Sir Godfrey Bernard

______________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FIND A GRAVE
Sir Godfrey Bernard
BIRTH
1235
Wansford, East Riding of Yorkshire Unitary Authority, East Riding of Yorkshire, England
DEATH
1275 (aged 39–40)
Isleham, East Cambridgeshire District, Cambridgeshire, England
BURIAL
St Andrew Churchyard
Isleham, East Cambridgeshire District, Cambridgeshire, England
PLOT
N transept: Effigy of a Knight, defaced, Sir Godfrey Bernard d. c. 1275 3 in a low C14 recess.
MEMORIAL ID
113651697 · View Source

Godfrey was the son of Roger Fitz Bernard.
He was the father of William Bernard.

Godfrey's grandson Gilbert Bernard also has an effigy in St Andrews Church

Family Members
Children

William Bernard
1270 – unknown

Flowers • 4

Plant Memorial

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=113651697
__________________________________________________________________

Have copied some of the Source below it is rather lengthy. Apparently a profile has
not been made for Roger on Geni.

Roger fitz Richard
https://freepages.rootsweb.com › genealogy
Roger fitz Richard (Baron of Warkworth, Constable of Newcastle, and Lord of Clavering) is pivotal in the genealogical link to the Stokes family, and, since his ...

Roger fitz Richard, 1st Baron of Warkworth

Roger fitz Richard | John fitz Richard | Aubrey de Vere | Richard fitz Gilbert | Robert of Normandy | Charlemagne
Alfred the Great | Halfdan Olafsson | Yngvi Alriksson | Ranulf de Presles | Roger Bigod | Geoffrey de Mandeville
Isaac Conarroe | Johann Staag | Albert Hirscher | Herman Haase
Roger fitz Richard and Alice de Vere
HUSBAND WIFE
Roger fitz Richard b. abt. 1130 Alice de Vere b. abt. 1124
1st Baron of Warkworth Baroness of Warkworth
FATHER FATHER
Richard fitz Eustace b. abt. 1107 Aubrey II de Vere b. abt. 1082
5th Baron of Halton 2nd Baron Vere
MOTHER MOTHER
Albreda de Lisours b. abt. 1110 Aleliza (Alice) de Clare b. abt. 1092
Baroness of Halton; Heiress of Pontefract Baroness Vere
PATERNAL GRANDFATHER PATERNAL GRANDFATHER
Eustace fitz John b. abt. 1080 Aubrey I de Vere b. abt. 1030
Baron of Alnwick; Lord of Malton; 4th Baron of Halton Baron Vere
PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER
Agnes fitz Nigel de Halton b. abt. 1084 Beatrice (Beatrix) Gand (or de Ghent) b. abt. 1040
Baroness of Halton; Heiress of Halton Baroness Vere
MATERNAL GRANDFATHER MATERNAL GRANDFATHER
Robert (Eudo) de Lisours b. abt. 1087 Gilbert fitz Richard b. abt. 1060
Lord of Sprotborough 2nd Earl of Clare
MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER
Aubrey (Albreda) de Lacy b. abt. 1091 Adeliza de Clermont b. abt. 1058
Lady of Sprotborough; Heiress of Pontefract Countess of Clare
CHILDREN
1. Alice de Vere b. abt. 1141 2. Robert fitz Roger b. abt. 1162
Baroness of Halton 2nd Baron of Warkworth
Ancestors and Descendants of Roger fitz Richard, 1st Baron of Warkworth,
as Related to the Stokes Family
Roger fitz Richard seems to be a man without a past, and so claims have been made as to his ancestry involving John fitz Richard, Lord of Knaresborough, and Ranulphus de Praers, Lord of Vil of Stokes, as the progenitor of the Stokes family in England following the Norman Conquest.

Roger fitz Richard's father is unknown beyond the first name of "Richard" found within a verse ascribed to Jordan Fantosme about the Scots' capture of Warkworth Castle in the year 1173:1
"They come to Warkworth, do not deign to stop there,
For weak was the castle, the wall and the trench,
And Roger, the son of Richard, a valiant knight,
Had it in ward; but he could not guard it."

In Domesday People, Keats-Rohan writes of Roger fitz Richard; "In the mid-twelfth century Roger fitz Richard of Warkworth was described by his brother-in-law William de Vere as nepos of Roger Bigod's son Hugh and as having had an uncle Thomas de Candelent".2 In this sentence, Keats-Rohan seems to establish Roger fitz Richard as Hugh Bigod's nephew, and so Roger fitz Richard had to be the son of one of Hugh Bigod's sisters for Roger fitz Richard to be Hugh Bigod's nephew. In other words, Hugh Bigod was Roger fitz Richard's uncle, and so Hugh Bigod was the brother of Roger fitz Richard's mother. Therefore, one ought to conclude that Roger fitz Richard's mother was a daughter of Roger Bigod, who was Hugh Bigod's father.

Supposedly, Jane Bigod, a daughter of Roger Bigod, 1st Earl of East Anglia, and a sister of Hugh Bigod, married Richard fitz Eustace, 5th Baron of Halton, the son of Eustace fitz John, Baron of Alnwick, and the grandson of John fitz Richard. Both Richard fitz Eustace and Jane Bigod are reported to have been the parents of Roger fitz Richard, 1st Baron of Warkworth.3,4 However, while this scenario would clearly satisfy William de Vere's nepos statement, there isn't any supporting evidence suggesting Jane Bigod ever existed or she was even the mother of Roger fitz Richard beyond William de Vere's latinized statement styling his brother-in-law as Rogerus filius Ricardi, nepos comitis Hughonis Bigot, duxit in uxorem Adelizam filiam Adelizae.5 Keats-Rohan makes no mention of Jane Bigod, while naming Roger Bigod's children in writing about the charters for Thetford priory; "William and Gunnor Bigod mention their father [Roger Bigod], mother [Adeliza de Tosny], and brothers [Humphrey and Hugh] and sisters [Matilda and Cecilia] with no reference to stepmother or half-blood".2 However, Keats-Rohan holds out the possibility Jane Bigod was another relative, such as a sister or niece of Roger Bigod.2

Nonetheless, Richard fitz Eustace was never married to Jane Bigod, but instead he married Albreda de Lisours, whose other son was John fitz Richard,7 great grandson of John fitz Richard. John fitz Richard, 6th Baron of Halton (later, John de Lacy, Baron of Pontefract), married the daughter of Roger fitz Richard's wife, Alice de Vere—a daughter who renamed herself Alice de Vere, the same as her mother's name.5,8 John fitz Richard's marriage to Alice de Vere's daughter, Alice de Vere, resulted in an obvious incongruity in that an uncle, John fitz Richard, would be marrying his own niece, if he and Roger fitz Richard were brothers, which, perhaps, caused some sources to reject Roger fitz Richard as the son of Richard fitz Eustace and Albreda de Lisours in favor of representing Roger fitz Richard's parentage as unknown.5

J.H. Round, in writing about a grant exchanging Aynho, Northants for Compton, co. Warwick, made from William II de Mandeville, 3rd Earl of Essex (son of Rohais de Vere, Alice de Vere's sister), to Roger fitz Richard, notes that, "John, constable of Chester, was (then or afterwards) son-in-law to the grantee's wife".6 Here, J.H. Round establishes that Alice de Vere's daughter, Alice de Vere, was married to John fitz Richard, who was, at the time, the constable of Chester. Interestingly, J.H. Round leaves open the possibility that Roger fitz Richard wasn't the father of Alice de Vere's daughter by stating that John fitz Richard "was (then or afterwards) son-in-law to the grantee's wife" rather than flatly stating John fitz Richard was the grantee's (Roger fitz Richard) son-in-law. Therefore, another man, such as Alice de Vere's first husband, William de Sackville, Lord of Braxted, divorced in 1141/3,9,10,11 around the time Alice de Vere's daughter was born in 1141, may have fathered Alice de Vere's daughter. According to Chris Phillips, John fitz Richard's wife, Alice de Vere, is a rare example of a woman using her mother's maiden name as her surname.10 William de Sackville's and Alice de Vere's marriage was dissolved by papal rescript, because he was claimed as a husband by Aubrée Tregoz, who had a pre-contract of marriage.10,11 By using the surname of de Sackville, Alice de Vere's daughter would be naming herself a bastard, since her parents were never legally married. Alice de Vere and William de Sackville had another daughter, they named Mabel, who adopted the surname of her husband, Richard de Franqueville, thereby renaming herself Mabel de Franqueville.10,11

J.H. Round also wrote that the elder Alice de Vere was known as "Alice of Essex", because of her prior marriage to Robert of Essex.5,8 And so, the confusion with William de Vere's nepos statement may arise because Roger fitz Richard's wife, Alice de Vere, had a previous husband, Robert of Essex, who was the son of Hugh Bigod's sister, Gunnor Bigod, and Robert fitz Swein, Baron of Raleigh.8,12,13 Therefore, Robert of Essex was Hugh Bigod's nephew by virtue of having been the son of his sister, Gunnor Bigod, and William de Vere's brother-in-law by virtue of having been married to his sister, Alice de Vere, which would clearly satisfy William de Vere's nepos statement, if he were writing about Robert of Essex. The knowledge of the nepos statement, found in William de Vere's two tracts (i.e., religious pamphlets) on the life and miracles of St. Osyth,13 only exists as extracts copied by John Leland, the Antiquary, published in Leland's Itinerary in 1710,14 and so the possibility of miscopying or changing an entry exists.

However, nepos, besides just meaning nephew, can also mean grandson or descendant,15 but it can be loosely interpreted to mean a more distant relationship,16 such as a brother-in-law. Roger fitz Richard was married to Alice de Vere and Julianne de Vere (Alice and William de Vere's sister) was married to Hugh Bigod, and so William de Vere may have meant there was a family relationship between Roger fitz Richard and Hugh Bigod, since both their wives were sisters.9,17 Moreover, Alice de Vere had been married to Robert of Essex, the son of Gunnor Bigod, sister of Hugh Bigod, making Alice de Vere Hugh Bigod's niece by marriage. William de Vere may have meant that since Alice de Vere was the niece of Hugh Bigod, therefore Roger fitz Richard was Hugh Bigod's nephew by virtue of being married to his sister, Alice de Vere.16 In any case, a fictional "Jane Bigod" was probably concocted to satisfy the nepos statement.

Some confusion surrounds John fitz Richard's wife, Alice de Vere (Alice de Vere's daughter) in that some sources instead name her as Alice de Mandeville,7,18 the daughter of Geoffrey II de Mandeville, 1st Earl of Essex, and Rohais de Vere, the elder Alice de Vere's older sister.9 The misidentification arose from Alice de Vere, the daughter, being wrongly named by W. Dugdale as the sister of William II de Mandeville,5,19 3rd Earl of Essex, son of Geoffrey II de Mandeville and Rohais de Vere. Chris Phillips believes the confusion arose because Rohais de Vere's sister, Alice de Vere, was known as "Alice of Essex" as a result of her marriage to Robert of Essex and because the sisters shared the surname of de Vere. And so, it was mistakenly assumed that "Alice of Essex", the mother of Alice de Vere, was the "Countess of Essex", Rohais de Vere, thus making the younger Alice de Vere's brother William II de Mandeville, if it were true.10 The misidentification was readily accepted, because it easily solved the problem of John fitz Richard marrying his brother's daughter, and thus his own niece;20 just as "Jane Bigod", a fictional daughter of Roger Bigod, easily solved the problem of William de Vere's nepos statement that apparently named Roger fitz Richard as Hugh Bigod's blood nephew,2 when in fact he was not.

The problem with the document, Descendants of Ranulphus De Praers Lord of Vil of Stokes,21 which claims Ranulphus de Praers (latinization of Ranulf de Presles) was Roger fitz Richard's great grandfather, is that it also claims Alice de Vere (b. abt. 1141) was married to Roger fitz Richard, supposedly born about 1140, when, in fact, it was her mother, Alice de Vere (b. abt. 1124), daughter of Aubrey II de Vere and Aleliza de Clare, who was married to him. It was unlikely during the era in question for a man to marry a woman sixteen years older than himself, although marriages between an older man and a younger woman were common then. Roger fitz Richard was likely born earlier than 1140. Still, he may have been a number of years younger than Alice de Vere, depending on the circumstances surrounding their marriage. Timeline problems, historical facts, and medieval social standards makes it unlikely that Ranulphus de Praers was Roger fitz Richard's great grandfather (see Ranulf de Presles).

Roger fitz Richard (Baron of Warkworth, Constable of Newcastle, and Lord of Clavering) is pivotal in the genealogical link to the Stokes family, and, since his ancestry is unknown, it has been the subject of speculation, which includes John fitz Richard4 and Ranulphus de Praers21 as his great grandfather. Roger fitz Richard was perhaps a "new man" associated with powerful people, or a descendant of a pre-Conquest Norman landholder in England, since he received Warkworth in 1157, not as an inheritance from his father, but as a grant from King Henry II.13 Actually, Henry II, in a charter attested by his brother, William of Anjou, gave and confirmed to Roger, "the son of Richard," for service rendered, the castle and manor of "Werkewrde" to be held by him and his heirs as the hereditary fee of one knight.22 "Richard," the father of Roger fitz Richard, was most likely Richard fitz Eustace, 5th Baron of Halton and Constable of Chester, the son of Eustace fitz John, Baron of Alnwick, by his second wife, Agnes fitz Nigel (aka, Agnes de Halton), the daughter of William fitz Nigel, 2nd Baron of Halton.23,24 Richard fitz Eustace's wife was Albreda de Lisours, daughter of Robert de Lisours, Lord of Sprotborough, and Aubrey de Lacy, who was the sister and heiress of Ilbert II de Lacy, Baron of Pontefract.25

Roger fitz Richard received the barony of Warkworth as a reward for his bravery at the battle of Coleshill in Flintshire in the same battle in which Eustace fitz John was killed in an ambush set for King Henry II by Owen of North Wales in 1157.22,23 At the same time, Henry II also issued another charter confirming William de Vesci, the eldest son of Eustace fitz John and his first wife, Beatrix de Vesci, as heir of the barony of Alnwick and his father's other possessions. Therefore, William de Vesci was compensated for the loss of his father with the barony of Alnwick;22 so, by connecting the dots, and thereby making a case supporting the premise that Eustace fitz John was Roger fitz Richard's grandfather, perhaps Roger fitz Richard was also being compensated for the loss of his grandfather with the grant of the barony of Warkworth. At the same time, Richard fitz Eustace, was also granted the barony of Halton, becoming the 5th Baron of Halton, succeeding his dead father, Eustace fitz John, the 4th Baron of Halton.26 Since Richard fitz Eustace and Roger fitz Richard were both granted baronies upon the death of Eustace fitz John in 1157, it might be surmised that they were perhaps a father and a son.

Warkworth Castle27 and Alnwick Castle28 are both located in Northumberland near the Scottish border, a stone's throw from each other, and since Roger fitz Richard received Warkworth, which is in the very same area as Alnwick, perhaps indicating he may be Eustace fitz John's grandson. Furthermore, Warkworth and Alnwick shared the same shield design; "quarterly [quarterings] or [gold] gules [red]; a bend sable [diagonal black band]",22,29 which connected them together into a family group, since a similarity between heraldic shields symbolized a close kinship.8,30 John fitz Richard used the same design, except with a label over arms [horizontal band with pendants],22,31 "which the Claverings [Roger fitz Richard's descendants] bore with no difference",19,22 which signified a close kinship, such as a brotherly relationship.

At the same battle of Coleshill, Henry of Essex, Baron of Raleigh, believing the king had been slain and fearing the English troops were on the brink of annihilation, threw down the royal standard and deserted the battlefield. However, a total rout was avoided when Henry II was found to be alive and Roger, Earl of Clare, arrived in time with soldiers to avert disaster.22,32 Moreover, Roger fitz Richard became closely linked with the events of Coleshill, because of his bravery, and, conversely, Henry of Essex became closely linked with the events of Coleshill, because of his disgrace. As a result of Henry of Essex's cowardice and dishonor, his life was spared on the condition he forfeited his barony by entering a monastery and joining its order.22