Talk:Roger de Breteuil, 2nd Earl of Hereford

Untitled
"but he was released, with other political prisoners, at the death of William I in 1087."

No he wasn't.

His rage against the king, according to Ordericus, made William resolve to keep him in prison so long as he lived, but on his death he sanctioned his release. He was, however, never released... [Ref: DNB, Editors, Leslie Stephen & Sidney Lee, MacMillan Co, London & Smith, Elder & Co., NY, 1908, vol. vii, p. 230] DNB = Dictionary of National Biography

Though the King is reported, when he fell ill in 1087, to have ordered Roger's liberation, it does not appear that this order was ever carried out.(c)

(c) Roger de Hoveden (vol. i, p. 140) states that he released his brother Eudes, The Earls Morcar and Roger, and all whom he had in prison, both in England and Normandy, but Ordericua Vitalis (536 A) states (after the burning of the royal gift—see note”b” above “Sententia regis tam fixa permansit quod nec etiam post mortem regis ipse nisi mortuus de vinculis exiit”—and Ordericus Vitalis lived in those years. [Ref: CP VI:450] CP = Cokayne's Peerage.

I quote these source references not to have the quotes themselves printed in the article, but to corroborate that this individual was never released from imprisonment as stated by Ordericus Vitalis who was living at the time.

Regards, Curt_Hofemann@yahoo.com

The Latin statement merely states that the king became fixed that Earl Roger should not be released until his own death whether that occured before the king's death or not. It does not state that he was never released. Certainly William kept him imprisoned to his own death.--Paul Remfry (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)