General Notes

REFN: 2251AN
REFN: P2252
The Conqueror and His Companions
by J.R. Planché, Somerset Herald . London: Tinsley Brothers, 1874.
The owner of this great historical name, who accompanied the Conqueror to
England, was apparently the son of Robert le Bi god, the first of the name
of whom we have any notice, and who was a witness to the foundation of
St. Philibert-sur-Risle, in 1066. Wace, in his enumerati on of the leaders
in the host at Hastings, designates the member of this fami ly simply 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 arro ndissement of Lisieux,
and Loges may have been either Les Loges, near Aunay, or another commune
of the same name in the neighbourhood of Falaise. (Le Prév ost: Notes to
Le Rom. De Rou, vol. ii, p. 256.) The possession of these lands in
Normandy by "the ancestor of Hugh le Bigot" is a curious fact, taken into
consideration with the account the monk of Jumièges gives of this
ancestor . Robert le Bigod, he tells us, was a knight in the service of
William Werlen c, or the Warling, Comte De Mortain, and so poor that he
prayed his lord to p ermit him to go and seek his fortune in Apulia, where
his countrymen were est ablishing themselves and acquiring wealth and
dignity under the leadership of Robert Guiscard. The Count baDe him
remain, assuring him that within eighty days he (Robert) would be in a
position to help himself to whatever he desire d in Normandy.
Whether the Count contemplated the deposition of Duke William, or was
privy to the design of others, may never be known, but Robert le Bigod ,
inferring from this advice that some rebellious movement was projected,
r epaired to Richard Goz, Vicomte of the Hiemois, who was at that moment
highly in favour with the Duke, and requested him to obtain an audience
for him. Ri chard, who, according to the same authority, was a kinsman of
Robert -- it wo uld be interesting to learn how -- readily complied, and
Le Bigod having repe ated to the Duke the words of the Warling, the latter
was instantly summoned to attend him, accused of treason, banished the
country, and the Comté of Mor tain was bestowed upon the Duke's
half-brother Robert, the son of Herleve by Herluin. That William jumped
at this opportunity to rid himself of a possible competitor whose claim
to the duchy was clearly stronger than his own, and a t the same time to
advance one of his own family who would have no such prete nsions, there
can be no doubt. The truth or falsehood of the story told to hi m by
Robert le Bigod has never been established. The defence of the accused,
if he made any, has not been recorded; and even Mr. Freeman admits that
the Duke's "justice, if justice it was, fell so sharply and speedily as
to look very like interested oppression." (Norm. Conq., vol. ii., p.
290.) We have se en in the previous notice of Raoul De Gael what opinion
was held in his own d ays of this suspicious act of the Conqueror. From
that moment Robert le Bigod became a confidential servant of his
sovereign, and his son Roger was the co mpanion of the Conqueror, who for
his services at Senlac received large grant s of land in the counties of
Essex and Suffolk, six lordships in the former a nd one hundred and
seventeen in the latter.
Mons le Prévost remarks that Wac e, always inclined to treat the present
as the past, has attributed to Roger the office of seneschal, which was
only enjoyed by his second son William. Wi th all deference, I think the
learned antiquary has misunderstood his author. Wace is not speaking of
Roger le Bigod, the father of Hugh and William, but of "the ancestor of
Hugh," Robert, as I take it, "who served the Duke in his house as one of
his seneschals, which office he held in fee."
Mr. Taylor rem arks that there is no authority for this statemen