Roger de Lacy

• Preferred Name: Roger de Lacy
  
• Alternate Name: Roger de Lacy
  
• Gender: M
  
• FSID: GSHT-SV8
  
• Death: ABT 1106 in Ewias, Herefordshire, England at LATI: N1.9513 LONG: E2.892
  
• Banished/exiled: 1085 & 1096 with note: The Domesday Book Online
  
• Rebelled: 1088 & 1094 with note: The Domesday Book Online
  
• Birth: ABT 1062 in France with note: GEDCOM data
  
• Notes:

  === Life Sketch ===
  Roger de Lacy (died after 1106) was an Anglo-Norman nobleman, a Marcher Lord on the Welsh border. Roger was a castle builder, particularly at Ludlow Castle.
  
  Lands and titles
  From Walter de Lacy (died 1085) he inherited Castle Frome, Herefordshire. The Domesday Survey (1086) shows Roger holding also Ocle Pychard, Almeley Castle, Eardisley Castle, Icomb Place and Edgeworth Manor. He had an insecure lordship at Ewias Lacy now known as Longtown Castle on the modern day Welsh border., in Longtown, Herefordshire; Stanton Lacy was probably also his after Walter. His main stronghold was Weobley. He held directly from the King.
  
  Rebel Baron
  He took part in the rebellion of 1088 against William Rufus, with the other local lords Osbern fitzRichard of Richard's Castle, Ralf of Mortemer, and Bernard of Neufmarche. He was later implicated in the conspiracy of 1095 against William, and was exiled.
  
  Legacy of family conflict
  Weobley passed to his brother Hugh de Lacy who died before 1115 when the de Lacy lands passed to Pain fitzJohn. Roger's son Gilbert de Lacy spent much effort recovering the Longtown and Ludlow holdings.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_de_Lacy
  
  === Some background information concerning the family of Walter de Lacy, Lord of Weobley ===
  There appears to be much confusion and, in some case, total speculation when it comes to the family of Walter de Lacy, Lord of Weobley. That he accompanied William the Conqueror to England in 1066 is confirmed in many older records [See document titled Lacy Family Pedigree in Burke’s Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited and Extinct Peerages (Burke’s Peerages) in the Memories section; also see the document titled Lacy Family Pedigree in the Battle Abbey Roll in the Memories section; see also the document titled Walter de Lacy in The History of the Princes, the Lords Marcher and the Ancient Nobility of Powys Fagod (History of the Princes) in the Memories section; and see the documents for Walter de Lacy in Archaelogia Cambrensis in the Memories section]. Walter de Lacy was also in the company of Ilbert de Lacy accompanying William the Conqueror, but the records do not agree on what the relationship was between Walter and Ilbert. Some record suggest they were brothers, i.e., the Battle Abbey Roll and Archaelogia Cambrensis, but Burke’s Peerages suggests the relationship between the two cannot be ascertained. That Ilbert became the Lord of Pontefract and Walter became the Lord of Weobley appears to be beyond dispute.
  
  There is also considerable confusion regarding the spouse of Walter de Lacy, in large measure because none of the above-mentioned records name his spouse. Some private records suggest his spouse was Ermaline de Breteuil, which appears to be nothing more than wishful thinking and which is physically impossible. Ermaline de Breteuil was reportedly born about 1010 with Walter being born about 1042, making Ermaline more than thirty years older than Walter. It is highly unlikely they would have been a couple and Ermaline could not possibly have been the mother of Walter’s children, the first of whom, Roger de Lacy, was born about 1065 when Ermaline would have been in her mid-fifties.
  
  Other private records suggest Walter’s spouse was Emmeline de Ballon, but that again is nothing more than wishful thinking and physically impossible. Emmeline de Ballon was also reportedly born about 1010 and like Ermaline de Breteuil was much too old to be the wife of Walter or the mother of his children.
  
  Still other private records suggest Walter’s spouse was Emma FitzOsbern, but if she was a spouse of Walter’s, which is unlikely, she is much too young to be the mother of his children. Emma FitzOsbern was reportedly born about 1059 and would have been only six years of age when Walter’s first son, Roger de Lacy, was born.
  
  Some additional private records suggest Walter’s wife was Emmeline de Saer (Emmeline of Saer). While there may possibly have been a place called Saer in the 10th and 11th centuries, it is not a place that can currently be identified. So, there is no documentary proof for the existence of Emmeline de Saer. However, she reportedly was born about 1047 and was from Normandy, France, so someone by that name may have existed. She just cannot be documented currently, except the name appears in a footnote in the Antiquities of Shropshire [See document titled Barony of Lacy in the Memories section]. It appears that virtually all records agree that Walter’s wife was named Emma or Emmeline [See the document titled Walter de Lacy in Wikipedia in the Memories section]. Emmeline de Saer is of the right age, the right time, and the right place to be the spouse of Walter de Lacy, and lacking any proof of another possible spouse for Walter, she appears to be the best choice for Walter’s wife.
  
  Coming to England with William the Conqueror, one might expect to find Walter de Lacy in the Domesday Book, but he is not found there. That is easily explainable. Walter de Lacy died in 1084/1085 (the records cited above do not agree on the year, but all the records agree that he died by falling from a ladder), and the Domesday Book was not begun until 1086/1087, after Walter’s death. Walter’s son, Roger de Lacy, is found in the Domesday Book as the Tenant-in-chief of some 157 manors or estates, which as son and heir he had inherited. Unfortunately for Roger de Lacy, he rebelled against King William II (William Rufus), son of William the Conqueror, and was banished from England, losing the many properties in England that his father had been given by the Conqueror. However, his brother Hugh de Lacy remained in England [See document titled Barony of Lacy in the Memories section].
  
  The next person in the pedigree line of Walter de Lacy is his grandson, Gilbert de Lacy. The records do not always agree on the parentage of Gilbert de Lacy. Some records report Gilbert de Lacy is the son of Roger de Lacy [See the document titled Roger de Lacy in Wikipedia in the Memories section, which is likely in error, and see the document titled Gilbert de Lacy in Wikipedia in the Memories section, also likely in error], but most records report Gilbert de Lacy was the nephew of Roger de Lacy and was the son of one of Roger’s sisters, a daughter of Walter de Lacy. Giving credence to Gilbert de Lacy not being the son of Roger de Lacy is the fact that most records report he assumed the name Lacy. If he had been the son of Roger de Lacy, his surname would have been Lacy and he would not have assumed the name. If he was the son of a sister of Roger de Lacy, Gilbert’s surname would have been his father’s surname and, thus, he would have had to change his name, assuming the surname of Lacy. Burke’s Peerages gives Gilbert’s mother the name of Emme (Emma), and the Lacy pedigree in Archaelogia Cambrensis names Gilbert’s mother as Rohesia or Emma. British History Online also reports that Gilbert was the son of Emma [See document titled Roger de Lacy in British History Online in the Memories section] and the Lacy Pedigree in the Antiquities of Shropshire confirms Gilbert’s mother was Emma, daughter of Walter de Lacy [See Lacy Pedigree in the Antiquities of Shropshire in the Memories section]. One thing the records all appear to agree on is that Gilbert de Lacy became a Knight Templar and traveled to the Holy Land.
  
  There also exist some discrepancies in the identity of the next generation of the line of Walter de Lacy. Most records report the next generation as Hugh de Lacy, but there is disagreement as to whether Hugh de Lacy is the son of Gilbert de Lacy or if he is Gilbert’s brother. The Lacy pedigree in Archaelogia Cambrensis shows Hugh as the son of Gilbert as does the pedigree in the Antiquities of Shropshire, but Burke’s Peerages reports Hugh as either the brother or son of Gilbert and the Battle Abbey Roll reports Hugh as the son of Gilbert. It appears Hugh is most likely the son of Gilbert.
  
  Hugh de Lacy reportedly had four sons, two of whom, Hugh and Walter, became very well known, Hugh de Lacy as Earl of Ulster and Walter de Lacy as Lord of Meath and Ludlow.

1. Gilbert de Lacy, b. ABT 1093 in Ewyas Harold, Herefordshire, England     d. AFT 1163 in Ewyas Lacy, Herefordshire, England