| Index | Previous Individual | Next Individual |

Individual Record for: Roger BIGOD (male)

Source:

bulkeley.txt

Notes:

ROGER LE BIGOD
The Conqueror and His Companions
by J.R. Planch*, Somerset Herald. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1874.

The owner of this great historical name, who accompanied the Conquer or to England, was apparently the son of Robert le Bigod, the first of t he name of whom we have any notice, and who was a witness to the foundati on of St. Philibert-sur-Risle, in 1066. Wace, in his enumeration of the le aders in the host at Hastings, designates the member of this family simp ly as the ancestor of Hugh le Bigot, Lord of Maletot, Loges, and Canon.
"L'Ancestre Hue le Bigot
Ki avoit terre a Maletot,
Etais Loges et a Chanon."
Roman de Rou, I. 1377.
Maletot is near Caen, Canon (Chanon) is in the arrondissement of Lisieu x, and Loges may have been either Les Loges, near Aunay, or another commu ne of the same name in the neighbourhood of Falaise. (Le Pr*vost: Not es to Le Rom. de Rou, vol. ii, p. 256.) The possession of these lands in N ormandy by "the ancestor of Hugh le Bigot" is a curious fact, taken into c onsideration with the account the monk of Jumi¨ges gives of this ancesto r. Robert le Bigod, he tells us, was a knight in the service of William We rlenc, or the Warling, Comte de Mortain, and so poor that he prayed his lo rd to permit him to go and seek his fortune in Apulia, where his countrym en were establishing themselves and acquiring wealth and dignity under t he leadership of Robert Guiscard. The Count bade him remain, assuring h im that within eighty days he (Robert) would be in a position to help hims elf to whatever he desired in Normandy.

Whether the Count contemplated the deposition of Duke William, or was pri vy to the design of others, may never be known, but Robert le Bigod, infer ring from this advice that some rebellious movement was projected, repair ed to Richard Goz, Vicomte of the Hiemois, who was at that moment high ly in favour with the Duke, and requested him to obtain an audience for hi m. Richard, who, according to the same authority, was a kinsman of Robe rt -- it would be interesting to learn how -- readily complied, and Le Big od having repeated to the Duke the words of the Warling, the latter was in stantly summoned to attend him, accused of treason, banished the countr y, and the Comt* of Mortain was bestowed upon the Duke's half-brother Robe rt, the son of Herleve by Herluin. That William jumped at this opportuni ty to rid himself of a possible competitor whose claim to the duchy was cl early stronger than his own, and at the same time to advance one of his o wn family who would have no such pretensions, there can be no doubt. The t ruth or falsehood of the story told to him by Robert le Bigod has never be en established. The defence of the accused, if he made any, has not been r ecorded; and even Mr. Freeman admits that the Duke's "justice, if justi ce it was, fell so sharply and speedily as to look very like interested op pression." (Norm. Conq., vol. ii., p. 290.) We have seen in the previous n otice of Raoul de Gael what opinion was held in his own days of this suspi cious act of the Conqueror. From that moment Robert le Bigod became a conf idential servant of his sovereign, and his son Roger was the compani on of the Conqueror, who for his services at Senlac received large gran ts of land in the counties of Essex and Suffolk, six lordships in the form er and one hundred and seventeen in the latter.

Mons le Pr*vost remarks that Wace, always inclined to treat the prese nt as the past, has attributed to Roger the office of seneschal, which w as only enjoyed by his second son William. With all deference, I think t he learned antiquary has misunderstood his author. Wace is not speaki ng of Roger le Bigod, the father of Hugh and William, but of "the ancest or of Hugh," Robert, as I take it, "who served the Duke in his house as o ne of his seneschals, which office he held in fee."

Mr. Taylor remarks that there is no authority for this statement, yet we f ind that Roger, who was one of the privy councillors and treasurer of t he Duke, was seneschal or steward to Henry I, after the decease of his fat her, and that both William and Hugh, his sons, succeeded each other in th at high office, which is a fair corroboration of the assertion that it w as held in fee. If Wace be in error it is in his intimation, as I understa nd him, that it was Hugh's grandfather Robert, and not his father, Roge r, who accompanied Duke William to Hastings.

As we have no means at present of ascertaining the age of Robert when he a ccused his lord of treason, it is not improbable that he, as well as his s on Roger, was at Senlac. The latter survived the Conquest forty-three year s, and may have been a young man in 1066, and his father not too old to be stride a war steed and lead his retainers into action. Whether father or s on, we are told that "he had a large troop, and was a noble vassal. He w as small of body, but very brave and daring, and assaulted the English wi th his mace gallantly." (Roman de Rou, I. 13, 682-87.) We hear nothi ng of him during the reign of the first William, but at the commenceme nt of that of the second, Roger le Bigod is found amongst the adheren ts of Robert Court-heuse, fortifying his castle at Norwich and laying was te the country round about: whether eventually reconciled to Rufus, or wh at was the result of the suppressed rebellion to him personally, we are wi thout information; but in the first year of the reign of Henry I, being o ne of those who stood firm to the King, he had Framlingham, in Suffol k, of his gift.

In 1103, by the advice of King Henry, Maud the Queen, Hubert Bishop of Nor wich, and his own wife, the Lady Adeliza, one of the daughters and co-hei rs of Hugh de Grentmesnil, seneschal of England, he founded the Abbey of T hetford, in the county of Norfolk, and, dying in 1107, was buried there.

By the Lady Adeliza he is said to have had seven children -- William, h is son and heir, who by his charter, confirming his father's gift to Thetf ord, informs us that he was "Dapifer regis Anglorum;" 2. Hugh le Bigod, t he first earl; 3. Richard; 4. Geoffrey; 5. John; 6. Maud, wife of Willi am de Albini Pincerna; and 7. Gunnora, who married, first, Robert of Esse x, and, secondly, Hamo de Clare. William perished in the fatal wreck of t he White Ship, and Hugh, his brother and heir, in his turn steward of t he King's household, was eventually created Earl of Norfolk; his descendan ts, by a match with Maud, the eldest daughter and co-heiress of the Marsha ls, Earls of Pembroke, becoming marshals of England, an office enjoy ed to this day by the Dukes of Norfolk.





***********

The first of this great family that settled in England was Roger Bigod wh o, in the Conqueror's time, possessed six lordships in Essex and a hundr ed and seventeen in Suffolk, besides divers manors in Norfolk. This Roge r, adhering to the party that took up arms against William Rufus in the 1 st year of that monarch's reign, fortified the castle at Norwich and wast ed the country around. At the accession of Henry I, being a witness of t he king's laws and staunch in his interests, he obtained Framlingham in Su ffolk as a gift from the crown. We find further of him that he found ed in 1103, the abbey of Whetford, in Norfolk, and that he was buried the re at his decease in four years after, leaving, by Adeliza his wife, da u. and co-heir of Hugh de Grentesmesnil, high steward of England, a son a nd heir, William Bigod, steward of the household of King Henry I. [Sir Ber nard Burke, Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct Peerages, Burke's Pee rage, Ltd., London, 1883, p. 53, Bigod, Earls of Norfolk]

----------

Roger Bigod was one of the tight-knit group of second-rank Norman nobles w ho did well out of the conquest of England. Prominent in the Calvados regi on before 1064 as an under-tenant of Odo of Bayeux, he rose in ducal and r oyal service to become, but 1086, one of the leading barons in East Angli a, holding wide estates to which he added Belvoir by marriage and Framling ham by grant of Henry I. His territorial fortune was based on his servi ce in the royal household, where he was a close adviser and agent for t he first three Norman kings, and the propitious circumstances of post-Conq uest politics. Much of his honour in East Anglia was carved out of lands p reviously belonging to the dispossessed Archbishop Stigand, his brother Ae thelmar of Elham, and the disgraced Earl Ralph of Norfolk and Suffolk. Und er Rufus --- if not before --- Roger was one of the king's stewards. Usual ly in attendance on the king, he regularly witnessed writs but was also se nt out to the provinces as a justice or commissioner. Apart from a flirtat ion with the cause of Robert Curthose in 1088, he remained conspicuously l oyal to Rufus and Henry I, for whom he continued to act as steward a nd to witness charters. The adherence of such men was vital to the Norm an kings. Through them central business could be conducted and localiti es controlled. Small wonder they were well rewarded. Roger established a d ynasty which dominated East Anglia from the 1140s, as earls of Norfolk, un til 1306. Roger's byname and the subsequent family name was derived fr om a word (bigot) meaning double-headed instrument such as a pickaxe: a tr ibute, perhaps to Roger's effectiveness as a royal servant; certainly an a pt image of one who worked hard both for his masters and for himself. [Who 's Who in Early Medieval England, Christopher Tyerman, Shepheard-Walwyn, L td., London, 1996] Roger Bigod or le Bigot, a feudal Baron, the first of t his great family that settled in England and was, in the Conqueror's tim e, possessed of six lordships in Essex, 117 in Suffold. At the accessi on of King Henry I, being a witness of the King's laws and stanch in his i nterests, he obtained gifts of land from the crown, and was Lord Stewa rt of the King's household.

Notes Source: bulkeley.txt

| Index | Previous Individual | Next Individual |

Web site created from GEDCOM file by GEDitCOM