Mary le Bigod

Family/Spouse: Ranulph fitz Robert. Ranulph (son of Robert fitz Ralph and Hawise de Glanville) was born about 1185 in of Middleham, Yorkshire, England; died before 7 Dec 1252; was buried in Coverham Abbey, Yorkshire, England. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

1. Ralph fitz Ranulph was born in of Middleham, Durham, England; died on 31 Mar 1270; was buried in Coverham Abbey, Yorkshire, England.
2. Ranulf fitz Ranulf was born between 1220 and 1225; died before 1294.

Other Events and Attributes:

• Alternate birth: of Framlingham, Suffolk, England
• Alternate birth: Abt 1150

Notes:

Earl of Norfolk. Hereditary Steward of the Household; Privy Councillor; Keeper of Hertford Castle 1191; Judge in the King's Court 1195, 1196, 1199, 1202; Chief Judge in the King's Court 1197; Warden of Romford Forest 1200.

Magna Carta surety.

Edward Maunde Thompson, in the Dictionary of National Biography (1886):

BIGOD, ROGER (d. 1221), second Earl of Norfolk, was son of Hugh, first earl [q. v.] On the death of his father in 1176, he and his stepmother, Gundreda, appealed to the king on a dispute touching the inheritance, the countess pressing the claims of her own son. Henry thereupon seized the treasures of Earl Hugh into his own hands, and it seems that during the remainder of this reign Roger had small power, even if his succession was allowed. His position, however, was not entirely overlooked. He appears as a witness to Henry's award between the kings of Navarre and Castile on 16 March 1177, and in 1186 he did his feudal service as steward in the court held at Guildford.

On Richard's succession to the throne, 3 Sept. 1189, Bigod was taken into favour. By charter of 27 Nov. the new king confirmed him in all his honours, in the earldom of Norfolk, and in the stewardship of the royal household, as freely as Roger, his grandfather, and Hugh, his father, had held it. He was next appointed one of the ambassadors to Philip of France to arrange for the crusade, and during Richard's absence from England on that expedition he supported the king's authority against the designs of Prince John. On the pacification of the quarrel between the prince and the chancellor, William Longchamp, bishop of Ely, on 28 July 1191, Bigod was put into possession of the castle of Hereford, one of the strongholds surrendered by John, and was one of the chancellor's sureties in the agreement. In April 1193 he was summoned with certain other barons and prelates to attend the chancellor into Germany, where negotiations were being carried on to effect Richard's release from captivity; and in 1194, after the surrender of Nottingham to the king, he was present in that city at the great council held on 30 March. At Richard's re-coronation, 17 April, he assisted in bearing the canopy. In July or August of the same year he appears as one of the commissioners sent to York to settle a quarrel between the archbishop and the canons.

After Richard's return home, Bigod's name is found on the records as a justiciar, fines being levied before him in the fifth year of that king's reign, and from the seventh onwards. He also appears as a justice itinerant in Norfolk. After Richard's death, Bigod succeeded in gaining John's favour, and in the first years of his reign continued to act as a judge. In October 1200 he was one of the envoys sent to summon William of Scotland to do homage at Lincoln, and was a witness at the ceremony on 22 Nov. following; but at a later period he appears to have fallen into disgrace, and was imprisoned in 1213. In the course of the same year, however, he was released and apparently restored to favour, as he accompanied the king to Poitou in February 1214, and about the same time compounded by a fine of 2,000 marks for the service of 120 knights and all arrears off scutages. Next year he joined the confederate barons in the movement which resulted in the grant of Magna Charta on 15 June 1215, and was one of the twenty-five executors, or trustees, of its provisions. He was consequently included in the sentence of excommunication which Innocent III soon afterwards declared against the king's opponents, and his lands were cruelly harried by John's troops in their incursions into the eastern counties.

After the accession of Henry III, Bigod returned to his allegiance, and his hereditary right to the stewardship of the royal household was finally recognised at the council of Oxford on 1 May 1221. But before the following August he died. He was succeeded by his eldest son, Hugh, as third earl, who, however, survived him only four years.

Roger married Ida de Tony about 25 Dec 1181. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

Stewart Baldwin, at The Henry Project, states that "The parentage of Ida remains unknown":

While it had been known for some time that the mother of William was a "countess" Ida, her identity was only recently proven. As one of two known contemporary English countesses named Ida, the wife of Roger Bigod had already been a prime candidate [see Paul C. Reed, "Countess Ida, mother of William Longespée, illegitimate son of Henry II", TAG 77 (2002), which was going to press just as the crucial discovery was made]. Convincing proof of her identity as the wife of Roger Bigod was only recently discovered by Raymond W. Phair, who announced his discovery in the soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup on 3 July 2002, and then published it in The American Genealogist [Raymond W. Phair, "William Longespée, Ralph Bigod, and Countess Ida", TAG 77 (2002), 279-81], citing a list of prisoners after the Battle of Bouvines in 1214, in which Ralph Bigod was called a brother of the earl of Salisbury. The parentage of Ida remains unknown, but see Reed (2002) for the possibility that she might have been a daughter of Roger de Toeni and Ida of Hainault.

Douglas Richardson's Royal Ancestry (2013) gives Ida de Tony as a daughter of Ralph de Tony and Margaret of Leicester. Richardson set forth his arguments for this in a 2008 post to soc.genealogy.medieval, reproduced below:

From: Douglas Richardson
Subject: Ida de Tony, wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, and mother of William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 06:32:55 -0800 (PST)

[...] For conclusive evidence that Ida, wife of Earl Roger le Bigod, was a member of the Tony family, see Morris, The Bigod Earls of Norfolk in the 13th Century (2005): 2, who cites a royal inquest dated 1275, in which the jurors affirmed that Earl Roger le Bigod had received the manors of Acle, Halvergate, and South Walsham, Norfolk from King Henry II, in marriage with his wife, Ida de Tony (citing Rotuli Hundredorum 1 (1812): 504, 537). Morris shows that Earl Roger le Bigod received these manors by writ of the king, he having held them for three quarters of a year at Michaelmas 1182 (citing PR 28 Henry II, 1181-1182 (Pipe Roll Soc.) (1910):64). This appears to pinpoint to marriage of Ida de Tony and Earl Roger le Bigod as having occurred about Christmas 1181.

For evidence that Ida de Tony was the mother of William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury (illegitimate son of King Henry II of England), see London, Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory (Wiltshire Rec. Soc. 35) (1979): 143, 188, which includes two charters in which Earl William Longespee specifically names his mother as Countess Ida. Furthermore, among the prisoners captured at the Battle of Bouvines in 1214 was a certain Ralph [le] Bigod, who a contemporary French record names as "brother" [i.e., half-brother] to William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury [see Brial, Monumens de Règnes des Philippe Auguste et de Louis VIII 1 (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France 17) (1878): 101 (Guillelmus Armoricus: "Isti sunt Prisiones (capti in bello Bovinensi)...Radulphus Bigot, frater Comitis Saresburiensis"); see also Malo, Un grand feudataire, Renaud de Dammartin et la coalition de Bouvines (1898):199, 209].

As for Countess Ida's parentage, it seems virtually certain that she was a daughter of Ralph V de Tony (died 1162), of Flamstead, Hertfordshire, by his wife, Margaret (b. c.1125, living 1185), daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester [see C.P.7 (1929): 530, footnote e (incorrectly dates Ralph and Margaret's marriage as "after 1155" based on the misdating of a charter --correction provided by Ray Phair); C.P. 12(1) (1953): 764 - 765 (sub Tony); Power, The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth and Early Thirteenth Centuries (2004): 525 (Tosny pedigree)].

For evidence which supports Ida's placement as a child of Ralph V de Tony, several facts may be noted. First, Countess Ida and her husband, Roger le Bigod, are known to have named children, Ralph and Margaret, presumably in honor of Ida's parents, Ralph and Margaret de Tony [see Thompson, Liber Vitae Ecclesiae Dunelmenis (Surtees Soc. 136) (1923): fo.63b, for a contemporary list of the Bigod children]. Countess Ida was herself evidently named in honor of Ralph V de Tony's mother, Ida of Hainault. Next, William Longespee and his descendants had a long standing association with the family of Roger de Akeny, of Garsington, Oxfordshire, which Roger was a younger brother of Ralph V de Tony (died 1162) [see C.P. 8 (1932): chart foll. 464; 14 (1998): 614; Loyd, Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Fams. (1951): 2; VCH Oxford 5 (1957): 138; Harper-Bill, Dodnash Priory Charters (Suffolk Rec. Soc. 16) (1998): 34 - 37, 39 - 40, 72 - 73; Fam. Hist. 18 (1995 - 97): 47 - 64; 19 (1998): 125 - 129]. Lastly, Roger le Bigod and his step-son William Longespée both had associations with William the Lion, King of Scots, which connection can be readily explained by virtue of King William's wife, Ermengarde, being sister to Constance de Beaumont, wife of Countess Ida's presumed brother, Roger VI de Tony [see C.P. 12(1) (1953): 760 - 769 (sub Tony)].

William the Lion was likewise near related to both of Countess Ida's presumed parents, her father by a shared descent from Countess Judith, niece of William the Conqueror, and her mother by a shared descent from Isabel de Vermandois, Countess of Surrey. Roger le Bigod and William Longespee were both present with other English relations of William the Lion at an important gathering at Lincoln in 1200, when William the Lion paid homage to King John of England [see Stubbs, Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Houedene 4 (Rolls Ser. 51) (1871): 141 - 142].

Thus, naming patterns, familial and political associations give strong evidence that Ida, wife of Earl Roger le Bigod, was a daughter of Ralph V de Tony.

A later post from Richardson in the same thread:

From: Douglas Richardson
Subject: Re: Ida de Tony, wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, and mother of William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:28:47 -0800 (PST)

Morris says that Ida de Tony was a ward of the king when the king married her to Roger le Bigod. That presumably means she was not yet 21 at her marriage, which occurred at Christmas 1181. If so, she would have to have been born no earlier than 1160.

Also, to be a ward of the king, your father would have been a tenant in chief of the king who left a minor heir in custody. The only requisite Tony male in this time period that would appear to fit that description would be Sir Ralph de Tony (husband of Margaret de Beaumont), who died in 1162, leaving a minor son, Roger. An estimate for a birth of Sir Ralph de Tony is hard to determine, but he was conceivable born as early as 1130, and probably no later than 1135. We know his parents were married in the reign of King Henry I who died in 1135.

As for the chronology of other parts of the Tony family. Sir Ralph de Tony's sister, Godeheut de Tony, wife of William de Mohun, had a grandson and heir, Reynold de Mohun, born about 1185. So Godeheut de Tony was born say 1135, give or take. Sir Ralph de Tony's younger brother, Sir Roger de Tony, had his son and heir, Baldwin, born about 1170. So Sir Roger was born say 1140, give or take.

In any case, the fact that Ida de Tony was a ward at the time of her marriage would seem to clearly indicate her parentage.

An email from Todd A. Farmerie to Marianne Dillow, reproduced in the same thread as Richardson's two posts above (the archives of the thread are somewhat jumbled, making it hard to tell the exact order of posts). It summarizes Farmerie's reservations about Richardson's identification of Ida de Tony's parents. In the scheme that Farmerie considers equally probable, Ida's parents would be Ralph de Tony's father Roger de Tony and Roger's wife Ida de Hainault:

I think you already had others point you to the group archives. Let me just say that this is not about confidence in an individual's work. It is a legitimate difference of opinion, two people, each equally qualified, using the same data, and reaching different conclusions.

I didn't want to get into another round of argument in the group, as it has been argued several times before. Briefly, though, everything that has been said about her being child of Ralph would also apply to her being sister of Ralph. All of the names, all of the associations, etc.

Whether she was daughter or sister comes down to how old you think she is, and we have no evidence. Thus, virtual certainty is a bit of an exaggeration. That she was of this immediate family is pretty safe, but which generation, there is room for doubt.

Let me also say this, and I just offer it at face value. This is not the first 'near certainty' that has been proclaimed with regard to her parentage. For years it was argued that it was almost certain she was a completely different person. Then a new piece of evidence comes out and we have seamlessly switched to a different near certainty. Basically, when someone says that something is a virtual certainty, they are doing it either because they think it is absolutely certain, and are simply recognizing that all history has a minute chance of revision, or alternatively, because they know it isn't certain, but they have convinced themselves that it is the right answer and are trying to make it sound better than it really is. This is not a 99.99% certainty, it is a 75% likelihood, coupled with a strong gut feeling and some gilding of the lily. That, at least, is my view.

I guess my real point is, don't take anything at face value. Mr. Richardson has made some insightful hypotheses. As far as I know, he was the first to guess that Ida, wife of Roger de Toeny was identical to Ida, mother of William Longespee. He had no evidence for it - it was just a strong gut instinct that led him to the right answer when proof was found a decade later. He has also reached some conclusions that are nothing but wishful thinking (such as his first 'certain' ancestry of Ida, which we now know is completely false). Both were expressed with equal certainty. Mr. Richardson is not unique in this. The same is true of others here, myself included. Don't just accept what anyone says. Look at all of the different opinions and ignore who is saying what, just take what seems the best solution from it, no matter who offers it.

Even if only one person has suggested a connection, look at the evidence and try out some other possibilities and see if they will fit as well. No one is right all the time - everyone has their biases, and to be good at this, it is important to move beyond the individual opinions and reach your own conclusions from the original data. (Sorry to preach.)

Finally, a post from the same thread setting forth a chronological argument for Richardson's position, and giving a reasonable guess as to her year of birth:

From: mississippienne@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Ida de Tony, wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, and mother of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:54:13 -0800 (PST)

[...] Girls as young as 12 were considered marriageable during this time period, and since we have no firm dates for either Ida's birth or that of her son William, she might've been as young as 15 or as old as her twenties by the time she gave birth to him. Unless someone happens upon a charter in which William de Longspee helpfully provides his exact date of birth and that of his mother, we will probably never know for sure. All we know is that she went onto have at least eight children with Roger Bigod; assuming no twins, Ida was bearing children at least until about 1190. As M. Sjostrom points out, it's stretching the chronology to the breaking point to get Ida de Tony to be the daughter of Ida of Hainault.

I think a reasonable time for Ida de Tony would be a birth c. 1160, her son William born 1175-1180, marriage to Roger Bigod in 1181, at which point she was bearing his children until the early 1190s or thereabouts, when she would've been in her thirties.

Notes:

Earl of Norfolk. Died on pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

Edward Maunde Thompson, in the Dictionary of National Biography (1886):

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 his 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 turbulent barons necessarily followed, and Bigod was the first to take up arms. He seized and held Norwich; but Stephen, quickly 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 1169 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 Leicester (d. 1190), 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. Geneviève, 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 accompanied 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.

[PNH: To that last point, note that the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says that "Hugh Bigod retained his earldom and Bungay Castle, as well as the four royal manors first granted to him in 1153, but he may have lost the right to collect the earl's third penny."]

Hugh married Juliana de Vere. Juliana (daughter of Aubrey de Vere and Alice de Clare) died after 1185. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events and Attributes:

• Alternate death: 1199

Notes:

Also called Ralph de Conches.

Ralph married Margaret of Leicester after 1155. Margaret (daughter of Robert of Meulan and Amice de Gael) was born about 1125; died after 1185. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

Also called Margaret de Beaumont.

Other Events and Attributes:

• Alternate birth: Abt 1050
• Alternate death: 10 Sep 1107, Earsham, Norfolk, England
• Alternate death: 15 Sep 1107, Earsham, Norfolk, England
• Alternate death: Bef Aug 1221

Notes:

Earl of Norfolk.

"Roger Bigod was one of the tight-knit group of second-rank Norman nobles who did well out of the conquest of England. Prominent in the Calvados region before 1064 as an under-tenant of Odo of Bayeux, he rose in ducal and royal service to become, by 1086, one of the leading barons in East Anglia, holding wide estates to which he added Belvoir by marriage and Framlingham by grant of Henry I. His territorial fortune was based on his service in the royal household, where he was a close adviser and agent for the first three Norman kings, and the propitious circumstances of post-Conquest politics. Much of his honour in East Anglia was carved out of lands previously belonging to the dispossessed Archbishop Stigand, his brother Aethelmar of Elham, and the disgraced Earl Ralph of Norfolk and Suffolk. Under Rufus -- if not before -- Roger was one of the king's stewards. Usually in attendance on the king, he regularly witnessed writs but was also sent out to the provinces as a justice or commissioner. Apart from a flirtation with the cause of Robert Curthose in 1088, he remained conspicuously loyal to Rufus and Henry I, for whom he continued to act as steward and to witness charters. The adherence of such men was vital to the Norman kings. Through them central business could be conducted and localities controlled. Small wonder they were well rewarded. Roger established a dynasty which dominated East Anglia from the 1140s, as earls of Norfolk, until 1306. Roger's byname and the subsequent family name was derived from a word (bigot) meaning double-headed instrument such as a pickaxe: a tribute, perhaps to Roger's effectiveness as a royal servant; certainly an apt image of one who worked hard both for his masters and for himself." [Christopher Tyerman, Who's Who in Early Medieval England, 1996]

Roger married Adeliza de Tosny. Adeliza (daughter of Robert de Tosny and Adelaise) died after 1136. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events and Attributes:

• Alternate death: Aft 1130

Notes:

"Keats-Rohan [...] suggests that Roger had only one wife. She also refers to a charter of of the time of Henry I (therefore 1100 or later) of Roger and Adelisa for Rochester Priory, attested by their children William, Humphrey, Gunnor and Matilda; on the hypothesis of the Complete Peerage, this would imply that the first wife survived at least until 1100, despite the suggested birth date of around 1095 for Hugh, seen as a son of the second marriage." [Chris Phillips, Some Corrections and Additions to The Complete Peerage]

Other Events and Attributes:

• Alternate birth: of Great Addington, Northampton, England

Notes:

"Slain in a riot in London." [Complete Peerage]

Also known as Alberic; Albericus de Ver.

From the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography:

"Vere, Aubrey (II) de (d. 1141), administrator, was the son and successor of Aubrey (I) de Vere and Beatrice, his wife. While the family was from Ver, south of Coutances in Normandy, there is no evidence that Aubrey senior or his descendants held lands either there or in Brittany, with which they retained ties. The elder Aubrey was most probably the younger son of a Norman lord who prospered in England after the conquest, becoming a royal chamberlain. Probably born in the early 1080s, Aubrey junior married Alice (d. 1163?), daughter of Gilbert de Clare, before 1107. He was to become one of the most prominent royal administrators of the later years of the reign of Henry I and the early years of Stephen. It is likely that Aubrey (II) began his administrative career as royal chamberlain, possibly inheriting that office from his father when the latter died c.1112. By 1121 he was sheriff of Essex, and, later in that decade, of London and Middlesex. The extent of the king's confidence in de Vere is evident in his appointment as joint sheriff, with Richard Basset, to the custody of eleven counties in 1129-30. This unprecedented situation was probably part of an effort to collect arrears and to adjust the shrieval farms. While the king had levied one fine of 550 marks and four war-horses against him for having allowed a prisoner to escape, and another of at least 100 marks for permission to resign the shrievalty of Essex and Hertfordshire, these fines had gone largely uncollected -- another sign of royal favour. In 1133 Henry I bestowed the hereditary office of master chamberlain of England on de Vere; the office was to remain in the de Vere family until 1703. Although his royal service was primarily confined to England, he was at least twice with Henry I in Normandy.

"When Aubrey de Vere's son William de Vere asserted that his father was 'justiciar of all England', and privy to important royal secrets, he seems to have meant that his father had travelled extensively as a justice, rather than that he had been chief justiciar of the realm. William of Malmesbury describes him as causidicus -- a pleader or advocate -- and skilled in the law. De Vere may have served as an itinerant justice under Henry I; he certainly did so in Stephen's reign. He had accepted Stephen's rule by Easter 1136, and when the king was summoned before an ecclesiastical council after his arrest of Roger of Salisbury and other bishops in 1139, he sent de Vere as his advocate. Aubrey de Vere was killed in a London riot on 15 May 1141, perhaps while supporting his son-in-law Geoffrey de Mandeville, first earl of Essex (d. 1144). [...]

"His family was to prove one of the longest lasting in the history of the English aristocracy. His eldest son was made earl of Oxford in the year of Aubrey (II)'s death, and although its descent was several times transmitted through collaterals, and twice interrupted by forfeitures, the title nevertheless passed to no fewer than nineteen successive descendants, until the twentieth earl, also Aubrey de Vere, died without a male heir in 1703."

Aubrey married Alice de Clare before 1106. Alice (daughter of Gilbert fitz Richard de Clare and Alice de Clermont) died in 1163 in St. Osyth Priory, Essex, England. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

"Adeliza the wife of Aubrey de Vere is attested by a fairly unimpeachable source, her own son William in notes added to his life of St Osyth. According to him she lived for 22 years as a widow at St Osyth's priory in Essex, so she evidently died ca 1163." [Peter Stewart, citation details below]

Other Events and Attributes:

• Alternate death: Abt 1160

Notes:

Also called Roger de Conches.

Roger married Ida de Hainaut about 9 Aug 1138. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

Earl of Leicester. Also called, but only by later historians and genealogists, Robert de Beaumont.

Twin brother of Waleran, Count of Muelan, 1st Earl of Worcester. After their father's death, the two brothers were raised together in the royal household. Much detail on his career here.

Justiciar of England, 1155-1168.

Robert married Amice de Gael after Nov 1120. Amice (daughter of Ralph II de Gael) died in Nuneaton, Warwickshire, England. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

Also called Amice de Montfort.

She died as a nun in Nuneaton Priory. Complete Peerage says she died after 1168. Royal Ancestry says she died on a 31 August, year uncertain.