Ermengarde, (b. , d. ?)

Note: Notes
Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (118:19), identifies her as husband of ROBERT, but does not give her parents.
Stuart's "Royalty for Commoners" (258:37), calls her "prob. dau. of Eliram and sister of Raoul II, Count of Dijon."
Moriarty, Plantagenet Ancestry, p. 10 says: "Ermengard is usually called a daughter of Richard the Judiciar, duke of Burgundy, but Chaume shows that there is no evidence for this and that she is probably a sister of Raoul II Count of Dijon."
Matman posted to soc.genealogy.medieval on10 Apr 1997:
Subject: Re: Hugh the Black "Gerald Blanchard wrote:
"Pere Anselm shows Hugh the Black, Duke of Normandy [sic - Burgundy] d.952, as the son of Richard the Justicier d.921. Ermengarde, is shown as a daughter of Richard and that she married Gilbert, Count of Chalon, Autun & de Beaune. Brian Tompsett's page shows Gilbert's wife as "daughter of Burgundy" whose father was Hugh the Black. Where does
Ermengarde actually fit in to this? Jerry"
[the reply follows] : "daughter of Burgundy! I guess something got left out there, perhaps deliberately, as there seem to be a number of views on Ermengarde's parentage.
Here are a few i've collated: Dunbabin (France in the Making 843-1180), p65, says Gilbert (other sources use Giselbert etc) was the son in law of Hugo, but doesn't name the daughter he married. Their daughter Lietaud married Otto/Odo (d.965) brother of Hugh Capet. Mckitterick (the Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 1983) in one of the genealogical charts has Ermengarde dau of Richard le
Justiciar, married to Gilbert.
Europaische Stammtafeln, III, 189 mentions no daughters of Richard le J, or Hugh the Black. It has Gilbert's father, Manasses as a nephew of R le J (which is surely wrong, as they were contempories) and credits Giselbert with a daughter Adelaide, who married 3 times:
1) Robert of Meaux and Troyes, son of Heribert II of Vermandois
2). Lambert of Chalon, d.979
3.) Geoffrey I of Anjou, d.987
ES II, 11 says however, that Lietaud, wife of Odo/Otto, above, was the daughter of Gilbert and Ermengarde.
I suspect that the reason for this confusion, is because different theories exist among the French historians who did the initial research. I think the oldest view (dating from the 17th century! by Duchesne, l'origine de la maison de Vergy, etc) was that Gilbert had married a dau. of Richard. But this century some have made him marry a dau of Hugo (P.Lauer, le regne de Raoul et Loius IV, 1900, I think is the title). There
are some more up to date studies on Burgundy by Constance Bouchard, but I havn't looked at them yet. There's also a book on the duchy of Burgundy by a French abbot, Maurice Chaume, which goes into huge detail on this.
I expect there are other theories on this descent as well."

Note: Notes
ES II:10.
Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (48:13) calls her Williswint., dau. COUNT ADALHELM.
Stuart's "Royalty For Commoners" (53:43) calls her Williswinda, dau. ALLEAUME.
Stuart's "Royalty For Commoners" (169:42) calls her Wiliswint, dau. of COUNT ADELHEIM and heiress of lands in the Wormsgau, and states that she m. ROBERT in 730.

Note: Notes
Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (48:13) calls him COUNT ADALHELM.
Stuart's "Royalty For Commoners" (53:43) calls him ALLEAUME.
Stuart's "Royalty For Commoners" (169:42) calls him COUNT ADELHEIM.

Note: Notes
ES II:10.
Stuart's "Royalty For Commoners" (53:43) has Robert, Count of Hesbaye; b. c700; liv. 750; md. WILLISWINDA, dau ALLEAUME. This entry calls Robert the son of LAMBERT (RIN 3847).
Inconsistently, Stuart's "Royalty For Commoners" (169:42) has Rutpert (Robert) I, Duke in the Haspengau, Count in the upper Rhine and Wormsgau, royal missus in Italy; b. 689; d. by 764; md. 730, WILLISWINT, occ. 768; heiress of lands in the Wormsgau . . . WILLISWINT was dau. of COUNT ADELHEIM, a widower in 764. This entry has Robert as the son of another LAMBERT (RIN 3847), with a different ancestry.
Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (48:13) has Rutepert II, Count in the upper Rhine and Wormgau, seen 722-757; m. WILLISWINT, dau. COUNT ADELHELM, wid. 764. This source gives Rutperet's father as LANSBERTUS
(LAMBERT) II (RIN 3847).
"Todd A. Farmerie" posted to soc.genealogy.medieval
on 14 Dec 1996 (in part):
Subject: Re: Lamberts and Roberts and Williswints, Oh My !
"The big problem is that there are conflicting schools regarding the origins of these families. The problems focus on the descent of the Capets. The germans give them a different descent than the french. They all agree that Robert and WILLISWINT are the ancestors, but drasticly disagree about the connection, and somewhat regarding the ancestry of Robert (the questions are linked somewhat, being based on different interpretations of the power base of the family). Most sources accept one or the other, rather than making any attempt to harmonize them. This becomes a problem when an author (such as Stuart) doesn't recognize that he has two different versions of the same thing, and uses both, making no attempt to either harmonize or pick one.
(The same mistake was made in Weis/Sheppard, where a switch from french to german was made for the Capet line, with no realization that this would affect a branch.)
So, basically, yes, Robert and WILLISWINT are the same people. Yes, RFC has contradictory descents. No, I am not familiar enough with the sources to tell you which is righter."

Note: Notes
Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (118:19).
Stuart's "Royalty for Commoners" (258:37).
The "Dictionary of Royal Lineage" styles him Count of Chalon from 919 and Duke and Count of Burgundy 923-936.

Note: Notes
That she was the dau of THIERRY II and wife of CHILDEBRAND is a "probable" relationship suggested by Moriarity. However, Settipani's "La prehistoire des Capetiens" rejects this in favor of the view that the
mother of CHILDEBRAND was a daughter of THIERRY I.

Note: Notes
Stuart's "Royalty for Commoners" (258:39), calls him Count of Chaunois. Helped to negotiate the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.
"Alan B. Wilson" posted to
soc.genealogy.medieval on 17 May (in part):
Subject: Re: Burgundy - One more try to sum up *
" According to Schwennicke (ed.), Europaische Stammtafeln, ii, 189 [rev. in iii(1)], Manasses, the father of Giselbert, Duke of Burgundy, was son of (not husband of) an unknown daughter of Budwine, Count of Metz.
Moriarty in Plantagenet Ancestry, pp. 255 and 257 mentions very speculatively that it has been suggested that Manasses was the son of Thierry II, Count in the Chaunois.
Stuart in Royalty for Commoners, line 258, seems to have put these two together and married Thierry II to the unnamed daughter of Budwine. This couple is given as the parents of Manasses."
Settipani's "La prehistoire des Capetiens", however, shows the marriage between the Hieronymids and Nibelungen one generation earlier, i.e. that Thierry I married a sister of Budwine, rather than Thierry II marrying a dau. of Budwine.

Note: Notes
Weis' "Ancestral Roots . . ." (144A:18).
The "Dictionary of Royal Lineage" states that he was the illigitimate child of RAINULFE II. He became Count of Poitiers in 902. He became Count of Limousin, Count of Auvergne, and Duke of Aquitaine in 928. This source also states that Ebles married Adele (RIN 1425), dua. of King EDWARD I of England and that WILLIAM III was their son. Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (144A:18), however, does not mention a marriage to Adele and has as WILLIAM's mother Ebles' 2nd wife, EMLIANE. I regard Weis as the more reliable source.
Ebles "Manzer", Count of Poitou and Duke of Aquitaine, was the son of Rainulf II and an unnamed concubine [ES ii,76]. (Moriarty suggests the concubine was possibly an "Ermengarde".)

Note: Notes
Weis' "Ancestral Roots . . ." (144A:15) calls him Count of Auvergne.

Note: Notes
Stuart's "Royalty for Commoners," (167:38).
A niece of Abelard, Archbishop of Tours.

Note: Notes
Stuart's "Royalty for Commoners," (167:39). Does not give parents.
A source I do not recall calls her father Conrad, Count of Paris.

Note: Notes
Per Stuart's "Royalty For Commoners" (344:42), he was called "The Chronicler". His source is Turton's "Plantagenet Ancestry," which has a "?" on the line linking him and his son.
Settipani's "La prehistoire des Capetiens".

Note: Notes
Stuart's "Royalty For Commoners" (311:35), (316:35), citing ES II:2 and Moriarity, 21-22 & 55, refers to him as Arnold I, Count of West Friesland.
leovdpas@@@@iinet.net.au (Leo van de Pas) posted to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L-request@@@@rootsweb.com on 5 Sep 1998
Subject: Arnulf, Count of 'Holland':
. "Arnulf, Count of Holland, died in battle 18 September 993, son of Dirk II and Hildegard of Flanders, married 980 Liutgard of Luxemburg and they are the parents of Dirk III and Siegfried (Sicco). . His year of birth is unknown and it is not certain whether the place of his birth was Gent. He has been mentioned in records from 26 October 970 onwards. He extended his territories southwards but died in battle against the Friesians, 18 September 993."

Note: Notes
Cokayne's "Complete Peerage" , (Aumale, p.351, note d). He built the castle of Aumale, on the Brele, in Normandy.

Note: Notes
From "Ancestors of Paul Bailey MCBRIDE" on the www:
Sheriff of Worcester. / References: [WallopFH].
The "Homer Beers James Genealogy" on the WWW adds:
"Walter de Beauchamp of Elmsley Castle, co. Gloucester, married Emeline Abitot, daughter and heiress of Urso de Abitot, Constable of the castle of Worcester and hereditary sheriff of Worcestershire (who was brother of Robert le Despencer, steward to the Conqueror). He was invested with that sheriffalty by King Henry I., and obtained a grant from the same monarch (to whom he was a steward) of all the lands belonging to Roger de Worcester, with a confirmation of certain lands given to him
by Adelise, widow of his father-in-law, the said Urso de Abitot.
This marriage happened after the Conquest; for at that time the General Survey was made, the name of Beauchamp is not once mentioned as lord of any manor in England. But Urso de Abitot had manors almost in very part of it. He being hereditary sheriff, his office was to keep this part of the new-conquered kingdom in subjection; it was necessary, therefore, that his power should be very great, to enable him to withstand any
neighboring prince inclined to rebel, and that he should have influence in every part of the county. Robert de Abitot, the Conqueror's steward, built Elmsley Castle upon an eminence under Bredon Hill, and dying without issue, the manor and castle descended to his brother, Urso. The hereditary office of sheriff by this marriage descended to the Beauchamps, in which family it continued till the 10th year of King Edward IV, when Richard Nevill, the Earl of Salibury, in right of his wife,
Ann, sister and sole heiress of Henry Beauchamp, Duke and Earl of Warwick, being slain in Barnet Field fighting against the king, lost his office.
Walter de Beauchamp was succeeded, as well in his estates as in the royal stewardship, by his son, William."

Note: Notes
From "Ancestors of Paul Bailey MCBRIDE" on the www:
Daughter of Urso d' ARBITOT Constable of Worcester (-1077) and Adelisa
Married first Walter de BEAUCHAMP Lord Elmley
Married second Walter de MANDEVILLE DE BEAUCHAMP
References: [WallopFH],[EnglishP]

Note: Notes
From "Ancestors of Paul Bailey MCBRIDE" on the www:
Married Matilda TAILBOIS
Children:
1.Walter de BEAUCHAMP Lord Elmley m. Emeline d' ARBITOT
2.Paganus BEAUCHAMP (1070-1157) m. Rohese de VERE (1109-1166)
References: [RoyalAAF],[WallopFH],[CP],[MCS4],[ConverseA]
The "Homer Beers James Genealogy" on the WWW adds:
"The companion in arms of William the Conqueror, obtained large estates in Hertford, Buchingham, and Bedfordshire, and was the founder of the house of Beauchamp.
This Hugh had the following children:
1. Simon de Beauchamp, d.s.p.
2. Payne de Beauchamp, ancestor of the Beauchamps of Bedford, that barony having been conferred upon him by King William Rufus.
3. Walter de Beauchamp. There have been some doubts expressed with regard to the question of his having been the son of Hugh. Sir H. Nicholas stated him to have been "supposed of the same family."
4. Milo de Beauchamp, of Eaton, co. Bedford.
5. Adeline Beauchamp, married Walter Le Espec, Lord of Kirkham and Helmsley, co. York."

Note: Notes
In 1093 he prevented the Earls of Hereford [Roger, son of William FitzOsbern (RIN 1171)] and Norfolk [Ralph de Wader (RIN 1028)] from Joining forces in their famous insurrection against King William II Rufus.
From "Ancestors of Paul Bailey MCBRIDE" on the www:
Constable of Worcester.
b. of Normandy, France
d. AFT 1077
Married Adelisa
Children:
1.Emeline d' ARBITOT m(1) Walter de BEAUCHAMP Lord Elmley
2.(Miss) d' ARBITOT m. Roger MARMION 3rd Lord Scrivelsby (-1130)
References: [WallopFH],[ConverseA]

Note: Notes
Lord of the town and territoty of Abitot.

Note: Given as father of Gruffyd (Griffith) ap Llewelyn on the site http://users.legacyfamilytree.com/USPresidents/1142.htm, but has a different ancestry than Llewelyn ap Einion.

Note: Notes
Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (132C:28), (262:29).
Cokayne's "Complete Peerage" (Derby, p. 191, note c), identifies hin as HENRY's son and ISABEL's father.

Seigneur of Ferriers , St. Hiliare; Lord of Oakham, Rutland.

Note: Notes
Per Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . . " (39:27), (132B:27), (132C:27), he was Lord of Tong, Salop and Ashby, Leicestershire.

Note: Notes
Per Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (246B:27), (246C:27), he was Earl of Essex by right of his first wife and was Justiciar of England 1198-1213.
Also mentioned (72:29), (97:27).
Cokayne's "Complete Peerage" (Essex, pp. 122-125). He was a Justice of the Forest 1185-1189, sheriff at various times of of Northants, Essex, Herts, Staffordshire, Yorkshire, Westmoreland, Bedford, and Bucks. In 1198 he defeated the Welsh at Castle Maud. Along with Archbishop Hubert and WILLIAM MARSHAL, EARL OF PEMBROKE (RIN 806), he
persuaded the magnates to swear fealty to KING JOHN (RIN 785).

"Todd A. Farmerie" posted to the
soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup on 2 Jul 1996 :
Subject: MANDEVILLE/Earldom of Essex descent
The two most recent editions of the Weis books (MCS4 and ARCC7) show Geoffrey Fitz Piers, Earl of Essex as son of Maud de Mandeville, daughter of Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex. I suspect that the derivation of this claim is a misreading of a table in CP, vol. 5 (Essex), where the parents of Fitz Piers, Piers and Maud (as well as Maud's other husband), are placed under the horizontal line connecting the children of Geoffrey de Mandeville, but without a verticle connection to that line. (In other words, they were tucked in there for the sake of spacial layout, without intending to suggest a relationship.)
The accepted and documented descent of the Earldom of Essex to Geoffrey Fitz Piers runs through his first wife, Beatrice de Say, who was granddaughter of Beatrice, sister of Geoffrey de Mandeville. That this descent was the determining factor in the grant of Essex to Geoffrey Fitz Piers can be seen from the passing of Essex to de Bohun following the death of the sons of Geoffrey Fitz Piers and Beatrice de Say, bypassing Geoffrey's heir male, John Fitz Geoffrey, son by his second wife Avelina de Clare. Were there a "better" descent from Mandeville through the mother of Geoffrey Fitz Piers, then John Fitz Geoffrey surely would have been the heir. Based on this, I do not think Maud, mother of Geoffrey Fitz Piers could have been daughter of Geoffrey de Mandeville.

Note: Notes
Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (98A:24).
Per Cockayne's "Complete Peerage", he succeeded to his father's lands in 1102. In 1103 he was in alliance with his father's old nemesis, ROBERT DE BEAUMONT, Count of Meulan (RIN 1031). Ralph made the trip to England to receive his father's English lands from King HENRY I (RIN 789).
In 1104 he returned to Normandy with, and as an ardent supporter of, King HENRY. He participated in the battle of Tinchebrai in 1106. When rebellion broke out in Normandy in 1119, Ralph remained loyal to King HENRY. Ralph is mentioned several times as being in the King HENRY's
company.

Note: Notes
Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (98A:24).
He was at DUKE WILLIAM's (RIN 798) court in 1050 and in 1054 he took part in his victory over the French at Mortremer. He was sent by DUKE WILLIAM to alarm KING HENRY I of France (RIN 1198) with the news. About 1060 Ralph, along with HUGH DE GRANDMESNIL (RIN 1026) and Ernald d'Echauffer, were banished and deprived of their lands by DUKE WILLIAM. In revenge, Ralph and Ernald made incursions into Normandy and burned the town of St. Evroul; but in 1063 THE DUKE recalled them and restored their lands. Ralph was one of DUKE WILLIAM's inner council
at the time of the invasion of England and he faught at the Battle of Hastings in 1066.
Cokayne, in his "Complete Peerage", states that Ralph's estates, given to him by WILLIAM THE CONQUERER sometime between 1066 and the Domesday survey of 1086, included holdings in the counties of Berks, Essex, Gloucester, Hereford, Herts, Norfolk, and Worcester, with the
castle of Clifford. This would certainly seem to make him the
grandfather of MARGARET, who married WALTER DE CLIFFORD. The "caput" of his barony was at Flamstead, Herts. Following the death of KING WILLIAM in 1087, Ralph was one of the Norman nobles who expelled the royal garrisons from their castles. In 1088 he served under Duke Robert in the war against Maine.
As the result of a feud between is wife, ISABEL, and ISABEL's sister-in law, Hawise, Hawise's husband (ISABEL's brother), William Count of Evreux, attacked Ralph. Ralph appealed in vain to the Duke of Normandy for help. He then appealed directly to King William Rufus, who ordered his adherents in Normandy to Ralph's aid. The Count of Evreux beseiged
Conches, but was defeated by Ralph's forces. After three years of fighting a peace was concluded. When King William Rufus and his brother, the Duke of Normandy finally made peace in 1091, Ralph's lands were among those given from the Duke to the King. Thereafter, Ralph was one of the king's staunchest supporters.
After the death of King William Rufus, in 1100, Ralph joined forces with the Count of Evreux to invade the lands of ROBERT DE BEAUMONT, COUNT OF MEULAN (RIN 1031). This was in revenge for previous political back-stabbing.

Note: Notes
Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (108:23).
T.N. Bisson's, "The Mediaval Crown of Aragon", chart on page 198. He ruled from 992 to 1017.

Stuart's "Royalty For Commoners" (54:34).

Todd A. Farmerie reviews the article "Autour de Roger de Vieux: les
alliances matrimoniales des comtes de Carcassonne" from the Annales
du Midi, 108:165-187, by Thierry Stasser in a 16 July 1998 posting to
GEN-MEDIEVAL (subject: Carcassonne (Toulouse and Rouergue)). Farmerie
thinks this is the best work done to date with these families. Per
Farmerie, Stasser's article verifies this generation.

Note: Notes
With his father, he was given partial custody of the castle of Tillieres in 1013/14. He was a haughty and powerful man - the banner brearer of all Normandy. He founded the abbey of Conches in 1035. While Duke ROBERT (RIN 1323) was away on pilgrimage, Roger went to Spain and had a distinguished career fighting the infidel there. While in Spain, he married [Etienette of Barcelona according to Cokayne's "Complete
Peerage", but later research, as per below, indicates ADELAIDE OF BARCELONA], but left her behind when, due to the treachary of some of the natives, he had to leave Spain. When he returned to Normandy, he was furious to learn that the boy WILLIAM (RIN 798) has succeeded his father as Duke, declaring that a bastard ought not rule over him and other Normans. Roger immediately rebelled, ravaging the lands of his neighbors - particulary those of HUMPHREY DE VIELLES (RIN 1036). HUMPHREY's son, ROGER DE BEAUMONT (RIN 1033) killed Roger and two of
his sons in battle in 1038/9.
There has long been controversy regarding Roger's Wife/wives as explained in the following notes.

According to Schwennicke's Europaische Stammtafeln Band III, teilband 4, page 705 Roger de Conches fathered all his children by his first wife NN of Barcelona, daughter of Ramon Borrell, Count of Barcelona, and Ermesinde de Carcassonne.

Cockayne's "Complete Peerage" (STAFFORD, p.168) identifies him as the father of ROBERT DE STAFFORD.

---------------------------------------------
Todd A. Farmerie posted to the soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup on 6 Dec 1995 :
Evans addressed this, in part, in an article (I think in the Genealogists Magazine) on Todeny of Belvoir. The CP account of the Barcelona family is off. The true known relationships are as follows:

. Roger of Borrell
. Bigorre of Barcelona
. | |
. |_________________ |
. | | |
. Bernard Roger Ermesende=Ramon Borrell
. | |
. | |___________
. | |
|
. | |
|
. Estephania Berenguer Ramon I Adelaide
. =Garcia Sanchez =Sancha Sanchez ?=Roger de Toni
. |
. |
. Ramon Berenguer I

Thus the following points can be made. Stephanie is a red herring. She was not daughter of Countess Ermesende, nor was she sister of Ramon Berenguer. Any chronological argument involving her can be rejected. Second, since Ermesende was grandmother of Ramon Berenguer, the wife
could not have been both daughter of one and sister of the other. Either the chronicler was in error, confusing Berenguer Ramon with his son Ramon Berenguer, or there were two marriages involved, the solution proposed by Evans. The use by the Todeni of Belvoir family of the name Berenger de Todeni (also known as Berenger Hispina, a nickname I have
seen elsewhere translated, I don't know how accurately, as "of Spain") suggested to Evans that this line descended from a Barcelona marriage, and he proposed that Roger de Toni married Adelaide, daughter of Ramon Borrell and Ermesende, while a kinsman, married her niece (perhaps
named Stephanie) sister of Ramon Berenguer. (I don't have the reference handy, so I may have this confused in detail.) Note that any attempt to number the early Counts of Barcelona or Kings of Navarre will end in frustration. I have seen three different numbering systems for Barcelona, and I have seen this Garcia Sanchez called anything from III-V.

That is the long version. The short version is that this is one that still remains to be worked out.
-------------------------------------------------
"Todd A. Farmerie" posted to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@@@@rootsweb.com on 5 Jan 1999
Subject: Re: MOTHER OF ADELIZA (ALICE) de TOENI:
. "This remains difficult. (The following is from memory, but should give you some idea of the problem.) Roger was exiled, and ended up "crusading" in and around Barcelona. Sources from that area report that he married a (unnamed) daughter of the countess of Barcelona (widow of Ramon Borrell). Norman sources only show him married to a Godeheut, who as his widow remarried. What gives then? Was Adele his first wife and Godeheut his second? Was Godeheut the norman name for the Barcelona princess? Is the Barcelona search wrong in stating that they married? Helpful in solving the question would appear to be Berenger
Hispina de Toeny. I think it safe to conclude that he owed his name to this marriage (and I have often wondered if Hispina wasn't a garbled 'of Spain'). Unfortunately, his parentage is also in question. A recent account of the Tosny family showed him as son of Roger and Adelaide, but Evans, in his paper of Todeny de Belvoir showed him as belonging to
that branch, and suggested that a second Toeny married down south. Keats-Rohan seems to accept the marriage, and that Adelaide was mother of Roger's children, but I will have to go back and reread the details to be more precise on her views."

Note: Notes
Weis' "Ancestral Roots" (148:22-23), notes that it has not been definitely established that Judith was the daughter of LAMBERT and/or ADELAIDE. Also mentioned (98A:23). (130:25) notes the possibility that she was dau. of ENGUERRAND and ADELIZE.
reedpcgen@@@@aol.com (Reedpcgen) posted to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@@@@rootsweb.com on16 Mar 1999
Subject: Re: Elizabeth of York, et varia:
. "Stapleton, though with some hesitation, accepted the marriage [of Judith to Lambert] and this paternity for Judith (Magn. Rot. Scacc. Norm. ii, xxxi, note (i)), although he had earlier (Archaeologia xxvi (1836), pp. 350f.) taken both Adelaide's daughters, Adelaide the younger and Judith, to be the children of Enguerrand II of Ponthieu. We support his earlier view for the following reasons:
. (1) Lambert of Lens was killed at the siege of Lille in July-August 1054; yet the endowment published by Stapleton in Archaeologia shows that Adelaide was still residing, at some time after the beginning of 1055, at Aumale, Enguerrand's maternal inheritance, of which Adelaide
the younger was the heiress.
. (2) Adelaide the elder resided long enough in Aumale to be commonly described in later chronicles as 'comitissa de Albamarla' (despite her marriage at some time before 1070 to Odo of Champagne); she is nowhere called 'comitissa Lensensis'.
. (3) While Judith is associated with her mother and sister in the Aumale endowment, there is no mention of Lambert.
. (4) Lambert's lands passed to his older brother, Eustace II of Boulogne, and none were assigned to Judith, although an heiress normally inherited at least a portion of her father's property (as Adelaide the younger did), if not the whole (as Agnes/Anna of Ponthieu and Mathilda of Boulogne
did)."

Note: Notes
Weis" "Ancestral Roots. . ." (39:21), (118:20). Called grisgonelle, or
"Greygown". ES iii, 49; ii, 189 [rev. in iii(1)]; and iii, 116and 433.

His second wife [Adelaide of Burgundy] was the mother of his first wife [Adela of Troyes].

Note: King John gave Thomas the manors of Wellington and Shawbury, Salop on Nov 3, 1212 and officially acknowledged lands which Thomas had acquired at Montgomery with the manor of Badmondisfield, Suffolk from Stephen de Stanton and Robert his son on Jan 18 1214/5.
--Gibbs, Hon. Vicary, ed., The Complete Peerage of England and Scotland Ireland Great Britain and the United Kingdom, (London, ENG, The St. Catherine Press, c1926).

Note: This Thomas could be the Thomas Leigh who was the son of Agnes Leigh and Richard de Lymm who had a son Thomas that assumed the surname of Leigh from his mother. He was the ancestor of the Leigh's of West Hall. Agnes's father was Richard de Leigh of High Leigh. Richard's great-grandfather was Hamon de Leigh, Lord of the Moiety of Co. Chester who lived during the time of Henry II (sometime from 1154-1189). (F-399)
--The Coate-Dudick Ancestrees. http://ancestrees.com/pedigree/2809.htm

Note: Notes
Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (69:28) identifies her as ROGER's wife, but does not comment as to her parentage.
The following three sources, among others, give the identity of ROGER BIGOD's wife as Isabel de Warenne, dau. of HAMELIN PLANTAGENET (RIN 1696) and ISABEL DE WARENNE (RIN 1670):
Magna Charta Barons and their American Descendants (by Charles H. Browning)
Synopsis of the Peerage of England (1825) by Nicholas Harris
Dugdales, Banks and Collins Extinct Peerages.

Cokayne's "Complete Peerage" In the article for ROGER BIGOD, Earl of Norfolk, on p. 589, has the statement, "He m. Ida, whose parentage is not known." Cokayne does not even venture a guess or mention any possible identities for Ida's parents. Cockayne is, by far, the more reliable source.

"Todd A. Farmerie" posted to soc.genealogy.medieval
on 04 Jan 1997:
Subject: Re: Roger Bigod m.Isabel Plantagenet?
"FWIW, Roberts reports that there is an unpublished work identifying this Ida as the "Countess Ida" mother of William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, Henry II's bastard. If this is true, then she couldn't be daughter of Hamelin, or else Henry's seduction or rape of his own niece would surely have drawn comment from contemporary chroniclers."

There is a much discussed document, from The Bradenstoke Cartulary, in which WILLIAM LONGSWORD refers to his mother as "the Countess Ida". A post which boils the discossion down to its essence follows:
. . . On 27 Feb 1998 tcain@@@@dircon.co.uk (Tom Cain) posted to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@@@@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Countess Ida and the Bradenstoke Cartulary:
. . . "On balance, it is an acceptable interpretation of the evidence that 'Comitisse Ida' was William Longsword's mother. The further evidence that Ida Bigod was one of Henry II's favoured mistresses puts her on the same side of the blanket as William. The scales are further tipped that way by Todd's [Todd Farmerie] comments about William's guardianship of Roger Bigod when his father (and therefore William's half-brother) died. This establishes an 'prima facia' case that William had some kin-relationship to the Bigods. It is an entirely acceptable hypothesis, and will do until something better comes along. Under Scottish criminal law, this case would be found as 'Not Proven' - and returned to the investigators until more evidence could be found ".

If this Ida was the mother of WILLIAM LONGSWORD, that would make her identical to KING HENRY II's unidentified mistress (RIN 5264). More discussion on Ida's possible identity:
. . . reedpcgen@@@@aol.com (Reedpcgen) posted to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@@@@rootsweb.com on 27 Feb 1998
Subject: Re: Countess Ida and the Bradenstoke Cartulary:
. . . "Actually, no. It is always intriguing to see familial names when you are looking for them, but the vast majority of guardianships were granted to people of no immediate or near relation (at least within two or three generations). They frequently became related in the next generation because the person would acquire the wardship and marriage of an heir in order to marry them to one of their own children, or at least profit by an arranged marriage. Also, some income from the ward's lands were also generally part of the package. In the case of Roger le Bigod
and William Longespee, however, the grant of guardianship seems to be much more motivated by political expediency. There is no actual reason to assume a blood relationship between the two (though there may have been):
. . . Roger le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk 1189-1221, was husband of only one known wife, named Ida. They were parents of Hugh le Bigod, Earl 1221-1125. It was Hugh's son (not Roger's) that is the minor in question. Roger le Bigod, b. 1212 or 1213, was a minor at his father's death.
. . . William Longespee was given the marriage of Ela/Isabel of Salisbury, with the Earldom, by King Richard I in 1196. She was born ca. 1191 (or 1187). William was a close associate and member of the Royal household. He was with Richard in Normandy 1196-8, present at John's coronation 27 May 1199, and according to CP 11:379, note h (citing Hovendon, vol. iv, p. 13, Rot. Chartarum and Cartae Antiquae), William was "during the reign, till Midsummer 1216, ...constantly with the King [John] or occupied with the King's business." Earl William died 7 March
1225/6 in the tenth year of Henry III's reign (acceded 19 Oct. 1216).
. . . The elder Roger le Bigod had joined the Barons against King John in their ultimatum from Stamford with his son Hugh and were among the 25 sureties elected to maintain Magna Charta against King John. William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, was among the list of nobles named in the preamble of that document as advisors to the king. Hmmmm. (Hugh le Bigod had already married Maud, daughter of William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, chief of the advisors, though, so families were not entirely
split along party lines.)
. . . Hugh le Bigod did not die until 1225, and the elder Roger lived on until 1221. But Hugh's heir, Roger, fell into the King's hands in 1216. It is at THAT time that his custody (not guardianship, in the sense of wardship) was granted to William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, a close and loyal associate (and brother) of King John. It just happened that the heir was still a minor when his father and grandfather died. I conclude from this that there is no evidence from this event alone of blood relationship--merely that William was one of John's most trusted allies (in spite of John's personal habits). (Roger's wardship was granted to King William "the Lion" in Oct. 1226, after Earl William's death, but remember that Roger had already married the King's daughter, so family interests were just being cared for.)
. . . So examining the facts in context, there is no indication of bloodship from the lone item of the guardianship. We have to look elsewhere.
. . . Henry II had many French connections (his father was Geoffrey of Anjou and Maine, his wife was Eleanor of Aquitaine, formerly wife of King Louis VII, his eldest son William was born in Normandy, his heir young Henry married Louis' daughter Margaret, he died at Chinon, and even King John had been married to Isabella of Angouleme), let alone the amount of time he spent on the Continent.
. . . Henry was one of the most dashing and succesful warriors of his time, and certainly had an eye for the ladies. So I don't see how we can discount a possible liason with the Countess of Boulogne at this point. . . . I thought it was interesting that Countess Ida of Norfolk was simply called "Ida uxoris Meae" in one charter, but 'Countess Ida' in another:
CP 9:585, note b, citing [William] Dugdale, Mon[asticon Anglicanum],
4:102: Ego Rogerus Bigot, comes Norfolchiae, concessi et hac praesenti carta mea confirmavi Deo et ecclesiae beatae Mariae de Colne [etc.] ... et cum capella de Herewyche, quam ego assensu eorum fundavi, pro salute animae meae et comitis Hugonis fratris [sic, recte patris] mei [see, even undisputedly valid charters have their mistakes], et comitissae Julianae
matris meae, et Idae uxoris meae....
. . . CP 9:586, note f, citing Anc[ient] Deed A 14361: Again he granted tithes of his demesne of Halvergate to Carlow Priory for the souls of his father Earl Hugh and his mother the Countess Juliane, his wife the Countess Ida, and his son William...." (But since Calendar of Ancient Deeds is rendered in English, I cannot give the original Latin.)
. . . At any rate, CP was not able to identify the parentage of Countess Ida of Norfolk. Is anyone aware that a discovery of her parentage has since been made?"

The same poster latyer added:
. . . reedpcgen@@@@aol.com (Reedpcgen) posted to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@@@@rootsweb.com on 28 Feb 1998
Subject: Countess Ida of Boulogne:
. . . "We need to also remember that Ida of Boulogne was one of two daughters (the couple had no surviving sons) of Mary, Countess of Boulogne (b. ca. 1136-1182) and her husband Matthew of Alsace, Count of Boulogne in right of his wife. Mary was daughter of King Stephen of England. Stephen had married Matilda, only daughter and heiress of Eustace III, Count of Boulogne, by Mary of Scotland. Her sister was (first) wife of Henry I of England. The Empress Matilda had retired to Normandy by 1152, and was succeeded in her quest for the throne of England by her son the young Henry [II (b. 1133)].
. . . J. Horace Round, in his _Studies in Peerage and Family History_, wrote an article on the English holdings of the Counts of Boulogne which he followed into the reign of King John.
. . . So Countess Ida of Boulogne had close royal ties by blood to Henry II, and her family had holdings in England. She was an heiress in her own right (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have ES here).
. . . Boulogne was very close to the French lands Henry II inherited by right of birth. It would be almost inconceivable that Ida and Henry did not meet, or know each other, and this countess would be much more the type of girl Henry would have gone for. Any issue she had would be great-grandson of King Stephen. No wonder she had several husbands and was in court circles. She may have been Henry's match (remember that
Eleanor was a woman with a similarprofile). "

Note: BIGOD, HUGH, first Earl of Norfolk (d. 1176 or 1177), was the second son of Roger Bigod, the founder of the house in England after the Conquest. The origin of the name is quite uncertain. The French called the Normans 'bigoz e draschiers' (Rom. de Rou, iii. 4780) in contempt. The second word is said to mean beer-drinkers; the other has been explained as a nickname derived from the oath 'bi got' commonly used by the early Normans. But whether the family name Bigod had any connection with this term or not, it is evident that in England in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries it was punned upon in words of profane swear!ng (Wright's Political Songs, pp. 67, 68; Hemingburgh's Chronicle, ii. 121).

The first person who, bearing the name of Bigod or Bigot, appears in history is Robert le Bigod, a poor knight, who gained the favour of William, duke of Normandy, by discovering to him the intended treachery of William, count of Mortain. This Robert may have been the father of Roger, and one or the other, or both, may have been present at the battle of Hastings. In the 'Roman de Rou,' iii. 8571-82, the ancestor of Hugh Bigod (perhaps the above Robert) is named as holding lands at Malitot, Loges, and Chanon in Normandy, and as serving the duke in his household as one of his seneschals. He was small of body, but brave and bold, and assaulted the English gallantly. Roger Bigod is not traced in English records before 1079, but by this time he may have been endowed with the forfeited estates of Ralph de Guader, earl of Norfolk, whose downfall took place in 1074. In Domesday he appears as holding six lordships in Essex, and 117 in Suffolk. From Henry I he received the gift of Framlingham, which became the principal stronghold of him and his descendants. He likewise held the office of king's dapifer, or steward, under William Rufus and Henry I. He died in 1107, and was succeeded by his eldest son, William, who, however (26 Nov. 1120), was drowned in the wreck of the White Ship. Roger's second son, Hugh, thus entered into possession of the estates.

At the time of his father's death, whom he survived some seventy years, Hugh must have been quite a young child. Little is heard of him at first, no doubt on account of his youth, but he appears as king's dapifer in 1123, and before that date he was constable of Norwich Castle and governor of the city down to 1122, when it obtained a charter from the crown. Passing the best years of his manhood in the distractions of the civil wars of Stephen and Matilda, when men's oaths of fealty sat lightly on their consciences, he appears to have surpassed his fellows in acts of desertion and treachery, and to have been never more in his element than when in rebellion. His first prominent action in history was on the death of Henry I in 1135, when he is said to have hastened to England, and to have sworn to Archbishop William Corbois that the dying king, on some quarrel with his daughter Matilda, had disinherited her, and named Stephen of Blois h!s successor. Stephen's prompt arrival in England settled the matter, and the wavering prelate placed the crown on his head. Hugh's reward was the earldom of Norfolk. The new king's energy at first kept his followers together, but before Whitsuntide in the next year Stephen was stricken with sickness, a lethargy fastened on him, and the report of his death was quickly spread abroad. A rising of the turbulent barons necessarily followed, and Bigod was the first to take up arms. He seized and held Norwich; but Stephen, quicky recovering, laid siege to the city, and Hugh was compelled to surrender. Acting with unusual clemency, Stephen spared the traitor, who for a short time remained faithful. But in 1140 he is said to have declared for the empress, and to have stood a siege in his castle of Bungay; yet in the next year he is in the ranks of Stephen's army which fought the disastrous battle of Lincoln. In the few years which followed, while the war dragged on, and Stephen's time was fully occupied in subduing the so-called adherents of the empress, who were really fighting for their own hand, the Earl of Norfolk probably remained within his own domains, consolidating his power, and fortifying his castles, although in 1143-4 he is reported to have been concerned in the rising of Geoffrey de Mandeville. The quarrel between the king and Archbishop Theobald in 1148 gave the next occasion for Hugh to come forward; he this time sided with the archbishop, and received him in his castle of Framlingham, but joined with others in effecting a reconciliation. Five years later, in 1153, when Henry of Anjou landed to assert his claim to the throne, Bigod threw in his lot with the rising power, and held out in Ipswich against Stephen's forces, while Henry, on the other side, laid siege to Stamford. Both places fell, but in the critical state of his fortunes Stephen was in no position to punish the rebel. Negotiations were also going on between the two parties, and Hugh again escaped.

On Henry's accession in December 1154, Bigod at once received a confirmation of his earldom and stewardship by charter issued apparently in January of the next year. The first years of the new reign were spent in restoring order to the shattered kingdom, and in breaking the power of the independent barons. It was scarcely to be expected that Hugh should rest quiet. He showed signs of resistance, but was at once put down. In 1157 Henry marched into the eastern counties and received the earl's submission. After this Hugh appears but little in the chronicles for some time; only in 1109 he is named among those who had been excommunicated by Becket. This, however, was in consequence of his retention of lands belonging to the monastery of Pentney in Norfolk. In 1173 the revolt of the young crowned prince Henry against his father, and the league of the English barons with the kings of France and Scotland in his favour, gave the Earl of Norfolk another opportunity for rebellion. He at once became a moving spirit in the cause, eager to revive the feudal power which Henry had curtailed. The honour of Eye and the custody of Norwich Castle were promised by the young prince as his reward. But the king's energy and good fortune were equal to the occasion. While he held in check his rebel vassals in France, the loyal barons in England defeated his enemies here. Robert de Beaumont, earl of Leices[er (d. 1190) [q. v.], landing at Walton, in Suffolk, on 29 Sept. 1173, had marched to Framlingham and joined forces with Hugh. Together they besieged and took, 13 Oct., the castle of Hagenet in Suffolk, held by Randal de Broc for the crown. But Leicester, setting out from Framlingham, was defeated and taken prisoner at Fornham St. Genevieve, near Bury, by the justiciar, Richard de Lucy, and other barons, who then turned their arms against Earl Hugh. Not strong enough to fight, he opened negotiations with his assailants, and, it is said, bought them off, at the same time securing for the Flemings in his service a safe passage home. In the next year, however, he was again in the field, with the aid of the troops of Philip of Flanders, and laid siege to Norwich, which he took by assault and burned. But Henry returned to England in the summer, and straightway marched into the eastern counties; and when Hugh heard that the king had already destroyed his castle of Walton, and was approaching Framlingham, he hastened to make his submission at Laleham on 25 July, surrendering his castles, which were afterwards dismantled, and paying a fine. After these events Hugh Bigod ceases to appear in history. His death is briefly recorded under the year 1177, and is generally mentioned as occurring in the Holy Land, whither he had ac.companicd Philip of Flanders on a pilgrimage. It is to be observed, however, that on 1 March of that year his son Roger appealed to the king on a dispute with his stepmother, Hugh being then dead, and that the date of his death is fixed 'ante caput jejunii,' i.e. before 9 March. If, then, he died in Palestine, his death must have taken place in the preceding year, 1176, to allow time for the arrival of the news in England. Henry took advantage of Roger's appeal to seize upon the late earl's treasure. Besides the vast estates which he inherited, Hugh Bigod was in receipt of the third penny levied in the county of Norfolk. He was twice married, his first wife being Juliana, sister of Alberic de Vere, earl of Oxford, by whom he had a son, Roger, d. 1221 [q.v.], his successor; and his second, Gundreda, who after his death was married to Roger de Glanville.

[Chronicles of Henry of Huntingdon, Rog. de Hoveden, Rad. de Diceto, Benedict of Peterborough, Gervase of Canterbury (Rolls Series, passim); Dugdale's Baronage, i.123; Blomfields's Hist. of Norfolk, iii, 24 seq.; Stubbs's Constitutional History and Early Plantagenets; Eyton's Itinerary of Henry II; Additional MS. 31939 (Eyton's Pedigrees) f. 129.] E.M.T.

Note: Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (246D:26).
Came to England at the time of the Norman conquest.

"Todd A. Farmerie" posted to GEN-MEDIEVAL@@@@rootsweb.com on 2 Dec 1997 (in part):
Subject: Aubigny:
"Roger Bigod, prob. son of an earlier Robert Bigod, d. 1107. He had
married twice, first to Adelaide _____, and second to Alice de Todeni, eventual heiress of Belvoir. He had by Adelaide: William, who appears to have been a minor at his father's death, and himself dsp 1120. Gunner, m. Robert of Essex Cecily, m. William d'Aubigny Brito, who d. 1143-6 Maud, m. William d'Aubigny Pincerna, who d. 1139 He had by Alice de Todeni: Hugh, who may have been a minor at his brother's death. He d. 1177. Refs: Anglo Norman Studies xvii: 223-42 (The Motives and Politics of the Bigod Family c. 1066-1177)."

____

A relatively poor man of no importance in pre-invasion Normandy, Roger Bigod appears to have grown in wealth, prominence and power after 1066 as a result of his conduct in England rather than from any great feat of bravery at Hastings. His estate largely comprised many small and scattered land-holdings, but together they formed a considerable asset. Some of these possessions were fairly dubious, supposedly given by the king but not always with verifiable claims, but as a powerful sheriff he would have been fairly untouchable (see N. Orbell p. 13-14). Misuses of power such as the taking of land and charging high rents by sheriffs was not uncommon.

Pre1066 Ipswich governed by Queen Edith & Earl Gyrth.

1069 (With Robert Malet & Ralph de Gael, Earl of Norfolk) defeated Sweyn of Denmark near Ipswich.
1070 Roger held Earsham (near Bungay) in Norfolk, and gained some of the archbishop�s under-tenants when he was deposed in 1070.
1075 Roger made sheriff of Ipswich on behalf of William I (may have been earlier); he gained some more lands when the Earl of Norfolk rebelled and fled the country.
1086 Roger was by now sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk; the Domesday survey records him as holding 6 lordships in Essex, 117 in Suffolk and 187 in Norfolk.
1087 William I died; Roger joined a rebellion against his son William II in favour of Robert, Duke of Normandy, supporting the reunification of England and Normandy. He got a bad write up from the Peterborough Chronicler (Anglo � Saxon Chronicle E, 1087/8) (N. Orbell, 15) but luckily William II was kind to the rebels. Roger probably lost his lands.
1091 Roger probably got lands back when William II and Robert, Duke of Normandy, were reconciled. He appears to have remained sheriff and steward throughout. William, bishop of Thetford, died. Herbert de Losinga purchased see from Ranulf Flambard for 1900 L (a slightly dodgy deal).
1094 de Losinga went to Rome, resigned his office, received absolution and was reinstated by Pope Urban II, on condition that the see be moved to Norwich. St. Mary the Great buildings remained under patronage of Arfast�s sons.
1095 Roger Bigot and other barons examined, defined and surveyed the land.
1096 The first stone for Norwich cathedral was laid.
1100 Roger attended Henry I�s coronation and was summoned to his councils.
1101 Roger was one of five to remain loyal to Henry I in the face of an attempt to replace him with Robert, Duke of Normandy. Roger was rewarded for his loyalty with forfeited lands, notably the lordship of Framlingham and the castle.
1102 Bungay was given to Roger.
1103 Roger Bigot bought rights to St. Mary the Great off Arfast�s sons.
1107 . Roger died

Biography courtesy of http://www.thetgram.norfolk.sch.uk/Time_Team/roger.htm

Note: Notes
Per Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (246B:27), (246C:27), he was Earl of Essex by right of his first wife and was Justiciar of England 1198-1213.
Also mentioned (72:29), (97:27).
Cokayne's "Complete Peerage" (Essex, pp. 122-125). He was a Justice of the Forest 1185-1189, sheriff at various times of of Northants, Essex, Herts, Staffordshire, Yorkshire, Westmoreland, Bedford, and Bucks. In 1198 he defeated the Welsh at Castle Maud. Along with Archbishop Hubert and WILLIAM MARSHAL, EARL OF PEMBROKE (RIN 806), he persuaded the magnates to swear fealty to KING JOHN (RIN 785).

"Todd A. Farmerie" posted to the
soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup on 2 Jul 1996 :
Subject: MANDEVILLE/Earldom of Essex descent
The two most recent editions of the Weis books (MCS4 and ARCC7) show Geoffrey Fitz Piers, Earl of Essex as son of Maud de Mandeville, daughter of Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex. I suspect that the derivation of this claim is a misreading of a table in CP, vol. 5 (Essex), where the parents of Fitz Piers, Piers and Maud (as well as Maud's other husband), are placed under the horizontal line connecting the children of Geoffrey de Mandeville, but without a verticle connection to that line. (In
other words, they were tucked in there for the sake of spacial layout, without intending to suggest a relationship.)
The accepted and documented descent of the Earldom of Essex to
Geoffrey Fitz Piers runs through his first wife, Beatrice de Say, who was granddaughter of Beatrice, sister of Geoffrey de Mandeville. That this descent was the determining factor in the grant of Essex to Geoffrey Fitz Piers can be seen from the passing of Essex to de Bohun following the death of the sons of Geoffrey Fitz Piers and Beatrice de Say, bypassing Geoffrey's heir male, John Fitz Geoffrey, son by his second wife Avelina de Clare. Were there a "better" descent from Mandeville through the mother of Geoffrey Fitz Piers, then John Fitz Geoffrey surely would have been the heir. Based on this, I do not think Maud, mother of Geoffrey Fitz Piers could have been daughter of Geoffrey de Mandeville.

Note: Notes
Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (97:27).
Cokayne's "Complete Peerage" (Essex, pp. 121-123). She was eventually found to be the the closest relative to the last Earl of Essex, which allowed her husband, GEOFFREY FITZPIERS, to acceeded to that earldom.

Note: Notes
Weis' "Ancestral Roots . . ." (246C:27) calls her Maud "deMandeville" . (246B:27) refers to her as "lady of Costow, co. Wilts." However, see the notes for her son GEOFFREY, which refutes her connection to the Mandevilles.
Cokayne's "Complete Peerage" (Essex, p.122), refers to her merely as Maud, giving no parents for her.

Note: Notes
Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (97:27).
Cokayne's "Complete Peerage", (Essex, p.120). His daughter, BEATRICE, was eventually found to be the the closest relative to the last Earl of Essex, which allowed her husband, GEOFFREY FITZPIERS, to acceeded to that earldom.

Note: Notes
Cokayne's "Comp[lete Peerage", (Essex , p.120). He was slain at the siege
of Burwell Castle in 1144, where his brother-in-law, Geoffrey de
Mandeville (RIN 844) was also slain.

Note: Notes
Cokayne's "Complete Peerage", (Essex, pp.120-121). She was the heir to the Earldom of Essex upon the childless death of her nephew William de Mandeville (RIN 8178*). She was of great age, her eldest son, WILLIAM, having predeceased her12 years earlier. Her only surviving son, Geoffrey de Say, was allowed to occupy her place, but he failed to pay the 7000 marks fine for the succession and was dissiezed. Then the husband of Beatrice's granddaughter, also named BEATRICE (DE SAY), GEOFFREY FITZPIERS, was allowed to inherit the earldom.

Note: Notes
Cokayne's "Complete Peerage" (Essex, pp. 113-114), says of William's wife: "(it is said, but probably erroneously) Margaret, da. and h. of Eoun de Rie, Dapifer, of Colchester, Essex.

Note: Notes
Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (98:28).
Per Cockayne's "Complete Peerage", he presumably suppported KING JOHN during the civil war as the JOHN granted him lands confiscated from some of the rebels; but soon afterwards he must have joined the rebellious barons as JOHN confiscated some of his lands, including Flamstead. KING HENRY III gave him the manor of Newport, Essex and gave him the custody of Maud Castle. In 1233 he was appointed one of the generals of the Poitevin mercenaries in the Welsh Marches against William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke (RIN 3109) and LLEWELYN THE GREAT (RIN 1084). He took the cross in 1239 and set out for the Holy Land, but died at sea enroute.
Ralph had 3 sons that we know of:
1.) Firstborn son, name unknown, who d. without issue befor his father.
2.) Roger, his heir.
3.) Ralph, who (or his son) may have been the Ralph de Toni of Kirtling & Necton, who, with Clarice, his wife, was living 1305/6.

Note: Notes
Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (98:28).
Per Cockayne's "Complete Peerage" (Ralph de Toeni VI), her father granted to her and her husband in free mariage the manors of Britford, Wilts, and Yarkhill, co. Hereford. Her husband Ralph, died in 1239. In 1247 she was granted custody of Maud Castle, until 1251, when it was given to HUMPHREY DE BOHUN, EARL OF HEREFORD & ESSEX (RIN 3635) to hold until Ralph's & Petronilla's son and heir Roger, came of age. In 1256 Petronilla m. William de St. Omer. Petronilla was still alive in 1288.

Note: Notes
Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (177A:7), (177B:7).
Cockayne's "Complete Peerage" XI:110, says he was probably father of
the wife of Meiler.

From --- W E Wightman, *The Lacy Family in England and Normandy, 1066-1194*, Oxford (Clarendon Press) 1966, pp. 190-191:
"Much more is known of the actions of Hugh II than of any previous member of the family. He paid no scutage in 1164-5, so that he was probably present in person on the campaign of 1165 from Shrewsbury into North Wales. He was in Ireland with the king from October 1171, and remained there after the king returned in April 1172. He was back in England by 29 December 1172, when he distinguished himself at the first public festival of St. Thomas at Canterbury. The archbishop was carried away by the occasion and expressed himself rather too strongly, only to
be rebuked firmly by Hugh II. In the summer of 1173 he was in Normandy helping to quell the rising, and with Hugh de Beauchamp held the castle of Verneuil while it was being besieged by Louis VII in July. He spent some time during the year in Ireland, where he had acquired the old kingdom of Meath, so that from now onwards he spent a good deal of time on the west side of St. George's Channel. In the same year he had been
given the city of Dublin and its castle, a grant followed five years later by his promotion to Viceroy. That post he held until 1184, although he had been deprived of Dublin castle for a short period in 1181-2 as a penalty for marrying the daughter of Rory O'Connor, the last king of Connaught. At Durrow in July 1186 he had his head cut off by an Irishman while he was showing him how to use a pick, according to the graphic desctiprion in the chronicle of St. Mary, Dublin -- a commentary on his restless nature, apparently intolerant of inefficiency to the end."

Note: Notes
The parentage of Gilbert is a matter of debate.
W E Wightman, in "The Lacy Family in England and Normandy,1066-1194", on the genealogical chart following p 260, shows Gilbert as a son (most sources leaning this way say illigitimate) of Hugh de Lacy (EMMA's brother).

The names of two sisters of Hugh - EMMA and Agnes - have been proposed as Gilbert's mother. One Gilbert Talbot has been proposed as his father.

Gerard Lacey, probably the most knowledgeble researcher active as this time (i.e. Feb 1998) and author of the 1994 book, "The Legacy of the De Lacy, Lacey, Lacy Family 1066-1994", has this to say about the matter in private correspondence dated 31 Jan 1998:
"Speaking of conundrums: Wightman states that Gilbert de Lacy. 4th Lord of Meath and father of HUGH DE LACY 5th baron, was the son of Roger de Lacy, and accompanied Roger on the latter's banishment in 1096 and Gilbert returned to accept Hereford on the demise of Hugh brother of Roger. That could be , but the enclosed chart of the Cromwellbottom Lacys claims Gilbert de Lacy, to be the illegitlmate son of Robert de Lascy of Pontefract (d 1193) [RIN 2816*], The latter contention is difflcult to reconcile because KING HENRY I, (the CONQUERER's youngest) reigned 1100-1135. Originally I quoted Giraldus Cambrensis who contended that Gilbert de Lacy is the son of EMMA, sister of Roger and Hugh. EMMA married Geoffrey de Talbot (also a major family on Roll of
Battle Abbey). Their child Sybil de Lacy m Pain FitzJohn.
CHRONICLES OF ST. PETER GLOUCESTER: 15-17, 92: HENRY I, took Lacy lands into his own hands. Gilbert, son of Hugh's sister, EMMA assumed the name of Lacy and claimed to represent the Lacys (Florence of Worcester English Historical Society also Burke's Extinct Peerage pg 310). The above concurs with Giraldus Cambrensis' offhand comment that Gilbert was son of Roger's sister. Roger had been banished in 1096; brother Hugh
died 1115; Walter was Abbott of Gloucester There was no Lacy present to fill the temporary void until Gilbert came forth to salvage the Lacy lands. Because Gilbert was Payn Fitzjohn's sonmand Payn was KING HENRY's Chamberlain, who THE KING liked. Gilbert succeeded in saving the landed estates of the Lacys. "

Note: Notes
The identity of her husband has been a matter of much speculation. On their research trip of 1993, Gerard Lacy and his associates put forth a member of the Talbot family as the most likely candidate for Emma's husband.
Per "The Roll of The House of Lacy", There is much evidence that
Baldwin de Meules (RIN 2864) was Emma's husband and the father of GILBERT (RIN 1952).
A third possibility is that A Hugh, the brother of Gilbert de Nogent
married Emma, fathered GILBERT, and took the de Lacy name for his own.

Cokayne's "Complete Peerage" (Munchensy, p.424, note at bottom of page):
"The Editors are indebted to M.W. Hughes for being able to suggest that Sibyl, wife of Payn Fitz John, was daughter of Geoffrey Talbot by [?Agnes] his wife, sister of Roger, Hugh, and Walter de Lacy."

The foregoing raises the question in my mind: Did a sister of Roger, Hugh, and Walter de Lacy named either Emma or Agnes marry Geoffrey Talbot and father both Gilbert deLacy and Sibyl, wife of Payn? Or were there two distinct sisters, one marrying Geoffrey Talbot and bearing Sibyl to him and the other, whose husband was unknown, bearing Gilbert de Lacy?

The "Gesta Stephani" contains the following passage. The Geoffrey Talbot referred to therin would be the son of the Geoffrey who was possibly the husband of Emma/Agnes:
"Among the others came the famous Geoffrey Talbot. As was stated earlier, he had been banished from England, and he was preparing to breathe out everywhere the poison of his furious hatred and to do every cruel deed that a frenzied and unbalanced mind is wont to imagine. But by God's judgement his malice was turned against himself because while he was planning to slaughter some and injure others he himself was first captured and very closely confined in chains and barely escaped a
sentence of condemnation. . . So Geoffrey Talbot and his relative,
GILBERT DE LACY [RIN 1952], a man of judgement and shrewd and painstaking in every operation of war, were chosen as scouts. . ." The note appended to this passage reads as follows: "Apart from this reference the relationship between GILBERT DE LACY and Geoffrey Talbot is unknown. . ."

Note: Notes
This is Walter de Lasci of Longton Castle, Herfordshire. He was Sire de Lacy in England and Lord of Lassy in Normandy. He was the 1st Baron of Ludlow and Weobly.
It is sometimes claimed that he fought with WILLIAM THE CONQUERER at the Battle of Hastings. There is no proof of this. The reason for this belief is the large amount of land granted to him by THE CONQUERER. An alternate possibility is that he was rewarded for outstanding service at Acre during the crusade.

From W E Wightman, "The Lacy Family in England and Normandy, 1066-1194": genealogical chart following p 260. Besides the children Roger and Hugh entered here, Wightman has "Walter, abbot of Gloucester (o.s.p. 1140)" and "Daughter".

Note: Notes
This Emma appears to be universally accepted by those who have researched the early deLacy family as mother of both WALTER and GILBERT. One of the early students of deLacy orgins, De Lacy Bellingari, in his "Roll of the House of Lacy" Has the father of WALTER and GILBERT as one "Hugh, Lord of Lassy and Campeau". Gerard Lacey, probably the most knowledgeble researcher active as this time (i.e. Feb 1998) and author of the 1994 book, "The Legacy of the De Lacy, Lacey, Lacy Family
1066-1994", has emphatically stated that his research has not turned up the first mention of this Hugh.

Note: Notes
Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (177:3) calls her "N., said to be Papia, illeg. dau. of RICHARD I, DUKE OF NORMANDY. However. . .
"Todd A. Farmerie" posted to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L-request@@@@rootsweb.com on 12 Feb 1998
Subject: Re: Weis Question
"So Richard, fl.1053 married the daughter of Richard d.996? Possible, but unlikely. It looks like AR7 has made at least one error here. It was Gulbert/Gilbert who married Papia, the daughter of Duke Richard. Next we ask, which Duke Richard? ES says she was illegitimate daughter of Richard I, but more traditionally, she has been shown as daughter of Richard II. In a recent work by Thierry Stasser, he gives a complete accounting of the children of Richard II, and includes Papia, wife of Gilbert as a daughter of Richard by his second wife, Papia."

and expanding on Todd Farmerie's onservations. . .
abwilson@@@@uclink2.berkeley.edu (Alan B. Wilson)
posted to GEN-MEDIEVAL-L-request@@@@rootsweb.com on 12 Feb 1998
Subject: Re: Weis Question:
"ES ii, 79 shows Papia as daughter of Richard II and his third wife, Poppa. Richard II had married secondly, and divorced, Astrid of Denmark. Interestingly Turton, p. 178, also shows Papia of Normandy, wife of Gilbert de St. Valerie, as daughter of Richard II. It is Eleanor Searle (perhaps among others) who in "Predatory kinship and the creation of Norman power, 840-1066", Table 2, p. 255, has Gulbert of St. Valery married to an unnamed illegitimate daughter of Richard I."

Note: Notes
Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (98:26).
Cockayne's "Complete Peerage" (Roger de Toeni IV) says that the identity of her parents has not been ascertrained. It has been conjectured that she was a sister of Richer de Laigle (Anselm, Hist. Genealogique, v.V, p.582)