General Notes

!Earl of Hereford following his father's death in 1071.  2nd son of William fitzOsbern.  One of the two main conspirators against William I in 1075.  The other was Ralf de Gael (de Gauder), his brother-in-law.  [William I and the Norman Conquest]

!Uprising mentioned above was quickly suppressed, Roger thrown into prison, and Ralf driven over seas. [WBH - England]

Younger son of William FitzOsbern, inherited the English lands and the earldom. [Anglo-Norman Families, p. 43]

Youngest son (No. 3) of William FitzOsbern and Adelina de Toeni; received the earldom of Hereford and the lands of his father in England. [Falaise Roll, p. 42]

Earl of Hereford; cousin of William the Congueror, who gave him in 1075, the earldom, city and castle of Norwich in England. [Genealogical Sketch]

2nd son of William Fitz Osberne, 1st Earl of Hereford, whom he accompanied to England at the Conquest. On the death of his father in 1071, Roger inherited the earldom and the English estates, and he thus became the 2nd Earl of Hereford. He shortly afterwards lost it by his perfidy and folly toward his sovereign. In 1075, during the absence of King William in Normandy, he joined a rebellion against that monarch with Raoul de Gael, Earl of Norfolk, who had taken advantage of the king's absence to marry Roger's sister, Emma, which
union the king had positively forbidden. Roger was captured, his properties confiscated and he was thrown into prison where he died. [Falaise Roll, p. 99]

Younger son of William FitzOsberne; succeeded in the earldom of Hereford and English estates. William of Malmesbury says he had a bad character. He and Ralph Guader, earl of Norfolk, were the leaders in 1075 of the first revolt of the Norman garrison in England against the central government. One of the grievances of Roger is of great interest. He resented the sheriffs holding pleas upon his lands, a fact which may bear on the character of his father's earldom. William ordered the sheriffs to desist until he should be able after his return from Normandy to decide the questions at issue. After the bride-ale at Norwich, where, contrary to the king's mandate, Roger married his sister Emma to the earl of Norfolk, he returned to his earldom and rose in revolt. He was supported by his military retainers, but he could not gain the fyrd. On the contrary, the forces of the diocese of Worcester under Wulfstan the bishop, Ethelwig abbot of Evesham, and Urse the sheriff of Worcestershire, not only prevented Roger from crossing the Severn, but succeeded in taking him prisoner.
The punishment of his treason at the king's court at Christmas was the forfeiture of his lands and perpetual imprisonment. The earldom was retained in the king's hands. [The Victoria History of the Counties of England:
Herefordshire, p. 355-7]

Following the Revolt of the Earls in 1075, Earl Roger was captured and spent the rest of his life in prison. He was disinherited. [Conquest & Resistance, England:1066-88 <http://britannia.com/history/hastings.html]