From the similarity of the two witness lists, it would appear that both document...
Full citation
From the similarity of the two witness lists, it would appear that both documents originated in the same royal council and that the Robert Corbet who was identified first as Roger's son and then as Roger's brother was in fact the baron of Longdon and Alcester, Roger's brother. The only document which suggests that Roger had a son named Robert is this _notitia_ in the Shrewsbury cartulary, and itsreliablility is questionable. Nevertheless, A. E. Corbet was convinced that Roger had five sons - William, Evrard, Simon, Roger and Robert - and that Robert was the founder of the Scottish branch of the family (_Family_, 1:49-51). Since the Scottish Corbets do make their appearance in the mid-twelfth century, it is possible that A. E. Corbet is correct, but I think it unlikely. Given the similarity of the two documents in question, the regularity with which Roger appears as a witness with his brother, and the absence of other documents where Roger appears with any of his sons, much less a sonnamed Robert, the Robert in question is almost certainly Roger's brother. Cited by Jim Weber, Rootsweb. Phillips, Weber, Kirk and Staggs Families of the Pacific Northwest Accessed October 17, 2017. jhd