Individual Details
Roger "Lord of Warkworth" FitzRichard
(1139 - 1178)
----
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.<
== Sources ==
* '''Royal Ancestry by D. Richardson, Vol. II. p. 218'''
* The Phillips, Weber, Kirk, & Staggs families of the Pacific Northwest, by Jim Weber, Rootsweb.com
* WikiTree profile Fitzrichard-48 created through the import of WILLIAMS 2011.GED on Jun 22, 2011 by [[Williams-5764 | Ted Williams]].
* Source: S004444 Title: Ancestry Family Trees Publication: Online publication - Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com. Original data: Family Tree files submitted by Ancestry members. Note: [[#NS044441]] Repository: Note: [[#NS044443]]
No NOTE record found with id NS044441.
: Note NS044443
: NAME Ancestry.com
: ADDR http://www.Ancestry.com
: NOTE
This person was created through the import of Acrossthepond.ged on 21 February 2011.
=== Note ===: Note: 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]
: Note: : Note: Title: The Magna Charta Sureties 1215, Frederick Lewis Weis, additions by Walter Lee Sheppard Jr, 5th Edition, 1999
: Note: Page: 156-1
: Note: Text: no date given
: Note: [[#DWNLNOTE]]
http://records.ancestry.com/Roger_Fitzrichard_records.ashx?pid=372533
www.tudorplace.com.ar/EURE
=== Acknowledgments ===This person was created on 06 August 2010 through the import of Lynch-Tree.ged, Amice Pichard - blewett.ged, Stout - Trask - Cowan .ged, 104-B.ged, SRW 7th July 2011.ged, Acrossthepond.ged, My Family File.ged.
----
== Sources ==
* ancesrty.com
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.<
== Sources ==
* '''Royal Ancestry by D. Richardson, Vol. II. p. 218'''
* The Phillips, Weber, Kirk, & Staggs families of the Pacific Northwest, by Jim Weber, Rootsweb.com
* WikiTree profile Fitzrichard-48 created through the import of WILLIAMS 2011.GED on Jun 22, 2011 by [[Williams-5764 | Ted Williams]].
* Source: S004444 Title: Ancestry Family Trees Publication: Online publication - Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com. Original data: Family Tree files submitted by Ancestry members. Note: [[#NS044441]] Repository: Note: [[#NS044443]]
No NOTE record found with id NS044441.
: Note NS044443
: NAME Ancestry.com
: ADDR http://www.Ancestry.com
: NOTE
This person was created through the import of Acrossthepond.ged on 21 February 2011.
=== Note ===: Note: 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]
: Note: : Note: Title: The Magna Charta Sureties 1215, Frederick Lewis Weis, additions by Walter Lee Sheppard Jr, 5th Edition, 1999
: Note: Page: 156-1
: Note: Text: no date given
: Note: [[#DWNLNOTE]]
http://records.ancestry.com/Roger_Fitzrichard_records.ashx?pid=372533
www.tudorplace.com.ar/EURE
=== Acknowledgments ===This person was created on 06 August 2010 through the import of Lynch-Tree.ged, Amice Pichard - blewett.ged, Stout - Trask - Cowan .ged, 104-B.ged, SRW 7th July 2011.ged, Acrossthepond.ged, My Family File.ged.
----
== Sources ==
* ancesrty.com
Events
| Birth | 1139 | Alnwick, Northumberland, England | |||
| Marriage | 1150 | Adeliza de Vere | |||
| Death | 1178 | Saffron Walden, Essex, England | |||
| Reference No | 7798681 | ||||
| Reference No | |||||
| Reference No | 60 |
Families
| Spouse | Adeliza de Vere (1125 - 1185) |
| Child | Robert Warkworth (1168 - 1214) |
| Child | Richard FitzRoger (1145 - 1201) |
| Child | Elizabeth Warkworth (1147 - 1174) |
| Father | Richard FitzEustace (1110 - 1163) |
| Mother | Jane Bigod (1093 - 1138) |