Edward of Southwark, living 1125. | +---+---------+ | | "Ingenolda," = Roger Edward = Godeleve. William, living 1130. | "nepos de Cornhill,| living 1125. | Huberti." living 1125.| | | | +----------+ | | Gervase = Agnes Fitz Roger de Cornhill, (afterwards married Gervase de before 1136. Cornhill). I say that this is a remarkable pedigree because, from the dates, Edward of Southwark must have been born within a very few years of the Conquest, and also because we can feel sure, in the case both of him and of his son-in-law, that we are dealing with men of the old stock, connected with the venerable gild of English "Cnihts." But it further shows us how the elder of the two bestowed on his English son the name of the Norman Conqueror, and how the Norman settlers intermarried with the English stock. Let us now return to the father of Gervase, Roger "nepos Huberti." Here, again, there come to our help the records of the duchy of Lancaster. Among them are two royal charters, the first of which grants to Roger the manor of Chalk, in Kent,[900] while the second was consequent on his death,[901] and should be read in connection with the above extracts from the Pipe-Roll of 1130. This charter has a special interest from its mention of the fact that Roger had gone "ad Jerosolima." We may infer from this that he had died on pilgrimage.[902] As Gervase inherited from his father so large an estate, Roger must have been, in his day, a man of some consequence. It is, therefore, rather strange that his name does not occur in the report on the muniments of St. Paul's, nor in any other quarter to which I have been able to refer. Luckily, however, Stow has preserved for us the gist of a document which he had seen, when he tells us that on the grant of their soke, in 1125, by the Cnihtengild— "The king sent also his sheriffs, to wit Aubrey de Vere and _Roger nephew to Hubert_, which (upon his behalf) should invest this church with the possessions thereof; which the said sheriffs accomplished, coming upon the ground, Andrew Buchevite[903] and the forenamed witnesses and others standing by."[904] If we can trust to this passage, as I believe we certainly can, our Roger was a sheriff of London in 1125. This makes it highly probable that he was identical with the "Roger" named in a document addressed, a few years earlier:— "Hugoni de Bocheland, _Rogero_, Leofstano, Ordgaro, et omnibus aliis baronibus Lundoniæ."[905]