Ordericus, _History_ (Forester), 3:336. R. W. Eyton, in discussing Roger Corbet'...
Full citation
Ordericus, _History_ (Forester), 3:336. R. W. Eyton, in discussing Roger Corbet's role in this rebellion, says that it is a question "whether [Roger] suffered in his estate for this rebellion more than he profited by his timely discretion" (_Antiquities_, 7-9), but this reference to Roger's "timely discretion" is entirely unwarranted. Ordericus makes it very clear that it was the regular or localgarrison and the burgesses who admitted the royal troops into the town and that the rebel earl's vassals (led by Roger) not only had no part in this betrayal, but resisted it with determination untilthey were overpowered and captured. Indeed, it is absurd to speak of Roger as having "profited" from the "timely" loss of Bridgnorth, for in spite of the king's apparent recognition of Roger's obligations to his feudal lord, it is clear that Roger lost a few of his manors as a result of his role in the rebellion. Cited by Jim Weber, Rootsweb. Phillips, Weber, Kirk and Staggs Families of the Pacific Northwest Accessed October 17, 2017. jhd