Notes
Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (69:28) identifies her as ROGER's wife, butdoes not comment as to her parentage.
The following three sources, among others, give the identity of ROGERBIGOD's wife as Isabel de Warenne, dau. of HAMELIN PLANTAGENET (RIN 1696)and ISABEL DE WARENNE (RIN 1670):
Magna Charta Barons and their American Descendants (by Charles H.Browning)
Synopsis of the Peerage of England (1825) by Nicholas Harris
Dugdales, Banks and Collins Extinct Peerages.
Cokayne's "Complete Peerage" In the article for ROGER BIGOD, Earl ofNorfolk, on p. 589, has the statement, "He m. Ida, whose parentage is notknown." Cokayne does not even venture a guess or mention any possibleidentities for Ida's parents. Cockayne is, by far, the more reliablesource.
"Todd A. Farmerie" posted to soc.genealogy.medieval
on 04 Jan 1997:
Subject: Re: Roger Bigod m.Isabel Plantagenet?
"FWIW, Roberts reports that there is an unpublished work identifying thisIda as the "Countess Ida" mother of William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury,Henry II's bastard. If this is true, then she couldn't be daughter ofHamelin, or else Henry's seduction or rape of his own niece would surelyhave drawn comment from contemporary chroniclers."
There is a much discussed document, from The Bradenstoke Cartulary, inwhich WILLIAM LONGSWORD refers to his mother as "the Countess Ida". Apost which boils the discossion down to its essence follows:
. . . On 27 Feb 1998 tcain@dircon.co.uk (Tom Cain) posted to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Countess Ida and the Bradenstoke Cartulary:
. . . "On balance, it is an acceptable interpretation of the evidencethat 'Comitisse Ida' was William Longsword's mother. The further evidencethat Ida Bigod was one of Henry II's favoured mistresses puts her on thesame side of the blanket as William. The scales are further tipped thatway by Todd's [Todd Farmerie] comments about William's guardianship ofRoger Bigod when his father (and therefore William's half-brother) died.This establishes an 'prima facia' case that William had somekin-relationship to the Bigods. It is an entirely acceptable hypothesis,and will do until something better comes along. Under Scottish criminallaw, this case would be found as 'Not Proven' - and returned to theinvestigators until more evidence could be found ".
If this Ida was the mother of WILLIAM LONGSWORD, that would make heridentical to KING HENRY II's unidentified mistress (RIN 5264). Morediscussion on Ida's possible identity:
. . . reedpcgen@aol.com (Reedpcgen) posted to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com on 27 Feb 1998
Subject: Re: Countess Ida and the Bradenstoke Cartulary:
. . . "Actually, no. It is always intriguing to see familial names whenyou are looking for them, but the vast majority of guardianships weregranted to people of no immediate or near relation (at least within twoor three generations). They frequently became related in the nextgeneration because the person would acquire the wardship and marriage ofan heir in order to marry them to one of their own children, or at leastprofit by an arranged marriage. Also, some income from the ward's landswere also generally part of the package. In the case of Roger le Bigod
and William Longespee, however, the grant of guardianship seems to bemuch more motivated by political expediency. There is no actual reason toassume a blood relationship between the two (though there may have been):
. . . Roger le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk 1189-1221, was husband of only oneknown wife, named Ida. They were parents of Hugh le Bigod, Earl1221-1125. It was Hugh's son (not Roger's) that is the minor in question.Roger le Bigod, b. 1212 or 1213, was a minor at his father's death.
. . . William Longespee was given the marriage of Ela/Isabel ofSalisbury, with the Earldom, by King Richard I in 1196. She was born ca.1191 (or 1187). William was a close associate and member of the Royalhousehold. He was with Richard in Normandy 1196-8, present at John'scoronation 27 May 1199, and according to CP 11:379, note h (citingHovendon, vol. iv, p. 13, Rot. Chartarum and Cartae Antiquae), Williamwas "during the reign, till Midsummer 1216, ...constantly with the King[John] or occupied with the King's business." Earl William died 7 March
1225/6 in the tenth year of Henry III's reign (acceded 19 Oct. 1216).
. . . The elder Roger le Bigod had joined the Barons against King John intheir ultimatum from Stamford with his son Hugh and were among the 25sureties elected to maintain Magna Charta against King John. WilliamLongespee, Earl of Salisbury, was among the list of nobles named in thepreamble of that document as advisors to the king. Hmmmm. (Hugh le Bigodhad already married Maud, daughter of William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke,chief of the advisors, though, so families were not entirely
split along party lines.)
. . . Hugh le Bigod did not die until 1225, and the elder Roger lived onuntil 1221. But Hugh's heir, Roger, fell into the King's hands in 1216.It is at THAT time that his custody (not guardianship, in the sense ofwardship) was granted to William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, a closeand loyal associate (and brother) of King John. It just happened that theheir was still a minor when his father and grandfather died. I concludefrom this that there is no evidence from this event alone of bloodrelationship--merely that William was one of John's most trusted allies(in spite of John's personal habits). (Roger's wardship was granted toKing William "the Lion" in Oct. 1226, after Earl William's death, butremember that Roger had already married the King's daughter, so familyinterests were just being cared for.)
. . . So examining the facts in context, there is no indication ofbloodship from the lone item of the guardianship. We have to lookelsewhere.
. . . Henry II had many French connections (his father was Geoffrey ofAnjou and Maine, his wife was Eleanor of Aquitaine, formerly wife of KingLouis VII, his eldest son William was born in Normandy, his heir youngHenry married Louis' daughter Margaret, he died at Chinon, and even KingJohn had been married to Isabella of Angouleme), let alone the amount oftime he spent on the Continent.
. . . Henry was one of the most dashing and succesful warriors of histime, and certainly had an eye for the ladies. So I don't see how we candiscount a possible liason with the Countess of Boulogne at this point. .. . I thought it was interesting that Countess Ida of Norfolk was simplycalled "Ida uxoris Meae" in one charter, but 'Countess Ida' in another:
CP 9:585, note b, citing [William] Dugdale, Mon[asticon Anglicanum],
4:102: Ego Rogerus Bigot, comes Norfolchiae, concessi et hac praesenticarta mea confirmavi Deo et ecclesiae beatae Mariae de Colne [etc.] ...et cum capella de Herewyche, quam ego assensu eorum fundavi, pro saluteanimae meae et comitis Hugonis fratris [sic, recte patris] mei [see, evenundisputedly valid charters have their mistakes], et comitissae Julianae
matris meae, et Idae uxoris meae....
. . . CP 9:586, note f, citing Anc[ient] Deed A 14361: Again he grantedtithes of his demesne of Halvergate to Carlow Priory for the souls of hisfather Earl Hugh and his mother the Countess Juliane, his wife theCountess Ida, and his son William...." (But since Calendar of AncientDeeds is rendered in English, I cannot give the original Latin.)
. . . At any rate, CP was not able to identify the parentage of CountessIda of Norfolk. Is anyone aware that a discovery of her parentage hassince been made?"
The same poster latyer added:
. . . reedpcgen@aol.com (Reedpcgen) posted to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com on 28 Feb 1998
Subject: Countess Ida of Boulogne:
. . . "We need to also remember that Ida of Boulogne was one of twodaughters (the couple had no surviving sons) of Mary, Countess ofBoulogne (b. ca. 1136-1182) and her husband Matthew of Alsace, Count ofBoulogne in right of his wife. Mary was daughter of King Stephen ofEngland. Stephen had married Matilda, only daughter and heiress ofEustace III, Count of Boulogne, by Mary of Scotland. Her sister was(first) wife of Henry I of England. The Empress Matilda had retired toNormandy by 1152, and was succeeded in her quest for the throne ofEngland by her son the young Henry [II (b. 1133)].
. . . J. Horace Round, in his Studies in Peerage and Family History,wrote an article on the English holdings of the Counts of Boulogne whichhe followed into the reign of King John.
. . . So Countess Ida of Boulogne had close royal ties by blood to HenryII, and her family had holdings in England. She was an heiress in her ownright (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have ES here).
. . . Boulogne was very close to the French lands Henry II inherited byright of birth. It would be almost inconceivable that Ida and Henry didnot meet, or know each other, and this countess would be much more thetype of girl Henry would have gone for. Any issue she had would begreat-grandson of King Stephen. No wonder she had several husbands andwas in court circles. She may have been Henry's match (remember that
Eleanor was a woman with a similarprofile). "
