the "little castle" was to grow into the historic home of that historic house in whom, whether they themselves acknowledge it or not, history must see the lineal offspring, not of a Danish king, but of an English staller.[1] At present however the savage William of Eu had not to assault the stronghold of Robert, son of Harding and grandson of Eadnoth, but merely to overcome whatever resistance could be offered by the castellulum of William Fitz-Osbern. Its defences were most likely much less strong than the Roman walls of Ilchester. Berkeley and the coasts thereof were thoroughly ravaged. On the whole, notwithstanding the defeat of Robert of Mowbray, the Bishop of Coutances and his lieutenants had done their work to their own good liking. No small spoil from each of the three nearest shires had been brought in to the robbers' hold at Bristol.
Rebel centre at Hereford. Meanwhile the same work was going on busily to the north and north-west of Bishop Geoffrey's field of action. Of the movements in Herefordshire and Worcestershire we have fuller accounts, accounts which, before we have done, land us from the region of military history into that of hagiography. The centre of mischief in this region was at Hereford. The city which Harold had called back into being, and where William Fitz-Osbern had ruled so sternly, had now no longer an earl; the rebel Roger was paying the penalty of his treason at some point far away alike from Hereford, from Flanders, and from Breteuil.[2] The city had now the King for its immediate lord. It was presently seized by Roger of Lacy,[3] and was turned into a meeting-place
- ↑ Since I wrote the fourth volume of the Norman Conquest, there has been much controversy about the origin of Robert Fitz-Harding. (See Notes and Queries, Jan. 3rd, 1880.) I am confirmed on the whole in my old belief that he was the son of Harding the son of Eadnoth.
- ↑ See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 590, 855.
- ↑ See above, p. 33.
