy via Aubrey.
>Note that EYC II, chart 199, gives 'Richard FitzEustace', & indeed
>adds "d. ante 1163"; Wightman (1966) gives next to 'Robert
>FitzEustace' "ob. 1163"). While EYC's phrase can be taken as merely
>extremely vague, I'm inclined to read Clay as referring to the same
>person to whom Wightman refers and not two FitzEustaces, Robt &
>Rich. The connection to the FitzEustace of the Wark line may not be
>proved? More to be done.<
--
Cristopher Nash
> >Richard Fitz Eustace - constable of Chester. NOT 'Robert'
>FitzEustace. (Estab'd by Paul Reed, GEN:Med postings 2-3 July 98,
>prior to the note below.)
This should of course read 'after the note below'.
Cris
--
Allen John Mallory
Biset mentioned was the same Henry Biset that had a daughter Albreda that
married William d'Aubigny (or d'Albini), Lord of Belvoir Castle,
Leicestershire?
1.1b.2 Aubrey fitz Eustace[8]
----------------------------------------
stated by Douglas Richardson to be first wife of Henry Biset, and
daughter of 'Richard Fitz Eustace, (ancestor of the Lacy family),
with whom he [Henry Biset] had land in Emsal, Marton, Plumtree and
the whole town of Harworth, co. Nottingham in frank marriage'[8]
[Richard an apparent error for Robert, as indicated herein]
Spouse: Henry Biset
Death: bef 11 Dec 1213[8]
Father: Manasser Biset (<1133-ca1176)
Mother: Alice de Cany
Children: Margaret
William
John
--
Chris Phillips
I wrote:
> >I must have had a brainstorm of some kind, because my last message was
> >giving the ancestry of Alice's husband John, constable of Chester, not
her
> >father, Roger fitz Richard. Richard fitz Eustace was the father of John,
not
> >the father of Roger.
Cris Nash wrote
> Yes, and the confusion spreads far wider than any you could have
> created, Chris. I'll stick below a part of a crude note I wrote
> myself re Richard Fitz Eustace years ago (back in the days when I was
> including Burke ['BED'] and DNB, and not intended for circulation!).
> (I reckon I'm among - forgiving - friends.) It comes purely in the
> interests of recording something of the history of a typical series
> of skidmarks among genealogists, so that Chris can forgive himself
> without let or delay. I'm not prepared to stand by any 'conclusions'
> on matters of fact reported in this antique note (having not updated
> my thinking on the case in the years since) other than the fact of
> those exemplary skidmarks. For my money the only point-as-to-fact
> worth carrying forward appears in the 1st short para.
Thanks for posting those notes.
Strange to see that precisely the same confusion between these two Richards
has been prevalent in the past. This is purely coincidental, as I wasn't
aware of any of those older sources when I muddled up the two Richards
myself.
Obviously if we accept that Alice, the wife of John, was Alice de Vere's
daughter by Roger fitz Richard, it's out of the question for those two
Richards to be identical, as the younger Alice would have been marrying her
own uncle! But if, as was previously believed by some, Alice was the
daughter of Alice de Vere by Henry of Essex, the fallacy would not have been
so apparent.
One other obvious question, though - is it really the case that we know
nothing about the father of Roger fitz Richard, beyond the fact that he was
called Richard?
Chris Phillips
Cristopher Nash
Good question. John...?
I note that Phyllis <PEhle...@aol.com> wrote 6 Apr 1999 under
<WILLIAM IV d'AUBIGNY> that
>William IV d'Aubigny of Belvoir married:
>1. Aubrey daughter of Henry Biseth and his FIRST wife Aubrey FitzRichard
but I'm not sure of her source for this forename (i.e. 'Albreda'
etc., for those interested in onomastic links). In reply to Douglas
in Oct 02 there was a bit more on one Henry Biset(h) from Phil Moody
and Chris Phillips - but in fact this discussion goes back at least
as far as Mar 1999 when Paul Reed gave interesting information in
response to early postings on the Biset(h)s from Douglas.
Cris
--
aubreyde...@gmail.com
Alice of Essex married as her second husband Roger fitz Richard, knight. He was said to have been a nephew of Hugh Bigod, first earl of Norfolk. He held Warkworth in-chief as a gift of King Henry II, as well as land of the earls of Norfolk and Essex. The couple had 3 children (as reported in the Rotuli de Dominabus): Robert fitz Roger, his father's heir; Roger fitz Roger; and Alice, who married John fitz Eustace, constable of Chester, before 1185. Roger fitz Richard died in late 1177.
Alice, wife of John fitz Eustace, is sometimes confused with her mother and with her first cousin, Alice daughter of Aubrey III de Vere, first earl of Oxford. Alice made a grant to Rufford Abbey, stating that she was the widow of John and granddaughter of Aubrey de Vere (Aubrey II, master chamberlain of England, died 1141). Her husband had been a patron of Rufford Abbey. He died on crusade with King Richard I in late 1190. Their son Roger inherited the office of constable of the earldom of Chester. Roger inherited the sizeable estate of his paternal grandmother Aubreye and he then took the surname de Lacy/Lascy in recognition of that lineage. He died in 1211. He may have had as brothers Richard, Geoffrey and Eustace.
I can provide citations for this on request.
rbe...@fernside.co.nz
> Wow, it's amazing how much misinformation there is, presented in such a confident manner. But not surprising, as Keats-Rohan's Domesday People and the Complete Peerage do the same (and both often need correcting). My credentials are as a professional historian who has studied the de Veres for over 40 years.
>
> Alice of Essex married as her second husband Roger fitz Richard, knight. He was said to have been a nephew of Hugh Bigod, first earl of Norfolk. He held Warkworth in-chief as a gift of King Henry II, as well as land of the earls of Norfolk and Essex. The couple had 3 children (as reported in the Rotuli de Dominabus): Robert fitz Roger, his father's heir; Roger fitz Roger; and Alice, who married John fitz Eustace, constable of Chester, before 1185. Roger fitz Richard died in late 1177.
> Alice, wife of John fitz Eustace, is sometimes confused with her mother and with her first cousin, Alice daughter of Aubrey III de Vere, first earl of Oxford. Alice made a grant to Rufford Abbey, stating that she was the widow of John and granddaughter of Aubrey de Vere (Aubrey II, master chamberlain of England, died 1141). Her husband had been a patron of Rufford Abbey. He died on crusade with King Richard I in late 1190. Their son Roger inherited the office of constable of the earldom of Chester. Roger inherited the sizeable estate of his paternal grandmother Aubreye and he then took the surname de Lacy/Lascy in recognition of that lineage. He died in 1211. He may have had as brothers Richard, Geoffrey and Eustace.
>
> I can provide citations for this on request.