Monasticon Anglicanum_, 3:519a. I think it likely that Roger Corbet died at leas...
Full citation
Monasticon Anglicanum_, 3:519a. I think it likely that Roger Corbet died at least two years before Stephen's confirmation charter was issued, for in 1134 Caus Castle was burned by the Welsh, and at the time it was in the hands of the sheriff of Shropshire, Pain Fitz John (_History_ [Forester]), Ordericus, 4:143-44). Since the Corbet lands clearly never escheated to the crown, it would seem eitherthat Pain had seized the castle illegally or that Pain was lawfully in possession of Caus because Roger had died leaving a minor as his heir, and that the king was exercising his rights of wardship through his sheriff. Since Roger was apparently an adult in 1071 and must therefore have been in his seventies in 1121 - the last date when we can be sure that he was still living - the former explanation would at first seem more likely. Indeed, Eyton was convinced that "the unscrupulous mode in which Pagan fitz John is said to have exercised his provincial power is all that [can explain] his beingthus seized of the Castle of a less powerful Baron." (Eyton, _Antiquities_, 7:10) There are, however, some difficulties with this interpretation. First, as will become apparent later in this chapter,Eyton seriously underestimated the Corbets' power, and so it is unlikely that Pain could have wrested the family's principal manor from them. Second, even though the term _unscrupulous sheriff_ may seem a redundancy during this period, it is most unlikely that Pain would have acted against the interest of _this_ family. Pain must have known that King Henry was favorably disposed not just to SybilCorbet (Henry's mistress & Roger's niece), but to the rest of her family. Finally, Ordericus was more than casually familiar with events along the Welsh March during this period, and yet there is no hint in his account of the burning of Caus which would suggest that Pain's possession of the castle was in any way irregular. Thus it would seem likely that Pain was legally in possession of Caus. Butif Pain was in possession of Caus on King Henry's orders in 1134, the only likely reason is that Roger Corbet's heir was still a minor, and since Roger was at least seventy years old in 1121, this tooseems unlikely. There is, however, some reason to think that it is nevertheless true. In the first place, there is no evidence apart from Roger's age which precludes the possibility that his sons were minors in 1134, and while it is not common for a man to father sons in his fifties or sixties, it is far from impossible. Moreover, if Roger's sons were not minors when he died, their failure to appear in the surviving records before 1136 is extraordinary. That Roger's charter to Shrewsbury Abbey in 1094 fails to mention his heir is not in itself surprising, for at that time there would be nothing remarkable in Roger's having no sons who had attained their majority (and while the consent of minor sons to such donations was often mentioned in charters of the period, it was only the consent ofthe adult heirs which was generally considered essential). It is somewhat more unusual, however that Roger's sons (if they were indeed not minors) failed to appear together with their father and uncle in the documents witnessed by Roger and Robert between 1094 and 1121. If Roger had sons who were reaching their majority during this period, it would have been natural for them to accompany their father on occasion, particularly when Roger went to court, so that they could meet and be met by the king and his court. It would also have been natural for such sons to appear, with or without their father, as witnesses to charters of other Shropshire families. But if such sons existed, they left no trace in the surviving records. This invisibility of Roger's sons is not, of course, absolute proofof their minority, but Roger's grant of Winsley to the monks of Shrewsbury does provide almost conclusive proof that his sons were all minors at the time. Since Roger was at least in his seventies when he made this donation, the monks of the abbey would surely have insisted that the charter mention the consent of Roger's heirs or the presence of his sons among the witnesses unless it was pointlessto do so; and for this to be pointless, all of Roger's sons must have been minors when Roger made this donation. Reference: Barons of the Welsh Frontier p3-6 (footnotes p159-162)] Note: CSPS = Cartulary of St. Peter's of Shewsbury (National Library of Wales MS 7851D [Phillipps MS 3516]). Cited by Jim Weber, Rootsweb. Phillips, Weber, Kirk and Staggs Families of the Pacific Northwest Accessed October 17, 2017. jhd