Individual

Go to List of Family Names Go to List of People    < Previous Next >

Birth:          ABT 1122 Warkworth Castle, Alnwick, Northumberland, England
Death:          1178 Clavering, Saffron Waldon, Essex, England

Notes
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=jweber&id=I04850
NOTE: MCS, line 156-1, describes Roger's parents as Richard and Jane daughter of 
Roger Bigod, giving his father no surname or other identification other than the 
"Richard" implied in Roger's name "FitzRichard". Several earlier sources (see post by 
Christopher Nash below) indicated that he was a son of Richard FitzEustace. I 
originally had Roger as son of Richard FitzEustace, but on further thought, have made 
Roger's father as simply "Richard". MCS and the post by Chris Phillips (14 Sep 2000, 
citing Keats Rohan) have his mother being a daughter of Roger Bigod.

--------------------

Roger Fitz-Richard who was feudal Baron of Warkworth, co. Northumberland, a 
lordship granted to him by King Henry II, m. Alianor, dau. and co-heir of Henry of 
Essex, Baron of Raleigh, and was s. by his only son, Robert Fitz-Roger. [Sir Bernard 
Burke, Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct Peerages, Burke's Peerage, Ltd., 
London, 1883, p. 121, Clavering, Barons Clavering]

--------------------

The following post by Christopher Nash gives some of his notes on what sources had 
to say about Roger's ancestry. Christopher Nash does not necessarily agree with 
these sources, now indicating that his ancestry may not be through Richard 
FitzEustace. Chris Phillips (in the same thread) considered Roger's ancestry unknown.

Cristopher Nash
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: c...@windsong.u-net.com (Cristopher Nash)
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 03:15:54
Local: Sun, Jan 19 2003 7:15 pm
Subject: Re: Roger fitz Richard of Warkworth

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

Who is the father 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.<

Parents
____ Richard (ABT 1090 - )
BIGOD Jane (ABT 1093 - )

Siblings
FITZ RICHARD Roger (ABT 1122 - 1178)

Marriage To DE VERE Alice (ABT 1125 - AFT 1185)
    m.  

Notes

Parents
DE VERE Aubrey II (ABT 1082 - 15 May 1141)
DE CLARE Adeliza (ABT 1079 - ABT 1163)

Children by DE VERE Alice ABT 1125 - AFT 1185
FITZ ROGER Robert (ABT 1165 - 1214)

Produced by Fzip 1.7 6/20/2017