492 THE EARLY SHERIFFS OF NORFOLK October Stapleton, the recognized authority on the subject, wrote that Hugh de Cressie had married Margaret, daughter and heir [sic] of Wilham du Quesnay [de Caisneio], hereditary sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, and was in her right lord of several manors in those counties. He had by her a son named Roger, and was deceased before 3 Richard I, 1192, in which year Robert Fitz Roger was sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk in right of the same Margaret, then his wife.^ This is rather a confusing statement, but the chart pedigree printed above will make the relationship clear. It vAQ have been observed that Stapleton here speaks of William as ' heredi- tary sheriff ' of East Anglia, which is one of the very points that I discuss in this paper. For the moment, however, I am concerned with his description of Margaret as her father's 'heir'. This statement is also found in Dugdale's Baronage (i. 106, 708), where it is taken from monastic cartularies, in Foss's Judges,^ &c. Even the Red Book (citing the Pipe Roll of 13 John) style? Margaret his heres (p. 142).' What- ever may have been the rights of Margaret, she brought them all to her second husband, Robert Fitz Roger, who held the shrievalty in several years ^ and, in Stapleton's words, was, in her right, sherifE of Norfolk and Suffolk and ' lord of several manors in those counties '. He was also, in his own right, a man of some consequence, being son and heir of Roger Fitz Richard, lord, by the king's gift, of the northern stronghold of Warkworth and the Essex lordship of Clavering.^ We can now turn to the light thrown on a rettu-n for the honour of Boulogne by the alias ' William of Norwich ', which is found therein. This return is given on p. 273 of the Testa purparty in 1223. The Pipe Roll of 1175 (21 Hen. II) shows Hugh de Cressy already seised of Blythburgh (p. 107). ' Hot. Scacc. Norm. n. cxiz.
- i. 228, ' The daughter and heir of William de Caynete or Quesnay '.
- See below.
- He was sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk for six years in all, viz Michaelmas 1190 to
Easter 1194, and Michaelmas 1197 to Easter 1200.
- Red Book, pp. 442, 562 ; Dugdale's Barotiage, i. 107. One has to lay stress on
this identity because it serves to illustrate the importance of punctuation in the editing of manuscripts. The Red Book (p. 142), citing the Pipe Roll of 13 John, con- tains, according to its editor, this passage : ' Et ij milites de feodo Roberti filii Rogeri de Mor, et Bliburg[i] hereditatis azorie suae, haeredis Willelmi de Norwico.' The entry in the index (p. 1252) runs accordingly : Mora, Mor — , Rob. fil. Rog. de, 142. There was, of course, no such person ; Robert Fitz Roger de Mor owes his existence solely to erroneous punctuation. A no less serious error is that of Mr. Walter Rye, who speaks of ' Robert Fitz Robert, sheriff in 1190' {Norfolk Families, p. 218 ; Coat Armour used in Norfolk, p. 24).
