Roache/Roach/Roche/Roch

Original Arms

Gules (red), with three roaches naiant (horizontal) in pale argent (silver).

In mythology, fish are associated with knowledge of a particular kind. The 'Otherworld' or "Subconscious" is often represented by water - river, lake or sea - where fish can live and represent Special Powers. The Red background is for Blood or Life.
Our Arms have nothing to do with Rock, but are simply Arms which invoke a motif with mythological connotations reflecting the family's historical knowledge of, or association with, the Norse Sagas and other forms of what some consider to be Religion.
There can be no denying our attraction to the metaphysical over the ages - whether Pagan or Christian.

Later "differenced" Versions include:

A Crest

On a rock proper, an osprey (or other bird of prey) rising argent beaked and legged,
holding in its dexter claws a roach argent.

These late additions had nothing to do with the original purpose of identifying knights on the battlefield. Normally associated with the Romantic period, we find a bird of prey on arms for Roach - an osprey. Later, other predatory birds associated with the sea being used.
To be honest, I don't get it. Arms featuring three roaches and, at the crown, one trapped by a predator? If the bird were meant to be England, so dominant at sea, why admit it - even if the Roache in question were Loyalist? Honestly, I can only imagine some later-day Herald of Arms, during the Romantic period or shortly before, having fun at our expense.

Not too much should be made of them because they became prominent due to the requirement to "difference" heritable arms, and during a time when "differencing" was taken to extremes.

Motto: God is My Rock

It has been suggested the motto (also added later) may have been a reference to the Book of Psalms, Chapter 18, Verse 2, "The Lord is my rock, my fortress...."
Certainly, it meant a firm foundation - but for a Roach predator? People inclined to this Christian interpretation might also see in the three fish in relation to the Trinity, without realizing the the rock is displayed as a foundation or place of rest for the osprey, and not the Roach it plans to have for dinner.
Some, with reference to Old French, rendered it "Mon Roche (because God was Male); later, others "corrected" it linguistically to "Ma Roche" (because in French, rock, "la roche" is feminine - "la" not "le"; "ma" not "mon". Intererstingly, "la Rocque" is female, but smaller. They were also more inclined to the Lion that the Fish, in general.
Alternatively, on other arms in our surname, an antique five-pointed crown or "ROCHE" has been placed atop the shield or on the head of a Lion (the arms of another family of the name), within the Peerage, but of different Pedigree.

A five-pointed crown in mythology is associated with regal authority; and the Lion with courage - the symbol of a great Warrior or Chief. But either these motifs can render the same potential interpretation.
Some believe the Lion to be reflective of a Dragon or Tiger - respectively, Teutonic or Lombard (Italian) - which pre-date Charlemagne, Emperor of the Franks - with whom the Lion is often associated.
I have also seen Lions with the tail of a fish in place of hind paws (mermaid-like), no doubt a reflection of long association with the sea for reasons of war, trade and a source of nourishment.
De la Roche, of course, was continental, pre-dates de Roch, and almost always relates to a town or city of origin - and occasionally to a mountain fortress (during the Crusades). Surnames by then has been established, a fortress on a rocky height near a city or town of note might be named Roche if it were owned or held by them.
Fish and water have very definite mythological connotations - metaphysical, in fact - subjects to which many of our surname have been drawn. The red background was likely associated with Life itself. This seems a little esoteric for the Norse, Franks and Germans - for them and the English, the Raven and Lion seem more appropos.

Alternate Arms

Scholars debate how many branches of the "Roche" family exist in Ireland. Estimates have varied from three to five, but whole (especially later) peerages, and, therefore, pedigrees, have been excluded or manipulated through this exercise. Others, still, have been removed from the Peerage.
Given those stripped of Peerages during the Reformation; those still in dispute or unresolved; the mischief worked by "antiquarians"who "fiddled pedigrees when they could, and the fact that a Republic has no legal basis on which to grant Arms, the issue is moot.
Roches, by name, are found elsewhere in the British Isles, in most of western Europe, and, more rarely, further to the East. It will, of course, be in the language used by the culture occupying a given county or region, and in each case is subject to different spellings.
Modern geneticists - as with much of recorded history - have literally revolutionized our cultural history and mythology. They have shown there are three distinct branches (Haplogroups) using the surname Roche (spelling varies) in Ireland and the Diaspora countries of if Norse, Celtic or Mid-Eastern origin.
There would, of course be others - similar German names and arms might be expected for be Haplogroup G, for example.Whole countries and regions have yet to be tested to determine their Haplogroups/types; but, allowing for cultural and biological diversity, plus multiple spellings of any name in every language, there are, no doubt, many of our name around the world.
As with Ireland, however, many Roches would not be even distantly "related" because of the various and sundry ways that surnames came into existence and have been modified over time.

Fear not, family historians; it's in the genes.

People have rightly said this page is too long for the Internet. So I have broken it into Chapters - you can read sections of choice at one time - then come back at another time.
Point and click on any Chapter in the Table of Contents to and you will go there. When you finish, you can return to the Top of this Page or the Home Page.

Family History

Chapter I - Introduction
Anglo-Frisian, Saxon or Celt

Chapter II - Roache - What's in a Spelling?

Chapter III - Wales -- Roch Parish, the Hundred of Rhos

Chapter IV - Operation Ireland

Chapter V - Roche in England

Chapter VI - Conclusions - Always Tentative

Note: Brackets are used throughout [where possible] to show alternate spellings for the same names.
Square brackets denote the dates of the reign of the various monarchs, where required.

Chapter I - Introduction

R1b1b2a1a* Short Form = R-U106*

The information above the Introduction is historical. Modern genetics has changed much of history, as recorded, and it takes us much further back in time than surnames can. That is of no interest to some - I'm good with that. But I have found such information helpful in placing our family - our roots - in a more complete context.
Before surnames, we were semi-anonymous members of tribes or peoples that existed in small enough numbers that first names alone were all that was needed. But pre-surname information from over a millennium ago can still be useful.
If you walk into a room and there are four men unknown to you, and you begin to chat, how long does it take to determine that one is Italian, one German, one English and one Russian? Are certain basic "differences" soon apparent - can we get beyond racial profiling here for just a moment?
One is no better or worse than the other, all are human beings, just as you are, but there are totally innate and acceptable characteristics which make it very easy to tell one from the other - without judging - just as they can identify your being Australian, for example. Purely objective and obvious characteristics and basic tendencies exist of which they are proud, just as you are of being from Oz, in this example.
Were you to ask, just to confirm your impressions, would any of them deny being Italian, German, English or Russian? Would you deny being Australian? Of course not. And if you were to have them agree to take a DNA test, the results might well differ - or in some cases, surprisingly, be the same or similar.
Nationality is one part of our human identity; genetics is another, more-fundamental part. We have had our genes much longer than were have had a nationality or a name. Now that is a wonderful thing!
I (and therefore other male members of our family) are part of the group classified by geneticists as R-U106*. That does not restrict us to a given nationality. We are not all within the same borders.
We may not be related in a familial sense. To find "family", you must go beyond Haplogroups/types and match what are known as alleles in sequence. More about that elsewhere on this site.
It is enough to say here that modern genetic science is getting better at doing that every day, and many people have, for better or for worse, found distant relatives from a single male ancestor that way.
My extended family considers themselves Canadians, Americans, English and so on, but they are really equally from the Netherlands (Benelux) and other parts of western and northwestern Europe in terms of the genetic group to which we belong.
In the continental northwest, they could not help but adopt Viking ways. Even those who migrated south in the face of flooding later (AD 250) - those now found in the Netherlands and other Benelux countries, were surrounded by Danes there yet again before their last big excursion across the Channel to the Isles in AD 1066.
After the Romans left Britain (AD 410), chaos ruled. Celtic King, Vortigern - in Gaelic "Gwrtheyrn" - (and a left-over, but wealthy, Roman) invited the Scandinavian Angles, Saxons, Frisians and Jutes into the country to restore order. They would be followed in turn by additional Danes (Danelaw) and the Normans (really an Angevin elite and a Norman-Flemish Army).
Ultimately, the post Roman migration of these groups from the northwest had the same effect in Britain as the Danes and Normans would in turn and the Cambro-Normans and their allies would in Ireland. As much as England like to consider itself Anglo-Saxon today, the fact is that is founding race was Celtic. In the 1800s, there were scholars who preferred to consider themselves to have been from Gaul (hence Gaelic P or Q linguistically).
Celts are by no means uniform genetically. They were comprised of many tribes - high and low culture - and these are found today, not in the best parts of the UK, but in Ireland, Wales and Scotland and those parts of the territory of Britain into which they were pushed or held - mostly, the southwest and northeast.
When properly led, they took as much land as they needed or wanted, made undeniable improvements and introduced or restored what passed for law and order. Thus, the fact that our DNA is quite rare in modern Ireland, and more common in the British Isles - in the Midlands and slightly north of there - should not surprise.
You would expect to find Anglo-Friesians and Saxons that seem to have been back and forth across common borders for centuries in what is now NW Germany and Denmark (among the "North Germanic-Scandinavian Group".
In the Benelux countries on the continent, they are the result of a southerly migration caused by flooding in AD 250, and, in the British Isles, their having been there for sustained periods on three occasions during the first millennium.
This old map will give you an idea of where the various groups were at certain times and how they would literally continue to rub shoulders - Anglos, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Frisians, and others - as either allies or enemies - for centuries. You can only imagine the dating and mating that might, therefore, have taken place.

Geneticists face a real challenge sorting one from the other with some of these groups, complicated as that process is by nationalism and related emotions. We humans can move borders at will, but DNA prevails no matter what (except for occasional mutations).
Our haplotype survived the last Ice Age in the southeast, not the southwest - as other R1bs did on or near the Iberian Peninsula. As the ice retreated, we migrated back as far as the Scandinavian (Danish) border in the northwest corner of Europe. There were intermingled back and forth across national and tribal boundaries.
Compare the maps above and below, and you will see below that we became Frisians (Frisia); and above you will see how in three migrations, leaving some behind each time, we migrated to the British Isles as early as AD 70; to the Benelux region in AD 250 and with the Conqueror to England in AD1066.
That was a lot of back and forth with the Danes (including the Jutes of the Jutland Peninsula), with Britain and regions south and east of Frisia as far as modern Belgium and into Germany, Poland and northern Italy (Lombardy) over the centuries.
Two fairly large moves to the Isles and one major move south on the continent and from there to the Isles in about a thousand years - just a moment in time in the life of our specie - and it ignores centuries of sporadic raiding and trading - including slave trading - that incrementally no doubt had an effect on our modern genetic "footprint" as well.

R-U106* (aka S21 or M405) appears to take in over 25% of Haplogroup R1b. This haplotype (subtype) is now at a higher ratio of the population in Frisia (the Benelux - especially the Netherlands) - 30% - than anywhere else.
But that means there are more of the R-U106* haplotype who are not in the Netherlands; 70% are elsewhere.
Thought to have originated c 7000 BC (End of Ice Age) on the northwestern continental mainland, R-U106" extended south and east to the Netherlands until finally absorbed into other political entities.
It would be a rare modern border without haplogroups of peoples who mixed within the same "nation". This presents no difficulty when the genetic differences are pronounced. But haplotypes are closely-related genetically, and may prove difficult to distinguish from one another.
In fact, our own remaining SNP might prove us to be Saxons, Swabian or Jute (Danes), rather than Anglo-Frisian, genetically so close there is almost no difference. It will be a close call made on a tiny DNA sequence. That is the meaning of the [*] symbol at the end of our classification by FTDNA - it means "additional data to come."
As of now there is sufficient information and confidence to confirm that we are from a genetic haplotype named Anglo-Frisian. No matter where we are on the planet, we take our genes, and we will be Anglo-Frisian. I find that amazing.
So too is the fact that many people with the same surname are not. They are found in many other genetic groups and countries, the name in many different languages, each with at least several acceptable spellings in each language - and they are not even remotely related to us or one another.
If we leave archeology and history aside for a second, even their Arms - national and personal - were consistently similar or dissimilar almost to the point of a pattern - and they, therefore, hint at something deeper than style or personal preference (for the peoples discussed here.
There are different versions for most arms - with the Flemish, Frisians and others historically, always with Lions - possibly derived from dragons or tigers - according to those who know about Heraldry - or with Fish in our case, and many other surnames (just different species).
There may be a clue to be found in Frisian Arms, which are similar to Flemish and other western European arms:

As for the Flemings, I am no longer certain that recorded history has it right - so disliked by some in Wales and Ireland, with many remaining, but others returning to the continent. I began to develop doubts that led to several years of detailed genetic research.
There are more Flemish than Frisian R1bs in the Benelux countries but more of our haplotype in England, north of the Danelaw Line. And there are but a few in Ireland. Genetic footprints, even allowing for migration, provided a lot of information and insight.
There are Lions with the tails of fish, rather than "hind legs", (mermaid-like). I assume, rightly or wrongly, they could be a motif reflecting long association with the sea - as a means of sustenance, and peaceful trade and warfare by sea - sea lions!
The Raven - the Norse Bird of War - appears on some Flemish Arms, but the Lion goes back to the Franks, later to the Frisians, unless you adhere to the Dragon/Tiger interpretation, which would give them a more Germanic (Teutonic) or even earlier and different connotation.

There are Roches with Lions on Arms.
Frisian/Fleming Arms above are quite similar.
Roches of the Lion are diligent in their efforts, even today, to ensure it is understood they have no connection with those of the Fish; the Roach. Generally, they seem to be Normans or Franks - Haplogroup I - the operative word being "generally".
To my mind - at a time when such things mattered - I'm sure our people felt a similar disinclination to the Lion. As I said - sort the sheep from the goats by all means!

Saxon, Viking or Celt?

In AD 793, the sacking of England's Lindisfarne Monastery signaled that the Vikings had advanced outside continental Europe. their "incursions" were destined to last for centuries. During this time, these "Danes" conquered much of the British Isles, including Ireland.
In large parts of England, they established "the Danelaw", a body of law that prevailed in occupied areas after a treaty between Saxon Kings Alfred and Guthrum as late as AD 886. While control switched back and forth for a time, eventually Danish Kings sat on the English Throne:

Sven, Forkbeard [1014];
Canute the Great [1016-1035];
Harold, Harefoot [1035-1040]; &
Hardicanute [1040-1042].
The restored House of Wessex: Edward, the Confessor and Harold II between them only held power from AD 1042 until 1066, with Harold being King just long enough to get himself killed at Hastings.
The Danelaw is an enigma, as the Danes had few written documents, compared with their Saxon counterparts. Much of the information on the social, political, and military history of the Danelaw thus comes from a Saxon perspective, especially the ''Anglo-Saxon Chronicles.''
Wars of the period, rather than the social or economic history of the Danelaw, get most attention. Vikings become "bloodthirsty Vikings," who raped, pillaged and murdered for sport.
H. R. Loyn, examining the Viking attacks and migrations in ''The Vikings in Britain'' (1977), thinks they explain both the destruction visited upon England and parts of the Continent; and the colonizing of the Orkneys, Hebrides, Faeroe Islands and Iceland.
He also documents slave labour and its importance in Viking colonies, especially Norwegian Iceland. What he does not explain is benefits that accrued, nor does he help geneticists untangle the modern British racial admixture in a manner adequately consistent with the historical record.
Loyn divides the era of the Scandinavian Invasions into two phases, the first, between AD 793 and 954, the year Eric Bloodaxe of Norway died. This period was characterized by raids for bounty and slaves, intensifying with the taking of Northumbria, the Five Boroughs and East Anglia.
The second, after AD 954, saw the rise of monarchies in Scandinavia and the introduction of Christianity. Vikings, rather than being independent raiders, then "evolved." Fleets arriving in England were led by kings, not warlords.
The high point lies in their gaining the thrown - Sweyn Forkbeard and his son, Cnut the Great (above) portrays Cnut as a Christian zealot, grudgingly given some credit by modern historians.
The ''Old Norse'' were not totally illiterate, and those who spoke Old Norse and Old English were able to communicate. Runic inscriptions extant in England show that they had a written form. In fact, Old Norse helped shape Middle English, with words like "husband," "window," "knife," and "fellow."
Some, in studying the conflict between the Saxons and Vikings, and the Danelaw, see a foreshadowing of the Conquest. While AD 1066 is seen as the start a new era, its roots lie in the earlier actions by the Scandinavians - the Danelaw - and the duchy of Normandy founded by Norwegians, leading a Danish Army.
Sir Frank Stenton examined the land and the social structures of the Danelaw in his book, ''Anglo-Saxon England'' (1943). There was under Danish law an unusual emphasis on the individual. The Wantage Code of Aethelred II recognized Danelaw codes. Even the terms then used borrow a number of Scandinavian terms, some Anglicized, some not.
As for social customs, evidence is archeological. Danish presence is confirmed by placenames, runic inscriptions and coinage. Not until the Domesday Book do we find a large-scale survey done of the Danelaw - an outline of its economic and political structures.
Danelaw is foundational to the history of the Vikings (and to England - were they to admit it). That history traces a path across the the seas to England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Iceland, Russia, Frisia, France, Spain and the Mediterranean.
The Danelaw and the Viking Sagas began and ended with ecclesiastical overtones - the sacking of Lindisfarne Monastery in NE Britain, and their ironic conversion to Christianity. The Lindisfarne Gospels, later re-furbished by the Saxons, are now kept in the British Library in London.
The Swedes, meanwhile, slightly off centre stage, ventured mainly to the east and controlled trade via the major waterways leading into Russia and the Baltic. There were raids around the Mediterranean and as far east as the Caspian Sea. With plundering, however, came colonization.
Norway is usually regarded as the most influential in terms of their impact on history. Norse and Danish Vikings landed in the Orkneys and Northern Scotland AD 870 under King Stirgud the Stout. And Thorfinn Rollo, a.k.a. Hrolf the Ganger, a descendant of Stirgud, first defeated in northern France about AD 911, later reappeared at Rouen.
Having allowed himself to be baptised in return for recognition by Emperor Charles III (Charles the Simple), later deposed in AD 922; died AD 929). Charles ceded Normandy to the invaders in Treaty of St. Claire-sur-Epte in AD 911 - classic French strategy - originated by Charlemagne. It was the latter who introduced the term "the marches," making each baron a Markgraf or Count of the March. It involved placing "barbarians" and upstarts on the farthest borders, telling them to hold at all costs and expand at any opportunity.
Rollo thus began with about 2% of modern France, and later he and his descendants would claim the whole Duchy of Normandy. (H)ROLF [b. 860--d. 932] made Charles, in effect, bow to the inevitable, and bribe a band of mercenaries. But Charles insisted they convert and Hrolf became Rollo at baptism.
Even then, the Norse were nothing if not expedient. Rollo arranged for Masses for the repose of his soul after death, but, covering his bets, he had a hundred Christian slaves sacrificed to the Nordic gods of war on the day he died at age 72.
Rolf's grandson Richard I [b. 942- d. 996] became the first real Duke of Normandy, "the land of the northmen." Rollo married the King's daughter to cement the original arrangement and, by Richard's time, the Norse represented themselves in the same mould as the French.
From about AD 942, they consolidated their political structure and, by century's end, Norman control over other Vikings (mostly Danes) in western Europe, primarily in Brittany and Flanders, was complete. They adopted feudal doctrines of the France, and used them to advantage, both in Normandy, and later in England.
In fact, Richard II [AD 996-1026], was the first Norman leader to truly style himself "dux" in the sense of "political leader", not warlord or chieftain. This gave full recognition to Normandy.
But something in the Norman gene pool made them "different" from their neighbors - even fellow Vikings. It was in Normandy that they adopted the horse and appropriate weaponry as their primary means of making war.
But greed for ever more land and power, plus treachery and cruelty used to get what they wanted, were paramount in their psyche. They bent the wills of softer men to their own purposes.
It is written that they were of terrible temper, and around them generally hung an air of the horrible. This set them apart from the Flemish, Frisians, Bretons, Belgae, and other Vikings. Without a glimmer of chivalry, the Normans were merciless in battle and rarely magnanimous in victory.
They butchered prisoners of war, slaughtered women and children (often torturing them first), and, even in the service of the Church, were merely warriors in clerical garb willing to kill recalcitrant members of their own Orders, if necessary. But it worked!
Nobody could doubt their bravery or willingness to take great risks. Opportunistic bands of Normans successfully established a foothold far to the south. Groups settled at Aversa and Capua, and conquered Apulia and Calabria. From there, they took Sicily and Malta from the Saracens. "Advance. Take no prisoners" was always their battle plan.

Sorry Hollywood - NO HORNS

Danish Helmet Norse Helmet Norman Helmet

To understand the Normans (and other Scandinavian raiders, you have to rid yourself of the Hollywood stereotype. They did not have horns on their helmets - technology to attach horns to helmets sturdily was non-existent.
Even if they did manage it, they would not have used them in battle. That would have given opponents something to grab onto or entangle - they would have been impractical. Horned helmets have never been found among archeological artifacts.
Over time, the Norse did add a nose guard to the basic "skull-cap helmet and the Normans added chainmail later. These changes came in response to new weaponry from the broad axe to the sword to the spear (lance) and, eventually, the crossbow.
At Hastings in AD 1066, the Conqueror held his Breton, Maine and Anjou contingents to the left of the line; the Normans were used for the the main thrust; and the Flemish and Franks were kept to his right. The flanking movements paid off.
Some say the battle took as little as two hours; some say as long as six. One thing is certain; it was dubbed a river of blood - with Normans in the main attack, I believe it! It destroyed most of the Saxon fighting men left in England. The finishing touches were added in AD 1069 when the "English" in the North (likely Danes, in fact) rebelled.
The invaders killed every male they could find and thus began a three-century Norman ascendancy in England, Wales and Scotland and, later, Ireland over the few Anglo-Saxons and indigenous Celts/Picts/Scotti/Welas/Gaels of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
According to modern geneticists, these "Celts" have somehow prevailed in wide areas of the British Isles.
So much for the historical record. In places, there is real difficulty in distinguishing now diluted Saxon and Danish genes, one from the other - in both male and female samples - but there is no denying that Celts (using the widest possible definition of the term) is the prevailing genetic group in the UK and Ireland.
But the Normans are there; so are the Anglo-Frisiens (north of Danelaw). There are some Jews (Haplogroup J and there is Eb3, thought to have been brought from the Middle East by the Romans.
Since they were left behind, one might assume them to have been slaves, but they are widely distributed across Europe, and are found in Ireland, much to everyone's surprise.
Insular Celts (R1b) are descended from genetically successful ancient ancestors, as the recent discovery of the Irish Ui Neill (Niall of the Nine Hostages) Modal has made clear. Estimates of the Danish legacy are in the 10 to 20% range, but Norse (Haplogroup I) are as low as about 2%.
There is debate to this day about just who took part - on the winning side - in AD 1066. Surnames, as we know them, while used, were not well-developed. An individual might take the name of his village (generally the case for those surnames starting with "de").
Otherwise, possibly a nickname, depicting personal characteristics e.g. Alain le Roux (Red-haired Alain), Raoul Vis-de-Loup (wolf-faced Raoul) and Le Bastard Robert (self-explanatory). A surname could also come from the father in the form "fils de" (son of). This (under Norman influence - although debated) became "fitz," as in "fitz Godebert de Roch" etc.
Even then, the first of the Roche line in Wales was originally known as Godebert de Flandrensis [Godebert of Flanders]. His sons' surnames became fitz Godebert de Roch, then simply de Roch (de Rupe - Latin) or de la Roche in Ireland. And there is no proof of a narrow nationalistic definition or association. Being from Flanders might not mean you were born there.
Spellings and pronunciations often varied, even if similar, depending on the language used - Old French, Old English, Latin or Gaelic. For example, Bunker comes from the French Bon-Coeur (Good-Heart). This would have been written "Cor-bon" in Norman French.
Also, the Bishop of Bayeux, who was known as "Odo", is on the AD 1066 list as "Eude". In Latin, de Roch and de la Roche became de Rupe and de Rupibus. When fitz is used in Ireland, it is accepted that the families are Cambro-Normans, such as the Geraldines.
However, in early Irish history, Ossory was an ancient semi-independent state within the kingdom of Leinster as early as the 1st century. In the 9th, it was ruled by King Cerball, who allied himself with the Danes.
When surnames came into fashion in the 10th century, descendants of his followers became Mac Gill�padraig, later transformed under Norman influence to Fitzpatrick. In the 11th century, they contended for the kingship of Leinster, but were overcome by the Macmurchadas [MacMurroughs] of south Leinster.
The Normans who invaded England with the Conqueror had only been cohesive politically for 120 years, compared with almost 400 years of West-Saxon development. The so-called "Flemish" were in Wales as early as about AD 1050; and they had been or would soon be in the north of England and Scotland in large numbers.
Separating Normans from other Vikings (Scandinavians) - but a generic term to some extent - because it included more than one group - like the word Indian or Celt. The Flemish are predominantly R1b as is must of western Europe. There is no Norse-Viking (I) marker in my DNA, but there is in other Roches who have tested with our group....and there are E3bs (considered English).
However, R1b is considered to be insular, having survived the last Ice Age in Iberia, especially northern Spain. Following the ice north later, they left their genes from the Iberian Peninsula to Scandinavia. We are R1b but a very small sister Haplogroup which sheltered in SE Europe and never regained the numbers necessary to match the Iberian R1b group.
We are considered continental with our particular haplotype being Anglo-Frisian. The two R!b groups are different - at least from the Ice Age forward, and in the case of our haplotype perhaps from a major mutation that occurred only 3000 years ago.
Those who re-populated the Isles originally sheltered on the Iberian Peninsula; those of us from the continent sheltered in the south east. We seem to have travelled all the way to the NW, spending some time SE of there, but eventually being squeezed by the Franks to the south and the Germans to the east towards the Danish border and the founding of Frisia.
DNA differentiates de Roch (R1b) from the Norman De la Roche, La Roche and Le Rocque (I), but E3b presents questions, a separate issue at this point --- they seem to be everywhere, including Ireland and England as well as on the continent ... how they became Roches, I can't yet fathom. I will happily leave that to people in white lab coats.
At home, Scandinavians, like most others of the era, managed herds, hunted, fished, practiced crafts and made god to trade. They went on raids when young to obtain sufficient plunder and slaves to lead a comfortable life. Usually, they would go on two or three forays sufficient to enable them to settle down.
This they did sometimes at home and sometimes in an area they had raided ... unless they were warlords or professional warriors. Vikings would "go a viking", their word for "bay raiding", along the coasts of neighbouring countries.
They also fought among themselves. their societies was violent, by modern standards. But I have a hard time accepting criticism from others of the same epoch. What so-called Christians did to one another was equally barbaric.
Nearly all of graves found containing male remains include weapons, and we know from history that they used them. A well-equipped warrior had a sword, a wooden shield with an iron boss (hand protector) at its centre, a spear, a broad axe and/or a bow with up to 24 arrows.
Even in the graves with the most impressive weapons, however, we find sickles, scythes, hoes and the tools of other trades. The blacksmith was buried with his hammer, anvil, tongues, and file; the fisherman, with fishing gear, often in a boat.
The term Viking can mislead. In women's graves are found jewels, kitchen utensils and implements for making cloth....rarely, if ever, do we find weapons.
Raids from the north in time took on a life of their own and led to their populating large parts of modern France, Belgium, Spain and the Isles.
In France, the Normans and the Danes in their Vanguard, eventually expanded and held most provinces -- Normandy, Gascony, Burgundy, Poitou, Brittany, Anjou, Maine, Picardy and Artois. But the Swedes went east into Russia and the Icelanders went north and west to North America.
One author has written "But this was not a random series of events. From the end of the Roman Empire in the West until the middle of the 15th century, the history of Europe, Asia, and North Africa consists of an almost unbroken series of invasions, wars, and conquests."
I find this an amazing statement and shows that even intelligent and educated people can develop tunnel vision when they focus on a given subject. There has been so little time when our specie has not been at war, that any period can be described as chaotic...war with out end.
Arabs, Mongols, Turks, Franks, Vikings and multi-national Crusaders roamed vast areas in search of conquest. In the 7th century, Islam united the tribes of Arabia. Under the banner of this "new" religion, Arab armies conquered from the Indus River to Spain in the west. They went on to gold the Middle East and North Africa.
The Franks had established the most powerful kingdom in Europe by the 9th century. However, the Muslims effectively barred them from expanding to the south. Instead, they moved east against the Germanic-Saxons, with the latter expanding NW into Frisia in time.
The country literally disappeared in AD 1495, but the Frisians act as if they don't know or care. After the religiously-motivated murder of Bonifatius by the Frisians in AD 752, Radbod fled to Saxony and Denmark to escape retribution, but returned to Friesland where he ruled until defeated by Charlemagne in AD 775.
Again he fled to 'relatives' in Denmark. Later, Danish Vikings returned to Friesland, claiming to be his descendents and having a right to the Throne. Radbod I is reported to have married in Staveren , Friesland, the daughter of a Danish king, (That can't be substantiated because of the uncertainty surrounding kingly succession in Denmark at the time).
In fact, other sources show him married to Aud, daughter of Ivar Vidfadme in the Netherlands, but I have never seen confirmation of that either. Events and physical location, however, definitely offer reasonable assurance of a Danish-Frisian-Saxon connections of long standing.
Radbod II, Radbod's grandson, supposedly stayed for 12 years in North, mainly Denmark, at a Danish court, until he was recalled at age 20 to succeed his brother Gondobald as King of Friesland. Siegfried I, King of the Danes, bef. AD 777- aft. 798 [Relationship to previous kings unknown] hosted Saxon leader Widukind in AD 777.
And Halfdan ("Halptani") appears as an emissary of King Sigifrid to Charlemagne in AD 782. Sigifrid is last mentioned in AD 798 when Charlemagne sent an envoy to him. The Franks destroyed the Frisian-Germanic (Saxon) religion and social structure, leaving them in chaos under Christian rule.
So, Frisian factions turned to Denmark, where "pagan" religion was practiced, and related tribes and families might be found. King Godfrid, maternal son or grandson of Radbod, invaded the Frisian coast in AD 808, but was driven out by Frankish Emperor Louis in AD 810.
He was murdered by one of his retainers later that year and succeeded by his nephew, Hemming, King of the Danes, AD 810-812, who in AD 811 made peace with Charlemagne. In AD 819, Danish King Harold allied himself with Godefrid's two sons and agreed to rule jointly.
This lasted until AD 827 when Godfrid's sons took power. In AD 826, Harold had been baptized at St. Albans in Mainz and was given the county of Rustringen in Frisia. In AD 841, he was granted Walcheran by Emperor Lothar (much to the liking of Godefrid's heirs).
So the Danes - like the Norse - clearly had a foothold on the continent in the 9th century, and the Flemish & Frisians were in the think of it with the Franks. Much of this seems to have been by treaty or marriage - not much in the way of major wars.

Source: "De Jaarboeken van Nicolaas Westendorp, van de vroegste tijd tot 1493 van en voor de Provincie Groningen." Part 1. Published by J.Oomkens in 1829 in Groningen, The Netherlands (in Dutch).

The Franks earlier (c AD 750) forcing some "Saxons" north into Scandinavia, a migration that may have been one cause of later raids by the Northmen, back into Europe. their predations may not have been random, but the result of an urge to equal the score.
Duke William (William the Bastard) - the Conqueror - was descended from the first Viking to gain control of Normandy, Rholf (baptised Rollo). Geoffrey (son of Manfred, a Danish chieftain) was with Rollo in AD 911-12. His power rested in vast land holdings which passed to him after the founding of the duchy.
Within a few generations, their descendants had adopted the French language, religion, law, customs, political organization and methods of making war. This was something they never did for centuries in England, and then only after they were cut off from their holdings on the continent. This was forced upon them because of the antics of King John [1199-1216].
But Hrolf, his followers and descendants were nevertheless Normanni. They were of Norman-Danish stock, in all practical matters, amazingly adaptable, except when it came to England? And, seemingly in the middle of all their dealings with the Franks were the Saxons, Frisians and Flemish.
So when I was advised that out Y-DNA is Anglo-Frisian, it came as no surprise. Our results can be paralleled historically with events quite closely, and they cover Scandinavia, Northern Germany, the Benelux area, England north of the Danelaw line (which ran from London to Liverpool, and the Romans from a revolt in AD 69.
With one close march from Glanmorgan, Wales in the Midlands, near Manchester and another in Ireland, near where my first forebears on this side of the Atlantic originated, things are falling into place. Learning that Godebert of Flanders was actually born on Roch Parish, Wales in AD 1096 suggests it is much more likely that he was Anglo-Frisian (as currently defined).
He was not Flemish, in the strict sense, certainly we are not close to the Flemish Genetic Modal. It would also explain why his near descendents were in Roche Parish Cornwall, as well as in Ireland within 70 years. The Archivium Hibernicum, 1960, V. 23-27 states in fact that the Roches in Cornwall and Devon are descended from the Roche family of Ireland, the same family present in Wales likely before 1100 AD.
His sons would have been born c 1120-40; and gone to Ireland c AD 1170 at a time when they had or were having children. That takes us into the 1200s, but which time they were doing well in all three countries.
Flemings forced to migrate by Henry I & II to the March in Pembroch would have worked for these men who were trusted more than the Welsh or Scots by the Norman-French (Angevin) Kings on the English Throne.
They all had a love of the sea, seamanship, and independence (freedom). But the Normans (from Norway) as noted seem to have had another element to their character (apart from being Haplogroup I), their boundless ambition led to commercial prosperity.
By AD 1050, Normandy was one of the most powerful states in Christendom. Desire for conquest, echoing their Viking past, led them abroad -- to Spain to fight the Moors; to Byzantium to fight the Turks; to Sicily to fight the Saracens; and to England to fight the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Celts.
The Norman race, mistakenly assumed to be French, was Scandinavian. The Danes, Swedes and Icelanders were also Vikings, but they did not have the same genius for empire. Friesians and Flemings seems to want to be left alone - the Frisians moreso than the Flemings who did display great ambition and expressed it on the continent and with and through the Scots.
All this helps provide some insight, but mutilated History and Heraldry is not a good arena in which to seek the logical or even to search for unfettered continuity. The litmus test is genetics - determining the Haplogroup, the haplotype and, if one is incredibly fortunate, finding matching alleles (parts of the male chromosome that match another male's), i.e. one's family.
The Flemish were from what are now the Belgian districts of Bruges and Ghent or, in a larger sense, the Belgian provinces of East-Flanders, West-Flanders and Hainault (northern Belgium), the Dutch districts of Zeeuws-Vlaanderen (Zeelandish-Flanders), the southern Netherlands and the North of France - and, in that sense, it was a misnomer to call them simply "Flemish".
They could have been Saxon, Frisian, Flemish or "other", as shown, in part, by modern science. It would seem to be the same group genetically, but so intermingled in NW Germany and Scandinavia; the Benelux countries and the British Isles, mostly north of the Danelaw Line, that sorting the sheep from the goats will not be easy.
The Normans (Angevins) used Marcher Lords after the Conquest to contain the Welsh. William's allies otherwise might have fallen into league with the Welsh or Scots. The Frankish concept - the March - achieved two purposes. Reward Them - give them a title and a distant land grant; and Get Rid of Them - send them to the border, and tell them to hold it or advance, if possible.
It is impossible that every "Fleming" was Flemish! Haplogroup R1b is in the majority in the Benelux Region, especially Flanders, and is most common in Ireland, However, it is now felt that the two R1b Haplogroups are distinct in terms of their geographical evolution - one insular and one continental.
Our family haplotype is rare in Ireland - perplexing a short time ago; not so now (2009). Geneticists have hung an Anglo-Frisian label on us, but I don't think that is the quite the end of the story. I expect perhaps one small additional refinement.
I don't see a fish - three - or otherwise - on Flemish or Frisian Arms, yet we are genetically Anglo-Frisian R1b [in my gut ... Anglo-Saxon-Jute-Frisian], not Gaelic R1b. As for the fist, just as with a dark forest, there is a dark and stormy sea - Life. I cannot speak for all R-U106* Roaches, but for many the way of the Lion would be the well worn path, usually not our way.
All westward migration stopped at the Channel and the North Sea, and those groups "swirled" and "intermingled". Some stayed on the continent; some made for the Isles on more that one occasion in the last two millenia. Post Ice Age Iberian migration went to Ireland and likely further north along the outer coast, because there may have been a land bridge in the Channel.
In Britain, the original occupants, were P & Q speaking Celts (and yes I know about the Bretons). Much given to internecine warfare, they were later pushed southwest, west & north to the Cornish Region, Wales, and towards the Scots border (at least as far as Hadrian's Wall) in Britain by a number of invaders from the Romans onward. Ireland was left alone until AD 800 when the Danes arrived. But all they did was establish ports and towns, not a bad thing.
Indigenous populations may be displaced by Nature, but rarely by other peoples. The Gaels are considered by some (non-geneticists) to be an ethno-linguistic group originating in Ireland that spread to Scotland, Wales and the Isle of Man. They spoke Goidelic, an Insular Celtic dialect. The other branch in Britain was Brythonic - slightly different linguistically - likely Breton (via a land bridge that disappeared eventually).
This theory makes sense because it matches the mythologies of the people in the British Isles. Goidelic (Q) and Brythonic (P) Celtic are indigenous, arriving from the south or est where they had sheltered or by land bridge from the continent (where the Bretons P Celtic came into play).
I have no problem with the possibility of re-population from the east and south after the last Ice Age. That the two groups would be found in the British Isles and Ireland, as well as the Outer Isles, and be indigenous, is not surprising, given the migratory patterns established by modern genetics.
As with Irish mythology � Niall and the Nine Hostages � indigenous Gaelic mythology (no matter how misunderstood), has been found to be based in an historical context of some validity.
Were people to study mythology - given the insight to do so - they might well make other similar discoveries. Myths are not lies - they are not simple fact either. There were reasons for their ambiguity which there is no need to discuss here.
Whether a Celtic insular and/or continental presence is reflected during the first millennium BC, Celtic dialects were spoken across the continent from the Bay of Biscay and the North Sea, up the Rhine and down the Danube to the Black Sea, to the Upper Balkan Peninsula and into Asia Minor (Galatia).
There are at least six or more millennia between the two observations. Some Gaels/Gauls were called Celts (as reported in Caesar's Gaulic Wars and by other Roman sources). The continental tribes likely took their cue from the Romans and/or Greeks in accepting that designation.
To the latter case, Keltoi , in Greek, was simply a word for "outsider". It was non-specific. To the Romans, Celts were all the same, more or less; "foreigners" or "strangers" - the term used as a convenient way to differentiate them from Romans.
There is no concrete definition of "Celt" unless you buy the argument that anyone using the language or a dialect of it is automatically Celt and the same as all other Celts - not so. There were many tribes, even in Roman times. I have no doubt there were genetic differences as well.
Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Brittany used one or other dialect, but it seems much like our term "Indian" or "Native" in North America - many tribes are indigenous - there are similarities - but there are many differences - and "no love lost" amongst them.
They same is true of the term Viking - Scandinavian certainly, but that is likely not the full story. It defies logic to think that other people mixing with them did not adopt Viking ways.
We can debate the occasional adventurer who deliberately set out to find a particular place or route, or perhaps was simply blown off course and found distant shores, but wholesale European Diasporas occurred relatively late in history. It was the Vikings in the West who did the roaming.
However, other peoples in earlier times had put lots of miles between themselves and their places of origin - pre- and post- Ice Age. Historically, we have been deemed "Flemish," as opposed to being, "from Flanders." R1b is common in the Netherlands, but not so our haplotype, or so it would appear. That whole region is multi-racial.
Modern Flemish political orientation varies from that of the Netherlands, and only reluctantly do they share territory with the Walloons. Frisians are in the Netherlands - and I had best take care what I say about them and the Dutch.
Walloons are something of an orphan people in modern times. They speak a number of Romance Languages in Belgium, principally Wallonia, their name derived from Walha, an old German term for Celt. They are not highly regarded in certain circles, i.e. by the Flemish.
The oldest written reference to them is Jean de Haynin's "M�moires de Jean, sire de Haynin et de Louvignies", AD 1465. It links them with Roman populations in the Burgundian Netherlands. Again, we see a familiar pattern, borders do not necessarily reflect genetics or race, and often do not allow kindred peoples to interface in a logical way.
Germans are quite selective about anyone designated Germanic, for example. That is not meant to be critical. It is a statement of fact, based on my own experience, and that of others in trying to compare notes. Look at the struggle they put forth to re-unite East and West Germany, and how they have recently may it plain to France (2009) just who is in charge of the EU.
The result of patriotism and spirituality (or, more correctly, perceived differences over these matters) means, unfortunately, that many who believe themselves to be one thing may be quite another. And they are the last to geno-test. Many might get quite a shock were they to do so .... this reluctance, I suppose, is understandable, based in fear or insecurity.
Anglo-Frisians & Saxons next to the Danish border and often crossing it, were sea-going (no doubt perceived as one with the Vikings by others). The Swedes were Viking too, and they went east - far into Russia and surrounding countries - where they because the Rus.
Close enough to Denmark and Norway so that their DNA is found there today, as it is in the Benelux and England, Anglo Frisians and the Saxons who were with them in NW Europe, are generally self-disciplined and scholarly, but they can fight, if necessary.
One can only imagine what Flemings or Frisians (as the case may be) thought of the Welsh and Irish Celts - Gaels and Welas. The Scotti and Picts may not have tallied much higher on their scorecards!
The Scots today owe more than most suspect to the Flemish and the time they spent there, some taking rather well-known "Scots" names with genetics that would surprise many a proud "Scot"!
In addition to farming and animal husbandry, they were as adept at sea in trade or in war as any Viking. The Angles, Saxons and Frisians even raided Roman Britain between AD 250 and 500 when they were invited back to Britain to restore the peace by King Vortigern after the Romans left for home.
They nearly succeeded in taking the whole Empire done on the continent on the continent - had the various tribes not fallen into disputes with one another. Allowing for some time for the troubles to develop in Britain after AD 410, it was likely c AD 500 when the invitation came for them to return. The Angles went first, and they sent word to the rest, Frisians included, to follow.
Some of their common conventions - seemingly hard-wired into their natures even today: a "real" man is a self-made man - not necessarily wealthy - but principled - chivalrous - to use an old term. Individual liberty and integrity were and remain "everything."
Haplogroup R1b Roches of the west and northwestern continental persuasion, and above the Danelaw Line in the Midlands of England, are, in my experience, consistent in pride of name, self-discipline, work ethic and scholarship.
Since they were well-regarded by the establishment in Wales and Ireland, I assume the same to be true for those few found in Ireland and Scotland. Normally, a good moral compass from which to function, these traits can, unfortunately, be perverted, as we saw in WWII, when some in Europe supported the Nazis.
There was a small number of Anglo-Frisians and Saxons with a genetic admixture of German, and they show Germanic traits, positive and negative. Of course, so do some of their genetic cousins in England, Scandinavia, the United States and other Diaspora countries from South Africa to New Zealand - rarely discussed in polite company today.
One recent exception at the end of 2008 was the discovery of what was called a mainstream right-wing element in the UK. Its leader has said it shows that not everyone of this mindset is a "skinhead." These movements by consensus tend to form when things get out of hand, undeniably the case recently in the West.

End of Chapter I - Back to Top? TOP

Chapter II - ROACHE - What's in the Spelling?

Roache-Roach-Roche-Roch

Out of the Mists of Time to Castle Roch from Flanders.

Roch Parish, Barony of Rhos, Pembroke(shire)

Roche Rock, UK - Restormel Castle links to the Surname!

Mt. Roach in southern B.C. Why not Mt. Roche (Rock)?

This horse has its mane cut in a roach - tall and straight.

This Indian headdress is a roach - one of many types.

A roach in a mainsail (or jib) = extra power per mast or boom.

Roaches to the New World - hoping the sails are roached.

What we are NOT!!!

There is no BUG in Roache-Roach-Roche-Roch

People of that Mind have been known to visit Outpatient Clinics though!

What is a Cockroach?

Here is a tree of cockroach species.

Microchips look like roachs. Fried chips & roached software = a problem.

Some microchips even resemble marijuana roach clips - don't smoke one!

Marijuana "roach" clip. Creative minds in high tech?

This is a marijuana roach - the remnant of a toke --- no clip = burned fingers.

Roach(e)/Roch(e) and the Alternatives

The surname Ro(a)ch(e), is not Gaelic, but they have a name that is similar. It is continental, and the genes are also found in Scandinavia. People using the Ro(a)ch(e) surname are Norse (I); Anglo-Frisian [Saxon], from the Benelux Region, e.g. Friesians or NW Germanic; or from the Near East, predominant in England, but also found in Ireland (E3b).
My own family had always thought of itself as "Irish-Canadian." But there can be no denying that there is a very clear and direct historical connection between the West-Saxons, Frisians, Flemings, Danes and other continental nationalities, including German Palatines in Ireland.
Sir Robert E. Matheson's "Report on Names in Ireland", re-published by the Genealogical Publishing Co. (Baltimore) in 1982 as "SPECIAL REPORT ON SURNAMES IN IRELAND" is based on birth registrations in 1890. It gives as an alternative spelling for Ro(a)ch(e) - Rostig(h) - supposedly an anglicization of the Gaelic word - roisteach.
It is also seen as de Roiste with an accent over the letter "o" (both actually pronounced like roisteach ---Deh ROW-ish-teh --- Deh to rhyme with "the"; ROW as you would a boat; the "ish" curtailed because the 'g' is silent in Rostig[h] and non-existent in de Roiste).
More than one Gael has guffawed that - de Roiste - as an attempt to become "Irish". I'll leave the de Roiste and the locals to work that one out among themselves. But there was a Gaelic word, "rhwch" or "rhwych", meaning rough or expanding, which might just have easily been the basis and a accurate good description of some of the name.

(Source: Surnames of the United Kingdom, A Concise Etymological Dictionary, Henry Harrison, Genealogical Publishing Co., Baltimore, 1969 -- orig London 1912/18).

Roisteach is often found in association with Crioch Roisteach - Roche's Country - in Ireland. And I won't even discuss another connotation: roast beef - Mairt-'eoil roiste or unravelled knitting - adjective roiste: (unraveled). But,again, I've had an occasional Gael raise the issue while backing up :-)
Things do not end there when you consider all the linguistic variations available as you move one dormant or modern language to another. It can go beyond the ridiculous. Surnames are simply problematic.
People did the best they could with the information at hand in the past, but it is clear that with three totally different and unrelated genetic groups (four, if you count a smattering of German) in the west, some history must be revisited.
Variants of for de la Roche may be Laroche, De (la) roche, Desroches, Roucher, etc. (French); Rocca, Rocques, Larocque, Larroque (Provencal); Rocca, Rocha (Spanish); LaRocca, Della Rocca (Italian); and de Rupe or de Rupibus (Latin). Other possibilities are Ruocco, Rocchi, Roque, Rochus, Ruocco, Rocci and Roque (Portuguese), and both Roch and Rochus are found among Low German surnames.
Others have it that Roch is based on a Germanic given name, "hruoh," which may have originally meant 'crow or raven'. The raven was the Norman Bird of War, much like the eagle of the ancient Romans and modern Americans. It may have come from Old English "hroc" meaning 'rest', shelter or safe haven.
I think it important to consider that de Roch may be based on a placename in Wales, from Roch Parish, barony of Rhos. Penbroch, just as de la Roche was based on continental placenames earlier. It is genetically entirely different from the Norman French (Haplogroup R1b versus I with nobody having a real explanation for Eb3 Roches and Roaches).
There is at least enough here to cause one to question any single origin or variant. There is really no way to make a final determination - there isn't one - there are many!
Having learned that our family was not "Irish" was quite a revelation! In a document "Words and Phrases peculiar to Newfoundland" by Rev. Julian Moreton, Colonial Chaplain at Labaun, a missionary at Greenspond, AD 1863, we read the following definition:
Roach: Coarse. A large gross growth. With timber, generally meant in disparagement, signifying that wood is too free and open-grained to be serviceable: a stunted growth producing harder wood. To whatever it is applied, coarseness is usually intended.

His being "British," you can see how that one originated!
So our varied opinions, I'm afraid, are the result of faulty genealogical record keeping, a flawed oral tradition, biased historical reporting and an active imagination. Hardly romantic, certainly frustrating, but true!
It is quite simply not unusual for surnames to have more than one spelling in different places and times, but it can complicate family research. My best guess is that, in recent times, once a particular version has been adopted for ethnic, linguistic, religious, political or personal reasons, it takes on an "emotional load" so that no owner will lightly consider changing.

That is fine - as long as it doesn't get into the "right versus wrong" zone.
I made the usual pilgrimage to Ireland in 1998. Spending considerable time in archives, record offices, churches, cemeteries and talking with any Roche I could find confirmed that there are many discrepancies of "fact" amongst sources.
Since then, I have found the rule to hold true in England, Wales, Scotland and on the continent - for starters. It is part of the human condition. We may not be "Irish, but we were there 600 years and we made more good marks than bad ones at that!
Roche's first Irish Castle is even today called Ferrycarrig. It is a wonder we are not known as Carrick, Carraig or Carrig(h). The Irish-Gaelic word for rock is 'carraig'. I know members of the Rock family and there are Carricks as well.
There was a sign outside Ferrycarrig - "Roche's Castle" - until about 1979. There was another inside (upstairs) in the now-inaccessible pile [for public safety]. I'd like to know what happened to those signs?

If they weren't simply thrown out in the trash, I would love to hear from anyone who has one. Even a photo would be a nice remembrance of Ireland, and all the wonderful friends I made during my month-long visit! I wouldn't expect it for free.
The old q-Celtic word for rock was Roc. The Car was added in the Middle Ages to produce Car-roc; C = ig in modern Irish. It is remarkably similar to the P-Celtic word. The old Welsh word was the same, but got jumbled into Craig, so Carrig and Craig are Roc from Medieval or Old Irish.
ROC can mean ridge, as in a series of ridges or waves [not ocean waves]. It can apply to a face - craggy. As a ripple, it is the sun's rays, filtering (rippling) through the leaves, or it is used to denote the ridge tops of a chain of mountains.
Again, however, as with de Roch (which would have been pronounced with a harsh sound in Flemish or Welsh Gaelic), the Normans would have heard that as ROCK and thought "la roche" or "le rocque" - soft or hard - linking the two names in their minds to form de la Roche and similar names in Old French.
Different spellings have been common for a very long time - even in English. Roche is most common in Ireland today. Roache has also been used - as the Irish headstones for Elin and James attest (below). Roach is most common in the U.S. and other colonies, but is also on my great great grandfather's stone marker in NL dating from the 1800s.

Elin Roache, 1775; James Roche, 1812

So diehards, there is no "correct" spelling for our family surname or conversely; any of the modern versions are equally "correct". Alternatively, we might opt for a more ancient spelling...if we manage to convince ourselves they are preferable.
In my case, Jacob Fitz Jacob de la Roch; Jacobus Fitz Jacobus de Rupe; Seamus de Rupe/deRoiste/de Roch, etc. do have a certain ring to them, but I am not so inclined at the moment.
I will continue to spell my name ROACHE. It incorporates the other three [total of four] modern English-language spellings. I like the symbolism of that - very ecumenical. And it is on my parents' headstone...which makes it good enough for me.
You should continue to spell your name in the way it has come to be spelled...whether Roach or the more common, Roche. Roch is also much more common than I would have thought, appearing in North America and Australia, as well as in England, Wales and on the Continent.
Human beings are creatures of emotion, not logic, and even my extended family cannot agree on a common spelling. I am left to conclude that each is best to stay with the spelling they prefer. Each serves its purpose. We know who we are - but there are a lot of Anglo-Saxons, Norse and Scots in for a surprise - they aren't what they think they are.
And the Celtic majority in genetic (if not nationalistic) terms will be surprised by the reversal of their historic enemies (Northern Ireland versus the Republic; RC versus Anglican) into their own genetic cousins and not some nefarious outsiders who came to stay and take all.
Certainly, there are genetic imprints to mark the passing of the various invaders, but the operative work is "passing". The majority - Celts of one tribe or another, who were there from the beginning are here today in Western Europe and the Western Isles....with a smattering of fair-skinned devils like myself left behind in our migrations further afield to leaven the loaf.
The technology and science of genetics has finally put my mind to rest; I have made peace with things as they were and as they are and discarded much of what we had always been told and came to believe to be true.
The R-U 106 haplotype (and I do NOT mean to imply we are even close to all being "right wing"), or in any way completely painted with one brush; that would be silly! In general thought, one would have to be "zoned out", to borrow an old term from my sons, not to see general propensities.
They include a willingness to serve - in the military or religious life; and to achievement of high rank (rarely the highest) in the professions and business. Our ethics get in the way! They have an instinct for order - rule of law - but by the people, not elites - and for viable physical, political and economic infrastructure; academic achievement and above-average competence in skilled trades.
This often translates into personal accomplishment, authority of a kind, authorship, communication skills or activism - contributing to the social, political and economic advancement of the nation of which they are a part - while trying to retain anonymity.
It can also result, as a last resort, in their being authoritarian. We must be very careful about this, as history has shown. A tendency to see things in black and white, not grey, can cause us to fall under the influence of tin-pot despots who are often not what they appear and do not deliver what they promise.
All of our surname are not alike, even genetically. There are three Haplogroups that use it - R1b, I and E3b. Haplo G also has several names which seem similar (German); but I do realize that all generalizations are wrong by definition, and clearly, traits applied to R1b above is not unique to them.
Nevertheless, just as there are medical differences encoded within genes, there are behavioural differences. Yes, nature versus nurture; but don't dismiss "reversion to the norm", especially under stress.
Genetic tendencies are never even close to totally consistent; they are just that, "tendencies. Life would be very boring were it any different. But they are there. Nationality or a surname should not be confused with one's genetic inheritance. But I will let other scientifically defined groups speak for themselves.
For us, the downsides are two - 1) there are very few litters without runts - we have them; and 2) we are infamous for our contrariness.
We can be the most perverse, contankerous, obstreperous and down-right nasty SOBs you would ever want to meet. And that's to one another. That's the "general tendency" - I'm just a big ole Teddy Bear! And there are other gentle souls among our number.
But especially, when we direct our fire outside the "family" or "tribe", no prisoners are taken, and no grudge ever forgotten - forgiven, maybe - forgotten, never. Not only can we be our own worst enemies; we can be someone else's worst nightmare....we wait for "our time." Any score will be evened - eventually.
On what I think to be the positive side, we are content never to be rich or famous because our values, generally, get in the way. Our arms - fish - three roachs - have rather interesting characteristics. I suspect there is a reason we chose them ... that specie reflects both sides of our complex psychological Gesthalt.
Roach are prolific breeders and predators, feeding on insects and small crustaceans. They are found in fresh and salt water - or mixed. It is not accidental that they appear on some Ro(a)ch(e) Arms and that we appeared in Ireland about the same time.
"Coarse/rough"? A message being sent to the enemy...any enemy...by the new arrivals???

Rutlis Rutilus/Rutilus rutilus caspicus
Roach is a fish, but there is more than one type (like our modern DNA Haplogroups) - originally a member of the European carp family (rutlis/leuciscus rutilus) and related to the dace. The body is silvery in colour, with a greenish back and the lower fins of the adult tinged with red. They are sometimes called "shiners".
Medieval European Heraldry did used animal and aquatic representations to identify family lines. Nature's creatures were symbolic representations of virtues such as strength and loyalty. Often, the symbol was a play on words. I can imagine a Flemish Knight, with conflicted feelings about his Norman overlords, rejecting the association of his surname with a stone and impishly deciding to have fun at Norman expense.
Such people devised a symbol which would "pass" with the Normans, but had an entirely different connotation. The name has been used for various similar species, such as some North American sunfish, the American chub (Semotilus bullaris), the fallfish and the redfin.
Ironically, the same thing seems to have happened to the surname - people use Ro(a)ch(e) - some by deceit and some by accident - some as a legal name change under law. People of other races use the surname - the militant among them say it is a slave name or a rape name - they are partly correct.
But I have seen considerable evidence of voluntary intermarriage, and I regard these people as "cousins." What do fish have in common with rocks, castles, lions and crowns - the pictorial answer is on this page. But you will have to find it :-)
Three appear on some Ro(a)ch(e) arms -- why??? The religiously inclined among us have several theories - the Trinity, fishers of men, the miracle of the loaves and fishes, etc. Later differenced versions added a bird of prey with a roach in its clutches.
Again, under the radar, I can see a sly grin in the possible symbolism of that being English domination offset by the fact that the bird is on a rock and the roach knows - through faith - that God is his rock, and that no matter what the predator does, there is a reason, a plan and eventual safe haven - if only in death - for the fish.
The more secular among us see other possibilities, as discussed earlier...differentiating themselves from the Normans (early) and the English (later); associating themselves with the characteristics of the roach - a rough fish; sending a message that there is more than one type of roach, etc.
The more ancient the arms, the simpler the design. It had to be practical because it was used to identify Knights on the battlefield.
But then we have the scholars - C W Bardsley's Dictionary of English and Welsh Surnames, first published in 1901, three years after his death, is generally regarded as the first classic surname reference book (Guppy was earlier, in 1890, but is not regarded as being as accurate by anyone who disagrees with him).
Bardsley in commenting on surnames based on nicknames says some interesting things about names from animals, birds and fish. Names from birds and beasts, he says, can generally be regarded as indicative of some physical or moral characteristic linked with the bearer.
But surnames from fish are hardly ever what they seem. The reason is that fish are uninteresting and don't possess any identifiable characteristics [like Hell!!! :-)]; therefore, "fish names", nine times out of ten, mean something else altogether. He's right there but is clueless as to its implications.
The only problem is that fish species do have pronounced characteristics! Roach are a case in point. Symbols can be a source of hidden meaning - it is the obvious meaning that provides cover.
The de Roch family were from Roch, and there were Roach in the waterways on their estates and in the fish pond at Pill Priory which they endowed. The characteristics of this species may also have held a certain appeal and reflected general characteristics of the family.
In Latin the name means RUDDY - RED - leaving no doubt about the background colour of our original arms. In English, it can also mean blood - again RED. There are at least eight sub-species that are Roach - usually found in brakkish (a mixture of fresh and salt) water.
Some say they they were not native to Ireland, but are among several species introduced during the Norman era. It is difficult to confirm this statement - the source, Geraldus Cambrensis, is considered biased and sometimes inaccurate. He did comment on the lack of coarse or rough fish, like roach, in Irish waters. If true, that would soon change.
The Norse Sagas, properly understood, would explain Arms with Fish quite handily in mythological terms. There can be no doubt that Frisians were Pagan, and I doubt the Flemish were always aligned with Rome. Many, let us remember were forced to convert.
However, there was also a fish pond at Pill Priory, a new Tironian Abbey endowed by Adam de Rupe in mid-career. He was the son of Rodebert, grandson of Godebert . The endowment was significant and again, suggestive of Fish, in a Christian context, but with consideration to the Celts. The dedication was Christian - Virgin Mary, and Pagan, St Budoc.
Why would they not have taken Lions - because in their minds, they had been taken already. Robert the Bruce's ancestors had been at Hastings under such arms, but even he deferred to a higher authority with a earlier right to the Lions of Louvain. If there were not fishes of the roach specie in or near that pond at Pill Priory, I will eat my keyboard!
As discussed above, the mythological connotations of either the Fish (Sea God) or the Lion (Dragon) should not be dismissed. Christianity "borrowed" much from the Pagans. Spirituality goes beyond formal religion. The association of Pill with St. Budoc is telling, as is the de Roch preference for Pill and Benton and their remoteness or privacy over Roch.
The motif of a fish (and references to fishers) certainly has a Christian connotation and there are three (for the Trinity) on Roche arms. Combine that with the family tradition of offering sons to the clergy, daughters to the convent and lands to the Church, and it is not difficult to see that the de Roch became as foreign to the Cambro-Normans as Scots (Scotti), Welsh (Welas) or Irish (Gaels).
Now with genetics pointing to a Norman French orientation for the Lion and a Northern Saga-based rationale for the Fish - to compliment later Christian associations - which also apply - there is a high probability that we have the original arms placed within a proper context. Google "roach," and you might correlate their characteristics with ours and have a good chuckle. The choice of the Roach, as our family motif, shows greater insight than what is dismissed by many as a simple pun.
The the concept of a rock or foundation "de la roche" has nothing to do with fish. There can be little certainty. There is much speculation and too little evidence to support any solid conclusion. But, there are interesting possibilities.
I exclude pretenders who adopted the three roaches long after the originators chose it as their own. But there is a reason the pretenders desire the association; I suppose we should see it as a compliment.
If they had real insight into it's complexity, some might have second thoughts about what they are deciding to emulate. What is demanded of us is a standard that many might wish avoid having to meet.
There is ample evidence to suggest that this family was literate from the time when they first appear with a surname in Wales/Ireland and shortly afterwards in Cornwall. Just because a man was a Knight and could fight, did not mean he was automatically an illiterate oaf - even c AD 1100.
An example is the mythology of Arthur and the Round Table dating back to the 6th century and being much modified over the centuries --- the Welsh mythological connection with Arthur, Merlin, Rome and Troy - as told by some of their bards - was much to the fore as they felt the brunt of their exposure to the Normans - as if the Saxons had not left enough of a psychic scare:

Arthur and the Round Table

There is a scene - in The Knights of the Round Table where they are about to search for the Holy Grail in the Dark Forest, and:

"They thought it a disgrace to go forth in a group. So each entered the forest at a separate point of his choosing."

That is our emphasis on human life -- an individual confronting darkness.

The thirteenth-century "Queste del Graal" epitomized this Western spiritual ideal, living the life potential in "you" and never in anyone else.

The great Western truth: we are all unique and, if we are ever to give a something to the world, it must come out of our own experience and the fulfillment of our own potential, not someone else's.

Joseph Campbell: THE POWER OF MYTH, Bill Moyers

There is more than one variant of roach as there is with the family Roach. These are common - one with the red predominant and the other mostly silver - from the Caspian Sea. The silver one would not have been foreign to us, given that we are eastern R1b. I find a pattern of such things repeating in history - genetic or cell memory - who knows?

Other family surnames derive from species of fish and include Parr, Pope, Pike, Loach, Mullett, etc., but the place de Roch, Roch, in Rhos cannot be entirely dismissed as a source.
I have little doubt that de la Roche is French, continental and based on place/s. I also have little doubt that de Roche is Flemish or Frisian, and chosen while back and forth between England, Wales and Ireland.
One of the Anglo-Normans on the right side of the monarchy was William de la Roche, who had lands and reputation on both the English and French sides of the Channel and figured largely in the power politics of the day. In 1199, during a minor siege at Ch�lus in Limousin, Richard I, (the Lionheart), King of England was killed by a crossbow bolt and died there 6 April 1199. He was buried at Fontevrault Abbey (Maine-et-Loire), France.
In 1204 his widow, B�reng�re, ceded all her rights to the castles of Falaise, Domfront, and Bonneville-sur-Touque to King Philippe Auguste of France XE France, Philippe Auguste, King of, and Chateau-du-Loir to Guillaume des Roches [William de la Roche] (AD 1165-1222), in exchange of the Ville de le Mans and its dependencies and 1,000 marks sterling. He was thus Seneschal of Anjou from 1199 to 1222 and Lord of Longue-Jumelle and Ch�teau-du-loir .
However, his arms, those of a Norman of Anjou (below left), nor those of the Counts of La Roche, Ardennes, Luxembourg were those of the supposedly Cambro-Flemish de Roch at about the same time. So there are many of the Roche name, with arms as varied as the spelling of the name.

Guillaume des Roches [William de la Roche] of Anjou & the Counts of La Roche, Ardennes, Luxembourg

William, in the time of Henry III, bore the arms "Gules two bends argent, each charged with as many lozenges bendways azure". This was the same William who in the time of King John was deemed one of the ablest and most powerful of the Angevin barons and was seneschal (King's representative) in Anjou and Touraine (France).
In disgust with King John, however, that he later switched allegiances to King Philip of France, only to switch back again and manage to keep his head in the process, outlive John and serve another King until his own death in 1222.
For simple purposes of comparison, see the arms (above right) of the LA ROCHE Family of the Ardennes in the Belgian province of Luxembourg. This example is simply to show that nobody has a monopoly on the "right arms", any more than to the "right spelling" of the surname.
The Counts of La Roche held a medieval castle there in fief from their Carolingian rulers (the village of La Roche lies below). In the 12th century, they sold it to the counts of Luxembourg. Under La Roche control, it was strategic in the development and defence of trade, a resting place on the route used to transport English wool to Lombardy in Italy.
Another Norman "Roche" was Peter de la Roch(e), Peter de RUPIBUS [Pierre des ROCHES], Bishop of Winchester (1206-38) who played his part in history in England and the Crusades. His arms have been been reported to be gules, three roach naiant in pale argent.
This is unlikely - he would have had arms associated with his official office within the Church.
Des Roches was born of a knightly family in Poitou, and he became archdeacon and treasurer of the province. One of the large industrial centres there is La Roche-sur-Yon. It is likely that he took his name from there because his father went by another.
Poitou is a former province in western France, stretching from the Atlantic eastward beyond the Vienne River. Poitiers , the historic capital, is the chief industrial center.
Other industrial towns are Ch�tellerault, Niort, La Roche-sur-Yon, and Les Sables-d'Olonne. Lower Poitou, beyond the departmental boundary of Vend�e, is mostly a pastoral hedgerow country (the bocages ), with swamps in the west and in the south. Upper Poitou is a rich agricultural area; with a large dairy industry.
Now the important part - it was in the Roman province of Aquitaine, that Poitou, "the city of the Picts") fell to the Franks, AD 507. The Counts of Poitiers, originating in the 9th century, assumed the title Duke of Aquitaine.
Frequently contested by England and France, it changed hands until the end of the Hundred Years War, when Charles VII finally incorporated it into French crown lands.
Thus, it is not difficult to understand the degrees of separation between Peter and other Roches in England, Ireland and Wales. He was consecrated Bishop of Winchester in Rome in the Autumn of AD 1205 (a true warrior cleric).
He was never popular in England and was considered "one of the first and most powerful of those foreign Churchmen" whose oppressions were among the causes of the rising under Simon de Montfort.
In spite of the insults and oppressions heaped on the Church by King John, Bishop Peter, together with Grey of Norwich and Philip of Durham, remained loyal. During the contest with Pope Innocent III and, afterwards, with the Barons, Des Roches remained constant to the King.
In 1214, after John's submission to the Pope, and while the barons were preparing for the struggle which ended in the Great Charter (Magna Carta), he was made Grand Justiciary of England.
In AD 1226, the warlike Bishop, together with William Brewer, Bishop of Exeter, led crusaders from England to the Holy Land [5th Crusade]. There Des Roches did effectual service by his sword and by his advice. He was present when Emperor Frederick II [1228-9] concluded a Treaty with Sultan Kameel by which the Holy City was peacefully surrendered.
Upon his return after five years' absence, Peter was received with special favour by the King [by then Henry III]. But he almost provoked rebellion by his patronage of foreigners (Norman French). He invited many of his countrymen (Poitevins) to England. The chief Offices of State were conferred on them, and Royal revenues enriched them.
Peter died at his castle of Farnham in AD 1238 and was interred in his own cathedral. But trouble followed him even in death as Henry III insisted that William of Valence, uncle of the Queen, should be elected to replace him. However, the monks, declined William as a "man of blood," and chose William De Raley, Bishop of Norwich, instead, and the battle was joined.
"From Flanders" we came, they say, but, as you read the remainder of this page and look at our Heraldry and Genetics sections on site, you will see what has come to intrigue me about being "from Flanders" versus "being Flemish."

End of Chapter II - Back to Top? TOP

If not, let's begin with our experience/s in Wales....

Chapter III - Wales - Roch in the Hundred of Rhos

There is ample documentation from highly credible sources that the first at Roch was Godebert Flandrensis or in Flemish - Godevaard, Govaard or Govard Flandrensis - not Gilbert as reported commonly Anglicized. Godevaard - sons Rickhardt and Robberecht/Rodbert/Redebert - seems Frisian and/or Scandinavian.
Gobert is Norman French. His sons - Richard and Rodebert (not Richard and Robert - Norman French), are documented in several source documents including the Complete Peerage;Vol 5, 1949, St. Martin's Press, N.Y., Geoffrey White, Editor. However, with much that is written, in it's many editions, it is not without error. I am not the Oracle of Delphi either! White states that Godebert, in AD 1130, was "paying to have certain lands in Pembroke (Pembroch)," implying that the family was well established there by then.
According to feudal tradition, they would have been required to supply men and arms at the pleasure of the King or their overlords, the de Pendergasts and de Clares for their holdings in the barony of Rhos.
There is no supported claim to their having been at Hastings. The "Cambro" in Cambro-Norman is derived from Cumbria, Latin for Wales. There was a permanent Norman/Flemish presence in Scotland and Wales well before the Conquest,
We do know that Ro(a)ch(e) or de Roch, initially Godebert and FitzGodebert, originally said to be from Flanders, were in Wales by the reign of Henry I [1100-35].
In Wales, the furthest back we can go with authority is to "The Chronicle of the Princes" (Brut y Tywsogyon). The Chronicle was a continuation of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae. It survived several Welsh translations from original Latin, which did not survive.
It records that Normans originally arriving in Wales to defend the March (border) spoke Old French [NOT English].
It also confirms the systematic planting of Flemish settlers in the hundred of Rhos [Roose] and Dauglleddau about AD 1106, 1108 and 1111 by Henry I, Count de La Roche [b. 1068-9 in Selby, Yorkshire, England; d. 1135 in Angers, Maine-et-Loire, France].
But, Godebert had been born in Roch in AD 1096, so you can do the math. Henry I was leery about the Flemish and Scots becoming too friendly in the north of England and in Scotland. He trusted neither.
As with Henry II and his son John later, who had reservations about "the foreigners" and the Irish, Henry I was insecure about the possibility of an alliance threatening his Crown. He put so much pressure on them that many of their peerage returned home.
He then moved many of the rank and file to the March in Wales. Norman families like the de Clares were looked after, but they had to fight to hold the grants they were given - not always successfully - against the Welsh.
Castles didn't exist in Wales before the Normans arrived. Yet in two centuries, they built hundreds. Most were the property of "Marcher Lords" (from the French word "march" meaning "frontier"). The March Lordships eventually swung in a great arc from Chester in the north to Chepstow in the south, and then west to Pembroke(shire).
The grandest and most powerful were built by the Lords, but there were smaller ones built by lieutenants of the major barons. Several stood guard over the Norman de la Roch holdings near Williamston in Llangwm, Pembrokeshire. Roch Castle was not among them.

Roch Castle

Roch Castle near Haverford, was home to Godebert's family, their "caput baroniae". Roch was (and is) located in the Village of Roch, overlooking St. Bride's Bay. Godebert of Flanders held it (through subinfeudation) of Maurice de Pendregast.
In the barony of Rhos, he, unlike de Clare, had solid control over four parishes - Roch, Nolton, Camrose and Treffgarne [details below], and seems to have enjoyed the respect of the local people.
Some of the land at Roch had earlier been held by Lambert Echiners (who may have given his name to Lambston - or the reverse) in Pembroke. He was French (Norman), not Welsh. The change in control was not, to my knowledge, documented.
The family expanded their holdings to include Rickerston, Clareston, Llether and Pakeston, New Moat, Little Newcastle, Stainton, South Hook, Denant, Stodhaze, Strickemershille, Redeberch, Thorneton, Liddeston, Neugol, St. Hubertston, on and on.

R[H]O[O]SE ONE HUNDRED

A. Burton

B.Camrose

C. Dale

D. Freystrop

E. Haroldston     St Issells

F. Haroldston West

H. Hasguard

J. Haverfordwest    St Martins

K. Haverfordwest    St Marys

L. Haverfordwest     St Thomas

M. Herbrandston

O. Hubberston

P. Johnston

R. Lambston

S. Llangwm

T. Llanstadwell

U. Marloes

V. Nolton

W.Robeston West

X. Roch

Y. Rosemarket

Z. St Brides

A1.St Ishmaels

B1. Steynton

C1. Talbenny

D1.Treffgarne

E1.Walton      West

F1.Walwyn's Castle

Barony (hundred) of RH�S
Roch and other Parishes

The area originally held by the Norman de la Roche (David who married Johanna de Roch) and moved to England because they were surrounded by Welas, and held their grant under Brehon rather than Feudal Law is shown in yellow.
It is in Llangwm, some distance from their Flemish allies, but was not without support, because as noted above, there were Flemish "towers" nearby to provide protection.

ROCH in the barony of RH�S (R[h]o[o]se), six miles northwest of Haverfordwest, on the eastern shore of St. Bride's Bay is near the Cyfern Mountain to the west and southwest. It is on the main road between Hwlffordd (Haverfordwest) and Tyddewi (St. David's). Near the village are Roch Gate and Roch Bridge. The family controlled more of the barony than Roch...as illustrated in colour above.

To appreciate the equivalent modern context, please refer to the map [left] with particular attention to the rectangles - St. Bride's Bay is also to the left. The Pendergasts were to the lower right - nearby. Both placenames survive. Gobebert de Roch was not "de la Roche", but became confused with them through association and intermarriage.
The Norman de la Roche family in Llangwm went to England and faded away due to a lack of male heirs. Ours, like de Prendregast, was a name taken from a place we lived when a surname was deemed necessary.

(Source: Old Pembroke Families, Henry Owen, Chas. J. Clark, London, 1902 pp 69-73).

Speaking of Roche Castles, Chateaux and Estates, let's go on a little tangent for a moment. Recently, I noticed new Roche Arms - Black Cross/White bacground. It caught my attention in some visceral way. On this site, we have dealt mainly with the fish and the lion - in various permutations and combinations. The reason is simple; they were predominant in the migration from the continent to the Isles.
Of course, there are countless Roche Arms extant all over Western Europe, but this one was particularly eye-catching. With a little homework, it was easy enough to attach it to the Burgundian Roches. A little like nailing spaghetti to a wall though because of course Burgundy has been in many places in many incarnations so I suppose I shouldn't have been overly surprised when a trace of it appear in Loveland, OH.

Burgundy, is a historical region and cultural area in Western Europe, which has existed in several different forms with widely varying boundaries:

Bourgogne, a modern-day French administrative r�gion,

The Duchy of Burgundy that corresponded to modern Bourgogne for a time,

Franche-Comt�, former French province and modern-day French r�gion - originally the Free County of Burgundy withinin the Holy Roman Empire,

Kingdom of Burgundy, two different kingdoms in different time periods,

Upper Burgundy, a duchy of the Carolingian Empire,

Lower Burgundy, a kingdom that merged with Upper Burgundy to form the second kingdom of Burgundy, and

Burgundian Netherlands, a medieval agglomeration of territories centred further north than any of the above.

Laroche - the Black Cross - is definitely continental, as you see above, primarily from Burgundy (Bourgogne). However, there is also the Burgundian Netherlands; I rather suspect that because the French considered the family to be of minor rank, they may, at least orignally, have been from the latter. That is the kind of remote place that Roches tend to prefer. These Arms did not cross the Channel to the Isles (to my knowledge), however, because this family was busy with the Crusades and were, in fact, for many generations, the Dukes of Athens.
The first Duke of Athens (as well as of Thebes) was Otto de la Roche, a minor Burgundian knight of the Fourth Crusade. Although he was known as the "Duke of Athens" when it became a duchy in AD 1205, the title did not become official until AD 1260. So Otto, in true Roche tradition, proclaimed himself "Lord of Athens" (in Latin Dominus Athenarum, in French Sire d'Athenes). He then proceeded to run things in exemplary fashion, just to show the �major� two-legged powers around him, that it could be done. Their control lasted five generations and was relinquished voluntarily.

Otto (1205-1225)
Guy I (1225-1263)
John I (1263-1280)
William I (1280-1287)
Guy II (1287-1308)

The photo below is of the Temple of Thebes...also under their control. This they �adopted� as the centre of their operations for a time. The local Greeks called the dukes "Great Lord"; the haughty Franks used �Duke�. The so-called �minor" family (as determined by the French, no doubt) La Roche renewed the ancient city as a courtly European capital of chivalry. The state they built around it was, throughout their tenure, the strongest and most peaceful in Greece. They were ETHICAL, an example the Roache Family tries to model even today to the mostly blind, deaf and dumb. The greeks, with more sense than the French, realized a good thing when they saw it and showed it great respect.
The Duchy was held by the family la Roche until AD1308. Walter V de Brienne, a count, and likely more acceptable to the French, hired the Catalan Company, mercenaries, to fight the Byzantine successor states, but he tried to cheat and kill them in AD 1311. Not ethical; and so ended Walter at the Battle of Halmyros leaving the mercenaries to take the Duchy, making Catalan the official language, replacing French, and introducing the laws of Catalonia. Walter's son Walter VI of Brienne did retain the lordship of Argos and Nauplia, where his claims were recognized. This is just one of thousands of little examples that give the lie to the way we have been running things in the West for over three decades.
After the la Roche family gave the duchy to the de Briennes, some moved back to their castle near Paris, while others stayed in the eastern part of Attica. Note, all of you concerned with the �correct spelling� of the name: the la Roche name changed at that time - it became Rosis, Rosas, Rokas and, finally, Papavasileiou, as the result of a civil war. The latter family still owns a large part of what used to be the la Roche estate in Attica.
The Athenian parliament elected count de Brienne to succeed Guy La Roche, but his tenure was brief because of the Catalans (above). His wife briefly controlled the city, but the heirs of de Brienne continued to claim the duchy, being recognized only in Argos and Nauplia. They stood as long, but not as well, and there is a reason that remains lost on people even today � in the long run, ethics works.

Walter V de Brienne (1308-1311)
Joanna de Ch�tillon (1311-1354)
Walter VI de Brienne (1311-1356)
Isabella de Brienne (1356-1360)
Sohier de Enghien (1356-1367)
Walter IV de Enghien (1367-1381)
Louis de Enghien (1381-1394)

Again, with the Burgundy Roches, people play the familiar guessing game about how the surname might have arisen. In this case, the consensus seems to be that the name derived from a place which drew its name from a topographical feature nearby. Given the way the borders of Burgundy have moved live the waves on the sea, and given that the Burgundian Netherlands was a farming area, I still smiled and thought, they are looking for that damn rock :-)
They rightly observe there are many regions, cities, and towns in Western Europe, much of it hilly or mountainous, but much of it is flat or rolling, confounded by national borders that have moved like revolving doors over the centuries due to wars and treaties, but I knew they would come up with topography as soon as the name Roche appeared!
So the Burgundian Roches (who perhaps carried a rock for good luck to Greece - yes I'm kidding) - were Dukes of Athens for many generations, guarding trade and pilgrimage routes during the Crusades. They may have been either Templars or Hospitaliers, but definitely rich. They used their own coinage, as seen here. At times warrior monks, at times astute bankers, rulers definitely appreciated by the local population moreso that their "fellow" Europeans and at other times a great support for people on pilgrimage to the Holyland.

After the de Roche left, it was all about the money; ever thus.

The Temple of Thebes - la Roche Headquarters for a time

And then, this strange manifestation, not of the Greek Temple, but to the more humble and basic beginnings of a Dynasty that served the world well until it's allotted destiny had been fulfilled. Yet what had set Harry Anderson on his course and ocean and many centuries after the fact leaves one to marvel.

Chateau Laroche, Loveland, OH

Sire Harry Andrews started building the castle in 1929?

Chateau Laroche is the work of Sire Harry Andrews, who took the first stone to hand in 1929. Most of those stones used have been carried in buckets from a nearby riverbed. Mr. Andrews would on occasion let someone else do odd jobs. like mixing mortar, but he laid every stone himself. Some bricks used in castle were made by pouring cement into used milk cartons and removing the cartons after the cement had dried.
Over the years a group known as the "Knights of the Golden Trail" was formed to help Mr. Andrews. When he died at age 90 in 1981, the castle was willed to the Knights. They keep Sire Harry's memory alive by taking care of the castle and putting the finishing touches on it.
They also ensure someone is there to guard it at all times. The castle can be toured or rented for a party.

For more information, contact: Chateau Laroche 12025 Shore Drive
Loveland, Ohio 45140
Telephone 513-683-4686

I don't really know why I put that here. Sent by a young friend in Florida, Doug Thompson, I thought there must have been something unusual about Mr Anderson. Scientists now consider genetic or cell memory a distinct possibility, and when you see a project like this and the name of the builder is Anderson (Norse), you really have to wonder. I have seen rougher or more modern models, but this one simply grabbed me.
It does show the hold that this period has on the hearts and minds of men, and the castle is the symbol, the physical manifestation of something that still has an inexplicable attraction to people in the Americas. In most cases, it is romantic delusion.
But occasionally, not so - there is nothing romantic about all the work this man did over so many years to re-capture something soulful, not something he saw in mass media. And the way, the local community has rallied to maintain and protect it, and to fill it with life bespeaks something not easily explained as well. For that, we must turn to the artist, and we have a fine one:

Chateau Laroche

An interesting modern song - appropriate in some strange way - as is the Chateau - both echoes of a long gone past. Listen and then visit the site. Hit Return on your browser to come back to this page.

The Normans and their allies expelled the Welsh to the outside of the ring of castles (the March or Borderlands), which was to form the Landsker. They say English replaced the local tongue, but wait. The Normans spoke Old French; the Flemish didn't speak English, so who did?
Like the Irish, there are a lot of old chestnuts around to feed the fires of discontent, but they do not apply to our time in Wales, just as they do not apply to the time when we had any authority in Ireland.
Cromwell's troops took de Roch Castles in Wales, and they did pass it on to English families, one a friend of Ann Boleyn. But the de Roch had simply bred out by the 1400s. English could NOT have replaced Welsh (Celtic) as the local tongue within this area until centuries later.
We will wear the hair shirt when it's ours, but sloppy history and being a scapegoat holds no appeal. If the area became known as Little England beyond Wales, I cannot imagine why that would be the case during our tenure.
Godebert or his family may have been elsewhere prior to the date of the Flemish re-settlement by Henry I of Flemings from Scotland. This is relevant to Ro(a)ch(e) genealogy because the first member of the family to emerge from the mists of time was Godebert de Flandrensis.
He was still without a surname - and I am 100% certain he did not speak English. How could that be? He was just as likely to have spoken Welsh, if he was born and grew up there. But at the very least, or is it most, he would have spoken Flemish!
Being born at Roch would have made him Cambro-Flemish! People should remember that Gilbert de Clare was in trouble with his Norman King - he backed Matilda, not Stephen de Blois - and Richard Fitz Gilbert de Clare even moreso for losing his estates to Lord Rhys in less than two decades after his father's death.
Even though others owned him allegiance under feudal law, they were in better shape than their noble leader! When Flemings were shipped in after AD 1100 (in three tranches), the de Roch must have been there. History, as written, and fact, no matter how much it seems to support cherished biases or grievances, and the reality it purports to present, are often at variance.
Godebert of Flanders, whom some claim to have been in Britain at times, may provide an historical explanation for why there seems to be more of our family's genetic haplotype there than in either Wales or Ireland. If so, he was Godebert the Anglo-Frisian! Someone with such extensive holdings and more than one Castle would not come to Roch with a group of displaced Flemish peasants from Scotland. I can imagine him being pleased at their arrival. There is some confusion about the dates of his family's being in Cornwall - but it had been relegated to Jutes (Danes) and indigenous Celts earlier. So whatever the date, the family was there.
Any self-respecting Fleming of that time, might have had trouble with English. All but the Church educated might have, except for Latin. They could, however, have absorbed Welsh from friends, wives and even children. They did not live in a bubble. It would not have been practical.
Names mentioned near Roche Parish in Cornwall seem decidedly continental until late in history. English - when the Normans held sway - may have been used outside London - because the Normans were considered to have been involved in what historians call an "elite occupation."
We should also remember that the prime architects of the Invasion and Occupation were Angevins - I'm not sure why is was called a Norman occupation. French was spoken at Court and Latin by officials of the King and Church in Wales, as their own records indicate.
The Normans had put the English in their place. Even though they did replace the elite - in most cases - with their own, they did not bring in a huge number of continentals. They would not have come!
I doubt paranoid Angevin Kings would have had them in positions of power in Wales such that there was a linguistic divide between Welsh and English there, at least initially. They did not trust the Flemish - in Scotland or Wales. So where are we - little Normandy and Flanders beyond England - maybe? I'm being fascetious.... There were people in England named Roche in the 1200s - likely Norman - possibly Eb3s (who may have been there from Roman times); and if they were from Danelaw (and most seem to be), they were north European in the beginning, and appeared in England shortly before, with or shortly after Hastings from the Benelux region, in addition to earlier migrations.
That does not make them English. French de la Roche - northeast France - we find Roche or Roche-les-Beaupre; in the southeast, La Roche or La Roche-sur-Foron and La Roche-Bernard; in the west La Roche-Derrien, La Roche sur Yon, La Rochelle and Rochefort, the last three on the Bay of Biscay; and there is Les Roches l'Eveque.
In southeastern Belgium, there is Laroche or La Roche-en-Ardenne, complete with ruins of an 11th century castle. This is not an exhaustive list, but is meant to serve as an example of the possibilities of Roche surnames being derived from diverse places in more than one language with more than one spelling - even when translated into English.
There is also some disagreement over whether the "Flemish" de Roch came from the Barony of Rhos; the name from the Celtic word a moorRhosllyn; or from the family's Castle or the Parish, Roch (Welsh: Y Garn), Pembroch. Henry I may not have been overly enamoured of the Flemish, but they had to watch him because under feudal law, he could strip them of everything in a moment's time.
He had been Duke de la Roche earlier; and from a pragmatic desire to move socially and politically with their Norman allies [de la Roche], etc., the de Roch might have taken a cue. They later named one of Rodebert's sons Henry in Ireland.

Compare "The Course of Irish History", Moody T.W. and Martin F.X., eds., Cork, Mersier Press, 1967, pp. 123-143; "Clans and Families of Ireland" Grenham John, Gill and MacMillan, Dublin, 1992, pp 177-8; and Hilary Murphy, "Irish Roots", 1992, No 3.

Although being from Flanders, does not mean being Flemish, any more than being from Wales while they were in Ireland meant they were Welsh. We now know they were either Anglo-Frisian or Flemish - and some of both groups likely have our haplotype.
Later Cambro-Norman presence in Ireland would involve Flemish, Welsh, and Irish allies; and it was never intended to be a conquest by anyone but Diarmait [1126�1171] who wanted to be High King. His predecessor had been Enna MacMurrough and his successor by Brehon Law should have been Domhnall Caomh�nach Mac Murchada (not Richard Fitz Gilbert de Clare).
Twice married: M�r U� Thuathail and Sadhbh N� Fhaol�in, as allowed under Brehon Law, there was also Derbhforghaill Ni Mhaol Seachlainn, his other "romances" notwithstanding. He finally died at Ferns 1 May, 1171 at about age 61, leaving behind a terrible muddle in terms of succession ... which of course was the least of his troublesome legacy. Diarmaid(t) (later known as Diarmaid na nGall or "Dermot of the Foreigners"), Anglicized as Dermot MacMurrough, having been ousted as King of Leinster, pledged land and spoils to any who might help him. He sweetened the deal with an offer of his Kingship at death, plus his daughter Aoife's [Eve's] hand in marriage, which to Cambro-Norman Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, was attractive, however leery he was about Diarmait or Henry II.
He had two legitimate sons, Domhnall Caomh�nach (d AD 1175) and �anna Ceannsealach (blinded AD 1169). Thus, there were no direct male heirs. And it was after the death of his older brother that Mac Murchadha became King. This was opposed by the then High King of Ireland, Toirdelbach Ua Conchobair who feared (rightly so) that Mac Murchadha would become a rival. Mac Murchadha was a son of Donnchadh, King of Leinster and Dublin, killed in battle in AD 1115 by Danish Vikings in Dublin and buried with the body of a dog. His desire for revenge over that alone was a guarantee that he would always be trouble for somebody.
Toirdelbach sent an allied King, Tigern�n Ua Ruairc (Tiernan O'Rourke) to conquer Leinster and oust Mac Murchadha.
Ua Ruairc slaughtered the livestock of Leinster, trying to starve them into compliance. Mac Murchadha was initially ousted, but regained control with the help of the Leinster clans in AD 1132. Then came two decades of uneasy peace between Ua Conchobhair and Diarmaid. In AD 1152, he allied with the High King to raid the land of Ua Ruairc, by then a renegade. Mac Murchada "abducted" Ua Ruairc's wife Dearbhforghaill, along with all her furniture and goods, with the aid of her brother, a future pretender to the kingship of Meath.
It was said that Dearbhforghaill was not exactly unwilling, and she remained at Ferns for a number of years. The "abduction", of course, was further reason for enmity between the two men. After the death of Brian Boru in AD 1014, Ireland was constantly at civil war for two centuries. The various families that ruled the four provinces fought for control of all of Ireland � with five provinces (Ulster, Leinster, Munster and Connaught, along with Meath, the seat of the High King). Each was ruled by kings supposed to be loyal or at least respectful to the High King.
Mac Murchadha was careful to keep the Church onside, building or sponsoring churches and abbeys and sponsoring their activities, to ensure their support, wealth and power. He also sponsored the cleric St Lawrence O'Toole (Lorcan Ua Tuathail), and married O'Toole's half-sister Mor in AD 1153. He presided at the Synod when O'Toole was installed as Archbishop of Dublin.
That was ironic in itself since Mac Murchadha was a son of Donnchadh, King of Leinster and Dublin, killed in battle in AD 1115 by Danish Vikings and buried with the body of a dog in the city. Sp Diarmait planned not only to re-take Leinster, but to oust the U� Conchobhair and become High King - something he only disclosed to his new "friends" after they were in Ireland.
To claim that Diarmait did not understand the implications of what he was doing or can be pleaded innocent in his intentions in retrospect shows the extent to which some Gaels will go to find anyone to blame for their troubles, but one of their own. Such astounding irrationality does not make them look much better than the English who did not gain total control until AD 1603. It makes them seem silly. The de Roch had gone to great lengths to accommodate the Welsh. There were dividends to both sides. They likely thought the same possible in Ireland. Conquest was not on the agenda in either case --- the non-Norman Marcher Lords had no intention of wiping out the Welsh and taking the whole country.
But Diarmait would have loved to become High King. He wanted it all! It was the "foreigners" who told him to take it easy - even before de Clare was on Irish soil. They simply wanted the "piece of the pie" that Diarmait had promised them.
Sadly for them, there was inadequate leadership - each man of power was for himself (a surfeit of individuality). So they floundered around among the Gaels until many were no different, as far as any "Englishman" could tell.
Partial territorial control was deliberate. They only took what they could hold - or thought they could hold - and were reasonable enough to leave something, and to try to reach accommodation with local populations.
In addition, the de Clares and many of the original families simply died out. The Normans and their allies had another strange quirk - at the height of their power and success - they could walk away from everything without a second thought. They could go on a pilgrimage, a crusade or enter an abbey, casting their hard earned spoils to anarchy and nothingness.
Leaving something for the "locals" was not done completely out of compassion, of course, but political and military pragmatism. It's easier to accommodate an enemy, within reason, than to be constantly at war, especially if their women appeal. Apparently the Gaelic women were appealing, and it was mutual.
Some of both the Norse, Welsh and Irish cultures obviously rubbed off on the Normans, even through a slight language barrier. But Flanders was a territory where a Dutch dialect ('Vlaems'/'Vlaams') was spoken. The Flemish in Ireland stayed to themselves in Forth and Bargy, and they spoke Yola until quite recently.
This does not fit the Norman stereotype. Nor does it fit with what we know of some with our surname. We now know there was a genetic or racial difference - a huge one - Haplogroups R1b versus I versus E3b.
The Irish, Welsh and Cornish were R1b, albeit from Iberia. Nevertheless, R1b Roches may have had an affinity that the others did not - which contradicts the Flemish keeping to themselves. They may indeed have been "other".
The Flemish language today has official status on the continent, but the governments of Belgium and the Netherlands simply call it "Dutch". It developed from (Western) Germanic, together with American-Canadian-English, UK English, Frisian, High German, Low German, Swiss German and South African.
The word 'DUTCH' is derived from 'DIETS', meaning: 'from the people', or 'vernacular', used in the Middle Ages to distinguish German languages spoken by the people from Romance Walloon languages (French, etc). Now Walloons have slipped a little, being considered francite.
Thus, while some Roches are not Norse, some (like us) are likely North Germanic-Scandinavian of one tribe or another. And some, because they integrated so early and well in England, I suppose are English, if not Saxon, culturally, but are from the Near East.
I met some in Ireland and they remain of a positively republican persuasion! They understood that the first rule of successful military action was to secure as quickly as possible whatever lands had been overrun. This they did with castles (fortresses -- at first of wood; then stone).
The Castle was the hub of military power; then the Abbey, the source of ecclesiastical power. Later, given the opportunity, the wedding ring would come into play, medieval marriage being more of a business or political merger than a love affair.
It is said that the customs and people of non-Welsh backgrounds can easily be identified in Wales today, just as in Forth and Bargy in Ireland. But just who are "they", I wonder? More importantly, when did they arrive? I met some of those fine people as well, and they were not like our family.
That Henry I got off on the wrong foot with the Welsh and Scots likely made the Flemish more than a little uneasy. When William II was killed, Henry had himself elected and crowned while his brother Robert was away on Crusade. So he was not a man to be trusted.
About AD 1100, he married Edith of Scotland, daughter of Malcolm III and niece Saxon of Edgar Atheling. I suppose some might say Atheling is where the English come into things. But it is really a weak argument - they did not rule before the Normans - other than by the forebearance of the Danes.
And the marriage was obviously one of convenience, given Henry's sexual escapades. This would not have endeared him to the Scots. He holds the record for the largest number of acknowledged illegitimate children born to any King of England.
And that dubious accomplishment tells the full story! Any difference between these invaders and the English is lost when people are deciding who to blame for whichever historic injustice they lay at their feet. Here is Henry's list, as far as is known and documented:

Robert FitzRoy. His mother was probably a member of the Gai family.
Sibylla FitzRoy, married King Alexander I of Scotland. Probably the daughter of Sibyl Corbet.
Reginald FitzRoy. His mother was Sibyl Corbet.
Maude FitzRoy, married Conan III, Duke of Brittany.
Richard FitzRoy, perished in the wreck of the White Ship. His mother was Ansfride.
Fulk FitzRoy, a monk at Abingdon. His mother may have been Ansfride.
Juliane FitzRoy, married Eustace de Pacy. She tried to shoot her father with a crossbow after King Henry allowed her two young daughters to be blinded. Her mother may have been Ansfride.
Matilda FitzRoy, married Count Rotrou II of Perche, perished in the wreck of the White Ship. Her mother was Edith.
Constance FitzRoy, married Roscelin de Beaumont
Henry FitzRoy, died 1157. His mother was Princess Nesta
Mabel FitzRoy, married William III Gouet
Aline FitzRoy, married Matthieu I of Montmorency
Isabel FitzRoy, daughter of Isabel de Beaumont, sister of Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester.
Matilda FitzRoy, abbess of Montvilliers.
Adeliza FitzRoy. Appears in charters with her brother Robert (below), she was probably daughter of Eda FitzForne.
Robert FitzRoy, died 1172. His mother was Eda FitzForne.
William de Tracy, died shortly after King Henry.
Gilbert FitzRoy, died after 1142. His mother may have been a sister of Walter de Gand.

The marriage united a Norman (Angevin) line with an old Saxon line, but his Barons had been trying to keep them all under control while he was all over Europe. As a concession to the Normans, Edith changed her name to Matilda on becoming Queen.
But Henry continued to be troubled by uprisings elsewhere. In Normandy, his nephew, encouraged by Louis VI of France, was constantly inciting war, more than the Anglo-Saxons had thought of or could do.
They saw his constant absences as a way to simply get on with things, and again, how the Welsh can make the March seem like some sort of coup by the English, crucifying them, is lost on me.
Because his only legitimate son, William Atheling, drowned (AD 1120), and his second marriage in AD 1121 to Adeliza, daughter of Godfrey, Count of Louvain, was childless, he tried to secure succession for his daughter Matilda.
But Stephen de Blois was having none of that - it took some doing - but at the end of the day, Matilda was back in Europe and de Blois was on the Throne of England. Those, like the de Clares in Wales, who had rallied to Matilda, were in a bad place after that.
Henry had to accommodate the Anglos and the Flemish in Scotland and Wales (with an eye to the Scots), like everyone else who ever conquered that Island. Worse, his real interest and concern, like many Kings to come, never went beyond the most fertile and profitable portions of SE England.
The rest was the price to be paid for their Angevin insatiability in crossing the Channel in the first place - under a restless and ambitious "bastard", who needed or wanted to legitimize himself in the eyes of his peers in France.
After dispatching Matilda, de Blois had scores to settle - with Earls of his own - like de Clare - who threw in with her on the wrong side. But it was de Blois against de Clare - not the Welsh - other than by way of collateral damage.
He wasn't English. So why was England, much like the US today, to blame for everything. Don't get me wrong, I am anything but an Anglophile; it is the seeming lack of fact and logic that make me nervous.
I don't think anyone - myself included - can say with authority, but it would seem Godebert was not one of those re-located from Scotland and granted large holdings amongst the Normans on the March. Whatever his nationality, he was born in Wales earlier.
Born in Roch in AD 1096, the question becomes how far back does the family go on the western side of the Channel??? Flemings and Anglo-Frisians had been in both England and Scotland intermittently for a very long time. Could the Welsh have dubbed him Flemish because so many of the displaced Flemish from Scotland settled his lands?
The seed of the Eustaces ruled untroubled from the marriage of Maude de Lens, of Flemish descent, and her marriage, widowed, to Scots husband, David I. If the Scots and Irish were allies, and if the Flemish were in reasonable good stead with both, how did Godebert, an acknowledged Fleming, get tarred with the Lankster brush and anything English?
Maud of Northumbria (AD 1074-1130), Countess de Huntingdon, was the daughter of the II Earl of Northumbria and Judith de Lens (Flemish), the last of the major Saxon Earls to remain powerful after the Conquest. Maud inherited her father's Earldom of Huntingdon in England and married twice.
Maud, married Simon de St Liz, I Earl of Northampton in AD 1090 and they had a number of children including:

Matilda de St Liz, who married Robert FitzRichard and then Saer de Quincy, 1st Earl of Winchester.
Simon II de St Liz, 4th Earl of Huntingdon and Northampton.
Saint Walter de St Liz (1100 � 1160).

Maud's first husband [St. Liz] died in AD 1109 after 19 years of marriage; she then married King David I of Scotland in AD 1113. From this marriage, she had one son, Henry. The Scottish House of Dunkeld produced the next Earl of Huntingdon. Henry Dunkeld, succeeded through her to the Earldom.
Now this may or may not be correct because the records around this whole exercise are contradictory. Two death dates are extant for her - one reported as AD 1130 at Scone, yet her name appears on a Charter dated AD 1147. This could have been two different women of the same name - I have seen it before. But it might not!
It is just as likely to be the later work of antiguarians, who fiddled pedigrees for their rich employers, in the interest of money, land, and prestige. Even though apparently English born, Maud was considered Flemish, likely because of her mother being a de Lens.
As a result, some Flemish followed her north at the time of her second marriage and settled in the north of England and in Scotland. It would seem that when she died, they were offed to the continent or to Wales.
Average Flemings were moved to join their countrymen on the Marsh along the Trail of Saints. Henry had them in one place - does that sound "English"? The strong Flemish leadership there, welcomed them as hands to work, a source of income for the landed gentry, and potential military to take up the sword when required.
But Flemish royalty, once in the Isles, felt they need protection against the Angevins and called on the house of Boulogne and kinsmen - men like Walter the Fleming (now Seton), Gilbert of Ghent/Alost (now Lindsay), Robert de Comines St Pol (now Comyn and Buchan), Arnulf de Hesdin (now Stewart and Graham), the counts of Louvain (now Bruce), hereditary advocates of Bethune (now Beaton), hereditary Castellans of Lille (now Lyle) and their followers.
This Boulogne line continued on the Scots Throne until the death of Alexander II in AD 1286. Wars of Scottish succession were concerned with the Flemish. Flemings had married Flemings, and south and east Scotland were largely populated by people whose ancestors had come from Gent, Guines, Ardres, Comines, St Omer, St Pol, Hesdin, Lille, Tournai, Douai, Bethune, Boulogne.
They supported one another - Flemings/Frisians - Wales/Scotland - as long as they could. The city of Boulogne goes all the way back to the Romans, beginning as a fort. It is in northern France, so again, there is nothing English here - unless Charlemagne was English - he wasn't!
The AD 1290 break in the Scottish-Boulonnais succession allowed the Plantagenet-Angevin monarchy in England to annul the Charlemagnic descent. The clans emerged from the turmoil of subsequent centuries having pacified rebellions in the North and re-conquered areas taken by the Norse.
Robert the Bruce was directly descended by several lines from Charlemagne and Queen Maude and was eligible for the Scots Throne - if you ignore the fact it had been annulled.
His ancestor had come to England carrying the azure Lion of Louvain and Maude de Louvain was the wife of Count Eustace I of Boulogne. The Conqueror had many Flemish Knights in his army, but Boulogne is in France.
Two major Arms of the Roche surname have a Lion or Lions, it is not difficult to imagine how that came about. We are left to explain the Fish, but I think we have done that, and now have the sheep in one pen and the goats in another!
Members of Robert the Bruce's family were granted estates in Normandy at Brix by a Conqueror anxious to procure both their allegiance and their Flemish ability to provide revenue. His descendants on the Throne might have been wiser to treat them with more respect!
Nowhere in Wales was control stronger than in south Pembrokeshire, (Vol. V, West Wales Historical Records (pp. 271-290). Castles from Roch to Tenby, supported by lesser fortresses along the foothills of the Presley Hills were secured by the great castles of Carew, Manorbier and Pembroke. Control does not mean abuse with a few notable exceptions.
But Rhys ap Gruffydd recovered south Pembrokeshire in AD 1189 from de Clare, and Llywelyn the Last in AD 1277 overran the Marcher Lords. Pembroke was never taken! The French can't fight - but Flemings and Frisians can.
Just as the Irish had to begrudgingly give the de Roch and others a good rating in Ireland, if the Welsh were honest, and many are, they would know that they did much good in Wales....even to the extent of making enemies among those in London.
Roch Castle looks ominous, a fortress, consistent with the image of a Marcher Lord, but the de Roch preferred relative seclusion at Benton Castle or Pill Priory --- some of the family were even buried at Pill, it having been endowed by them.
With Pill, they did not use an old site, they showed respect for Celtic Saint Budoc and they encouraged the Welsh to join the Tironian Order who they had brought in to run the House.
Pill was in ruins until recently and has now been bought by a long-time Welsh resident of Flemish descent, Rudy Peleman. The Priory is again in good hands and, I think, as with Roch and Benton, restored. It should rightfully be considered a national treasure!
Documents show Adam de Rupe endowing Pill to the Order of Tiron, witnessed by Bishop Peter de Leia, St David's [1176-1198] which sets the timeframe. The original charter has been lost, and the sole remaining source is an inspeximus from AD 1294-5, which reads:

'For the monks of Pill. The king etc....We have inspected a charter which Adam de Roche made to God and St Mary and St Budoc and the monks of the Order of Tiron....in the monastery of Pill in these words....I, Adam de Roche....founding a monastery in my land of Pill....with the consent and assent of my heir, my wife Blandina....have given, granted and by this, my present charter, confirmed to God and St Mary and St Budoc and the monks of the order of Tiron there....etc., etc....'

(Charter Roll, 25 Ed I, Membrane 7, July 13, 1294-5, reproduced in Calendar of Charter Rolls, Vol. II, Henry III - Edward I, 1257-1300 (1906), 468-9).

Of course much happened later. When the Kings in England decided to cut the families who had become to close to the Welsh (as with the Irish later) down to size, they started in on the Roches in Rhos - who ignored them and continued to act as they always had - as landed gentry. This turned some into what the British called criminals. David Roche even was taken to task for collecting what he considered his due from Pill.
He was unaware that there was only a little sand left in the family's hour glass there under Henry V. We don't know his fate, but we can guess and I doubt it was "living happily ever after." Pill's motherhouse was linked to St Dogmael's and they in turn were linked to the continent - Norman France. Maybe the family died out for want of male heirs because they were all buried at pill - have suffered a premature and undocumented death?
The of course can the Reformation. Much has happened since the time of Henry VIII when the site and buildings were granted on the dissolution of the monasteries to Roger and Thomas Barlow --- Charter, 25 Edw. I., n. 8.
The rectory of Roch (Pill?) was not included in the grant, and the right of presentation remained vested in the King ---Orig., 38 Hen. VII., p. 5. In 1536-7 a lease of 21 years of the rectory of Roch was granted by the Crown to Edward Lloyd of the Household -- State Papers.
Henry appointed Anne Boleyn Marchioness of Pembroke, and it was through her influence that William Barlow was made Prior of the Augustinian Priory at Haverfordwest and, soon after, Bishop of St. David's.
Barlow carried out the religious changes dictated by the Reformation, and the Diocese of St. David's led the way in promoting Protestantism and suppressing Catholicism in the area. Anne, as we all do paid the price in the end, but that was too late for the good Roches in Rhos - they were no more.
Later, Henry abolished the County Palatine that had existed since Gilbert de Clare was first Earl of Pembroke in AD 1138, and united it with the several other lordships to form a larger County of Pembroke, one of thirteen in Wales. Henry liked thing neat. I wonder if it is true that he had each of his wives beheaded at a different angle? :-)
Despite the above, scholars manage to debate the date of the grant to Pill and by whom it was made. They do seem reasonably certain of its last days as a clerical institution. I suspect there is political expediency in this, as I have seen no solid evidence to refute the facts as generally reported. How anyone else could, I cannot imagine. But perhaps, they will be in touch?
Cambria Archaeology (CADW) was kind enough to share a watching brief on the burials unearthed accidentally at Pill Priory about a decade ago. It's author was Richard Ramsey.

Please cite as: Pill Priory, 1996-1998: Recent Work at a Tironian House in Pembrokeshire, Medieval Archaeology 46, 2003. It can be seen (in Draft Form using the link below - but without graphics):

There is now a very informative website online by the current owners of the property, Rudy and Clarine Peleman. The Pelemans, Rudy originally Flemish and Clarine, Welsh, make it truly exciting to see history come full circle. Clarine of Wales and a Flemming seems familiar to one whose ancestors found Wales so attractive for similar reasons :-)
Not only is the site a national resource, it is now in good hands and will be well-tended for future generations. It will remain a valuable historical asset for the country of Wales! I simply could not be more pleased.
When finished there, just click the Return or Back button on your Browser to get back to this page:

I also received what was to me a very useful document on the then structural status of what remained of the Priory from very kind, Ms. Sally Franklin, who was considering buying a portion of the site at one time. I regard that private to the Franklins, but did not want to let their generosity go unrecognized.
I, in turn, provided information on the Will of one John, son of Thomas and Margaret Roche, dated AD 1314. In it, John asks to be buried at Pill, donates 40 shillings to the convent and 40 more to the Friars Preacher of Haverford. His brother, Thomas, was given armour left at the Priory and his sister and left cash bequests.

(Source: Old Pembroke Families, Henry Owen, Chas. J. Clark, London, 1902 pp 69-73).

My primary interest, the skeletons and/or bone fragments found there (now re-buried), was the feasibility of using them for DNA testing. In most British archaeological projects, DNA analysis is still not a standard part of the investigation, due, I assume to cost considerations or no-viability of the specimens.
In this case, there was another consideration. I was thought to have purely selfish motives: burials of members of the Roche family - likely beneath the chancel of the Priory Church, the chapter house or one of the cloister alleys (now pinpointed).
These areas lie within that part of the site which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and protected by law. Permission to investigate might be difficult to obtain. I might be tempted to do so, but without knowing the condition of the specimens, it could prove an expensive and fruitless exercise.
In considering the site in the first instance, I honestly had a broader objective in mind. It would have been instructive to learn the racial and genetic profile of those buried there. Surnames aside, it would be interesting to see if race was a constant.
Since there were few monks there at any one time, and many lay people, I saw potential for a wealth of historical, medical and cultural data unrelated to my own interest and purely for their historical and other value.
Sadly, the remains were in poor condition. I was convinced that the viability of such a project was nil. With an archaeological watching brief, there is rarely funding for detailed analysis....an unfortunate fact of life.
The Pill Project was really a poor cousin to even a standard "dig." Salvage work undertaken during the laying of a pipeline uncovered specimens by accident, and the developer funded research as a goodwill gesture.
The primary objective for archaeologists, where human remains are involved, is to date the site, using one or more of the burials and/or other artifacts. In this instance, dating was provided by stratigraphic data and artefacts - radiocarbon dating (expensive) was deemed unnecessary.
Another complicating factor was that, because of acidic soil, the bone, according to my sources, while representing a significant number of burials, was generally in poor condition. Had it been better preserved, they would have considered applying for funding to do additional work.
CADW was prepared to do osteological analysis (gender identification, stature, pathology, dietary data collection, etc.). As it was, some gender identification was possible. This, obviously, "placed a period" on any inclination I had to do more...a frustrating, but undeniable, "dead-end", no pun intended.
I was defeated by local geology, unintended interference over time, multiple burials in the same graves and the passage of time.
The direct line at Roch ended in AD 1420 (during the reign of Henry V), and the castle changed hands a number of times until it fell to the Walter family, who owned it during the Civil War of AD 1642.
John Walter, an Englishman, a.k.a. Chwoms [Holmes], eventually purchased the Manor of Roch and land from the De Longueville family to whom it had passed.

(Source: West Wales Historical Records, Vol. V, pp 271-290).
And again, strangely enough, my extended family, in my grandfather's time, saw two Roche brothers in our line marry two Holmes sisters in the US.
The original Walter Holmes saw out the war in London, dying penniless and intestate there 13 September 1650. His castle had been garrisoned by the Royalists, and was involved in much action in AD 1644, when it was taken by Parliamentarians, recaptured by the Royalists, and then fell again to Cromwell.
Walter did not return, and is reported to have died penniless. His daughter Lucy stayed in London to become mistress of Charles II c 1660 - yes, the Charles II helped by the Roches when he too was in exile on the continent - and promptly forgot about it once he had the Throne.
their son, however, was acknowledged by Charles and made Duke of Monmouth - the doomed leader of the rebellion against James II [1685-88]. He was executed at about the age of 24-25.

An aside - what's a castle without a ghost? A local folk tale has it that Lucy Walter[s]/Holmes, mistress of Charles II, birthed her son at Roch in AD 1630. It is said she can be heard as she floats through the rooms of the castle in a white dress.
The noise of running footsteps is heard at night and sometimes awakens guests. She supposedly stands on the tower and looks out across the countryside towards the sea, awaiting for the return of someone.

Perhaps I am not enough of a romantic, but I do not believe for a moment Lucy is looking for a lover - lost or otherwise. She is looking for her son, the Duke of Monmouth or for Charles II [1685-85] to rescue him from the price of his rebellion against James II [1685-88] .
That, to me, is far more romantic, dramatic, human and entirely fascinating. How I would love to be one of those guests - awakened by Lucy. I would not be afraid at all. In fact, I would try to approach her, and help her find peace.
It gives me tremendous pride that these men - warlords and barons - had the skill to build something that would stand so long - even when knocked down - these buildings can live again.
An even greater satisfaction is found in the fact that kindred spirits appear and restore these structures to practical use for people today. Roch, Pill and Bolton are now (2009) in the care of such fine souls!
I am so grateful that the current in those ruins - historical, genealogical, artistic and as a place that can still bring pleasure to visitors from afar. To me, museums are nice, but buildings should be living things - used by the living to enjoy past, present and future by immersing themselves in the experience. Somewhere old Godebert is smiling.
Cromwell did what time had not done - when he was finished, the Castle (and likely others), as well as Church properties, had been ruined. But some rise again.
It will be a while, but geno-genealogy (genetics) will sort Angles, Saxons, (which the indigenous English are not), from Jutes, Danes, Flemings, Frisians and Celts. The Germans and French seem "different" today (speaking in terms of dominant genetic traits and being careful not to confuse borders with blood). However, it remains interesting to try to tease out historical correlations in physiology and behaviour using scientific knowledge we now have in this newly developing field, and to see if they reveal consistent patterns in peoples over time.
As for the historical owners, Cambro-Norman, Giraldus Cambrensis - Gerald de Manorier (Arch. Camb., V, xii, 103), confirms my impression of them:

"The Flemish were a people "brave and robust, ever hostile to the Welsh, well versed in commerce and handicraft, a hardy race, equally ready for the plough and the sword."

Because Gerald of Wales is a major source of historical record for this period, it may be appropriate to say a little about him:

Giraldus Cambrensis (c.1146 - c.1223), also known as Gerallt Gymro in Welsh, Gerald of Wales in English, a monk and chronicler of his times. Born at Manorbier Castle in Pembrokeshire, he was of mixed Welsh-Norman blood (thus Cambro-Norman), his proper name being Gerald de Barri.
He was a nephew of the Bishop of St David's, and a grandson of Gerald de Windsor by de Windsor's marriage to the notorious Nesta, daughter of Welsh Prince Rhys ap Tewdwr (of the north). The family also claimed a relationship with Lord Rhys (Rhys ap Gruffydd) of the south.
Gerald received a church education at Gloucester, followed by a period of study in Paris. He expected to succeed his uncle as Bishop in AD 1176, but his Welsh blood was a problem. Despite this, he became Chaplain to Henry II in AD 1184, and was chosen to keep an eye on Prince John in Ireland.
His observations there were published as Topographia Hibernica (AD 1188). He followed it up, shortly afterwards, with an account of Henry's "Conquest" of Ireland, the Expugnatio Hibernica....no fool, he painted a flattering picture of the Cambro-Normans and their allies in Ireland from the date of their arrival.
Next he travelled with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Baldwin of Exeter, on a tour of Wales in AD 1188, a recruitment campaign for the Third Crusade. His account of that journey, the Itinerarium Cambriae (AD 1191), followed by the Descriptio Cambriae in AD 1194 remain valuable, but unreliable, documents - describing Welsh and Norman culture at that time.
In AD 1198, Gerald again hoped to become Bishop of St David's, but was rejected a second time. He repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, challenged this decision, made by Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury, before finally giving up in AD 1203, to spend the remainder of his life in study, writing and politics.

The family de Roch - before we even had a surname - played an important part in the settlement and pacification of south Wales before the settlements by Henry I in AD 1106. They held, under feudal law, considerable territory in Pembroke[shire], and endowed Churches and Abbeys there and in Ireland.
Rodebert is cited as one of his Godeberts sons. Since they were not Norman (French), they were not Gobert and Robert. Godebert and his sons, Richard (likely Rickhardt and Rodebert), are documented in several source documents including the Complete Peerage...Vol 5, 1949, St. Martin's Press, N.Y., Geoffrey White, Editor.
This family was not Norman, and would not have had Norman names. In the interest of accuracy for the historic record, we must simply consider names from their reported place or origin and those facts now becoming apparent by means of genetic research.
White stated that Godebert, in AD 1130, was "paying to have certain lands in Pembroke (Penbroch)," implying that the family was well established by then. According to feudal tradition, they would have been required to supply men and arms at the pleasure of the King or their overlords unless it was "freehold land."
Roch and its bookend fortress, Benton Castle, were built as outer defenses for Norman "Little England" or "Landsker," as it was called, and still is, by some Welsh. Both are in Pembrokeshire and located near the unmarked border that separated the Cambro-Normans and their allies from the native Welsh (Welas) ... although it could be argued that Llangwm, was, at least at times, within the area controlled by Rhys.
Roch Parish in the Barony of Rhos was theirs to the extent that it could be under the feudal system in which the King owned all, and Roch Castle did remain their caput baroniae, even though they leased it to another family and spend most of their time at Benton or Pill. Benton, being in Llangwm, may have at times fell under the Welsh land tenure system, and may have even been preferrable to the family, especiallt in the time that their overlord de Clare was out of favour with Henry II.
Pill met other needs for a people who have always shown a strong spiritual inclination. Benton is rather remote, surrounded by forests and farm lands, and, most importantly, close to salt water, which must surely run in our veins. Both Pill and Benton were good places to be if some enemy [including a representative of the King - often not a good sign] were searching for you at Roch!

Benton Castle

One question is why sons and grandsons would give up the tradition and pedigree of the names Godebert and FitzGodebert to embrace de Roch (de Rupe) and then de la Roche? Even though Roch was a parish of theirs in Wales (and later Roch in Cornwall), they had other options.
The family at Roch, Benton and Pill was simply "from Flanders" and then Fitz Godebert" until some arrived in Ireland at which point it was "from Roch" - "de Roch" - no longer from Flanders (Flandrensis) - and not le Rocque - not Carrig(h), but de la Roche - except when rendered in Latin as de Rupe.
This suggests different "blood" from the Norman de la Roche families that existed before Godebert in western Europe. Some de la Roche/des Roches became associated with the Norman Kings of England; the Cambro-Normans and Cambro-Flemish were with de Clare. Genetic testing has shown we are NOT Norman, and, therefore, NOT properly de la Roche.
We are now genetically deemed Anglo-Frisian with additional data to come. But that is enough to place us (in modern terms) in NW Germany and Denmark; the Benelux countries, including Flanders (the Netherlands); and in Britain north of the Danelaw line. While rare in Ireland, we were there as well.
The family at Roch, there well into the 1400s, its contribution never matched by any subsequent owner (until modern times), has done well. Some have suggested they were forced to Ireland by the Welsh, like the de la Roche family at Langum was forced to England. It never happened.
After the death of Owain Gwynedd in AD 1170, the most powerful Welsh Chief was Lord Rhys. Owain had been chief in the largely unconquered north, but Rhys ap Gruffydd was chief in the south. It had been brought under control to a degree, with some integration taking place.
The first Normans and their allies often married Welsh women, and from them the mongrelized adventurers who crossed to Ireland were drawn. The Normans could be a treacherous lot; the "Flemish", relatively speaking, seem to have had scruples, which may have ultimately proven to be their undoing in Ireland.
In AD 1176, for example, Norman Marcher Lord, William de Braose, made few friends when he invited seventy (70) heads of leading Welsh families (unarmed) to a banquet, and had them all murdered by his men (who had secreted weapons), so that he could seize their land.
One of those killed was Lord Rhys's brother-in-law, but he did not over-react. He took no action, but the murders, understandably, were to become a standing national grievance in Wales. Ironically, King John would inadvertently even the score, but it would go unnoticed.
De Braose, for another reason entirely, would pay dearly. There is an old Irish saying, "It is a long road that has no bends in it". In AD 1204, John was warring on the continent and returned to England to get additional money from his nobles and the Church.
In the meantime, Philip Augustus of France completed his conquest of Normandy. Continental Lords, who formerly had lands in both Normandy and England, were forced to remain on their English estates, and that began the process of their becoming "English."
In AD 1206, John re-conquered Poitou, but avoided Philip. A truce was made between them for two years with John surrendering his claim to all lands north of the Loire. Again, he looked to England (his piggy bank, and that's all) to raise money, by a levy on Church lands, which was refused.
On the death of the Archbishop of Canterbury in AD 1205, John tried to have John de Grey, a man who might open the Church vaults to his plundering, appointed to Canterbury. The case was laid before the Pope, Innocent III, who told the monks of Canterbury to elect Cardinal Stephen Langton, who would not accommodate John.
The King did not accept this outcome, of course, so the Pope laid an interdict on England - the sacraments could not be celebrated publicly. John fought back; seized Church revenues anyway; forced his noblemen to "contribute" and to give hostages; thus defying the Pope. He evicted the Cistercians from their monasteries, and allowed them to return only upon payment of large fines.
The wife of William de Braose (the "hero" who slaughtered 70 unarmed Welsh men (above)), was, by then, in Ireland. John's father had wanted him to become King of Ireland, but he never bothered. Instead he conspired with his brothers against his father over the English Crown.
He must have been desperate to turn to Norman Lords in Ireland, and they must have been desperate not to pay. William de Braose's wife refused to give her children as hostage to John, so he could extort money from her husband. And in AD 1210, John went to Ireland to deal with those who refused his demands.
Walter de Lacy, II Lord of Meath, had been a Marcher Lord with extensive lands along the Welsh border and in Normandy, and even though married to William de Braose's daughter, he submitted. The King seized his Irish lands anyway. It was not intended to be permanent, but John wanted revenue until he had enough for his war.
The lands were, in fact, restored, in part, in AD 1213. But nobody in their right mind would have "made book" on that three years earlier. His quarrel was with de Braose's wife, Maude de St.Valerie, who accused him of murdering her nephew earlier. She, with her grown son, fled to Meath, and, when John followed, she fled to Scotland.
Bad move. The Scots would have known what her husband had done to the Welsh. She and her son were captured by Duncan de Carrick and handed over to John at Carrickfergus. They were imprisoned in Windsor Castle, and he had them starved to death. William de Broase fled to France.
The original murders by de Braose followed by John's impositions meant the Normans were considered to be "worse" than their allies. Events like the later marriage, of a female member of the "Flemish" de Roch, Johanna (Joan), to a Norman, David de la Roche of Langum (Llangwm) [the marriage record states he was "not of this country"] was strategically better for him with the Angevin establishment than marrying a "Welsh" woman.
Being Norman, however, he had little choice but to eventually leave Wales. Even having linked with the de Rochs through marriage, he was forced to England. Dr. Henry Owen and other authorities believe that the name Llangwm was Norse (Norman), and should be written Langum.
George Owen, the 'Pembrokeshire' historian, spells it 'Langom' or 'Langome'. The de la Roche story in Langum contrasts with that of Godebert de Roch at Rhos and his family - the former having considerably more trouble standing against the locals, their lands being held by Welsh, not feudal, tradition.
The marriage of Johanna de Roch and David de la Roche, however, may have cemented a merging of the names. Llangwm, like Roch, was a parish in the barony of RH�S. Its name means "church in the vale", likely because it was on the western bank of Milfordhaven.
The Church there in AD 1833, St. Hierom [St. Jerome], had ancient monuments - several in the memory of the family of Roch - Langwym or Roch - is not clear. If placed by Johanna, it was Roch; if by David, it was De la Roche.
To this day, there is confusion in Wales over which of the families was which - because some migrated back from Cork to Pembrokeshire centuries later. The claimed to be de Roch, but they had Lions on Arms. On the run from the English, they wanted to be sure they would garner some good will.

[Source: A Topographical Dictionary of Wales (S. Lewis, 1833).]

Latter-day Butterhill (Butter Hill) is linked with David de la Roche, even though that family was extinguished in England for want of male heirs. And there are still families (supposedly unrelated to either) using the name Roch in Wales.
This does not explain confusion over the the large mid-16th century estates in Pembroke. Lewis' Topographical Dictionary of Wales (1833) reported that at Butter Hill, formerly a grange belonging to Pill Priory, was a family named Roch, "said to be" descended from Adam de Rupe, [I would like to see that pedigree!].
The Manor House at Butter Hill was built in the early 19th Century by George Roch and later extended by his son William Francis. However, the reference does not continue with information that these were Roches driven from Cork. Consistent with the above, in AD 1830, the local population, by Survey, included:

GENTRY AND CLERGY
Roch George, esq. Butter hill
Roch Rev. William, Butter hill

In AD 1528, Henry VIII forced fairly large-scale migrations of Munster "Irish" back to Pembrokeshire. Another option, of course, is that these families were Welsh, and had adopted the surname after the original Cambro-Normans and Cambro-Flemish had been displaced. But that does not account for the time between tenure and occupancy between the original families and those from Cork.
Until Henry's time, there were Norman de la Roche in Ireland. While King John had earlier tried to root out what he deemed Lords who had gone native. He replaced some with men named de la Roche in Cork.
They later apparently anticipated trouble from Henry VIII, and sought safety in a relatively remote (they hoped) part of Henry's domain - Pembroke. Arms associated with them at Pakeston and Butterhill vary considerably from those of the original de Roch.
But Arms of Maurice Roche from south of Lough Mahon on the river Ballyroche, at times Mayor of Cork between 1488 and 1523, and of other Roches on the continent, the Counts of La Roche, Ardenne and Luxembourg, for example, might explain the Lion being foremost.
It was Roches of the Lion who fled to Wales in anticipation of greater problems to come in Ireland. Maurice Roche used the surname Carrick for a time in Ireland, obviously trying to hide among the Gaels before the family decided it was best to leave for Wales.
This information was in a land transaction, (Source: Gentlemen's Magazine, September, 1855). But one constant was the Lion motif in arms - and that helps in sorting one family from the other.
There could not have been a re-settlement of Adam de Rupe's descendents - grandson of Godebert of Flanders. If so, there would have been Roachs, not Lions, as the central motif:

Roch-Pakeston, Wales Roch-Butterhill, Wales

An attempt to take a comprehensive survey of the land in Wales was published in two volumes, ''Return of Owners of Land, 1873''. It dealt only with landowners whose estates, exceeded 3,000 acres and had rentals of at least �3,000 a year. Among them was:

No. 122, William Francis Roch, Butter Hill, 5,666 acres, �5,103 annual rental, Pembrokeshire (partly listed under his mother's name, Martha J. Roch).
Yet, again, by 2004, Butter Hill had been uninhabited for about 50 years. The last Rochs where there in AD 1881, but had left by 1901, superceded by the Llywelyns, who lived nearby.
The last, to my knowledge, was Walter (Watty) Roche, a politician, who abandoned his estate before he ended his political career. He was said by some to have moved in with relatives in the area. I assume he, like many others, he was done in by the cost of maintenance and taxation.
I say this because Roch and Benton, unlike Langwym, were held under feudal law. The de Roch are buried at Pill Priory, endowed by Adam de Roch (de Rupe) and others afterwards - a de nova foundation (a new site).
The first Norman Abbey in Wales had been established by Robert FitzNorman with less sensitivity. Thirteen monks were brought in from the Abbey at Tiron (France) and had affinity to the mother Abbey of Tiron (the Tironian Order) near Portiers (home of Peter des Roche, later an Archbishop in England and a power at Court).
This "house" and others were forced onto existing Celtic sites. Pill shows that the de Roch were respectful. Not only did the de Roch family not use an existing foundation, but Pill was the first Abbey to recruit Welsh monks.
their total contribution to the Church in various forms over time, was outstanding. Pill's mother-house was St Dogmael's Abbey, and its sister house was on Caldey (Ynys Byr) Island - they were to benefit the Welsh.
A modern trench through the former cemetery, revealed 31 burials, all related to the Priory, identities unknown. Skeletal remains in varying degrees of completeness were found, but all had undergone disturbance; only one showed evidence of a coffin. Grave superimposition suggests that space within the cemetery was limited, indicating the limited extent of the endowment or perhaps its reduction later.
What I find to be one of those strange coincidences is that we have a member of the family - a priest in the Order of St. Benedict - today in the U.S. They are linked historically to the both Cistercians and/or Tironians which, in turn, were founded on the Rule of St Benedict.
The Cistercians or White Monks (from the colour of their garb) are an enclosed order. The first of their abbeys was founded by Robert de Molesme in AD 1098 near Dijon, France. Two others, Saint Alberic of Citeaux and Saint Stephen Harding, are considered co-founders, and Bernard of Clairvaux aided the growth of the order during the 12th century.
Cistercians wanted to return to strict literal observance of the Rule of St Benedict, rejecting later changes the Benedictines had undergone. So too, the Tironians, founded by St. Bernard d'Abbeville of the Benedictine House of St. Cyprien near Poitiers , but relocating to Chartres in AD 1113. Fitz Martin brought them to Cermais and installed them at St. Dogmael's, a monastery established under Celtic Christianity.
Celtic or Insular Christianity is the Early Medieval practice that developed in Britain and Ireland before and during the post-Roman period, when Germanic invasions reduced contact between Celtic populations of the Isles with Christians on the Continent. Through Columba and Aidan, it spread to others such as the Picts and Northumbrians. Celtic (or Insular) Christianity was organised around monasteries rather than diocesan, and certain traditions were different from those of the greater Roman Catholics.
Later Christian practice by the Irish, Welsh, Scots, Bretons, Cornish, and Manx Churches diverges significantly after the eighth century (resulting in a great difference between even rival Irish traditions). The Celtic Church was not unified and identifiable as separate from greater Western Christendom. Historians dance around all this because of basic differences which did not appeal to Rome.
Building upon older Benedictine claims regarding the age of Glastonbury Abbey, Reformists argue that the native Celtic Church preceded the Church of Rome. Some RC apologists dismiss the idea of a separate tradition from that of Rome as an anachronism and mythological. They apparently have not heard of the Laudabiliter used by Henry II to justify his assuming contol of Ireland and establishing a tax, Peter's Pence, as a source of income for Rome and as part of his penance for the murder of Thomas a Beckett..
"Scholars", good lord - any notion of a unique tradition is completely rejected by some. It even refuses to die in modern times, but it is labelled �new age� paganism,� based on notions of "Celtic spirituality" allegedly distinguished by a unique �closeness to nature.�
Whatever debates these scholars have over the historically factual does not detract from the symbolic nature of a Celtic Church overtaken by Romanised Christianity and related political events. Ultimately, any damn fool knows a Celtic Church tradition existed and a decision was made to support the Roman Church which resulted in its suppression.
The historical legitimacy of this, especially its Pagan Symbolism (resembling Balaam and Druidism) is clear, and it was deemed anti-Roman or during the Reformation as anti-Christian. Such narrow minds - amazing. What of St. Budoc and Pill Priory asks one inquiring mind?
My relative knew nothing of the possible and indirect historical connection. I mentioned it to him once and he seemed uncomfortable, so I changed the subject. He is quite elderly and a wonderful man. No need to trouble him with such matters. When you consider all the orders he might have joined, it is intriguing, however, that he would become an O.S.B.
His sister Catherine is a Dominican. She is shown below in the modern habit; she had taken the veil fifteen years earlier. He is 89 now and she is in her mid seventies (2008). Both continue to actively serve, long past retirement age.
Why Dominican? Now I don't want to seem superstitious or religious here. I am neither. But science now accepts, to some degree, notions of genetic and cell memory. And I have also found a coincidence regarding the Dominicans.

Fr. (Robert) James Roche, OSB - 1985 Sr. Catherine Roche, OP, Dominican - 1980s

Most RCs would know that the Rosary has been attributed to St. Dominic (c AD 1500). Many might not know that a member of the Dominican Order, Alan de la Roche, in his writings promoted the Rosary. He tells us that Dominic had tried unsuccessfully to win converts in France.
In frustration, he went into seclusion near Toulouse and prayed for three days and nights. During his retreat, de (la) Roche reports that Our Lady appeared and taught Dominic to say the Rosary.
She asked him to teach the people her prayer. Dominic later went to the Cathedral and began to preach. A severe storm blew up during his sermon, and an apparition of Our Lady appeared. People were frightened, but Dominic prayed and the storm abated. They got the message.
Alan (Alain) de (la) Roche began Rosary Confraternities, and in AD 1520, Pope Leo X officially approved its universal use. In 1917, the Blessed Mother selected the name "Our Lady of the Rosary" at Fatima when she reportedly appeared to three children saying, "I want you to continue to say your Rosary every day to end war and bring peace to the world."
Originally, the Rosary was called "The Psalter of Jesus and Mary" because the Book of Psalms has 150 entries. The original Rosary had 150 "Hail Marys". The word "Rosary" comes from the Latin "rosarium", a bouquet of roses.
Each of the prayers in the Rosary is considered an offering of a rose to Mary. Having spent my professional life in part in "communications", I assume Dominic had good public relations to help his cause :-)
But Pill Priory was also devoted to the Blessed Virgin, as well as a Saint of the Celtic Tradition, Budoc. Sister Catherine - Coincidence? Likely, I am open to the possibility - does that mean I am no scholar? Given their apparent inflexibility of thought (logic), I will gladly lay no claim to being one!
The de Roch marrying Welsh women and displaying an open attitude toward the Welsh likely added to the lack of objection to some of them helping de Clare in Ireland. Knight (Miles), Sir Richard FitzGodebert - son of Godebert Flendrensis of Roch (Rhos) Pembroke[shire] (a.k.a. Pembroch) - deemed to be "from Flanders" was first in Ireland (AD 1167). He was there under feudal law (Knight's Fees) owed his overlord, de Clare, in exchange for land grants in south Wales. He was sent as a result of a Treaty between de Clare and an Irish King, plain and simple.
The family may have been "from Flanders", but that - as we have seen - did not make him Flemish. For example, the name Godebert (his father) in ancient Germanic/Dutch is derived from the Goth "guths" or "gods"; Goth "g�ds" or "good", and combined with Old High German beraht, "bright". But he may have been Flemish - born to Flemings in Wales.
One interesting connection to where our DNA has been found in Northern Italy is a much earlier King of Lombardy (c AD 656-61) - King Aripert. In addition to an unnamed daughter, he had two sons, Perctarit and Godebert.
The brothers ruled jointly after his death in AD 661, but, as one might predict, in such a situation, they quarreled. Godebert had his brother killed and became Godebert I, King of Lombards. So much for godly and bright?!
I am not for one moment proposing a linkage here, nor to royalty anywhere at anytime, "guth" forbid! But I am using a name to show the possibilities of Godebert's racial inheritance to be many.
Because peoples migrated westward on the continent or via the Mediterranean over the millinia, designating them by virtue of the last soil upon which they stood is far from sound.
A King of the Lombards, like a King of England, was probably not native, and may well not be from the race of which he became king - ditto for Queens! Generally western or Old Europe was populated (Africa aside) from the east. What am I getting at?

Ireland was never conquered by the Cambro-Normans, their Flemish (or other) allies, nor the Welsh. The lot of them were too busy fighting amongst themselves and for or against the Irish to conquer anybody. As in Wales, they would also have only taken what they could hold, with an occasional raid for booty outside a defined area.

End of Chapter III - Back to Top? TOP

If not, let's go on to our our experience/s in Ireland....

Chapter IV - Operation Ireland

I use the term, "Operation Ireland" to describe the tiny slice of history carved out by the renegades, MacMurchada and de Clare. The whole "Operation" can be summarized in one simply graphic.

It was Irish King Diarmait's Civil War to win or not; and he needed outside help. The Anglos would not touch it with a barge pole.
He bought his foreign allies by contract or treaty with de Clare, throwing his daughter in for good measure - always a "hard truth" for many "Gaelic Irish" to accept.
In the interest of historical accuracy, therefore, it's OPERATION IRELAND. That term more accurately describes what happened between AD 1166 and when Cambro-Norman expansion ended - or began its precipitous decline - generally agreed to be about AD 1270 - only a century or so after they first arrived from Wales.

Of all the Cambro-Norman and allied families of European extraction, the Ro(a)ch(e)s were (for better or worse) to be among the first in Ireland at the time of the so-called "Anglo-Norman Invasion".
This supposedly triggered centuries of tension between the Emerald Isle and England. If so, it was the doing of an Irish King - Diarmait MacMurchada, King of U� Cheinnsealaig and Leinster (Laigin) - and not "the usual suspects"! Granted, it takes two. And Richard Fitz Gilbert de Clare, a Cambro-Norman, was out of options in Wales. So a deal, of sorts, was struck.
Believe me, there were no winners. Even the English must still decry the day they felt the need to act on "the Irish Problem." But it might explain why our first first forbear in North America was from Co Wexford/Co Carlow where the parishes of St Marys, St. Mullins Killigney and Borris overlap within the Diocese of Leighlin-Kildare --- Old/New Ross and vicinity.
Once established in Ireland, Richard's de Roch's brother, Redebert, in AD 1169, was granted part of the barony of Shemalier East, northwest of Wexfordtown. It became known as Rochesland. The family settled at Artramon[t] (Castlebridge), a functional structure, but not luxurious by any standard...in an area that is today a small Electoral Division:

Artramon(t) Castle & Artramon(t) Townland (top - red) - Co. Wexford

The original family seat was Artramon(t), the very name taken from Wales - from St David's, Pembrokeshire. Until the King's Herald appeared in AD 1618, David de la Roche's descendants were "Lords of Rochesland" at Artramon(t), their castle a prominent landmark on the west side of the inner harbor.
Sir Richard de Rupe (Roche), one of the original "foreigners" of 1167/1169-72, Sir Richard FitzGodebert, was later Lord Justice of Ireland (Journal of the Old Wexford Society, November 2, 1969).
So Artramont remained in the possession of the Roches for hundreds of years, but was eventually "granted" to the Le Hunte family by Cromwell, after the allies of the Cambro-Normans had fallen from favour over religion and their attempts to accommodate the Gaels. True to historical tradition, there are two versions of how that transpired.
(Note: I have long ago decided to forego deciding on the correct version of events, unless one or the other/s is clearly supported by evidence of some kind, or the other patently ridiculous. I now simply record both - or more - versions for the record). Our reduced status in Co Wexford also resulted, it is reported, from an Heraldic Visitation by Sir Daniel Molyneux, Ulster King-at-Arms, who was sent to examine family pedigrees and weed out those the English considered poseurs.
Roches being...well...Roches...took a rather dim view of such impertinence, and summarily ran the Herald off. I doubt this was a surprise to anyone involved. A full five years earlier, at the assembling of Parliament in Dublin, AD 1613, it was suspected that Peerages were on the Table.
Word was leaked that the session was for the purpose of sanctioning the confiscation of estates owned by Catholic proprietors, and Sir John Everard was proposed as Speaker by the Catholic Party.
Sir John Davis was candidate for the Protestant Party. Everard was to have the Chair. When this was denied, a riot resulted, in the course of which Everard was violently dragged from the Chair, and Davis seated in his stead. That had a rather familiar ring to Canadians at the end of 2008, I'm sure.

(Source: Curry's Review of the Civil Wars, pp. 78-9),
As a consequence of "unjust treatment," Catholics then, foolishly, I must say, sent a deputation to England to lay their complaints before the King James I. Everard was a member, and Sir David, Lord Barry, Viscount Fermoy, was leader of the group. (Ib. j. 80, footnote.)
And people wonder why today, my advice, in dealing with government about matters of injustice is never to play by their rules. Logic never carries the day. It's all about money and power.
But advocates still waste time and energy going through the motions, playing by someone else's rules, and wondering why their brilliant logic is never accepted at face value. If they would only read history....sigh.
The chairman questioned Everard's having been deposed in such an undignified manner in Dublin; but the House had by then proceeded to transparently vote Supply with such good grace and readiness that the King returned his thanks by special letter to both houses.
All the King wanted from Ireland was money - the Protestants understood. The King's response sent a clear signal to the Protestants in Dublin that he approved. Had they been more astute, the Catholics would have realized he wouldn't have cared if there were a monkey in the chair, so long as he received his revenues.
Commenting on the royal message, Everard is reported to have referenced the intolerable statute of Elizabeth that imposed a fine of twelve pence for absence from Protestant worship on Sundays and Holy Days. Neither in Elizabeth's time, nor in the then reign of James I, had any subsidy been so smoothly granted to the Monarchy.
Everard said, "I do, on the knees of my heart humbly pray on behalf of my country that the statute of Queen Elizabeth may be "something moderated" for a time, which being granted, if the King were willing to demand two, three or four subsidies, I doubt any denial whatever."

(Commons Journal II, VOL. I, 45-7) -- Source: Journal of the Waterford and SE of Ireland Archaeological Society, Vol. II; c 1850

I see the same toady behaviour today, and have separated myself from it, until people are ready to show some grit. In Canada, we are in recession. We are here because of gross malfeasance by the monied classes - surreal violations of the Securities Act and the Criminal Code.
Our people have believed in a flawed economic model for over a decade. It has seen the largest transfer of wealth from the Middle Class to the rich, powerful and corrupt in our history; and now the "international crisis" can be used to turn back the clock by a century, and cover up the truth of what was done to the average citizen.
Our leaders knew exactly what they were doing and why. Well-intentioned, but woefully uninformed people and groups, have made presentations; appealed to regulators and the court systems; lobbied politicians for "help"....actually believing that this might work.
They expect the people who created this situation and continue to maintain it to restore things to the way they were??? That will never happen. The very people to whom they appeal have a grander vision, and fools do not see or they beg for justice and reform that will never come.
The active removal of Peerages from so-called "Old English" families was a determined strategy at a time when the British thought they might be successful in their attempts to do so without having to themselves endure a backlash of unrest against their own "planted" citizenry - or their representatives - if planters were absentee landlords. This was not confined to Ireland.
It had the effect of turning many formally loyal families into criminals. They continued to collect their due in kine (kind) as in the past. This the British saw as predation. It was acceptable for a Peer to keep their tenants in what amounted to slavery, but unacceptable for former peers or those Irish operating under Brehon Laws to do so.
The only ones who might have noticed the irony in all of this were the peasantry, and all they could do was vent their anger and frustration in rhymes (as we do in late night television comedy and blogs today).
Thus in AD 1537, one John Roche of Wexford was a member of the Jury for the Body of the Shire (Wexford), and in less than a century, his descendants would be among those who spent most of their time answering to serious "crimes" before similar tribunals. But even earlier, there were huge issues across Ireland outside Dublin. These situations don't develop overnight.
Not only had the Roches and others taken Irish wives, they were doing business with the Irish. They were also fighting them and each other. Some had adopted Irish ways; some tried to remain aloof. But when Henry VIII changed religions, even loyalists were in trouble.
Irish religion was uniquely Celtic and definitely non-Roman (despite Henry II and the Pope), and that was contradiction enough, but now the King was Protestant. Loyalty to Rome and/or Ireland balanced against a duty of loyalty to a foreign King of another religion was too much for any psyche in a land of such chaos to integrate.
The Roches demise socially in Wexford had already begun in Henry V's reign. One William Etle Roche and Irish allies raided Walter McThomas in Wexford and took horses, other animals, goods and murdered his wife at one point.
They thought they were still Peers/Lords/Land Owners; still within their rights. Like today, they had not noticed that the rules had changed, and the plan was to "take them down a peg or two" and to garner as much wealth as possible for "the few."
The Roches and Cautons (Condons) were still at each others throats (that had begun in Wales) in both Wexford and Cork, and any place else they crossed paths. Walter, son of Nicholas, burned Robert Caunteton's moat and a town owned by the Sinnotts and Meylers, and then charged them for the right to re-build.
Alexander and other Roches were holding up people on the roads and taking their property, even taking them captive for ransom. Sometimes called up for military service, they still had to tend to properties in Wales - in Devon and Cornwall - as well as Ireland - there they had identical problems. It is difficult to run a manor with a sword always in hand from some distant place.

I should perhaps have made mention that their descent in SW England from Ireland is documented in Archivium Hibernicum (The Irish Historical Record) by the Catholic Record Society of Ireland; 1960; Item Notes 23-7.

However, there were numerous Roches - with incredible large holdings all over the British Isles - some in Scotland - and they were in difficulty almost everywhere. All related - only on paper - we now know better because of genetic science; they were not as quick to pay the Monarch as their Anglo counterparts. Rule #1 - keep the rich rich or getting richer, or suffer the consequences!
I had considered listing all the names and relationships that are documented in Jury Records in Ireland alone but, it would, apart from the examples above, be futile. I can understand why a pedigree might have become mangled rather badly in Wexford - there were so many Roche males.
Each, as any family historian even today can attest, took the same name from father or grandfather; uncle or great uncle, so that where the right to a given title for property might fall would be almost impossible to determine at times, and the person decided upon might soon be dead in any event.
The females, thankfully, married well and further afield. Most did not concern themselves with Ireland (especially Wexford), or with Wales, having taken other names, and even ignoring inheritance rights they had themselves. In England, they could see the game that was being played and Roche women are astute!
Even after Roche claims to Arms in Wexford had fallen, other members of the family and the name were busily taking up the same arms elsewhere and halving, quartering and differencing them as if they still held formal status....which in one sense, they did and do. Even in Fermoy (Armoy), things have been "messy," but eliminating the Viscounts over time solved that little problem for the English.
There are several confused versions of the founding of the Fermoy dynasty in North Cork. One has David de Rupe, about AD 1300-02, having wed Amicia de Cau[te]ton (Condon), heiress of Fermoy, being ordered to deliver to brother-in-law Maurice de Cauteton, lands and rent in Glennoure, Ardlathe, Rathleglas, Fegmor, Gortnebolla, Lenagh and Lysdonewyth.
After her death, David held title to these lands, and supposedly passed them in turn to one of their sons, Alexander, whose own sons predeceased him. Suits and counter-suits continued for years - great discord prevailed between the Roches and Condons.
Eventually the cantred was taken into the King's hands. David did fealty to the King in full court; Maurice was ordered to cease further interference; and yet there is another version of how Fermoy came under a Lord Roche.
It features Adam (and there may have been more than one man of that name because deeds attributed to him seem entirely too much for one). This version says he was with FitzStephen; they went to North Cork; and founded Castletownroche near Fermoy in AD 1196. FitzStephen had or assumed the power as his right to grant land and titles.
He was one of Nesta's half siblings - of Royal Cambro-Welsh blood - and it was part of the spoils of supporting Diarmait and de Clare in turn as Kings of Leinster. I have no doubt that he had cut some sort of deal with Henry II during his visit; so Adam accepted.
Dun Cruadha [Castletownroche/Castletown Roche] was an ancient dun (fort) overlooking the area to the west of Awbeg. The ruling O'Learys (Hi Laeghairi) were displaced by the Roches who, in return for tribute, (presumably to Fitz Stephen and thus to de Clare or Marschal, officially became Cambro-Norman Lords, Viscounts of Fermoy.

(Source: The Cork Historical and Archaeological Society [Eithne Donnelly]).

Sir Bernard Burke in "Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited and Extinct Peerages", AD 1883; agrees with the second version, but says it was Adam's descendants who became Lords (Viscounts) c AD 1250!
The Complete Peerage [CP] - implies that in AD 1169, the Fermoy Roches were direct beneficiaries of military expansion into Munster, as opposed to right of inheritance by marriage. But the first Adam, son of Rodebert, was there with Fitz Stephen, and they did claim it - period.
There are genealogies back to c. 1200 in the Genealogical Office in Dublin that begin with David Roche (The Great) who died before AD 1488. By this stage, the family had assumed the title, Viscount, though there seems to be NO available British evidence of why or how. Well knock me over with a feather :-)
For starters, these fellows were Knights, and they had property in Wales, England and Ireland; Adams Uncle, Sir Richard FitzGodebert, was King's representative in Ireland for a time. There may not be direct evidence on paper sufficient to satisfy bureaucrats in London or Dublin (inside the Pale), but one would have to be from Mars to think there never was.
This family was in the original group with Diarmait, even in AD 1167, and there were guarantees of land and titles in place, under Brehon and/or Norman law, it is inconceivable that, in addition to grants in Wexford, as they spread out in Ireland with FitzStephen, de Prendregast, and others, there would not be more. It defies common sense (something of a habit with the English) when convenient.
We are getting a taste of a similar phenomenon now in Canada. People are incredulous. Brain washing is an old sport for the rich and powerful, and even I have to agree it is brilliant and it works to the benefit of those who employ it. What that says of the masses, I will leave you to conclude.
As if they, like most Roches, would have been concerned with the proprieties demanded by the English of later date, e.g. King John. One can assume it was motivated by their overlords, perhaps without knowledge by whichever Angevin was theoretically on the Throne.
The de Clares and the Marschals had the right to grant land and titles for Knight's fees, and they would have done so. And grants to the higher positions (the Peerage) by King John, not to mention his predecessors, may well have been done "on the fly" with Henry II or some other King leaving the paperwork to others.

As the Peerage disdainfully puts it: "...of the mode of this creation, if such ever occurred, nothing is known. This seems to be a case of audacious and successful assumption of higher titles, which could hardly have occurred anywhere else but Ireland."
They say further, "the pedigree of this family is extremely obscure and affords no trustworthy information as to their succession in the earlier period."
Lack of evidence cuts two ways. It is as likely they were Peers as that they were not - moreso in fact - given the treachery of their leaders. Most "real" Ro(a)ch(e)s today, of course, would take babblings of this sort by the ignorant (as in without knowledge) as irrelevant....much as we do about recession and strong banks. Others can believe whatever they want; we know the score.
We are nothing if not consistent...if this version of events (our assumption of a higher title - with nobody stopping us) is correct, it shows a certain delicious constancy. Why wait to be given what is yours for the taking in an era when that was the way things were done???
Consistent with Norman strategy for making war, the FitzGodeberts (de Roch) built motte and bailey timber defenses after their arrival. Later, they replaced wood with stone to create the typical Norman fortress/castle. These in turn led to endowments to a number of Abbeys...not out of some kind of guilt or penance, as has been suggested...but, just as often, because instilling or reinforcing religious faith was another proven method of exercising control.
It is said that from Rodebert's three sons - David, Henry and Adam - are descended the branches of the Roche family in Ireland today, Source: Richard Roche , "The Roches of Wexford", Journal, Old Wexford Society, No. 2, 1969.
Two other Ro(a)ch(e) names, Eustace and Gerald, appear in charters and grants along with Richard and Rodebert. Whether they are the sons of Richard or other sons or relatives of Godebert is unknown.
And their location of origin in unknown. All we know is that they were foreigners. He makes no comment on the fate of Eustace and Gerald or other Roches within this context. They may well have been future casualties, but there is simply no way to know for sure.
As noted above, there were de la Roche (and similarly named) families all over western Europe and the British Isles by 1170, not to mention the Channel Islands. To suggest that no other de la Roches or de Rochs, later to become Roch(e)/Roach(e), arrived in Ireland then or later from locations other than Pembrokeshire, Wales is a bit far-fetched.
Cromwell's Expeditions into Ireland in the mid-1600's included at least two among his retainers. Huguenot migrations out of Europe between the late 1500s and the early 1700s also resulted in ''naturalizations'' (1681-1712) and included Roch, Roach, de la Roche and derivative surnames in their number.
French Huguenot refugee merchants had settled in both Dublin and Waterford as early as 1605-1613. Huguenot influence in trade, the professions and Irish social life in Cork, Waterford, Wexford, Carlow, Portarlington, Dublin and western Ireland is supported by the biographical and genealogical records of the more successful Huguenot families who settled in Ireland following revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685.
Among them was Charles De La Roche, a minister of the French Church from 1700-1702 at St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin . Prior to that, he was an assistant to Rev. Balaguier in Portarlington; then he served at Clonmel in 1699; and in 1706, he was chaplain to Col. Fontjulian of Lord River's Brigade.
A third group to leave a mark historically were Palatines. After the extinction of the male line of the Electors Palatine, Elector Charles, who died in 1685, King Louis XIV claimed the greater part of the Palatinate. The unfavourable impression produced in Protestant Europe by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes led to the League of Augsberg against France and an alliance of the Kings of Sweden and Spain and the Electors of Bavaria, Saxony and the Palatinate.
Following the revolution England in 1688 which placed William [III] of Orange (1699-1702) jointly with Mary II - House of Orange and Stuart - on the throne, France invaded the Palitinate and controlled it for a time. Much destruction was done to its castles and rich corn plains on the Rhine. Many cities, market towns and villages were destroyed, including Heidelberg, Mannheim, Worms and Speyer; and thousands of Lutherans fled into the British camp of the Allied Army.
In 1709 England's Queen Anne (1702-1714), a staunch champion of Protestantism, sent a fleet to Rotterdam and brought to London about 10,000 refugees whom the French had displaced in the Southern Palitinate. Two thousand of them were Catholic, and they were immediately returned home!
Even the Protestants were not welcome in England. The question of disposal became a political issue, and the government decided to ship several thousand to British settlements in North America and the remainder to Ireland.
The case of the Palatines was raised in the Irish Parliament in August 1709. The Irish House of Commons unanimously adopted a resolution that Protestant Palatines would strengthen and secure Protestant interests and the security of the Kingdom. At the time, poverty was widespread. A series of laws had left the Irish in misery, and the Government did not feel secure. An extra justification of the expense of relocating Palatines to Ireland was that it would "help against any possible French invasion".
The Irish Government provided a subsidy of 25,000 pounds (today - about half a million pounds), and a number of Irish landlords agreed to settle newcomers on their estates. During the Autumn of 1709, over 3000 people landed in Dublin and were sent to Kerry and other parts of the country. It was on the estate of Lord Thomas Southwell in Rathkeale, Co. Limerick that most settled. However, more than half, dissatisfied with conditions in Ireland, left for America within a few years.
By 1711, the Irish House of Lords complained of "the load of debt" that bringing over useless and indigent Palatines had caused. Each Palatine man, woman and child received eight acres of land at a nominal rent of five shillings an acre and at leases of three lives. Each family was granted forty shillings a year for seven years to buy stock and utensils.
At the same time, Irish tenants were paying rents of thirty five shillings an acre. Later the Government agreed to pay the Palatines' rent for twenty years and to present each household with a Queen Anne musket for protection. The men joined a local Yeomanry under the title "True Blues" or "German Fusiliers", quite unnecessary, as they were never threatened by the Irish....although most to this day say they were not treated well.
Many Palatines settled into their new environment. The majority were Co. Limerick, while smaller groups went to Castle Island, Co. Kerry and Six Mile Bridge in Co. Clare. A few families settled counties Carlow, Wexford and Tipperary, but have almost disappeared. The majority were farmers, but they were also carpenters, smiths, wheelrights, bakers, masons, shoemakers, weavers, coopers, schoolmasters, tailors, herdsmen, butchers and surgeons.
To this day, their names have changed only slightly and are characteristically German - Baker, Barrow, Barkman (Bartman), Bowman, Coach, Cole, Dulmage (Delmage), Lowe, Mich, Millar, Ruttle (Ruckle), Smythe, Shier (Shire), Stark, and Switzer.
For our purposes, it is possible that Rouch, Rauch, Rup, Rock, Resch, Roth and Rose in their number could very easily have become Ro(a)ch(e) over time. Those who did stay have not lost their ethnic identity - there is even an Irish Palatine Association located in Rathkeale, Co Limerick.
I don't think the English or their ilk in Ireland worthy to pass judgment upon us and our right to rank - given their own odious behaviour over the centuries. And I feel the same today about Canada's regulators, courts, media and politicians. I know the game; they know I know; but I won't play. I will simply try to play defence and save my skin - having learned from the past. I won't force people to stand fast against what's happening...they don't appreciate it anyway. So sayeth HISTORY!
By the early 17th century, the family was represented by another David Roche (AD 1573-1635) who was a Loyalist poseur and, as a result, suffered many losses during the Nine Years War [also known as King William's War]. He was the first to proclaim for James I, Stuart King of England, and served as MP for Cork in AD 1623.
He died at Castletownroche, west of Glanworth Castle, in AD 1635, having married Joan, daughter of James FitzRichard Barry, Viscount of Buttevant. The area by then had also become known [like several others in Ireland] as Roche's Country [Crioch Roisteach].
Whether, Joan had brothers who outlived her, I neither know nor care, but if - and I say if - so, then Roches were also Viscounts of Buttevant. their eldest son, Maurice, suffered a very different fate. There was increasing political opposition from Dublin to Anglo-Irish Gentry who claimed loyalty to the Crown, but remained Roman Catholic.
The Civil War of AD 1641 and the Cromwellian intervention in Ireland saw Maurice treated with suspicion, and he was even imprisoned for a short time in AD 1624. He chose the Confederacy side in the 1640's, and suffered a major land confiscation, valued at �50,000, in AD 1642.
He was later offered in exchange an obscure land grant in Co. Mayo, which was never taken up. He attempted to regain his land through "his friend" Charles II (AD 1625-1649) after the Restoration, but was apparently unsuccessful.
Maurice's wife, Catherine (nee Power), was even more unfortunate. After gallantly defending Castletownroche in AD 1641, she was hanged by Cromwell for the murder of an unknown man on the evidence of a "strumpet". Her husband fled to Flanders and joined the army.
At that time, the future Charles II was also on the continent, and the Roches shared their army pay with him. But when he regained the Throne, Charlie forgot all about that and did the Roches no favours after Cromwell and his son were no more. And they dare challenge the Viscountcy!? Given the flight of Maurice to Flanders and the hanging of his wife, Ellen (Power) Roche at Castletownroche, followed by failed appeals to Charles, the extended family is said to have declined into genteel poverty, with occasional handouts from wealthy sympathizers.
But there is a body of opinion which claims that the main line at Fermoy became extinct only when Ulick Roche died in AD 1733 - during the reign of George II [1727-1760]. Various reputed cousins appear around this time, as must have been the case preciously, and there is evidence that other branches of the family held land in the area late into the 1700s.
There was no shortage of pretenders. But, nobody can dispute, when Ulick died in abject poverty, refused help by his gracious Majesty, it was endgame for the Viscounts of Fermoy - even in the abstract.
The Books of Survey and Distribution suggest that some of the lands owned by Morris (Maurice), Lord Roche, were granted to a Sir Peter Courthrope. However, there is no independent surviving documentation for the confiscation or grant.
The same people who dismiss Roche rights to the Peerage rationalize this being due to the Fire of London in AD 1666 and another at Dublin Castle in AD 1711, as well as the better known destruction of the Four Courts in 1922.
Thus, life is farce. All you need is black humour, with which, thankfully, many of us are blessed, so nothing sticks! Courthrope is on solid ground because his records burned; Roche is not because there is no written evidence.
It could not possibly have burned like Courthrope's? How can anyone take this seriously? No problem - we are not rational beings - but you must admit, looked at in the right way, the whole thing is entertaining!

Note: The Books of Survey and Distribution - in large part, if not in whole, are available. Acts of Settlement, passed in AD 1662, and the Act of Explanation, passed in AD 1665 by Roche's old friend, whom they helped not starve in Flanders, Charles II [1660-1685] - House of Stuart Restored - made provision for confiscated lands to be administered by the Court of Claims.
The Decrees of Innocence issued by this court were recorded in abstract form in the Books of Survey & Distribution, a record of landowners & their respective estates, used to impose the Quit Rent, an annual rent paid on land granted under the Acts of Settlement & Explanation.
This information is complemented by the Lodge Transcripts of Records of the Rolls, available in the National Archives. Volumes XI, XII, & XIII give the names of new owners, the townland & barony, the number of acres & rental imposed under the terms of the Act.

The Courthropes supposedly arrived in Cork by the c AD 1630 and received their grant for "loyal defence and alliance" with Cromwell during his campaign and in the later administration of Munster. No record??? And why would Charles reward a supporter of Cromwell's? Money and power maybe - what do you think?
Exactly what the Roches did during the time period from Maurice to Ulick is mostly a mystery - but it was not good. The time between the latter and the creation of a new peerage for Edmund of Trabolgan saw many claims, none valid. The line died out (with much help from their friends). Even the Gaels admit it was shameful!
There are still many informed people who claim that the peerage did not or should not have ended. I work from documented evidence only; unless science (DNA) sheds additional light, that was the end.
The Roches of Trabo(u)lgan, South Cork, seem to have been in the second rank of the Cork elite who ran the county in the Cromwellian and Restoration periods. Never of the Peerage, these landowners ran Munster on behalf of Dublin and provided MPs until the Act of Union.
They tried for Viscount and settled for Baron - reasons unspecified - and succeeded in the later. Even they claim no blood connection to the earlier Viscounts - not so, some of their extended relatives.
Meanwhile, the "strange" developments in and around Fermoy, involving the Roches of Trabolgan (Trabulgan), Rochemount & Kildinan, south Cork, continue to partly mystify. The family supposedly goes back to AD 1533 to one Edmund Roche, b. that year; spouse unknown; d.1576.
Then the proposed line of succession includes: Maurice b 1558; spouse unknown; d. 1611; Edward b. 1588; spouse unknown; d. 1626....and a Cork merchant named Philip at some point, a little too murky for my liking, but there it is!
One issue of Burke's Peerage has them, ignoring Ulick, with the last Viscount in the Sardinian Army, his end being assessed as c AD 1746, after which they claim the title was never assumed.
Other reports have him being captured by the other side in that war, treaty royally and returned unharmed to the Sardinians. Of the Trabulgan Roches, Burke's say, they go back to a Cork merchant named Philip who purchased the Estate of Gerald, Lord of Kinsale, in AD 1554.
One of the Edwards supposedly sired three offspring by his unknown spouse: Edward, Francis and Morris - AD 1608-10-12; Francis became Sheriff of Trabolgan, d. 1669. Francis, also with spouse unknown, is reputed to have sired three offspring: Francis, Edward and Edmund (1643-5-8) - yet another problem.
Eamon, Edward and Edmund are essentially the same names in Irish. But Edward - whose line is followed by those supporting this pedigree - in AD 1672 - married Catherine Lavallin, b. 1649, Walterstown, Cork. He d. 1696 leaving one heir: Francis, b. 1673 who m. in 1739, Lady Dorothy Burke of Clanricarde, Cork b. 1673.
They were quite fecund and had: 1. James (b.1695), 2. Maurice (b.1697), 3. Catherine (b.1698), 4. Anne (b.1703), 5. Mary (b.1709), 6. Margaret (b.1711) & 7. Edmund Roche (b.1714).
It may have been at this time that the family felt comfortable asserting its designs on Fermoy - as did many others - and while not qualifying for arms, per se - they began to use a Roche Ex-Libris, or bookplate, to mark books (with the traditional motif - differenced of course).
They may have used historic symbolism in other quasi-official ways as well and continued to do so until they successfully laid claim to Fermoy, with NO reference to the past, over a century later:

Trabulgan Roche Ex Libris

Courtesy of Alph�e Roche-No�l, Paris, France

Edmund Roche of Trabulgan m. Barbara Hennessy; b. 1719 in Cork. He d. 1750 in Kildanin, Cork; the couple had four sons: 1. Edmund (b. July 13, 1741 in Rochemount; d. March 21, 1855 in Kildanin 2. Francis b.1743 3. Edward b.1745 4. James b.1747.
The two oldest became Edmund Roche of Trabulgan & Francis Alexander Roche of Rochemount. I will leave you to sort things from there - because I can't be bothered.
In fact, I was almost lured into ongoing debates over Irish Peerages at one point, but this is a site that deals with family history, not heraldry. I do and have paid passing attention to heraldry, as a matter of expediency.
Suffice it to say, that majority opinion rests with the Viscountcy ending without male heirs in AD 1733! The Viscountcy of Fermoy - extinguished. A NEW Peerage, 123 years later, was a Baronetage! The two are separate and distinct.
Yet there was a transfer of assets. This is the sort of thing only the British can rationalize, involving as it did considerable holdings and wealth, and their eventual "transfer" to England.
The newspapers of the day provide interesting insights into what appears to have been quite a lobbying effort - Cork to London:

THE TIMES, WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 1856
COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES (sic)
HOUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 30
LORD FERMOY'S CLAIM

their Lordships sat this afternoon at 4 o'clock in order to take into consideration the claim of Lord Fermoy to vote at the election of representative Peers for Ireland.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that looking at the construction of the Act of Union, it appeared to him, as well as to the majority of the learned judges who had given their opinion in answer to certain questions put to them by the House, that the extinction of the earldom of Montrath was not such as extinction of a peerage of Ireland as, in conjunction with the extinction of two other peerages of Ireland, would entitle the Crown to create a new peerage for Ireland. In his opinion, therefore, the petitioner had not made out his title to vote at the election of representative Peers in Ireland.

The Earl of Derby said, that it was quite clear, on looking at the Act of Union, to see that the intention of the Legislature was to regulate the number of Peers, and not the number of Titles. The extinction of three of the latter, therefore, would not entitle the Crown to create a new Peerage; and, as, in the present case, the number of Peers had not been reduced, he considered the Crown had no power to create a new Peerage.

Lord CAMPBELL said, he also concurred in the opinions that had been just expressed by his noble and learned friends.

The prayer of the petitioner was therefore rejected.

EXTRACT from THE TIMES, 10 SEPTEMBER 1856

NEW PEER

The Dublin Gazette of last night announced that Her Majesty's Letters Patent have passed the Great Seal of Ireland, granting the dignity of Baron of this part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to Edmund Burke Roche of Trabolgan, in the Count of Cork, Esq., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, by the name, style, and title of Baron Fermoy, in the County of Cork.

Courtesy of Karl Longley, Melbourne, Australia

The human face of this manoeuvre was the Edmund Burke Roche who died on 17 Sep 1874 in Trabolgan. He had married Elizabeth Caroline Boothby, b. 1823; d. 26 April, 1897 in Windermere, Torquay, daughter of James Brownell Boothby and Charlotte Cunningham, 22 Aug 1848, West Twyford, Middlesex.
I will leave it to those with a stronger interest than mine to research in detail the remainder of the Pedigree either with a Herald of Arms, a good reference library, or online. Baron Fermoy [as opposed to the older title and line/s of Viscount] is listed in the Peerage of Ireland.
It was created in AD 1856 for MP Edmund Burke Roche who represented Co Cork and Marylebone in the House of Commons - shortest possible version:
Barons Fermoy (1856)

Edmond Burke Roche, 1st Baron Fermoy (1815-1874)
Edward FitzEdmund Burke Roche, 2nd Baron (1850-1920)
James Boothby Burke Roche, 3rd Baron (1852-1920)
Edmund Maurice Burke Roche, 4th Baron (1885-1955)
Edmund James Burke Roche, 5th Baron (1939-1984) [Suicide]
Patrick Maurice Burke Roche, 6th Baron (b. 1967-)
I am advised that someone somewhere still claims the title today. Cork is within the Republic of Ireland, and there is an ongoing debate by some regarding the status and future of Republican Peerages. The Republican Government now has confirmed they have no basis in Irish Law.
In 2008, the Herald in London decided to refuse to recognize them. Prime Minister, Tony Blair, suggested the elimination of all hereditary peerages, but did not move the matter forward before his time in Office came to an end.
Republicans would argue that there are no Irish Peerages, including Fermoy, and politicians seem to have stopped scrambling to accommodate traditionalists. There are several Canadian Peerages granted by London in times past - which are only in part Republican, while others are traditional, and should be under no threat - yet who knows?
One example would be the Baron of Waterford and St. John's - the latter city being in the Britain's Oldest Colony when granted, and now within the Dominion. There have been Peerages granted to Canadians for service to the UK within Canada, but approved in London. These are not Republican.
The assumption was they they would be in perpetuity and it would seem unreasonable to revoke them because they were not purely English - they are not Republican per se. How that would stand with people and organizations having paid handsomely for Arms in a period of some uncertainty must be worked out.
In Canada, Arms can still be had and are signed off by the Governor General, as Queen's representative, and they constitute another area for separate consideration and future resolution. I doubt any but a politician near the end of his term will ever have the courage to confront this issue.
The last public official to pronounce on the matter was the Justice Minister in Ireland who said, quite rightly, that he could find no basis in law for the continuation of peerages granted by a foreign monarch, let alone the creation of new ones by the Republic - which has no monarch to grant them.
When people ask me about the Baron of Fermoy - or any other - I shrug. Is there one today? I have no idea. There are people claiming titles, but entitlement in law is an entirely different matter. Tradition, however, has a place, and will not die easily, nor at the whim of a politician.
Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) was a great granddaughter of Edmond Burke Roche, 1st Baron Fermoy (1815-1874) through her mother, the former Frances Burke Roche [b. 20 Jan 1936 in Park House, Sandringham, Norfolk, UK].
Her maternal grandfather, 4th Lord Fermoy, was a friend of George VI and the elder of the twin sons of the American heiress Frances Work and her first husband, James Boothby Burke Roche, who, after their divorce, became 3rd Baron Fermoy.
Yet the Works seem to feel, even though the title went to him, as a divorced man - who did not live long thereafter - that they have some special claim. Presumably it is through them that the current claimant stands fast - pure farce.
Diana's maternal grandmother, Dame Ruth, Lady Fermoy DCVO, (n�e Ruth Sylvia Gill), was a confidante and lady-in-waiting to Queen Elizabeth (later the Queen Mother). But Diana was only a Lady by virtue of her marriage, or the Spenser side of her line, and that issue is confused by the status of peerages after divorce as well.
If I had a dollar for every approach I have had from someone convinced they were related to Diana and the Roches of Fermoy, I'd be a rich man. And to ask, "Which Roches?", as I am wont to do, usually brings nothing but howls of consternation. It is as a result of the shear frustration of dealing with them that I have devoted so much time (too much) to this unseemly business.
I realize the degree of temptation involved and the motivation engendered in the Trab(o)ulgan family (and others) to fill what they determined to be a void provided by the much-debated demise of the original peerage. It would be interesting were the current Lord Roche of Fermoy to take a DNA test, however.
Creation of a new Baron and the bizarre transfer of some, not all, assets, potentially provided an opportunity - property, riches and power - the potential gem at the centre being the Roche caput baroniae, Blackwater Castle in Fermoy:

Other Castles might be so designated with some legitimacy. Blackwater been sold and the proceeds left Ireland. While it has faired better than nearby Glanworth - first being restored as a hotel; during my last visit, a decade ago, it had been sold to a German couple.
They had had it declared a wildlife preserve, and plastered it with "NO Trespassing" signs. There were security guards to keep the public off the grounds. The Irish were again one down - for now.
Thus, the Fermoy Roches of today are not the original family, founders of the dynasties at Fermoy or Glanworth. I see this as another example, and a lesson in history and politics, to all with eyes to see (many don't - judging by the e-mails I get).
So, allowing for the uncertainty of the peerage from the very beginning, through its possible reincarnations, time lapses when vacancies existed and claimants swarmed about swearing entitlement, its expiration/s as a peerage [Viscount], and creation as a new peerage [Baronet], where are we?
Questions remain unresolved as to whether the old Viscounts have descendants alive, and so the whole thing is a bit of a muddle, I should think. Moot as well, if the Peerage is considered Irish, ergo Republican, ergo having no basis in law.
However, if the Wexford Roches lost their claim to titles and arms in AD 1618, and their lands and possessions in later confiscations, we left a mark on Ireland. Later generations showed qualities of leadership and courage to match anyone's.
There would seem to be little of which to be ashamed - within the context of the times.
The Castle of Artramon was was granted to the Le Hunte family in the 17th century. We later tried to gain it back in the courts. Our claim failed "due to the passage of time."This argument that has failed in Canada with our indigenous peoples. British logic appears not to be universal!
Of course, there was Ferrycarrig, close to Wexfordtown, built with the same architectural practicality, and still standing on the banks of the Slaney. And there was a tower at Barntown, a watchtower and storehouse for Ferrycarrig. So a de Roch presence in Co Wexford from AD 1167 is undeniable.
From there, we spread out, with Sir Richard remaining low profile - witnessing a few charters and, at times, recruiting fresh troops in Wales. It was his brother, Rodebert, and his three sons, who seem to have to have attained a higher historical profile.
In fact, their names appear on a charter by which they gave the Island of Begerin in Wexford Harbour, with a Chapel already built, as an endowment of St. Nicholas Exeter to the Church. It was for the soul of their father Rodebert [this name is not Robert in English], son of Godebert. And their feudal overlord, Maurice de Pendergast, was one of many witnesses to the document.
Redebert's sons were David, Henry and Adam -- all to become known by the surname de (la) Roch(e) or in Latin de RUPE - in contrast with the Norman de la Roche - which in Latin was de RUPIBUS.
There can be little argument, however, that either through convention or intermarriage, the name morphed into de la Roche, de Rupe and de Rupibus. When English came to dominate, it became Roache, Roach, Roche and possibly Roch.
The Roches of Fermoy tried to link themselves to de Rochville who came with the Conqueror (Roll of Battle Abbey). De Rochville was granted a lordship in Pembrokeshire, but any suggested link, even to Godebert, is questionable.
Many of these questions could be resolved by the use of inexpensive DNA tests. But DNA is no magic bullet! I can understand people's reluctance to a greater degree in conservative Ireland, but in those spread abroad in the Diaspora, used to modern technology, I find it perplexing.
Of course, because of the sparsity of older samples and faulty pedigrees, it is far from irrational for those of restricted budgets. Like many of their kind - Sir Richard FitzGodebert with his squire (some say Knight - he was later knighted) brother, Rodebert (Redebert/Rodbert) - not Robert - were NOT easily "recruited" into an Irish Civil War.
It was a feudal duty after Irish King, Diarmait MacMurchada [a.k.a.Dermot McMurrough, AD 1100-1171], son of Donnchad MacMurchada, former King of Dublin, struck a deal with their overlord. Liking or disliking the men who cast their fate; liking or disliking the prospects of the venture; the possibility of winning or losing was ultimately not their responsibility.
They had done their best to meet the Welsh half way. And this was no Trojan War. Truth be told, Diarmait had succumbed to the temptations of a fair maiden, Dervorgilla, wife of a neighbouring chieftain, Tiernan O'Rourke (Tighern�n Ua Ruairc) some years earlier. Worse, having run off with her, he grew tired of her, and sent her back!
The two men - MacMurchada and Ua Ruairc - were of equal stature in the Gaelic hierarchy - Irish chieftains. Diarmait establishing himself as King in Leinster and Tiernan as Prince of Breifne. But Diarmait was always making trouble.
In AD 1166, Tiernan allied with Rory O'Connor, King of Connacht and High King of Ireland, and the two raised an army to attack MacMurchada at Ferns. They banished him from Ireland. His home was burned - some say by his opponents, and some say by Diarmait himself to deny them the satisfaction.
Because of prior positive exchanges with royals in other places, Diarmait fled to England, and landed in Bristol, along with wife, daughter and a few loyal followers. There he learned what many have, for centuries, found it expedient to forget - the King was where you might expect him to be - anywhere but England.
Undaunted, Diarmait set off to find Henry II on the continent and to ask his help in recovering his kingdom. But Henry had his own problems, and declined to become involved in Irish "issues". He did give Diarmait a letter that said (and there are several versions):

Wherefore, whosoever within the bounds of our territories shall be willing to give him aid, as our vassal and liegeman, in recovering his territories, let him be assured of our favour on that behalf.

Nevertheless, there were NO takers in England (no Anglo-Saxons would go to Ireland). They were too busy trying to co-opt the Normans and their mostly-absent Kings. Diarmait was advised to try to find "adventurers, free-booters, and mercenaries" in Wales.
The English knew there were Earls and Barons, Cambro-Norman and "Flemish" there with good reason to be rowdy, and that the Welsh might "throw in", if the price were right. Some, like Earl Richard de Clare, might take any offer that allowed them to escape the Marsh, the frontier, the forgotten war and find better prospects.
Rhys ap Gruffudd or 'the Lord Rhys' had had great success re-establishing the kingdom of Deheubarth. Between AD 1136 and 66, he and his brothers had freed Ceredigion, Ystrad Tywi and much of Dyfed from Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Strigoil, (Richard's father), and, as of AD 1138, Earl of Pembroke, better known as 'Strongbow'.
Later, de Clare, having married one of Henry's old mistresses (never a good idea), had sided with Henry's daughter, the Empress Matilda [AD 1141], in temporarily overthrowing his successor, King Stephen. Stephen regained power in about a year, and you can imagine where the de Clare family stood in the minds of succeeding Norman Kings.
Assuming his father's titles upon his death in AD 1148, Richard Fitz Gilbert de Clare did no better. In fact, he made a mess of things. Within less than two decades, he lost a large a part of his holdings to Rhys; was out of favour with King Henry II; and was deep in debt.
When approached by Diarmait, he was keen to listen and agreed to help, in return for a "home" in Ireland and the hand of Diarmait's (young) daughter, plus the promise of being named King of Leinster, when Diarmait died ... all on the condition that Henry II approve.
Encouraged, but impatient, while de Clare dawdled, Dermot continued his search for mercenaries. He discovered that Rhys ap Gruffudd had captured and imprisoned a number of Normans, among them Robert FitzStephen --- Cambro-Norman son of Welsh Princess, Nesta, and Stephen, Sheriff of Cardigan.
Nesta was quite liberal with her "favours," and in addition to having bedded Henry I, had done so with others. It was mostly her half-sibling sons who went to Ireland in key positions with de Clare. They were all held in "equal esteem" by the Angevins, who had no reason to be so haughty given their own behavior, but that is not how things go - is it?
Rhys realized he could free Fitz Stephen on the condition that he go to Ireland. From Rhys' point of view, this not only solved the immediate problem of what to do with captives (of rank) that he was loathe to kill, but weakened their hold on Wales.
The Irish Proposal offered the prospect of removing Nesta's brood and a good number of Norman and Cambro-Norman knights who might otherwise be a future source of formidable opposition. He understood that under feudal law, some of the landed Flemish would have to go as well.
It was also, he hoped, a gesture of good will to the Irish of Leinster, with whom Wales historically had had positive relations. The agreement was, therefore, important to the Welsh.
The foreigners could leave to seek a more secure future in Ireland. Rhys would support Henry II during the rebellion by his sons in AD 1173 - an excellent political move. And Rhys might remain secure in his own country.
"The Hidden Annals" report that, after striking an arrangement with de Clare, MacMurchada took the road to St. David's and enlisted Knights FitzGerald, FitzHenry, Carew and de Barri (Nesta's sons).
Then, he turned south and inland to Rhos in Dyfed to find and recruit the Flemings - de Prendregast, de Roch, Cheevers and Synotts - a small, but powerful, colony only a century of so in the area. He then returned home with a small group of men at arms led by Richard FitzGodebert (de Roch).
The proposal accepted by de Clare put Sir Richard Fitz Godebert and others (including hundreds of Welsh archers, recruited by Fitz Stephen, "the flower of the youth of Wales", in league with Diarmait.
Under feudal law, these Knights were bound to de Clare by "Knight's fees" and had no choice but to join him in Ireland or anywhere else. In this case, it happened to be Ireland to help settle Diarmait's feud with the O'Connors and O'Rourkes.
If successful, never having been completely comfortable in Wales, they were promised they would always have a "HOME" in Ireland, and it would be permanent.
But, let's be clear about this. The "Anglo-Norman Invasion" was not "Anglo-Anything". It simply never happened!
Theoretically, becoming mercenaries for the Irish King of Leinster would have been voluntary, but we know that the de Prendregasts "persuaded" Richard and Rodebert to accept Diarmait's invitation and promises.
On the other hand, since many of the Normans and Flemings in the region had fallen into disfavour with the Plantagagent Line of Kings, there was a possible upside and little apparent downside to some, not all, of the family, in taking a chance on Ireland.
In truth, the de Roch simply tagged along, pawns in a treaty struck by those of higher standing. As a contemporary historian recorded, the Normans were "a war-like race, moved by fierce ambition..." and their Normanized Flemish likely had some of that rub off on them.
Tag along, we did, but Richard Fitz Godebert was at the front and first in Ireland with Diarmait. He was not first, of course, when the rewards were being parcelled out, but that is still our way.

(Source: Old Pembrokeshire Families by Henry Owen, 1902 -- pp. 67-80), and elsewhere as Rodbert. The Father of these FitzGodeberts was Godebert Flandrensis (the Fleming) of Rhos.

A question that I would love to see answered is whether the family at Roch was Flemish (West Saxon), Anglo-Frisian or other - but without genetic samples that will really never be known. Any records that do exist are simply not reliable.
The Gaels, for certain, were a wild lot....men in power often got there over the castrations and blindings of even their own family members. Prisoners given in ransom to seal some bargain among men of power often suffered a similar fate, and then death.
The Gaels also had their own brand of Christianity - St. Patrick or no St. Patrick. Celtic Christianity allowed divorce, secular marriage, fosterage and community property (the commons), and it remained extant until the Reformation throughout the Isles where they held sway (unless suppressed).
Yes, Cambro-Flemish mercenaries, not saints by modern standards, but neither were their contemporaries. Diarmait himself was the son of MacMurchada, Donnchad, King of Leinster, descended from Murcha of the MacMurrough pedigree, son of Diarmait, 177th monarch of Ireland and King of Leinster who died in AD 1072.
Muirchu, "a sea hound" (sea warrior) or Murcha was also rendered Morogh or Morough, a quo Clan Morochoe. It is Anglicized O'Moroghoe and modernized as O'Murphy, Murphy and Murrough. These Morochoe kings had fortresses at Dinnrigh between Carlow and Leighlin; at Naas, Kildare; and Ferns in Wexford, their capital.

(Source: Irish Pedigrees by O'Hart, Vol. 1, p. 555).
The Murphy surname today is considered related to O'Muracha, O'Murphy, Murchoe, Murphy, MacMurrough, MacMurrough-Kavanagh, MacMurrow, Morrowson, Murrough, Morrough, Morrogh, Murrow, Morrow, MacMurchy, and Murchison.
Dermot's mother was an O'Braenain, Orlaith ingen, a descendant of King Brian Boru (as are all of the Briens and O'Briens to this day - possibly the Breens as well). Again, I grew up with O'Brien's, and have met others - in Ireland - and most are the very best people you would ever want to meet. Of course, in Diarmait's case, O'Brien was the female side.

There are no clear "oppressors or victims" in this drama. The lines are all blurred. The "foreigners" were good administrators, builders, lawmakers, farmers and churchmen...as well as warriors. They made a real contribution to the Irish way of life, as they had in Wales, England and western Europe.
But they tended to do things the hard way - fighting among themselves while trying to deal with outside threats and challenges at the same time! Diarmait and his small band of supporters tasted defeat almost right away by the O'Rourkes and the O'Connors at Kellistown near Carlow in 1167.
At this point, we lose sight of Richard. But it is suspected that he stayed in Ireland scouting suitable landing sites and ensuring the Irish would back Diarmait in preparation for the larger landing in AD 1169. The remainder of the party returned to Wales.
In May, AD 1169 Robert FitzStephen with 30 men-at-arms, 60 in half-armour, and 300 archers and footmen (Normans, Flemings and Welsh) landed at Bannow Bay from Milfordhaven in three ships. They were followed the next day by Maurice de Prendergast from Rhos with 10 men-at-arms [likely de Rochs among them], and many Welsh archers in two more ships.
They were then joined by MacMurrough's own son in law and his army of Irish supporters (in the hundreds) --- not an Englishman in sight --- just Normans, Welsh, Flemish and Irish. Further landings followed.
The fact that their point of departure from Wales was Milfordhaven [Milford Haven] is significant. It is near the epi-centre of Flemish population, a market-town and sea-port, in the parish of Steynton, county of Pembroke. As an anchorage, it was the best and safest in Britain.
Diarmait soon had most of his old kingdom of Leinster, including Wexfordtown. By 23 August 1170, Strongbow was ready to follow, landing at Passage on the heels of an advance party (sent in May) under Raymond le Gros FitzGerald. Raymond had paved the way for the cautious Earl by holding and then winning a battle for Baginbun, (the Earl led the fourth landing).
Within a month, Dublin had fallen and the Danes killed or driven off. Behind all of this, MacMurrough's feud with the O'Rourkes and O'Connors, and his banishment. Seeking revenge, he succeeded with outside help, in eventually defeating his old adversaries, at a price.
He may have thought he was simply hiring mercenaries, and that promises were made to be broken, but they had other plans. MacMurrough died in AD 1171 at Ferns by which time his allies were in Ireland in force.
Names like FitzStephen, FitzHenry, Monte Marisco, FitzGerald, de Barri, le Gros and de Clare figured prominently. Lesser known families, like Fitz Godebert and de Prendergast were either Flemish, Normanized Flemish or Welsh archers.
The de Prendregasts held property in Pembrokeshire, and had named the family fortress, Prendergast Castle. An interesting aside here regarding William and Maude de Prendergast - he seems to have been extraordinarily faithful to his wife - rare at the time.
She was a tiny woman and he was large and portly. Her skeleton was examined in 1961 and it is estimated that she was no taller than 50 inches. William was about 70 inches tall (5'8"), based on examination of a remaining femur, so he towered over her.
Godebert and his family were well-connected politically, gaining vast tracks of land in Wales. It was William's son, Phillip, who talked Godebert's sons, the FitzGodeberts (de Roch), into into taking part in "Operation Ireland". I have no doubt promises were made - including peerages and land.
Wherever the Prendregasts went, the de Roch (de Rupe) family, was there...in western Europe, England, Wales and Ireland...and who knows where else before? Fernegenal (Shelmalier East) was originally granted to Philip, but passed to the Roch(e)s AD 1180.
Duffrey in northwest County Wexford had gone to the de Pendergasts through marriage, and they moved there c AD 1190. This was an area originally granted to Robert de Quency for five knights' fees.
Shelmalier West went to the Furlongs, another of the families which had traveled with the de Roch(e)s over the centuries. This double (or triple) transaction would of course keep the families in arms (Knights' fees), in trouble and often unable to oversee their estates for far too long...such was the feudal system.
Maurice de Prendergast, Philip's father, had married a FitzGerald (one of Cambro-Norman "Geraldines", closely associated in history with Henry II and Nesta. He became Governor of the County and City of Cork, and built Ardfinnan Castle between AD 1199 and 1216 on the River Suir.
He also had extensive grants in Counties Tipperary, Waterford, Wicklow and Wexford. Then he did what these "foreigners" were often known to do in old age. In AD 1177, he made over Castle de Prendergast in Pembrokeshire to the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, the Hospitallers, and died a Prior of the Order at Kilmainham near Dublin in AD 1205.
Not to be confused with the Knights Templar, of which Marschal was a member at the time of his death, Knights Hospitaller were the "flip side", also known as Knights of Rhodes and Malta. They were a brotherhood for the care of sick pilgrims in a hospital at Jerusalem following the First Crusade.
Hospitallers built many castles in Syria and established branches in Europe. They, like the Templars, became wealthy. The Hospitallers continued to fight the Turks long after the Crusades, but they date back to AD 600 when commissioned by Pope Gregory to build a hospital in Jerusalem. Four centuries later, the city was taken by the Turcomans from Persia, and they were almost wiped out.
Three thousand Christians were massacred and those remaining were treated badly enough to cause the Crusades. The original hospital was destroyed, but re-built in AD 1023. This time, it was run by monks of the Benedictine Order - the First Crusade.
Monastic Hospitallers were founded following that Crusade and acquired considerable territory and revenues, some from the Templars, after they fell into disfavour. In contrast to the Templars, the Hospitallers wore a black surcoat with a white cross. After the fall of Acre in AD 1291, they sheltered in Cyprus, later taking the Island of Rhodes in AD 1309.
In AD 1312, the Knights Templar were destroyed - some of their wealth and property went to the Hospitallers, established on Malta by order of Pope Clement VIII and King Charles I of Spain. The destruction of the Templars - by conspiracy between Church and State - is a stain on Western Civilization to this day.
During the French Revolution, however, the Hospitallers followed in the footsteps of the Templars to a degree - their assets were seized in AD 1792. Malta was captured by Napoleon in AD 1798, and the Knights were forced to shelter in Russia (St. Petersburg).
By AD 1834, however, the revived Order was in Rome. It still survives today as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta; the Templars are long gone; so remember ... always bet on the black!
Philip de Pendergast, the eldest son, who had originally accompanied his father to Ireland, married Maude, daughter of Robert de Quincy, Constable and Standard Bearer of Leinster c AD 1190.
He received the town of Enniscorthy in AD 1217 (not 1205 when castle construction began?), and he died in AD 1226 (just as work was being completed).

He had only one surviving son, another Philip, then Lord of Manor of Drangan, Co. Tipperary. If Phillip Fitz Philip was in Tipperary, who took possession of Enniscorthy Castle?
Maurice also left a younger son, Gerald, who founded a branch of the family in Co. Mayo [known by the Irish as MacMaurice of MacMorrish], represented in the Castle Macgarret branch by Lord Oranmore

(Source: Burke's Peerage, Oranmore, B., and Gort., V,)].
His youngest son, William, acquired lands in New Castle near Clonmel in Co Tipperary, the family seat for several centuries. De Roch grants north of Wexfordtown ran all the way to Enniscorthy...de Pendergast influence undoubtedly played a large part.
These transactions would of course keep such families in arms (knights' fees) for centuries...unless the line died out. But the de Roch had too much to handle under the circumstances, so they shared with David Sinnott.
Why Sinnott? (Sinnott, Sinnat, Senett, Sinnett, and Synnot), found in England and of supposedly id British origin, it is far more widespread in Ireland, Gaelicized as "Sionoid". The name from an Olde English personal name "Sigenoth" and the medieval personal name "Sinod", which means "brave."
The personal name appears as "Synodus" c AD 1095 in Feudal Documents from the Abbey of Bury St. Edmund's (Suffolk), but has been prominent in Co. Wexford since the "foreigners" arrived.
They have were supposedly the most numerous Anglo-Norman families in Wexford after the 1170 and until the advent of Cromwell. I assume, therefore, that they were among the few loyal Anglos left behind by Henry II after is visit.
They possessed extensive estates and held important public offices due to their loyalty to the Crown. That would have put them in league with the de Roch, de Pendregast, Marschals and other men of that ilk who believed in the Feudal System - warts and all.
They, too, would become grist for the mill during the Reformation and the Cromwells' time for mischief-making. The first recorded spelling of the name in Ireland was for John Synod, AD 1247 in the Barony of Forth (with the Flemish?).
Surnames became necessary with personal taxation - in England, the Poll Tax. And, if we have one thing in common, it is mangled spellings of the surname.
"Colonization," like that by the Synods, continued after Strongbow was appointed King's Viceroy in AD 1173, and a large number of Norman, Flemish, English and Welsh settlers were brought into Ireland.
The leaders needed settlers as a source of revenue - for rents, market tolls and court fines, and eventually, personal taxes. This would provide the money to run the feudal system and subsidize its defense (when necessary) - and for expansion (when possible).
In time, the Roches and Sinnotts would be one down, and the Castle a pile of rubble, but with it's usual irony, history would repeat centuries later when P. J. Roche of Woodville, (New Ross), Co Wexford endowed his son Henry [H.J.] with the ruined castle at Enniscorthy [1900-1903] for his wedding to Josephine Shriver (of the famous American Kennedy clan).
P. J. Roche was a distiller and, of course, restored it....again. He is credited with saving Enniscorthy, after buying it from the Earl of Portsmouth and converting it to a home for his son and daughter-in-law.
Exorbitant taxes forced the Roches to abandon it (1951), and it lay empty until bought a decade later by the governing body of Athenaeum Hall. Miss Josephine Roche, then of Mill Park Road, Enniscorthy, was the last member of the family to live there. Even this late in the day, stories vary.
Some say Miss Roche donated it to the state in 1951, not that it was bought - unless from the state - in 1961? In any event, it opened as a museum Easter Sunday, 1962. And now Pendergasts and Roches from all over the world [as well as anyone else with an interest] can visit regularly...that's the good news!
When I was there in '98 (yes, I get the irony), they were in bad need of funding to keep it going. After a life of public service, I did not have the spare change of a brewer. I wonder if some of the EU money was thrown at it. I have felt a little too despondent about it to check.
Maurice de Prendergast was "on the ground" in Ireland immediately after fitzStephen in AD 1169, and we can safely assume that the de Rochs were with them. their names appear as co-signatories to various charters and other documents shortly thereafter.
Apart from Artramont, this had been their old stomping ground, yet I had no sense of it, as I had a Ferrycarrig. Integration was quick in some cases - first by the sword (under treaty) and then by religion (Churches and Abbeys), by marriage and by integration (adopting the local language and culture).
And it was integration - and open mind and decency that had been our ultimate undoing. I left Ireland a little sad and have not been back.

King John, as mentioned elsewhere, endowed Fitz Stephen and de Cogan with lands around south Cork (now considered to include other counties). They, in turn, bestowed the town of Rosscarbery, anciently Ross-Alithra (the wood of the pilgrims) and Ross Lehir [Rosalithir] in East Carbery, and all the lands of Ross (save those belonging to the bishop) upon Adam de Roche.
It is not clear what happened after Henry II's grants lapsed (possibly including one in AD 1177 to Adam due to a break in the line of inheritance of the first two grantees or the reclamation itself and their re-granting by King John [1199-1215] in AD 1200 to David and/or Adam de la Roche.
It seems at least a question worth research as to whether North Cork was included. Which de Roch grantees in AD 1177 & 1200 are we talking about, and are they the same or different parts of one Cork grant? I assume this has been done in the past, but the conflicting information remains conflicted.
Now these, I suspect are the people who went back to Pembroke in time because the grants are all in Co Cork, the fact that some sources say they were made to a David, not Adam de la Roche, notwithstanding.
Some followed the de Roch(e)s as far north as Enniscorthy (prior to their additional grant in AD 1180). They either lived in towns and enjoyed trader or artisanal status or near population centres as farmers, where they were considered burgers, an attractive prospect for many. But Henry II had put those who were Flemish in Ireland because he simply did not like them.
This is yet another example of a relatively peaceful component of "Operation Ireland". It shows that Henry II's belated impact, or the impact of decisions made while he was in Ireland, lasted for centuries. But there were no major battles; migration is hardly invasion.
There is no question that some of the de Roch family later fell in with King John and his son, Henry III, and the Norman de la Roche could be expected to have done so. That we did (if we did) is a blot on the historical copybook, if ever there was one. Whomever it was even went against the Earl Marschal and later his son at the behest of the Monarch and his son in turn.
Marschal was loyal to King John, supporting him against his many enemies. He even ensured the Throne for John by convincing those with doubts that John was most capable of standing firm against the French.
But one strange story is told about the son of Alexander de la Roche (David) and Philip de Prendergast (above this story seems to apply to Adam de Rupe, David's Uncle? I can't sort it out!
It is said that King John had given Philip a large grant of land in Cork, and, of course, even in this the Roches would share. But the "Histoire de Guillaume "le Marshal" tells of the two plotting against the Earl. Specifics are not given, but we are told that within the year, they met Marshal at Glascarrig and were forgiven.
This David may have been the son of Alexander and grandson of Richard FitzGodebert de Roch, but that was not a smart move. There is likely no getting to the bottom of this one. I'm sure, antiquarians (or worse) have had a hand in it all.
As with records regarding FitzStephen and Adam de Rupe in north Cork (Fermoy), this incident is variously reported to have involved either/or David or Adam, depending on the source/s?
There is a minor discrepancy in dates as well, so anyone who "knows", does NOT know! But when Rochs appeared in Wales claiming descent from Adam in Cork with Lions on Arms, centuries later, something had to have been awry.
I am not alone in being unclear in my understanding of what has been written (partly because of King John's tendency to change with the wind and often grant the same territory to more than one favourite of the moment, and just as glibly strip it within a short time).
Alternatively, he would issue double grants and leave it to the two to fight it out. His tendency to whimsy caused no end of trouble between contending families. Both the above accounts can be understood to be well (and perhaps deliberately) shrouded in the mists of time.
I simply remain leery of people who have strong opinions on such issues - because there is little, conflicting and sometimes no real evidence on which to base informed conclusions - no matter how much puffery is used to defend them.
Add a King notorious for using "divide and conquer" strategies, and even objective researchers can be left in doubt. At the other extreme, vested interests can document contrasting claims - not as important now as in ages past of course - but at times frustrating for those who like to document their research.
Suffice it to say that much damage has been done and confusion wrought by people with peerage and property interests at stake - before it became a practical irrelevancy. Even now, for false pride and puffery, people can easily work themselves into a lather about lineage, arms and peerage rights.
The fact that Ireland (except NI) is a Republic, seems not to have registered - some things and some people never seem to change!
Henry II was one of the most successful Kings of England - but that did not make him Anglo or English. He and his successors were Angevins, not English. Thus even "Norman" is something of a misnomer when thrown around loosely. These people seemed to have what it took to hold power in a ruthless age.
John's father was different. In October 1171, Henry II had brought a largely English (Anglo-Saxon) army of 4,000 with him to Waterford. He did not trust many of his own people by then and, except for some senior positions which he filled in Ireland with hand-picked (Cambro-) Norman supporters, he left behind as "settlers" in Dublin men from Bristol.
These were to replace the Danes, either killed or run off in battle earlier, but most of the English he took away with him. He did cement his power and position in Ireland by gaining Strongbow's pledge of allegiance and gaining the support of Irish leaders, Civic and Religious.
And though everything that happened afterwards in the sad history of England and Ireland points to the conclusion, as some people see it, that this was the moment when Ireland lost her freedom, no one at the time saw it that way.
Irish Kings did homage to Henry as they would to any High King, building the ritual hall through which they entered - the Gaels promising him one of every ten of their cattle hides in tribute. They saw him, not as imperial conqueror, but as insurance against the "foreigners" under Strongbow.
Henry even restored Ruairi to his kingship of Connacht, and to all rights and honours he had from other Irish lords before King Diarmait ran amuck. It wasn't Henry II's presence in Ireland that cost the Irish, but his absence. With Henry's departure to France, neither the local barons nor the native chieftains felt any commitment to agreements reached.
What the outsiders wanted was a nice, obedient, feudal territory, and they set about to make it happen. The local "kings" wanted business as usual. When their interests coincided, they threw in together with and against one another.
Within two or three generations, northern and eastern Ireland had been totally transformed from a pastoral country surviving on herding and ruled by clans to a place of knightly manors. Land taken was divided and given to knights and Irish allies (as were titles and other benefits) as a reward for service.
All this was possible because the Cambro-Normans and their Norman King ostensibly intervened in Ireland at the Pope's behest, carrying as authority the Papal Bull Laudabiliter by which Pope Adrian IV, an Englishman, a.k.a. Nicholas Breakspear, elected in AD 1154, that claimed 'all islands were to belong to the Roman Church' [1155].
Henry II did not act on it for years, because, apart from the fact that it might have been forged, and the Pope responsible was dead by the time Henry decided to "enter the Island," and there were conditions. Had Henry not needed to mend fences with Rome - he would never have seriously considered being any Pope's errand boy. Amazingly, the Church which he hoped to appease for the murder of Thomas a Beckett on his watch issued a second Bull.
The second was by Pope Alexander III was in complete accord with the earluer one - requiring the annual payment of a penny a house and the end of "filthy practices...in the barbarous nation." It demanded the suppression of the ancient Celtic or Culdee Church (listen up "scholars"!) and establishing the Church of Rome (along with imposition of waht later became commonly known as "Peter's Pence".
Henry and his Parliament apparently found the original unattractive, until he needed to move against Strongbow years later in the fall of AD 1171. I doubt Ireland figured largely in his thinking in AD 1155 or when he was finally forced to show his hand. It was all about de Clare and politically placating Rome.
The Bull Laudabiliter by which a dead Pope gave a Norman King permission to enter Ireland makes interesting reading. Note the wording "King of the English", not King of England or English King. Henry was an Angevin and his home was not in England.
Every Irish person should absorb what the English Pope and his successor said and, therefore, thought of them - as it was apparently accepted by Irish leaders of the day as well as those charged with implementation of the Papal directive/s.

Bull Laudabiliter

Adrian, bishop servant of the servants of God to our well beloved son in Christ the illustrious King of the English greeting and Apostolic Benediction. Laudably and profitably does your Majesty contemplate spreading the glory of your name on earth and laying up for yourself the reward of eternal happiness in heaven in that as becomes a Catholic Prince you propose to enlarge the boundaries of the Church to proclaim the truths of the Christian religion to ...
a rude and ignorant people to root out the growth of vice from the field of the Lord; and the better to accomplish this purpose you seek the counsel and goodwill of the Apostolic See.
In pursuing your object the loftier your aim and the greater your discretion the more prosperous we are assured with God's assistance will be the progress you will make: for undertakings commenced in the zeal of faith and the love of religion are ever wont to attain to a good end and issue.
Verily as your excellency doth acknowledge there is no doubt that Ireland and all the islands on which Christ the sun of righteousness has shone and which have accepted the doctrines of the Christian faith belong to the blessed Peter and the Holy Roman Church wherefore the more pleased are we to plant in them the seed of faith acceptable to God inasmuch as our conscience warns us that in their case a stricter account will hereafter be required of us.
Whereas then well beloved son in Christ you have expressed to us your desire to enter the island of Ireland in order to subject its people to law [Papal Cannon Law] and to root out from them the weeds of vice [the ancient Culdee faith] and your willingness to pay an annual tribute to the blessed Peter [the Pope] of one penny from every house and to maintain the rights of the Churches of that land whole and inviolate.
We therefore meeting your pious and laudable desire with due favour; and according a gracious assent to your petition do hereby declare our will and pleasure that with a view to enlarging the boundaries of the Church restraining the downward course of vice, correcting evil customs and planting virtue and for the increase of the Christian religion you shall enter that island and execute whatsoever may tend to the honor of God and the welfare of the land; and also that the people shall receive you with honor and revere you as their Lord provided always that the rights of the Church remain whole and inviolate and saving to the blessed Peter and the Holy Roman Church the annual tribute of one penny for every house.
If then you should carry your project into effect let it be to your care to instruct that people in good ways of life...that the Church there may be adorned that the Christian religion may take root and grow... that you may deserve at God's hands the fullness of an everlasting reward and may obtain on earth a name renowned throughout the ages.

Bull of Pope Alexander III to Henry II confirming the preceding
(A.D. 1172)
Alexander, Bishop, servant of the Servants of God, to our well-beloved son in Christ, the illustrious King of the English, health and apostolic benediction.
Forasmuch as those grants of our predecessors which are known to have been on reasonable grounds (and) are worthy to be confirmed by permanent sanction.
We, therefore, following in the footsteps of the late venerable Pope Adrian, and in expectation of seeing the fruits of our own earnest wishes on his head, ratify and confirm the permission of the said Pope granted you in reference to the dominion of the Kingdom of Ireland (reserving to the Blessed Peter and the Holy Roman Church as in England so also in Ireland the annual payment of one penny from each house) to the end that the filthy practices may be abolished, and the barbarous nation, which is called by the Christian name, may through your clemency attain unto some decency of manners; and that when the Church of that country, which has been hitherto in a disordered state, shall have been reduced to better order, people may, by your means, possess for the future the reality as well as the name of the Christian profession.

(Source of 1st document: Lyttleton's "Life of Henry II.," vol. v. p. 371.)
Source of 2nd: Appendix, "Primer of the History of the Holy Catholic Church in Ireland; Rev. Robert King

How ironic then, that in AD1577, Pope Gregory XIII, despite Rome's self-interested and full support for the British Monarchy for centuries, exhorted the Irish to rebel against Queen Elizabeth I of the Reformed Christian Faith - using as justification that "the Apostolic See hath ever embraced with singular love and peculiar affection the nation of the Irish."

Note: The Apostolic See (Soles apostolica, cathedra apostolica) is a metaphorical term, used, as happens in all languages, to express the abstract notion of authority by the concrete name of the place in which it is exercised. Such phrases have the double advantage of supplying a convenient sense-image for an idea purely intellectual and of exactly defining the nature of the authority by the addition of a single adjective.
An Apostolic see is any see founded by an Apostle and having the authority of its founder; the Apostolic See is the seat of authority in the Roman Church, continuing the Apostolic functions of Peter, the chief of the Apostles. Heresy and barbarian violence swept away all the particular Churches which could lay claim to an Apostolic see, until Rome alone remained; to Rome, therefore, the term applies as a proper name.
But before heresy, schism, and barbarian invasions had done their work, as early as the fourth century, the Roman See was already the Apostolic See par excellence, not only in the West but also in the East....but Rome is the Apostolic See, because its occupant perpetuates the Apostolate of Blessed Peter extending over the whole Church....
The authoritative acts of the popes, inasmuch as they are the exercise of their Apostolical power, are styled acts of the Holy or Apostolic See. The See is thus personified as the representative of the Prince of the Apostles, as in Pope Leo II's confirmation of the Sixth General Council (Constantinople, 680-681): "Ideirco et Nos et per nostrum officium haec veneranda Sedes Apostolica his quae definita sunt, consentit, et beati Petri Apostoli auctoritate confirmat."
(Therefore We also and through our office this venerable Apostolic See give assent to the things that have been defined, and confirm them by the authority of the Blessed Apostle Peter.)....

Source: Wilhelm, J. (1907). The Apostolic See. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved December 19, 2008 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01640c.htm

Now before you all start in on me - I am well aware that the Bull is a bone of contention among scholars (what isn't?). Is it a genuine document or not? Most agree there was a Bull, but some say it was changed - possibly more than once - after the original was in hand - for political purposes.
Much can happen to a document in 16-17 years. That a papal bull was dispatched to England concerning this matter is certain. That this was the actual one is questioned by many. One person's judgment is as good as another's in such matters - so long as it is an informed judgment - untainted by religious or political influences and baseless belief. The fact is, it was accepted at the time by Irish Civic and Church officials.
The claim of Adrian IV to jurisdiction over all islands was founded, according to John of Salisbury, on a forged donation from Constantine (v. Book iii. No. iii.). Urban II had disposed of Corsica under the same pretension. Lord Lyttleton in his still valuable History of Henry II. (vol. v. p. 67) says of this whole transaction:

"Upon the whole, this bull, like many before and since, was the mere effect of a league between the papal and regal powers, to abet and assist each other's usurpations; nor is it easy to say whether more disturbance to the world, and more iniquity, have arisen from their acting conjointly, or from the opposition which the former has made to the latter!
In this instance the best, or indeed the sole excuse for the proceedings of either, was the savage state of the Irish, to whom it might be beneficial to be conquered, and broken thereby salutary discipline for civil order and good laws."

Source: Henderson, Ernest F. Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages London: George Bell and Sons, 1896.

The observation does not make the Bull a forgery; it says simply that it is another example of the Church being in league with the establishment - for reasons it felt justified. The Church was and is pragmatic - an institution does not survive so long if it isn't. I'm not defending Rome, I'm simply presenting the facts as I know them.
The RC Church is still thriving - if Darwin's law applies to organizations (biological entities), as I think obvious, the Church is a good example of survival of the fittest. As an institution, it works.
After Henry received a congratulatory letter from Pope Adrian's successor, Alexander III, he called the Council of Cashel in AD 1172. As quickly as possible, thereafter, he left Ireland, happy never to return. And, as noted above, he took his Anglo-Saxons with him - except for a relative few that were needed to re-populate Dublin. Even these were under tight Norman control. Yet Ireland was never overwhelmed; instead, the newcomers conquered former Viking settlements and seized fertile lowlands, but they were content to leave much to the Irish. their kings, kingdoms and much of their way of life prevailed in the centre and west of the country.
To the Irish, Henry was fairly even-handed. Would the Anglo-Saxons have been??? Were they later??? And how would Irish King Diarmait (if he had been alive and in the same position) have handled things? Would the O'Rourke's or O'Connors have done any better by the Irish had they held the trump hand at Cashel??? Think about it - or not. It's up to you.
The Cambro-Norman-Flemish presence had limits. After Henry II intervened in Ireland, revenues from MacMurchada (by then Strongbow's) lands were siphoned off to Henry's treasury.
After Strongbow had established himself, the King appointed a Norman Governor he could trust, William FitzAudelm (Aldelm), but even he was ultimately recalled to England, as were de Cogan and Fitz Stephen.
After Diamairt's death, Strongbow succeeded him, in right of his wife, Diarmait's daughter, by whom he had an only surviving heiress, Isabel [Isabella]; their son, Gilbert, having died in childhood. Strongbow's widow quickly married one of his Cambro-Normans.
Daughter Isabel later married the more trustworthy William Mareschal, Earl Marshal of Ireland. They married in London and Marschal succeeded to Strongbow's possessions and titles both in Ireland and Wales [Leinster and Pembrokeshire].
Beginning penniless, William Marshal rose to become an important figure, respected by Henry II, Richard I and King John...the latter failing to act like it. At the age of at least seventy, he led forces against Louis of France to assist nine-year old Henry III retain his throne.
At the age of five or six, William had himself been given to King Stephen as hostage, but Stephen saved him from an early death. He later trained as a squire with the Tancarville family in Normandy.
A word here before moving on about the Monarchy's strange relationship with William Marschal, of such fine reputation in England and Ireland, based, on his long-time protection of boy-King, Henry III [1216-72].
Poitvin Bishop Peter de Roches had crowned young Henry at the age of nine and worked closely with Marschal, who acted as regent, and later (unwillingly) with famous Justiciary, Hubert de Burgh, to protect the child and his Norman dynasty for many years.
Ironically, William was the son of a minor knight, John le Marschal (spellings vary). by Sibylle, sister of Patrick, Earl of Salisbury. John was known as a crude and boorish thug of little conscience. He rose to some repute through a rear-guard action in a war between Stephen of Boulogne and the Plantagenets which flared up in AD 1138.
Marshal and another Norman knight (de la Roche of course) protected the flight of Plantagenet Queen Matilda, daughter of Henry I, from the prior and future King Stephen. The two held off her pursuers while she rode to safety. They retreated to a nearby church which was then set ablaze by Stephen's men.
Lead sheathing from the roof began to melt and drip on the two heros, splattering them with molten metal. A drip of liquified lead burned out one of Mareschal's eyes, but when his comrade wanted to surrender, Mareschal said he would kill him before he would let him do it.
Thinking the two dead, Stephen's men withdrew. Three days later, Mareschal was in another battle! Whatever else, he was tough, and he was loyal - but on the wrong side - as things turned out.
This event might explain the dastardly way King John treated le Marschal's grandson in Ireland, setting him up for slaughter in a plot. Would that the Plantagenets, or any King of that time, did anything based on principle.
John had motives - spite - based on who knows what slight by Sir William, supporter of his gaining the Throne and protector of his young successor, Henry III. Later John's Marshal and Isabel de Clare had ten children. When they married in AD 1189, he was forty-three and she was seventeen!!! Of five sons, none lived past forty, and none had children.
William, Richard, Gilbert, Walter, and Anselm became, in succession, Earls of Pembroke, and lords or princes of Leinster; but all died without male issue, and the male line became extinct.
Five daughters Marshal-de Clare married into noble families in England, and the different counties of Leinster were divided amongst them and their posterity. This was typical: even when the foreigners were rewarded as promised, things often did not go as planned.
In Cork, for example, De Cogan was killed in AD 1182, leaving only a daughter, Margaret, who married three times, while fitzStephen left no "legitimate" heirs. Translation - no line of succession by either.

(Source: "Hammer's Chronicle;" and Finglas's "Breviate of Ireland," in Harris's "Hibernica").

Mareschal, who would suffer the same fate, was not only a great Knight, standing over six feet in height, but he was the equivalent of a modern superstar at the joust. When Normans weren't fighting each other for real, they engaged in jousts, They were very close to the real thing, and lands often changed hands at such events - loser to winner.
Mareschal was rarely, if ever, bested. Once, he was nowhere to be found, and was in a blacksmith shop with a worried smith trying to remove his helmet. It had been bashed in and his head was caught inside. To get it off without causing injury and creating a rather large problem for himself must have been the biggest challenge of the poor man's life.
When King John died, William was named guardian of John's son, Henry III. He reaffirmed the power of the monarchy and assisted Henry III retain the throne over advances by Louis of France. Mareschal died 16 May 1219 leaving a legacy of unity under the monarchy.
Strangely, or perhaps not, he died excommunicated by the Bishop of Ferns because he had deprived the Diocese of two manors. He is buried in the Round Church of the London Temple (Knights Templar), and was succeeded by his son, Richard, who "died" in Ireland in AD 1234.
Richard Mareschal died, with a little help from his friends. He was attacked by ambush by other Cambro-Normans - on orders from the King his father had protected (Henry III) in Kildare.
He was buried at the the Black Abbey in Kilkenny, and succeeded by brother Gilbert (died without heirs), leaving Walter and Anselm, the latter dying on the Nones of December, 1246, having been in office just eighteen days.
That left five sisters and five greedy and feuding husbands. I will spare you the details other than to note that like the Marschals and de Clares, the de Prendregast family suffered the same fate. So again, Ireland's future was dictated as much by the cradle and right of succession as by the sword....such was feudalism.
They were and are a scrappy and adventurous lot - Normans. These people tried to stand with the winner, but it was every man for himself....not the recipe for long-term success. The Normans in England retained Frankish ways - with some having or claiming connections to Charlemagne - that may well be where the arms of the Lion come into play - and they were estranged from their Anglo-Saxon subjects for a long time.
They treated England as an annex to their French holdings. Kings William II, Henry I, Stephen, Henry II and Richard I were often out of the country, and even the Plantagenet kings, who followed the Normans and the Angevins, held lands in France through their mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine. Ireland was a complete after-thought!
It was not until the reign of Henry VI (1422-71), the Hundred Years War, that English, as opposed to Norman French, became the language of business and contract law in England. This happened after John lost all to the King of France and his Norman Lords had to face the reality that they were stuck in England. It took time for the reality to sink in and for them to adjust!
During all the time before the continent was lost, the Kings of England went every year to France to "fulfill their duties", i.e. to maintain the charade that they were vassals of the French King in return for the right to the Duchy of Normandy.
Things were more European -- Norman (Frankish) -- than Anglo-Saxon -- in England -- except among the common folk (the conquered), through much the Norman period.
It is from this that the Norman/French connotation to the surname (de la) Ro(a)ch(e) derives credence....damn that ROCK!
Reaney in his "Dictionary of British Surnames," University of Sheffield, 1958 reports a John de Roches, as well as a number of de la Roches and Roches, living in England during the 11th century...before Godebert had been born in Wales and before the the Cambro-Norman and Cambro-Flemish in Ireland became Ro(a)ch(e)s.
Because of 600 years of fighting for Ireland, after rapid integration following "Operation Ireland", especially being from Wexford, I naturally believed as I had been told - I was "Irish-Canadian." Many an Irishmen (Gael) has gone to great lengths to set me straight - including members of my mother's family (ies) McCauley, Coll, Crumley, etc.
We now know that there are Roches; there are Roches and there are Roches - Haplogroups R1b, I and E3b - in Ireland and in many other parts of the Isles and the continent. But, our mistake was to follow a man who "led from the rear" to Ireland in the first place. Our reward was 600 years of nothing but trouble.
MY grandfather somehow knew. When frustrated, as close to a swear word as he would go would be to spit out forcefully something that sounded like, "Enow, enow, Fis Stephen." Somehow he knew the whole story.
It was natural that he would say "Enough, enough, Fitz Stephen!" It must have seemed at times as if the Norman curse was still on him, and he had had it with them by then. It was Sir Robert FitzStephen, given the option of continuing to rot in a Welsh dungeon or going to Ireland who first acted on de Clare's tentative acceptance of the Irish offer. FitzGodebert and FitzStephen were, under the feudal system, de Clare's lieghmen .
Under the feudal system, all land belonged to the Monarch and was parcelled out from the top....of course there was often money involved as well. So de Clare had what he could hold "of the King"; he in turn divided it among his lieghmen.
In the first instance, in Wales, this was the de Prendregasts, and then a very large portion passed to the family that would become de Roch. In a close relationship, this transfer could have been freehold or tenure, but not without strings - honour!
There was trust sufficient for the families to rely on one another no matter what. It was the latter in this case. De Roch and de Prendregast remained hand-in-glove for generations. Diarmait and de Clare had to follow through with promised rewards for their fighting men ... given with the proviso that the grantee had to take the territory from existing occupants by force of arms or other strategies - political, economic, religious or marriage.
The fate of many of these family lines was to simply die out, with their holdings reverting to the Crown or, if there were surviving females, transferring to other men of other names and ethnic backgrounds.
And God help those who had turned Irish, in the Norman mind, one example was de Lacy, younger son of the Lord of Meath overthrew de Courcy in east Ulster. John revoked the entire kingdom of Cork for the Crown. This he shared it among his own people...as was his right. This explains some of the muddle above.
Philip de Prendergast and Robert fitzMartin were granted lands east of Cork; David de Rupe (de la Roche/de Roch) was granted the cantred of Rosalithir; while Richard de Cogan (son of Milo's brother, Richard) was granted M�scraighe Mittaine, the baronies of east and west Muskerry and Barretts.
So what Ireland sees as 800 years of injustice, the other side (which has varied) has often wondered, having gotten themselves into it, how to disentangle themselves. Certainly, de Roch and de Prendergast - unlike de Clare - seem to have been in reasonably good shape in Wales. Why Ireland, they must have thought? So too my grandfather 750 years later!
The whole thing was an historical sideshow....until the English really did become involved centuries later. As the Romans and Anglo-Saxons had thought, and the Danes had found out, Ireland could take more than it gave, and was just not worth the trouble.
Thus, like others before me, sources generally cited, are the work of two people, plus a work of criticism on "Dermot and the Earl" by Giraldus Cambrensis. The rest is from conflicting accounts of "experts" and "scholars", plus oral tradition....plenty of room for ambiguity, and no place for true believers (but they will never desist).

The Song of Dermot and the Earl, an Old French Poem from the Carew Manuscript No. 598 in the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth Palace, ed. and trans. G. H. Orpen, J. F. O'Doherty; "Historical Criticism of the Song of Dermot and the Earl," Irish Historical Studies, I (1938 ), 4 Giraldus Cambrensis, Opera, eds. J. S. Brewer et al. Part V (Expugnatio Hibernia) also provides some information presented here - 100% reliable? - NO!

The fact that the Irish were as much or more to blame for the mess known as the "Anglo-Norman Invasion of Ireland" may explain how "invasion and oppression" became a justification for their own complicity. Anglo-Saxon fixation with Empire might explain their later willingness to take part in this historic charade.
In fairness, it should be acknowledged that the best of the foreigners made a contribution to Ireland. Those mercenaries who stayed on after AD 1172 (as had been agreed), integrated to the point at which it later became a concern to England. Yet the invasion myth persists.
These "outsiders" fought the Irish; they fought each other; and they believed, mistakenly, that they had found common cause with the Irish against the English. their position was impossible from the beginning.
Rodebert de Roch's sons, by some interpretations, went on to found the three major branches of the family in southern Ireland. Adam is credited by Sir Bernard Burke, C.B., LL.D, Ulster King of Arms, 1866, with founding the Fermoy dynasty (this is contested by others who say it was David, the son of Ralph de la Roche - the latter, associated with Glanworth, a different line - even if related).
Another David, as we now know, was given grants in Southwest Cork by King John. Trying to sort these men one from the other is simply beyond me, and, apparently others, who just don't like to admit it. But the Roches of Fermoy and the Castles there - like Glanworth - are a study most Byzantine. For what it's worth, here's Glanworth today....

I chuckled out loud at the fact that a department the Irish government would refer to them as Irish (for the tourists). The Roches - according to many in Ireland - are anything but. Many are Saxon (Frisian), Flemish or otherwise European and proud of it.
Above left is a realistic representation of history, life and genealogy. Glanworth atop a hill over the River Funsheon - in the center is the Keep, the oldest part of the surviving structure - remains of several turrets rise above the wall.
This photo was taken at the end of day and the end of more besides - there is much to meditate upon - tempus fugit - everything fades away in the end.

Duncannon fell to Cromwell shortly after temporary governor, Captain Thomas Roche of Co Wexford, died of the plague. This time, the plague helped Cromwell. He paid his soldiers and investors for their support in his private war with land confiscated from Catholics.
Later generations retained the sometimes blind courage that had either distinguished or damned their forefathers. Throughout the centuries, they played different roles -- in politics, religion, the military, businessmen, seafarers and tradesmen...both oppressor and oppressed. Poets and storytellers, they remained constant in their strong attachment to language, religion, mythology and philosophy.
Many were deported. Many left Ireland of their own accord. By 1798, there was a new Rebellion, and again we were in no holds barred. Many were members of the United Irishmen (an oxymoron if ever there was one).
Again, people were so busy wrestling with the problem of how to be Catholic and Loyalist at the same time that they lost energy and momentum which might have otherwise been used to free themselves from oppression and to found the Republic they so desperately wanted.
Meanwhile, layman, Colonel Edward Roche of Garrylough - near Enniscorthy, Shelmalier East, played a great and almost forgotten role in '98. These words of his still resonate with those who know of them:

TO THE PEOPLE OF IRELAND

"Countrymen and fellow soldiers!...At this eventful period, all Europe must admire, and posterity will read with astonishment, the heroic acts achieved by people strangers to military tactics and having few professional commanders; but what power can resist men fighting for liberty?!"
"To promote a union of brotherhood and affection among our countrymen of all religious persuasions has been our principal object: we have sworn in the most solemn manner, have associated for this laudable purpose, and no power on Earth shall shake our resolution."

Wexford, June 7, 1798 General Edward Roche
General Roche was involved in many key battles - Arklow, Ross, Horetown and Wexford. Captured at the end, he denied the loyalists the satisfaction of taking his life by torturous means by doing so himself (taking poison) while in jail.
The story of the Wexford Republic founded on noble principles in 1798 has almost been obliterated from history, and the United Irish Revolution in Wexford has been represented as a sectarian peasant uprising lacking any sophisticated political objective.
Now, as historians strip away layers of historical distortion, the story of the Republic re-emerges from oblivion as a profound symbol of pluralism and democracy.
My own grandfather said that there were Ro(a)ch(e) heads mounted on the Three Bullet Gate in New Ross in '98, but by the time I arrived there in 1997, they were, of course, gone...and so was their memory!
People are generally unaware that in AD 1800, there were enough United Irishmen in the British Army stationed in St. John's to plan a rebellion of their own. However news of the plan got to the ears of the Irish RC Bishop of the Day, a Wexfordman, who did not want to see a bloodbath and he reported his information to General Skerritt, the Commanding British Officer.
As a result, five ring leaders were hanged immediately; several others sentenced to be shot and, having been marched through the streets of the city in disgrace, the remainder were sent to Halifax for execution.
The Governor was concerned that the sight of so many Irishmen being executed, might create unrest. Skerritt proceeded with "great coolness and determined resolution". The bishop was rewarded with a pension of 50 pounds a year, half of what his Anglican counterpart had received all along.
Even though this Bishop gave these men Last Rites, in later correspondence, he refers to them as "scum" and used other derogatory terms in describing them and their countrymen of the 1798 Rebellion at home. There are now very few people in Ireland who use the spellings ROCH or ROACH(E) (but there are some). Those of our genetic type are as scarce as hens teeth - I have only found one other, and he is in the U.S. Finally, there is Limerick.

Limerick - as we say here "I just don't know about that Crowd!"
What is available is a reference from 1438 to John Roche, Bailiff of Limerick during the time of Henry VI 1422-71 (overlapping with Edward IV - War of the Roses). This would suggest, they had been there for some time. Whether they descended from the original group is unknown.
Limerick was governed as an independent City State under a Charter from Henry V (1413-1422) dated 1415. This lasted until the end of the reign of Elizabeth I (1558-1603). There were successive Roches who held office as Aldermen and Mayors of the City throughout this period and and beyond.
In 1641, Jordan onge Roche of Newcastle, Mayor and Alderman of Limerick, forfeited property to the Crown --- Charles I (1625-1649) --- and took exception when it was not restored in 1651 under Cromwell (The Commonwealth Period), not a good time to take exception to anything.
Predictably, he was hanged in August [1651]. His wife, Mourna Trawla (More) Brien Arra, remarried - James Butler of Kilmackaugh, Co Limerick. She died in AD 1656 leaving as orphans John, Christian, Anstace, and Katherine. They petitioned the Commonwealth for support and were awarded 40 pounds a year.
By AD 1690, however, a descendant of Jordan's, Alderman Dominick Roche, a Catholic, having supported James II (1685-88) also paid the price and was offered expulsion from Limerick to Galway and a worthless Peerage, Viscount Cahiravilla and Baron Tarbert; he declined. This Peerage may have also been from James II or William III/Mary II - House of Orange and Stuart - to rub salt in the wounds.
In AD 1702, George Roche [Protestant], former Mayor of Limerick, was an MP. A practical family, like many others where land and property were concerned, the Limerick Roches hedged their bets (some RC and some C of I) or, under duress, they switched.
George's son and grandson, both called David, later represented Limerick in parliaments in Dublin and London. David II favoured Catholic Emancipation and became a parliamentary supporter of Daniel O'Connell from Clare, leader of the Irish Party. It was O'Connell who put him forward for a Baronetcy in AD 1838. As one modern-day Roche from Limerick said:

I am a 'living memorial' of Queen Victoria's Coronation visit. As part of it, her Prime Minister, Lord Melbourne, asked O'Connell for two names to be made Baronets. Proposed were David Roche [his closest supporter], and an unrelated William Roche of the same city.
O'Connell got a statue and a bridge in his honour; those who made it possible were deemed "unrepresentative Irishmen"! Nevertheless, a Roche baronet was created - based on their status as MPs. So late in history, however, many planters had been established in Ireland, and these Roches may not be the original stock at all.
Again, a symbolic night view of an old heap seems somehow appropriate - not much stands intact - the passage of time can be difficult and its effects sad - and yet, we Roches are still here. We have prospered and multiplied. We earned it!

Mallow Castle - lost by the Roches to the Geraldines [1282]
Thomas Fitzmaurice, Baron of the Geraldines, "exchanged" Kerrylocknaun, Connacht for Manor Moyale, Co. Cork, the dower of Ellen, wife of Henry De Rupe [Roche the Younger]....exchanged being a euphemism, you realize.
A dower was that portion of a deceased husband's property that a widow was legally entitled to use during her lifetime to support herself and children. She could claim the dower if her husband died without a Will or if she dissented from the Will.
I doubt that Henry died of natural causes (or was hit by a bus!), that he was intestate, or that the lady voluntarily dissented. A life in Connacht was nobody's dream. Again, and arguably to belabour the point, this was internecine conflict.
The O'Keeffes had been run off earlier, so the Irish are entitled to some satisfaction - unless they were involved on one side or on both - the Geraldines and/or the Roches - I don't know, nor does anyone else.
The Irish all suffered great losses either during the reign of the House of Tudor - Henry VIII to Elizabeth I or by Cromwellian Confiscation (The Commonwealth Period) in the 16th & 17th centuries, as did other old families with roots in Ireland from the 12th century.
It was all down hill for Catholics for a long time after that, and events swept along old Irish families with the Flight of the Earls in AD 1607 under James I [1603-25]. Three major branches of the family in Ireland???
The Cork Historical and Archaeological Society maintains there are five - Louth, Kildare, Tipperary, Cork and Wexford. Limerick doesn't even rate a mention, and they had a latter-day peerage, as did Cork? Sometimes there are simply no hard facts - but there is never a shortage of opinion. Often, things go in circles, when they don't turn into knots.
Selskar, so closely related in history with Sir Alexander, was where the first Treaty was supposedly signed in AD 1169 when the town surrendered to FitzStephen, indicating that some structure stood on the site before the Abbey was endowed.
If so, it was likely Danish - as Selskar is a Danish word, - and the Danes were in Wexford long before Diarmait's foreign allies arrived, founding the town and port c AD 800.
The original Danish foundation was later enlarged and given to the Canons Regular of St. Augustine in AD 1190-1200 by Sir Alexander. As was often the case, a family member (possibly Alexander himself - opinions vary) became Prior.
Whatever his official role, he was not without offspring, because the name of his son David appears on a petition with other notables AD 1308 [Rotuli Parliamentorum I, pp 273-80; 1307-37). And it is likely that he had other children as well.
He is also mentioned in an address to King and Council by petitioner Maurice de Caunteton (Condon) also in AD 1308. Again, this seems rather unlikely, if the date is correct. No doubt there was an Alexander and they were related, but seems a long time for him to have lived, unless he was discussed mortem. The actions of son David seem Flemish. This son appears to be the Sir David, who with Phillip de Prendregast, plotted against Sir William Mareschal after receiving grants in Cork. Marschal was the biggest, toughest and strongest Knight in England, Ireland and Wales.
They were provoked by the King into trying to get to Marschal, but I'm sure he laughed them off as much as anything. The man was invincible. They were forgiven, I suspect out of mutual respect for the families of these two young pups, but that was as close to the edge as one could have played the medieval game.
Doubly sad for the Earl was that his kindness allowed a similar betrayal in the next generation when Gerald de la Roche, David's son, was among those to abandon Marschal's son to be butchered on the battlefield in a pre-arranged and aborted uprising staged by King John.
The King drew the young Earl out, and by cowardice or pre-arrangement, in the face of superior forces, Marschal the Younger was abandoned by his followers. They desserted before his eyes to the other side in what surely must be one of the most dishonourable showings in the history of everything chivalrous within the Cambro-Norman tradition.
Roche and his fellows left poor Marschal to die alone on the battle field. John knew he would never surrender and, as anticipated, he die sword in hand. It is not know if even one of his men stood against a King that deserved to be de-throned. He was shamed by the honour of these people and simple had to eliminate it, so that it did not haunt his miserable days. Much of what has been discussed above was happening at the same time as the Crusades. In fact, Alexander's endowment supposedly came following his participation in one. There were seven in all - they fell during the reigns of various Norman Kings - and yes, everything overlaps everything else - and again, Ireland was a side-show to the main events throughout:

William II (1087-1100) - Godfrey of Bouillon, Raymond of Toulouse, Robert of Flanders, and Bohemond of Taronto lead the First Crusade in the Levant [1097-1099]

Stephen (1135-1154) - Second Crusade under Louis VII of France, Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine & Emperor Conrad III [1147 - 1149]
--- Henry II (1154-1189), Richard I (1189-1199), John (1199-1216), HENRY III (1218-1272) - Loss of Jerusalem to Salah al-Din, Kingdom of Jerusalem, Acre [1187 - 1228]

Richard I - the Lionheart (1189-1199) - Third Crusade - Emperor Frederick I (Barbarossa), Kings Philip Augustus II, France and Richard Coeur De Lion, England fail to recover Jerusalem [1189-1192]

John (1199-1216) - Fourth Crusade against Constantinople [1202-1204]

Henry III (1216-1272) - Fifth Crusade - Jerusalem peacefully regained in 1228 - 1229. Lost again in 1244.
--- Sixth Crusade against Egypt by Louis IX of France (Saint Louis) [1248-1254]

Edward I (1272-1307) - Seventh Crusade against North Africa by Louis IX, France (Saint Louis) & Edward I, England to Acre [1270 --- Antioch lost in 1278, Tripoli lost in 1289 and Acre lost in 1291].

So it would appear - if the estimated earliest date on the endowment of Selskar is correct that Sir Alexander was likely at Jerusalem [1189-1192] with Richard the Lionheart, i.e. likely, the Third Crusade, but, as estimates vary, it might have been the Fourth.
That, of course would be too simple - as usual, confusion and debate surrounding the date have it as late as AD 1240 - still Jerusalem - but the Fifth Crusade. The story below, sadly for romantics, is surely a fairy tale, but it deals with Alexander's return.
Local legend has it that, upon his return, he found that, having heard he had been killed, his love interest had entered a convent. He himself then supposedly took a vow of celibacy, endowed the Abbey and became Prior.
Being a Roche, that couldn't stand, and he did have heirs, including David (and possibly Ralph) - though Ralph might also have been a cousin of David's (by Rodebert's other son Henry. Documentation is, understandably, non-existent or conflicting.
If the later date is correct, he did not act as a result of a broken heart. He would have been much older, and celibacy much easier. The second estimated date/age would have been more consistent with Norman tradition (if immeasurably less romantic) - retirement to an Abbey in the later stages of life. Regardless, old or young, Alexander did go on the have heirs - and not with a lady in a convent, one presumes! In any event, Selskar still stands in Wexfordtown, but has passed through many transitions.
It's name in Danish means Seal's Rock, as in Selskar Rock, Bannow Bay, site of the main landing by Diarmait's "foreigners" in AD 1169. The existing tower is 14th century; surviving parts of the nave are 15th; and the existing church dates only from the 19th.

Source: "The Ancient Churches of Wexford" - in the "The Centenary Record of Wexford's Twin Churches."(Berney, Fr. M.J., Ed.,John English & Co. Ltd., Wexford, 1958)

I was left uncertain about the convention of three branches of the family in Ireland until, ironically, modern DNA research was brought to bear. It confirmed Haplogroups in the Ro(a)ch(e) surname indeed existed in Haplogroups R1, I and Eb. Whether they would line up with the three - leaving the Limerick question unresolved - is unknown.
I had always considered myself Irish-Canadian --- it was a shock to be told by so many Irish, there and online, including my mother's "people", that I wasn't a "hyphenated" or any other kind of Irishman.
Six hundred years of fighting to free Ireland with great heroism and many deaths - at the cost of titles, property and personal wealth - were not enough??? That's an expensive Passport! Well, it turned my head around for a while - but I needed to hear it!

End of Chapter IV - Back to Top? TOP
Or on to England, specifically Cornwall. I had always thought not, but I was wrong...

Chapter V - Roche - England
When the English did develop an interest in Ireland, some centuries later, during the Reformation, beginning with Henry VIII's spat with the Pope, it can indeed be said that Ireland got a very raw deal.
But so did Diarmait's allies - the, by then, so-called Old English. It is for that reason that I don't use the term "Anglo-Norman Invasion." There was no such thing - at least in 1167/69-72.

Wexford turned into an area under the square grid (see map) during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I (a Tudor and a Stuart).
The Roches were stripped or their rights, holdings and titles in AD 1618 because they were considered anti-English and pro-Rome.

If my ancestors knew they were today considered "Anglo-Norman", Anglo, foreigners, invaders or worse by the Irish??? Well, if proof were ever needed that there is no way back from the dead, we have it! It would be centuries after our arrival before the English could honestly declare that Ireland was under control. AD 1603 is the date generally agreed to be the point at which the English was in charge, and they can legitimately be blamed for much that has transpired since.

Even then, it had been piece-by-piece. The map shown here is English - not a Norman, Cambro-Norman or Flemish map.
It begins in AD 1494, but shows only an expansion of the Pale under Elizabeth and James, plus the start of "plantations" involving English and Scots Protestants - purely a RELIGIOUS issue (between AD 1560-1625) !

We human beings like to think of ourselves as rational, having free will, or, at worst, being irrational and emotional, with these tendencies controlled by reason and logic. But there is nothing like history to show that we are more irrational than rational, more emotional than logical. There is much irony here - as there is throughout recorded history.
Shortly after the Romans left Britain, the Irish (Gaels) settled on the west coast of Wales, notably Dyfed and Gwynedd, and found much in common the the local population. Modern genetics has shown that former "mystery" of the two being similar is easily explained - they are genetically identical or quite similar.
We do know there is a small town, Ga�l, (from the Breton - Gwazel, Wadel, Gallo: Ga�u), in a small commune of France, in the Ille-et-Vilaine d�partement, southwest of Rennes. Its Breton name from the 6th and 7th centuries begs the question of origin or at least whether genetic cousins exist on the continent.
They do - and the genetic link explains the insular-continental melding which occurred so easily that the British (and even their foreign Kings back to the Statutes of Kilkenny in AD 1366 under Edward III) suspected meant trouble.
The Wexford Roches, as of AD 1618, have been listed among the "Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct Peerages". This is because we told the King's Herald of Arms to "bugger off" when he came to check on the "validity" of our "Irish" Peerage. Richard Fitz Godebert and his brother Rodebert, and many afterwards, did not have English or Irish Peerages.
We had been knighted by Angevin, Norman and Cambro-Norman Kings. The British were on a "search and destroy" mission, even as one of our number, Matthew Roche, was a ward studying at Oxford. Designated anti-English and pro-Rome; we ignored them then; and we ignore them still - at a price, of course.
We were supposed to go from being Lords to being tenants to some English planter. Records of court proceedings for a long time thereafter reflect the fact that we did not easily surrender what we considered to be ours.
We continued to collect taxes, charge tolls, and to harass the English to the point of near insanity on their part. We are recorded as robbers, murderers, cattle rustlers and outlaws, and when caught, British Justice was not a thing of beauty.
But caught many were --- out-gunned and out-manned, with only Gaels for reinforcement. Lovely folks, the Gaels, but soldiers, not the best - they are Celts after all, and the Anglo-Friesian assessment of their fighting ability, after the Romans left Britain, no matter the tribe, remained and remains accurate.
Always divided and feuding in internecine fashion, with some always ready to "inform", they hated the "Old English" almost as much as the existing brand, so, stuck between the two sides, divided between loyalty to the Crown and to the RC Church, we didn't have a chance.
Maurice FitzGerald of the Geraldines, had it right (and it would seem to remain so - to a degree - today) when he complained shortly after his arrival in Ireland that:

"No one will help our kind: 'for just as we are English as far as the Irish are concerned, likewise to the English, we are Irish; and the inhabitants of this island and the other assail us with an equal degree of hatred.''
The same , of course, had been and is still true in Wales.

Eight hundred years after the fact, many Irish (Gaelic Celts) have told me they consider Diarmait's allies 'invaders," and many Welsh share the sentiment! Documented history stands little chance against opinion or belief.
Things are what they are - not comforting notions these - but better faced and acknowledged than whispered in dark corners. So there it is - make of it what you will!
There is growing concern about mistakes by the Herald in Dublin, and therefore fake titles extant. The fact that they have no legal standing in the Republic is another issue, discussed on our Heraldry Page.
Even though our Wexford titles were stripped and are now extinct, dormant, abeyant, or forfeit, it would be fascinating to be the first to challenge for arms based on DNA evidence.
While some of the earlier Viscounts of Fermoy claimed to be descended from Adam or David, Godebert's grandsons. They didn't know there was a Norman element (Frisians, Saxons, Flemings - descended for people (R1bs) who spent the Ice age in the Near East.
Names like "de Rochville" on the Battle Abbey Roll, if valid and not forged later, are wildcards. Could a continental de la Roche be from a place called "de Rochville"; yes. But so could others from the Rochville in Rhone Delta of SE France. All that is needed is evidence.
The more recent Barons of Fermoy, Roches of Trabo[u]lgan in south Cork, have no lengthy lineage in historical terms - they go back to a merchant in Cork, Philip Roche in the 1500s, and that is with very sketchy data. They were NOT given an existing or dormant title, but had a new one created by the English Crown.
The same game was played rather more vigorously in England. Antiquarians made a living fiddling the pedigrees of their clients to the point that it is very difficult now to do a paper trace.

Our first Arms
In Ireland, some Ro(a)ch(e)s were among those "Cambro-Normans/Cambro-Flemish" who became "more Irish than the Irish"; some remained Loyalist and served in the English Parliament and the British Military under a number of English kings.
Every man for himself - always our downfall - as true today as it was in Flanders. But large-scale integration was inevitable, much to the consternation of the Norman and, later, British Monarchies...even when some tried to remain loyal to the Crown.
Whether by way of the sword or the cowl, the result was often the same - examples abound.
During the reign of Elizabeth I (1558-1603), Catholics in England were much persecuted. In August 1588, a half-mad priest, William Watson, was arrested and thrown into London's Bridewell Prison. Margaret Ward, a Catholic servant girl, visited him, in a basket of food, provided a rope to help him escape.
A young Irishman, John Roche (a.k.a. Neal), a friend of Margaret's, joined in the plot. He was a waterman, one of the many who plied their boats along the River Thames.
Halfway down the wall, Watson slipped and fell, not only creating a terrible noise, but breaking an arm and leg. Roche exchanged clothes with the priest, who escaped. But he and Ward did not - the rope she had given Watson was easily traced. They were both tortured, but offered a royal pardon, if they would simply renounce their religion. They would not, and were hanged.

Blessed John Roche is today the patron of small boatmen wherever the Catholic Church holds sway. His feast day is August 31, (Source: SAINTS PRESERVE US!, Sean Kelly and Rosemary Rogers, Random House, p. 161).
James I (1603-1625) followed Elizabeth and supported settlement of British (mostly Scots) Protestants in Ulster, the Ulster Plantation, on lands confiscated from Irish nobles which resulted in the 1607, "Flight of the Earls". The confiscation, however, affected the peasants who remained loyal RCs - seeing the Church as preserving Gaelic tradition and identity.
The Protestant Community included new arrivals (1609), landowners of English ancestry (the Hiberno-English) and Irish who had accepted the Reformation. Relations between Irish-Catholics and Protestants were worst in Ulster, less so in other areas. Nevertheless, it all climaxed with the 1641 Rebellion and the Confederation of Kilkenny.
In October of that year, a conspiracy led by the RC clergy, ousted the Protestants and regained most of Ulster. They transplants were chased off their land, relieved of their belongings; stripped of their clothes; and refused food and shelter. Many were killed; others starved or froze to death during the winter. Only a few fortified places, such as Londonderry, held out.
Charles I of course sent an army under the Earl of Stafford to restore law and order, and there was retaliation. Then, the Scots at home rebelled against the Book of Common Prayer. Charles recalled parliament, asking for taxes to fight the Scots; and the whole thing resulted in an English Civil War (also an Anglo-Scottish War). Strafford tried for treason and he was executed. Worse, the English Army remained unpaid.
In 1642 a Synod was held at Kilkenny, which established an Irish Parliament, the Confederation of Kilkenny, which was dominated by landowning nobility, both Catholic and Protestant, who wanted to restore tranquility rather than escalate the war.
Most of Ulster, however remained under the control of the rebels, now lead by Owen Roe O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone. Papal envoy Giovanni Battista Rinuccini arrived in 1645 to negotiate with Charles the conditions for the entry of an Irish army into the English Civil War (never happened).
O'Neill, in essence, tried to restore the fiefdoms his ancestors had forfeited in rebellion against England; the Confederation pursued a policy less confrontational (and often had a hard time agreeing over any policy), and the papal nuncio used Ireland as a pawn in papal diplomacy.
The latter left in February 1649, having failed to gain concessions for the Irish RC Church. In England, the Civil Wars had ended with a Parliamentarian victory. The new strongman, Oliver Cromwell (1649-1658), regarded Catholicism as an evil force that had to be destroyed - and he began his war in Ireland.
Enter one James Roche (aged abt 30) - loyalist: "James the Swimmer" b. at Kinsale abt 1657, only son of George Roch of Turin and Glynn, later a Colonel in William III's (1668-1701) Protestant army, gained fame and infamy in the Catholic siege of Londonderry [1688-1689].
He had been in England shortly before and, it seems, he volunteered for the assignment. He swam between the town and the English fleet of General Kirke, barred from entry to Lough Foyle by a boom placed there by the RCs.
He carried dispatches and was wounded four times by Catholics shooting at him from the river bank. Rewarded by William III with fifteen estates and toll collections from ferries in Ireland, he later lost the estates by the Act of Resumption and many lawsuits against him.
In lieu, he requested an estate in Co Waterford (forfeited lands - 1425 acres - of James Everhart) and a sum of money. In 1693, now a Colonel, he m. Elizabeth, dau of William Gough, g. dau of Dr. Francis Gough, C of I Bishop of Limerick.
They later had a daughter, Mary, b. 1694 and a son, William, b. 1695. In 1700, he m.Elizabeth, dau of Benjamin Hammerton and they had a son, James, b. 1702. In December, 1722, he died, aged 65. He is a good example of what happens when you try to serve two masters - the dilemma set for the Irish by Henry VIII.
When Roche was being buried, the priest switched into Gaelic and - whatever he said - Roche's headstone instantly cracked straight down the middle. It is not in a church wall, since it could not stand on it's own. Neither could Roche - the English never really followed through and he had abandoned his own, who returned the favour.
He spent the rest of his days trying to claim what he thought to be his. His experience and that of those like him, the Cromwellian Land Settlement (1649), the Williamite [William of Orange] forfeitures (1690) and the Penal Code (1695), in combination, put Ireland (and the de Roch family) on the path it has pursued until today.
But truthfully, even before then, the Wexford Roch(e)s had shown contempt for the Crown (James I) by refusing to register their arms and pedigrees with the Ulster King of Arms (as required) during his visit to Wexford. The result was the loss of ancient titles and coats of arms in AD 1618.
By refusing to acquiesce, the Wexford Roche's lost any remaining claim to titles, lands and other benefits. (

Source: Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited and Extinct Peerages of the British Empire, Sir Bernard Burke, Harrison 59, Pall Mall, 1883).

By 1642, after taking part in the Rebellion of the Gaelic-Norman Irish against new land confiscations under Charles I, the Roches had been declared "rebels". Walter Roche of Rochesland was identified as Provost Marshal of the Rebels at Duncannon Fort at that time.
Duncannon was an Iron Age fortification, but the existing structure dates mostly from the 16th century with modern additions. Interestingly, the contact for guided tours of the facility today (2001) is Eileen Roche. We simply will not fade away .... and our tormentors don't amount to much in the end either.
The English throne was, over time, in many hands, other than Anglo-Saxons - as is true today! Anglo-Saxon hegemony over England is a myth. It really only existed from AD 597-1066, following their "invasion" by invitation, after the Romans left. Even then, it was far from complete and included only parts of the Island.
They themselves speak of the periods which followed the Conquest in other terms: the Medieval Period, the Reformation and Restoration, the Age of Empire and the 20th Century. They even came to understand that the Monarchy required categorization:

House of Wessex - (AD 802-1016)
Danish Line - (AD 1014-1042)
Wessex, Restored - (AD 1042-1066
Norman Line - (AD 1066-1154 - with Matilda disastrously squeezed in for several years beginning in AD 1141)
Plantagenet, Angevin Line - (AD 1154-1399 - it seems a stretch to not regard the Plantagenets as Norman; they were at least continental...)
Plantagenet, Lancastrian Line- (AD 1470-71 - with overlap at the end because of unrest))
Plantagenet, Yorkist Line - (AD 1471-1483-85)
House of Tudor - (AD 1485-1603)
House of Stuart - (AD 1603 -1649)
The Commonwealth (AD 1649-1659)
House of Stuart, Restored - (AD 1660-1688)
House of Orange and Stuart - (AD 1689-1702)
House of Stuart - (AD 1702-14)
House of Brunswick, Hanover Line (Germanic) - (AD 1714 -1901)
House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha - (1901-10)
House of Windsor - (1910-present - 2006)

Anglo Saxon, I think not. The Scots, Welsh and Irish may have expended a lot of negative emotional energy on the wrong target - England - correctly at times - but Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Anything - is debatable and, it is quite possible, they are not directly responsible for ALL of Ireland's "troubles." Things are never quite so simple.
I realize that people will want to debate this, and the actual dates are a little slippery I admit, but please, don't shoot the messenger. Don't simply accept my position either! Do your own research.
But to take up where we left off, King John was forced by the Lords of England to grant them a charter of rights. But these only applied to the Lords. They had no intention of sharing benefits with their subordinates.
Eventually, in England, a middle way was found between the absolutism of monarchs in France and the shattering into a patchwork of local rulers in Germany.
The Magna Charta proved to be a helpful starting point. But John was disliked because he spent most of his time in England keeping an eye on them. Richard and Henry had spent most of their lives abroad.
The great warlords in England had doubts about accepting John as King because of past behaviour, but he gained their assent and was crowned, supported by Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury and Sir William Marschal. Marschal considered him best suited to defend England against Philip Augustus, King of France. And to think what he did to Marshal and his son in return for that support! The chief lords in the families other territories - Brittany, Anjou, Maine, and Touraine - preferred Arthur, son of John's brother Geoffrey.
But John, and who would have ever guessed him to be a "Mommy's Boy" was supported by his mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine. He was able to seize advantage while his rival, a ward of the King of France, was under-age, even if nominal overlord on the Continent.
Philip, for the moment, was unable to overcome John, so he came to terms. But time is everything. In AD 1201, John was in another war; this time, Philip was older and prepared and began to take castles in Normandy with the connivance of some Norman lords. He also repulsed an attack by John.
In AD 1204, John returned to England to gather more funds from nobles and the Church. Meanwhile, Philip completed his conquest of Normandy. Lords, who formerly had lands in both Normandy and England, were forced to remain on their English estates and became wholly English.
In AD 1206, John reconquered Poitou, but avoided meeting Philip in a decisive battle. A truce was made between them for two years with John surrendering his claim to all lands north of the Loire.
He returned to England yet again to raised money, especially by a levy on Church lands, which was refused. On the death of the Archbishop of Canterbury in AD 1205 John tried to get the clergy to elect John de Grey. The case was referred to Rome where the Pope, Innocent III, told the monks of Canterbury to elect Cardinal Stephen Langton.
John refused, so the Pope laid an interdict on England - the sacraments could not be celebrated publicly. John fought back and seized the revenues of the Church, forced his noblemen to give hostages, and defied the Pope. He evicted the Cistercians from all their monasteries, and allowed them to return only upon payment of large fines.
John was excommunicated in AD 1212 by the Pope, who also deposed him and authorised Philip Augustus to effect his deposal. John made an alliance with the Count of Flanders, submitted to the Pope and swore to return lands to the Church and allow bishops who had fled overseas to return.
He built up an alliance on the Continent against Philip, but was decisively defeated at Bouvines in AD 1214 and deserted by his allies. Returning to England, he found the barons determined to force him to grant a written charter of rights and was forced to concede in AD 1215.
John, of course, went back on his word and civil war broke out. Some lords elected Louis, son of Philip, as King. He landed in England, and the war went against John, who died suddenly while campaigning the following year. John's nine-year-old son, Henry III, succeeded him.
During the time of Peter de la Roche, Bishop of Exeter, after his return from the Crusades, there was ill-will based on the Anglo-Saxon perception that too much patronage was going to foreigners from his home in Pictou.
In light of this sort of behaviour, Norman-Anglo distrust did not begin to dissipate in England until well into the Hundred Years War, in the reign of Edward III [1317-77]. The Anglicized-Norman aristocracy began to identify with the English, just as some (not all) of the Cambro-Normans and their continental allies would become Hibernicized in Ireland.
Truth be told, the Anglos knew a Cambro-Norman or Fleming/Frisian from their own; as the Irish would later. The effort to integrate became the undoing of a race that had retained power by the sword and lost it by the stealth of their former enemies.

David de la Roche's family of Llangwm (additional details on the link below), while it faded away in England for want of male heirs, I have reason to believe, is linked to Butterhill and similar estates to which they returned from Cork to Wales during the Reformation.
their arms show the lion, not the three roachs, normally associated with the Roches of Roch. But the lion on arms has a history in Leinster too of course....all very Charlemagnic. Strangely, the Emperor did not have a lion on his original arms.
"Experts" in such things say they are meant to be tigers or even dragons. Flanders likes to associated itself, in part, with the Franks, Charlemagne, and, therefore, had lions on their national emblem and their arms when titled. But others, less francite, prefer not to do so. Llangwm was brought under Norman control c. AD 1106 by the fitzMartin family.
They held it as the Barony of Cemaes until AD 1326, when they were succeeded by the Audleys. The Rosebush area belonged to the lordship (or manor) of Maenclochog, held from the Barony of Cemaes by the de la Roche lords of Llangwm in the 13th and 14th centuries.
But, in the interim, it changed hands between the Welsh and Normans several times. The Rectory there doubtless belonged to the Roches of Rhos, and may have passed to the Longueville and Ferrers families through David and Johanna. This lineage seems to have become extinct (no male de la Roche heir survived) in England --- their son: Thomas de Roch/Elizabeth de Birmingham had only daughters surviving
Elizabeth m Sir George Longueville of Wolverton, Bucks, and her sister, Elen(or)a married Edmund, Lord Ferrers of Chartley....as outlined below - point and click.

Cambro-Norman Roches in England

The King of Denmark, Sweyn Forkbeard, in AD 1013, conquered Wessex and Mercia, and controlled a vast empire including Southern England, Denmark and Norway - and - Cornwall is in southern (SW) Britain. The Anglo-Friesian-Jutes were as close to the Danes geographically on the continental NW, in religion (The Sagas) and in their seamanship, and ability to fight. Our DNA presents the possibility that we may have been involved - Frisians, Flemings, and Germanic-Scandinavians were "cheek by jowl" with the Saxons and Danes in NW Europe - and therefore - Cornwall.
And one of my own two close genetic matches (not by surname - he is a Morgan) is from Glanmorgan (the Norman Plain or Vale of Glamorgan and the Welsh upland of Morgannwg, anglicized to Morgan) - we may have been neighbours twice in the past. Another is in West Germany ever so close to the Netherlands. And the third is in New/Old Ross, Ireland. These all link genetically in term of tribal migratory patterns.
Even Frisia flooded at various times, we were likely candidates to sail south to Britain in search of better land, or to have moved south on the continent into Flanders and made an accommodation with the Franks under Charlemagne. We most certainly are found in high concentrations in the benelux Federation and it is this group that is founde in the Midlands, so there are plenty of options.
However, when we get to Cornwall - oh my....because it now appears that not only did the de Roch and de la Roche inter-marry, but they may have taken some of the same first names over at least a couple of centuries. Honestly, all I can think to do here is put in a note - the normally accepted pedigrees are all over the net - all with variances of some degree, so:

NOTE: David, (not brother), the son of the Adam, confirmed his father's charter to St. David's of a pension of 2s. yearly, payable on St. David's Day, out of lands of Roch held by Wobald, son of Ernebald� (a Fleming); confirmation was AD 1224. An Adam de la Roche was witness to the Marshall charters to Haverford in AD 1219 and some eight years later, he was Lord of Roch. There was clearly at least an Adam older and younger - if not more.
Next, there is a John - whether he was the son of David, Henry or Adam; he held of the Earl of Pembroke in AD 1251 one fee and one third of another fee in the barony of Roch. He married Matilda, niece of Thomas Wallensis (Bishop of St David's 1248- 1256), who was a Carew. He received from the bishop a grant to himself and his wife, and their heirs, of the manor of Eglwys Cummin, which manor the bishop himself held of Guy de Brian; it was this marriage that resulted in the building of Roch Castle by Laugharne.
Thomas de la Roche, son of John and Matilda, confirmed and enlarged the charter to Pill Priory of the founder, whom he calls Adam the elder; his grant included lands at Suthoc (South Hook) in Herbrandston, Denant (and a share in the mill there), Stodhaze (Studdolph), Windsor by Strickemershille (Dredgman Hill), Eedeberch (Edberth, now in Walwyn's Castle parish), Thorneton, villa Ledelini (Liddeston), and castrum Vydii, which seems to be Castle Hill abutting Stainton Highway mentioned among the possessions of the Priory at the dissolution
He also gave the right of wreck in the half carucate of land at Neugol on which had been built the chapel to St. Caradoc to commemorate the resting-place of that saint's body on its way to burial at St. David's, in addition to churches of St. David at Hubertston (Hubberston) and St. Madoc de Veterivilla� (Nolton).
There is a charter by Roger Mortimer granting Thomas de la Roche a carucate of land at Pill Rhodal by Milford, and in AD 1274, a fine was made between him and Sir William de Boleville (Bulwell) re lands at Westfield, held of the manor of Burton.
In AD 1295 William de Valence, Earl of Pembroke and his wife Joan, brought suit against the bailiffs of Queen Eleanor, Lady of Haverford, alleging they had forcibly taken the barony of Roche (of which Monsier Thomas de la Roche was Lord) from the earldom; the suit failed. Thomas mentioned in the pleadings as a minor in the custody of the Lord of Haverford at the time of his father's death; but in AD 1301 he signed the barons' letter to the Pope as Lord of Roche.
The Will of John, son of Thomas, is extant, dated AD 1314 and proved in the same year. He tells us something of the family history; the testator of those days generally made his Will on his death-bed, which was to the advantage of the Church. John seems to have postponed it as long as possible, as he says at the end that he cannot give any further thought to it, and his executors must dispose of the residue.
Among the bequests are his soul to the Blessed Mary and his body to be buried at Pill Priory; 40 shillings to the convent at Pill, and a like amount to the Friars Preacher of Haverford; to his mother, the Lady Margaret, half his farming stock at the manor of Pill, with the option of buying the other half at market value; to his sisters Elizabeth, Johanna and Lucia, 20 marks each as a marriage portion, and to his brother Thomas his armour, left at Pill. There are also legacies to an old servant and of a book called The Sirculus to the Lady de Courtenay.
John had in AD 1313 grants from Sir John Wogan of Picton in Llysyfran and Lambston, which Wogan obtained from John's father. John's successor was his brother Thomas, who was lord for some ten years. In AD 1315, he obtained a grant, for himself and his wife Elizabeth, from Nesta, wife of Roger Corbet; and one of the co-heiresses of Robert de Vale, of land at Castell Loyth (Wolf's Castle) and Rinaston. In AD 1317, he was commanded to return (apparently from Ireland) to his domain in Wales for its defence.
There are two charters to Thomas; one from Adam Baret of land at Gibbrick's Ford in which his wife Nesta, who must have been a second wife; and another from Philip, son of Thomas Martin the fuller of a mill at the same place, called Gilbert's Ford. It is stated in the Black Book of St. David's� that Vadum Gyhrygh (Gibbrick's Ford) was held by a Geoffrey de Rupe as half a fee.
George Owen gives two charters of lands in Roose to Master Tankard de la Roche, of which Gilbert of Musselwick, who was one of the executors of the Will of John above, was witness; Tankard was also witness to the grant of Redwalls by John, the son of Maurice, to Adam, the son of Hugh Cole and Sarah his wife.
Thomas left a son William, who succeeded him, also four daughters, the second of whom, Johanna, married Sir David de la Roche, of Langum. Leland� mentions William de la Roche, who married the daughter and co-heiress of Peter Delamere; a contemporary, but as mention - even though he is mentioned elsewhere, he can't be placed.
There are several charters referring to William, and when we find a time when these documents are dated, a custom which began in the reign of Edward II; we find some may refer to a second William. In AD 1324, he held property of the Earl - one fee at La Roche worth �20; in AD 1326 he held of the Bishop Lysurane (Llysyfran) in capite as one fee and half a fee at Oweynston (Eweston), and also at Neugol� (Newgale). In AD 1327 he was one of the court hearing a conspiracy trial; in AD 1330, he founded a chantry in the chapel of St. Thomas the Martyr by Pill Oliver (Dead Man's Lake) for the souls of his parents and of his family generally; and in AD 1334, there was a fine in the court at Pembroke of Isabel, Lady de Clare (guardian of the earldom during the minority of Lawrence Hastings), between him and Walter Alex, clerk (probably a trustee), as to land at Ayllwarston (Alleston) and Kingeston. In AD 1336, John de Stackpole, chaplain, granted him �400 yearly rent out of the manors of Burton and Hodgeston; in AD 1353 he granted a lease of a messuage and land at Roch to John Baret (the son of John) and Johanna, his wife; and in AD 1358 he was appointed one of the bailiffs of David, Lord of Fermoy.
In AD 1367 he granted a lease of another messuage and land at Roch to Henry, son of Thomas Baret, for life, at a nominal rent; but Henry was to guard the castle and prisoners, do all necessary masonry or carpenter work for repairs, and dig stones for certain works, which then seemed to have been in progress, the Gael tenants of the manor to provide the carriage.
But it is probable that these two last documents refer to another William, a son and successor; and in AD 1298, we have a grant from Philip d'Angle to William de la Roche of lands at Angle, Sepin Ilond (Sheep Island) and the windmill at Angle, (Windmills were introduced to this county by the Flemish).
It may be that William (the second) left as his heiress his sister Margot, whose only child Margaret married Sir Roger de Clarendon, and died without issue in AD 1382, when the barony of Roche was divided among the representatives of the co-heiresses (daughters of Thomas), and Roch Castle and some lands in county Tipperary fell to Thomas de la Roche of Langum, descended from the David above mentioned, who married Johanna (so we now have over-lapping inheritances) - two families related in law but not by blood.

In any event, in Cornwall, Sir Richard, transferred ownership (if that is even the right term) of Trembleath Manor and Restormel Castle to Eve by bequest in AD 1255. This is where things become unclear because because we know that Richard FitzGodebert de Roch was a grown man in AD 1167, and it could not have been him, but a descendant - of which family?
Or there is a possibility that Alexander (of the Crusades and Selkar Abbey) was his son and named one of his sons Richard. On the other hand, the de Roch mentioned in relation to Cornwall could have been from Wales or Ireland by AD 1255. They appear by then to have been spread out far and wide and often on the move at the behest of their overlords due to obligations under "Knight's Fees".
There are a number of possible historical scenarios on a macro-scale to explain what seems like mass confusion over possession. We have little on a micro-scale to learn exactly how de Roch came to possess the Cornwall Manor and Castle.
Local tradition has it that Castle Restormel originally formed part of the Manor Bodardle; that in AD 1086, the land was held by Turstin the Sheriff; and construction begun by Turstin's son, Baldwin Fitz Turstin with completion after AD 1100.
It passed to Andrew de Cardinan, and on his death, to his daughter and heiress, Isolda. She married Thomas de Tracy c AD 1130, possibly an assassin of Thomas a Beckett? She appears to have lived a long time, as her name appears in records there as late as A.D. 1170 in relation to the Castle and certain lands passing to the Earl Edmund de Cornwall - this around the time of the murder. If memory serves it later temporarily reverted to the Crown.
Sir Ralph Arundell, son of Remfrey Arundell, was by AD 1259-60 Sheriff of Cornwall, and he took possession of Restormel in AD 1265. However, as Sir William Arundell had married Eve de la Roche (de Rupe) AD 1245 and they were endowed (as noted above) Trembleath Manor by Eve's forebear, Sir Richard de la Roche (de Rupe), AD 1255. Therefore, at least part of this estate passed through marriage to the Arundells.
Trembleath became the Arundell family's principal residence in the later thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries; they also purchased Mitchell Manor. Richard de la Roche was still alive in AD 1262 (Feet of Fines 183), and his widow Agnes still alive in 1283 (AR/45)....clearly a descendant of the original family group/s - but no doubt of the same line because of the use of recurring names.
A Rodebert de la Roche, son and heir of Sir Richard and brother of Eve, was knighted between 1262 and 1283 (AR/1/72 and AR/45), and was still alive c AD 1300 (AR/1/100). Here again a repeat of the non-Norman spelling of the name.
The Roche family was sometimes called "Tremoddrett," based on their residence at Tremoddrett in Roch(e) Parish, Cornwall - some distance from Roche's Rock at St. Austelle and from Trembleath. There they remained until they moved to Lanherne.
Sir William Arundell assumed Roche Arms (at least in part). The estate also had permanent freehold tenants who sold in the late 18th century; with the remainder of the manor going by sale to Francis Cross of Crediton, Devon in the early 19th century.

Documentation held at Cornwall Record Office around some of this includes:
Contents: (St Denis); at Tremodrud
Inspeximus of gift in fee tail
Richard de Rupe, lord of Tremodrud = (1)
Sir Ralph de Arundel and Eve his wife = (2)-(3)
Inspeximus by (1) of a charter which he had made for (2)-(3), as follows: (1) to (2), in free marriage with (3), first-born daughter of (1), his whole manor of Tredreysuc, with all appurtenances, that is 1 knight's fee in Tredreysuc; for (2) and his heirs by (3) to hold of (1) freely for ever; with reversion, in default of such heirs, to (1) and his heirs; witnesses Hamlin de Boetun', Roger de Reeni, William de Roscrov, Osbert Penroncin, Walter Warin [= AR/1/62, presumably].
(1) now grants that (2)-(3) and the heirs of (3)'s body shall hold the manor, that is 1 knight's fee in Tredreysuc, hereditarily and freely as aforesaid, doing for it knight's service to (1) when it arises.
Warranty. Sir John de Albamara, Sir Philip de Bodrugan, Sir Alan Blohyov, knights, Peter de Dynesel, Henry Tirel, Andrew de Tregors, Ralph le Brettun de Treneythin. Tredreysuc [Tredrizzick, in St Minver] Treneythin [Trenithon in St Enoder, or read 'Treueythiu', and place at Trevio, St Merryn]
AR/1/62 is presumably the charter here inspected, though it disagrees in minor details. Cf. closely AR/1/64 (J.P. Yeatman, The Early Genealogical History of the House of Arundell, plate 16). Ralph le Bretun de Treneyhin occurs also as a witness in AR/1/64 and AR/1/66, with other witnesses in common and dated c.1260 and 1259.
"Richard de Rupe, son of Sir William de Rupe = (1)
Bartholomew de Mora son of William de Mora = (2)
[William de Rupe is a bit of a mystery in terms of where he fits in the pedigree - as with Rodebert above; Richard de Carew's son, Sir Nicholas, was a man of mark in Pembroke; his local influence is supported by ample evidence. In AD 1298, Nicholas was witness to the charter of Philip d'Angle to William de la Roche. We have the same names circulating in generational succession - but not easilt placed in relation to one another. (1) to (2), for his homage and service, 1 acre of land in Rosworoc Bihan; for (2) and his heirs to hold of (1) in fee hereditarily. Rent 2s 6d yearly to Maurice de Tremor on (1)'s behalf, that is 10d at fair of Bodmine, 10d at Summercourt fair (ad longas nundinas) and 10d at St Martin; plus 1 pair of white gloves yearly to (1) his heirs at Easter, for all service except tallage (tallagium) when it falls upon the county of Cornwall, as much as belongs to that acre.
Warranty, or else to make exchange to the value of 1 acre from (1)'s own inheritance (de nostra propria hereditate); (1) and his heirs are also bound to warrant to (2), his heirs and the men dwelling there (ibidem manentes) - common pasture everywhere throughout the land of Tremor, outside close, meadow, corn and Tremor wood, plus housebote and haybote from Tremor wood, by view of Maurice or his foresters.
Wit: Randulf de Alba Marla, Alexander de Henemerdun, John de Rupe, Osbert de Rosworoc, William the abbot (Will' abbate), Robert de Medwille, Richard de Retir. Rupe [Roche],Mora [cf. Woon, Luxulyan/Lanivet], Rosworoc Bihan [Rosewarrick, Lanivet], Tremor [Lanivet], Henemerdun [Hemerdon, Plympton, St Mary, Devon] and Medwille [cf. Meadwell (3 exx.), Devon] Retir [Withiel]."

Unfortunately, if David de la Roche, who married Johanna above has a brother Richard, we again have these Anglo-Norman, Norman, and allied families mixing and merging so that it becames extremely difficult to sort them in English. However, it is easier when Latin is used - de Rupe and de Rupibus are not confused in the way that de Roch and de la Roche seem to be - or in the way that Roch, Roche, Roach, Roache in English.
A clear and later attempt to shift credit or blame to the Roches by Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, combined with a link between the Arundells and the Roches of Cornwall by marriage links to the de Traci family by virtue of evidence at the time identifying the assassins.
Of course, this involved trickery - the arms shown on at least one representation of the Knights who killed Thomas a Becket, first Archbishop of Canterbury, during the reign of Henry II, was de Rupe. But why - so long after the fact?
Becket was born in AD 1118; his father was a former Sheriff of London, Gilbert of theirceville; his mother Rosea or Matilda of Caen. He was killed in AD 1170, about mid-career for Henry II.
History records the names of his killers - Reginald fitz-Urse, Hugh de Morville, William de Traci (Tracy) and Richard Brito - none a Roche - and all falling into disfavour after the killing.
The Roches and Tracys are linked to Restormel and Roche Parish in Cornwall - and a Tracy was clearly involved in the murder - too curious by half. The forgery, near the end of the War of the Roses, leaves one to wonder what possible advantage Arundell sought to achieve.
Richard III [1483-85] was the last of the Plantagenets; he was executed; and the Tudors were in waiting. He could not have anticipated Henry VIII's difficulties with the Church, but the execution of the King may have had something to do with it. I can imagine there was a rush to establish bonafides at the time.
The motivation of an Arundell family member, while Archbishop of Canterbury, to try and establish that the Roches, with whom his family intermarried, had been directly involved in Becket's martyrdom, certainly is nefarious, but much of high-stake history is just that. He must have had his reasons - more research required.
Note the Roche Arms clearly displayed by the Knight about to strike a Becket with his upraised sword. It never happened! Yet this rendering was incorporated into the official Seal of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Source: The Heraldry of Fish; Thomas Moule, Printer Samuel Bentley, Bangor House, Shoe Lane, London, UK - 1842; and Heraldry of Fish: Notices of the principal Families Bearing Fish in their Arms; Thomas Moule; Kessinger Publishing - Rare Reprints; Montana, 2004.

By way of contrast, we have an eye-witness account by monk, Edward Grim, who hid near the altar and later described the murder. No mention was ever made of Roche or three fish on a shield, and none is shown in the painting of later date, nor identified historically. Indeed, why would a shield have been necessary - Beckett would not have had bodyguards?

Murder of Thomas Becket, 15th Century Manuscript, Lambeth Palace Library, London; Source: Eye Witness to History, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (1997)

Thomas a Beckett was Canonized three years after his murder, shortly after his friend, Henry II was reconciled with Rome. Moule must have had knowledge of the inaccuracy - dating to two decades after what appears to be a Roche-Arundell marriage.
The castle was originally built on a spur, overlooking the Fowey River Valley, a mile upriver from Lostwithiel. They use the term "pile" in modern times for Restormel's keep, gate, great hall and private rooms. But, as you will see in the short video (below), it is a well-preserved motte-and-bailey, consistent with others the de Roch are known to have erected, modified or possessed.

Restormel Castle

Eve's brother, Rodbert, a Knight, alive in AD 1300 and linked with the de Roch, de Tracy and Arundell. Thus the cleric Arundell's motivations fascinate ... without facts, we can only speculate. The video will perhaps show why the site was a much desired manor, with many people willing to struggle to lay hands on it. It is still impressive today.
Part of this area in Cornwall was Arundell property whether by dowery, dower or grant in AD 1245-1357. The Arundells held the original Roche property in Cornwall until that family suffered the same fate as branches of the Roches.
During the reign of Henry VIII [1509-47], their possession terminated due to a lack of male heirs. Four Arundell heiresses married into the families of Fortescue, Penkivil and Boscawen, and the name and estate/s were scattered.

Historically, it was to Earl Edmund in AD 1299, and other Earls, that the right of the fishery, at Restormel, in addition to the tin mines in the town of Lostwithiel, that feudal rights passed. This is reflected in the seal of town (left) - castle and fish - albeit salmon in this instance. Restormel's defences were quite good, with the castle standing behind a 17 metre moat having artificially steepened slopes.
Clearly, that had a deterent effect because Restormel saw action only once during its long history - in AD 1644, (Charles I and the Parliamentarians).
Views over the valley from the castle walls are magnificent; and, in the spring, Restormel is surrounded by daffodils and bluebells. There is some confusion about whether there were two structures on the same site. i.e. was the first destroyed or merely restored?
Doubtful - we have is basically comparable with other castles of that time, often brought back from the ravages of time or battle, there is something soulful about them even today. That is, if you don't have to see them constantly and deal with tourists of a particular type - in which case the romance might fade away quite rapidly.
Whether William was yet another descendent of Sir Richard of Welsh-Irish fame is difficult to say. He was of the same family or "kin group", no doubt; those who spent time in England, were part of the family. Yet, because of the work of antiquarians, it might be difficult to clarify this situation completely.
People talk about "The Rock" some distance away from Restormel, when there was a Roche Parish to the North (one of three in which de Roch/de la Roche lived and help property. Roche's Rock is a man-made structure and the site and nearby wells and springs are thought to have had spiritual connotations much earlier than the Norman period.
Continental de la Roche (and variants), in some cases, did live near or perhaps even on large stones or stone foundations. But many, perhaps a majority, were named for a community or city so named in or near which they resided. Their name came from a place, not a rock.
That was clearly the case with the so-called Flemish Roches in Roch(e) Parish Wales and again in Roche Parish, Cornwall. Because of the close family tie/s between the Welsh, English, Irish Normans and Flemings de Roch and de la Roche, albeit in law (through the female line), Lord Arundel seized the opportunity, and the families merged.

Roche's Church/Parish, Cornwall

Roche's Rock/Chapel - Aerial

Roche (as above) sits on the northern edge of St Austell Downs, near Fal River. The area, like de Roch's Benton Castle in Pembrokshire contains local springs, river sources and "holy" wells (Gee, that wouldn't have something to do the Roche Arms would it - fresh water carp perhaps - Roachs] - rock indeed! As with Benton, the waters are supposedly spiritual, i.e. to have spiritual properties, derived from some characteristic in the universe which is not fully understood, but to which we seem consistently drawn.
In addition to a well, there is a pool of "special" properties, near Roche Rock, just as there is a fish pond near Pill Priory in Wales, itself a rocky granite pinnacle of geological interest, words often used to describe Roch Castle, both stone structures upon a natural stone foundation.
Roche Rock, in prehistoric times seems to have had equal significance, and, hopefully, a name more imaginative than "Rock Rock" - which some would have it be. The earliest evidence of occupancy, perhaps with significance, has been found north of the rock - Neolithic pottery and other specimens.
Settlements nearby derive their names from the rock, au nateurelle. Tregarrick, first coined in the early medi�val period, means �the farming settlement of the Rock�, just as in Ireland the word would be Carrig(h)/Carrick. More shortly.
Why people automatically jump to "de la Roche," as discussed above, is simply beyond me. Yes, there were Norman de la Roche, but there were le rocques, carricks, and countless variations on the theme. Even in Norman-French, there were numerous variants available for Rock - and different linguistic versions are found all over western Europe. I have nothing against rocks, big or small; there is even a line in the New Testament about the Rock upon which a certain very large Church would be founded, and the only Rock in site when that allusion was made was Peter!
Today, even restricted to English, there are Rocks and Roches, and they are not genetically closely related in many cases. Take any rock, large, prominent, foundational, and there would have been many families and tribes nearby - everyone ought to be named Rock or Roche? They aren't. Think about it and the options I have provided throughout.
Roche's Rock has retained its iconic status to the present day, but so has Roch(e) Castle and may other sites and objects in different cultures around the world. Every interpretation for any surname I have seen to be generally accepted is literal; as far as historical pundits will stray from that interpretation is that names were puns. Dare I suggest that historians and others of related disciplines not forget other possibilities - allegory, metaphor analogy, myth, parabole. Think Plato in his The Republic used to illustrate "our nature in its education and want of education (or insight)".
When I hear someone state dogmatically that Roche is Rock, I think of his example of people who have lived chained in a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people see only shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of the entrance, and they begin to ascribe forms, names and meanings to these shadows. They can be as close as many of us come to understanding reality. Some, freed from the cave come to understand that the shadows are NOT reality at all; reality is not mere shadows as interpreted those in a cave, sometimes of their own making, like the Hermit at Roches Rock.
Plato asserts that "Forms" or "Ideas" and not the material world known to us can possess a higher or more fundamental reality. The Allegory of the Cave relates to the idea of forms as people struggle to see the reality beyond illusion; I would suggest that sometimes, the struggle is the reverse - to see the illusion behind what we believe to be reality. Illusion, or what people think of as illusion, mythology, can be absolute truth. Roche - Rock; maybe - maybe not. Think about it.
The association of Roche Parish Church with Roche Rock to the south has been historically significant. Modern development has obscured the view, the visible connection between the church and the ruined chapel on the rock. Does that really sever the connection, or merely the view?
Roche Church goes back to Cambro-Norman times with a font of that period and a cross in the churchyard of unusual size, shape and design. The current church dates to the fifteenth century, modified inside in the late nineteenth century. Its exceptionally tall tower looks across the tree tops to Roche Chapel, also built in the early fifteenth century and dedicated in AD 1409 to St Michael. Raise the tower; trim the trees; connection restored - Rock-Rock! The chapel, like Roch Castle in Wales, stands on a rocky outcrop and ingeniously incorporates the bedrock into its structure. The de Roch in Wales are only 50 miles away by sea; they are in the history of the area - Cornwall, Devon, etc. And nobody has thought to connect the two? Built of large squared blocks of granite from the surrounding moor, its construction is a masterpiece of medi�val engineering - the second as it turns out.
It has two level (floors) high with a third (just a lower room) in which, according to tradition, lived a hermit (named Roche?) who relied on water from a hole in the rocks known as Gonetta�s Well. The room above served as a private chapel. Although the west wall is gone now, the east wall survives to almost its full height, with a large arched window (missing its tracery). Old drawings suggest other buildings on the rock, now gone, if not the figment of an artist's imagination, shadows. Access to the chapel was by rock-cut steps (gone), now by an iron ladder.
Tradition is all well and good, but that seems a lot of building for one hermit. I have no difficulty with its having been a Priory for a small and ascetic sect at one time. Celtic to Christian to the Reformation and then no more...the simple continuity of spirituality on a site long-venerated or a pious but visible reminder of the importance of the person or group that founded it for spiritual purposes now known only to them.
It stands in an area of heathland with open access. It can be reached by public footpath from the road out of Roche towards Carbis. A real challenge to be a hermit in such an accessible location, but it was and is clearly significant. It marks St. Austell just as Roch and Pill mark Pembroke and just as the first significan fortification in Ireland, near Wexfordtown is Ferrycarrig, so it is no surprise that Tregarrick (Farm) marks Cornwall. Wherever we have been, there is something standing in our name, and there is an aura of spirituality about these places that mark our passing which I and others can clearly feel or experience, if not quite grasp rationally.

End of Chapter V - Back to Top? TOP

Or are there conclusions to be drawn; lessons to be learned from all of this?

Chapter VI - Conclusions - Always Tentative
The Gaels have been honest. I appreciate that! I am one of those people who prefers truth to illusion. Perception is not everything.
I realize that other Gaels who would say that Roches have earned the right to think of themselves as Irish, and I appreciate that very much!
But I have been to Ireland and I am not stupid - they are a minority. Diarmait did not and could not provide us a home in Ireland.
Similarly, I have dealt with the Welsh - they don't say the Roches became more Welsh than the Welsh (Welas). They call a spade a spade - right to the spade's face. Some could be a little more diplomatic, but that is not their way. And we never felt at home in Wales. Had we, there would be more of our genetic footprint there. As for the Cambro-Normans, why de Roch(e) and not (Fitz)Godebert de (la) Roch(e), fitzGodebert or simply Gobert, an alternate form of Godebert? Go(de)bert was after all a "Christian" name, and people routinely took those as surnames. Why did Godebert's grandsons abandon their fathers' name - (fitz) Godebert - when Cambro-Normans like the FitzGeralds and FitzGibbons did not?
There were and are Godber and Gobert families in England (and elsewhere)...which raises some obvious, but unanswered, questions. I found one John Roche Gobert in the US who was twice married, the second time to a Native Indian Woman in the 1800's. Fascinating that Roche and Gobert should be directly linked as late as that in the person of an Irish immigrant in Montana. But there is no untying that knot.
Then again, if they simply added, for whatever reason, 'de la Roch(e)' to a given first name...(de la) Roch(e)...the surname based in a place of origin, that would not have been unique.
A few examples prove the point -- the Spanish governor of the Netherlands in the 16th century was known as Alva; the famous French statesman, Richelieu; and a French builder called Vauban. their "real" names were much longer, respectively, Don Fernado Alverez de Toledo, Duce de Alva; Armand du Plessis Leveque de Richelieu; and Sebastien le Prestre, sire de Vauban.
Thus might David, Henry and Adam fitzGodebert de la Roch became de Rupe, de Roch, de R�iste, later to evolve into (de la) Roch(e) or Roach(e), as well as other variants.
An attempt to associate themselves with the powerful Normans, to show loyalty to one side or the other in the never-ending feuding - Protestant and Catholic, Loyalist and Republican, Anglo-Saxon, Norman and Gael??? Who can tell? Nobody, but a lot of people think they can and feel very strongly about it!
The British themselves say they never created or bestowed arms on the Wexford Roches. We agree. It was the Norman or Cambro-Normans. The English can't take away what they did not give. They stripped us of wealth and power. But we had it right when we showed contempt for the Herald.
And their "little" books about extinct, dormant, abeyant, or forfeit Arms (or Peerages, if you prefer) we didn't care about then, and we don't care now. Being Republicans we relegate arms, as anachronisms, to history. But we retain a sentimental attachment. We are those of the fish - others of the name of the lion - that's fine.
The Gaels, like most of the Welsh, don't appreciate or acknowledge our contribution - even after centuries lived among them and many a life sacrificed to help protect them from Anglo predation. But such is Life. Most of us are elsewhere, and we prosper now.

Chapter VI - Conclusion/s - Always Tentative

As in the Beginning...

So we are tody - Live with it!
Despite the Tudors, Cromwell, the House of Orange, the Reformation and the Church (which too often has stood with the establishment), in our own way and perhaps by different, non-conventional standards, Ro(a)ch(e)s who spent time in Wales, Ireland and England passing slowly through from the continent to the world have largely prospered.
Of course that it relative - and according to our own exacting standards. Riches and power and fine, but irrelevant. We just keep waiting for the rest of you to figure that out and really live the life you were meant to live.
Our arms had a blood red background showing three roachs naiant (horizontal) in pale argent (silver), with required "differencing" over the centuries. But there were people of this name in Europe and the British Isles, some in positions of great distinction, who, as noted, were not related in any way. And their arms reflected that.

We'll keep ours thank you. Up the Herald and the horse he rode in on :-)
Finally, I can relax, await minor refinements in genetic research, but over all, I know that my ancestors are right here with me and mine - encoded in our "y" and "mt" DNA - and if no place else - that in itself is simply fantastic! A miracle! I hope they enjoy the ride and know that what they did was and is appreciated by those who really count. The story of the Ro(a)ch(e) "family", in the broadest sense, certainly made for an interesting study. I hope you find what I discovered instructive, particularly if you are a Roche, Roch, Roach, or Roache...or even one of the older or exotic (ethnic) variations of the original...and there are many.
To quote Orpen (translator of the epic poem in Old French, "Dermot and the Earl", recording the events of Operation Ireland" or to quote Richard Roche in "The Roches of Wexford":
Today, the descendants of Richard and Rodebert FitzGodebert de la Roch(e) flourish...their history is the story of the evolution of a culture, for in their origin, their trials and persecutions, their defeats and victories, lies the framework and fabric of the building much of the West.
Ours is not just the history of a family -- it is the history of a civilization -- as personified in their progenitors, in their social and communal habits and customs, in their morals and ethics, in their spirituality and appreciation of country.

We hold not monopoly. And that is a blessed thing! Ro(a)ch(e)s may have intermarried with the Welsh and most certainly with the Irish over hundreds of years.
My father and son married Scots; I married English; so spelling is not high on our list of priorities. It is down there with religion and patriotism - things best left alone - not worth the time of day. My second son married a Le Hunte - yes the family that won Artramont.
The Le Huntes - with roots in Pembrokeshire and Suffolk - retained Artramon(t) for several centuries after Cromwell. George le Hunte of Little Bradley was Sheriff of Suffolk in AD 1610 [Arms. Crest--A lion sejant ar. Motto - Parcere prostrates].
His son Col. Richard Le Hunte, M.P. for Cashell in AD 1661, Captain of Cromwell's bodyguard and with him the AD 1649 campaign was granted substantial estates as the spoils of war and settled the le Huntes at Artramon(t).
The family dates back to John Le Hunte in Suffolk c AD 1200. They are gone from Artramont too - time moves on!

Sources: Burke's Landed Gentry of Ireland; Burke's Irish Family Records.

As for spelling: it could be worse. We could be like our old overlords, the Prendregasts:

de Prendergast, Prendergast, Pendergast, Pendergrast, Prendergrast, Pendergass, Pendergrass, Prindergast, Prenegast, Prenliregast, Pendegast, Pendegass, Predegrast, Prenergast, Prendygast, Penderghast, Prenderguest, Pendegraph, Pendergraft, Pendagraff, Pendergaste, Pendergas, Pendergust, Pender, and Pendergist.

Spelling does not matter to my mind as much as the history and tradition behind a name and the destiny that awaits it. For most of us, like everyone else, it is "mixed".
There are good people and bad; seafarers and warriors; raiders and traders; farmers and herdsmen; politicians, statesmen, poets and priests; landowners and mercenaries; lords, rebels, paupers and emigrees.
No doubt, the future will echo the past. We have survived much, and we will prevail, whatever the future holds.
Our broader influence remains in in the names -- Ro(a)ch(e), Pendergast, Furlong, Power(s), Burke, Fitzgerald, Joyce, Coady, Butler, Barry, and more. It also sustains to some extent in physical and psychological markers.
With their emotional volatility, restrained idealism, an open hand, fiscal conservatism, self reliance, stubbornness and vindictiveness, they are still to be found around the world. We can be tough, some would say too tough.

The Legend of Roche's Revenge makes the point:

As Henry the VIII was beginning to exert pressure on Catholic Ireland, Walter Roche, Provost Marshal of the Rebels, captured an enemy, one of the MacMurrough-Kavanaghs, and tied him spread-eagled using four posts on a mud flat near New Ross at low tide.
Roche then sat and watched as the water rose slowly around MacMurrough-Kavanagh until he drowned.
The very fact that this story appeals - in a perverse way - no doubt suggests that there is some North European blood in my veins, either that or I have that famous "black or gallows humour" for which we are known.
The Gael is the soul of Ireland and what modern people imagine when they speak of "the Irish." The Vikings came out of the north to found Irish towns...Dublin, Wexford, Wicklow, Limerick, Kilkenny and Cork. Viking raids had their effect on the Irish until AD 1014. Then it was someone else's turn.
After the Battle of Clontarf in AD 1014, in which the Danes were defeated by King, Brian Boru (Brian Boroimhe) and his mostly Danish army, the Danes in Ireland held on until wiped out by Dairmait and his imports.
Later, after controlling more than a sixth of the Island, the Cambro-Norman period ended after just a century and slowly devolved into English dominance by the time of Henry VIII (The Reformation).
Diarmait MacMurrough's war never really ended; it died a slow, lingering death.
With the towns they built, the introduction of proper Law and Catholic religion (versus Celtic), the Continentals civilized Ireland, and their influence is still in evidence today.
their legacy is also literary for they introduced to Ireland and, therefore, indirectly to the New World, the Romance of the Grail, Virgil's Aeneid, the Trojan Wars, the Odyssey and the Iliad, and medieval English Romances -- all of which resonate deeply in the educated Western soul.
History, religion, politics, philosophy and the arts, when Irish, are best understood as poetry ... not myth, not fancy, not romance, not even false pride ... but as poetry. Poetry reflects a beautiful, if tormented, psyche holding the keys to an exciting past and even more exciting future for those awake to the possibilities.
I would only add that the same holds true for the lands to which they migrated -- England, Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand -- in places where they hold sway. New migrations to continental Europe, because of Ireland's membership in the EU, completes a cycle begun long ago.
Whether part of some theoretical melting pot or a seething cauldron, I'm not sure, but we tried to integrated with the Gaels and form a nation. We have always been migratory, attracted by the frontier, undeterred by adversity. What this implies for the future is left for those who succeed us to decide.
We set the past where it belongs; but we won't forget it. Arms and titles mean nothing. We will stand or fall on our record of contribution to making countries home for a time, and better places than we found them. And that, nobody will be allowed to take from us.

Yes - Wexford: the Tower of Hook; the Lion; separated by the Slaney, and the spear heads of the pikes of '98. The motto "Exemplar Hiberniae (An Example for Ireland)" means "Be Free - A Republic". Canada should have as much sense!
The message to me in all of this is to live...really live...your own life, in your own way, in your own time. Past and future are interesting, but the present is all we have for certain. It remains for us to survive and transcend it...peaceful or troubled, exciting or tedious...as may be.
If someone tries to diminish your present, your life as it is, remember Roche's Revenge!!! Otherwise, take what comes, play your part to the full, and make the best of the time and place given you.

That is what I plan to do. Come on!

Good luck to us all!

Sources

In addition to hiring professional genealogists in Ireland, NL, PEI., NB, NS and ON:
I checked Archives in PQ;
The Internet;
the National Achieves of Ireland, England and Canada;
Encyclopedia Britannica,
Dozens of reference texts, like those cited above;
Burke's, DeBrett's and White's Peerages;
Boutell's Heraldry;
MacLysaght's "Surnames of Ireland";
"A Dictionary of English Surnames" by P.H. Reaney with R.M. Wilson;
Seary's "Family Names of the Island of Newfoundland (Memorial University); Dr John Mannion's "Irish Settlements in Eastern Canada" and "The Peopling of Newfoundland" (U of T Press);
Transportation Records (1788-1868) Ireland-to-Australia;
the Irish Relief Commission Papers (1845-1847);
Papers of Governor Sir John Harvey who served in all four eastern BNA provinces (NL when my forebears appeared in what is now Canada);
The 1871 Ontario Census and other Census records in Canada and the US;
"The Roches of Wexford", a romanticized article in the Journal of the Old Wexford Society, No. 2, 1969 by Richard Roche;
"The Norman Invasion of Ireland", a book by Richard Roche, challenged on key points by "The Origin of English Surnames" by P. H. Reaney, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Additional sources for which the above is a sample - more than I care to remember frankly - and often conflicting!

Jim Roache
Ottawa, ON,
Canada

If you would like to get in touch, please send me a message...

Just Point and Click on E-Mail (above).

To go back to the top of this page: Return to TOP

If You Want to Return to Our Home Page, point and click on:

Search Engine Optimization - AddMe

Out of the Mists of Time to Castle Roch from Flanders.	Roch Parish, Barony of Rhos, Pembroke(shire)	Roche Rock, UK - Restormel Castle links to the Surname!	Mt. Roach in southern B.C. Why not Mt. Roche (Rock)?
This horse has its mane cut in a roach - tall and straight.	This Indian headdress is a roach - one of many types.	A roach in a mainsail (or jib) = extra power per mast or boom.	Roaches to the New World - hoping the sails are roached.

A. Burton	B.Camrose	C. Dale	D. Freystrop	E. Haroldston St Issells	F. Haroldston West
H. Hasguard	J. Haverfordwest St Martins	K. Haverfordwest St Marys	L. Haverfordwest St Thomas
M. Herbrandston	O. Hubberston	P. Johnston	R. Lambston	S. Llangwm	T. Llanstadwell
U. Marloes	V. Nolton	W.Robeston West	X. Roch	Y. Rosemarket	Z. St Brides
A1.St Ishmaels	B1. Steynton	C1. Talbenny	D1.Treffgarne	E1.Walton West	F1.Walwyn's Castle


Fr. (Robert) James Roche, OSB - 1985	Sr. Catherine Roche, OP, Dominican - 1980s

Roache/Roach/Roche/Roch

Original Arms

Gules (red), with three roaches naiant (horizontal) in pale argent (silver).

Later "differenced" Versions include:

A Crest

On a rock proper, an osprey (or other bird of prey) rising argent beaked and legged, holding in its dexter claws a roach argent.

Motto: God is My Rock

Alternate Arms

Fear not, family historians; it's in the genes.

Family History

Table of Contents

Chapter I - Introduction Anglo-Frisian, Saxon or Celt

Note: Brackets are used throughout [where possible] to show alternate spellings for the same names. Square brackets denote the dates of the reign of the various monarchs, where required.

Chapter I - Introduction

R1b1b2a1a* Short Form = R-U106*

Saxon, Viking or Celt?

Source: "De Jaarboeken van Nicolaas Westendorp, van de vroegste tijd tot 1493 van en voor de Provincie Groningen." Part 1. Published by J.Oomkens in 1829 in Groningen, The Netherlands (in Dutch).

Chapter II - ROACHE - What's in the Spelling?

Roache-Roach-Roche-Roch

Out of the Mists of Time to Castle Roch from Flanders.

Roch Parish, Barony of Rhos, Pembroke(shire)

Roche Rock, UK - Restormel Castle links to the Surname!

Mt. Roach in southern B.C. Why not Mt. Roche (Rock)?

This horse has its mane cut in a roach - tall and straight.

This Indian headdress is a roach - one of many types.

A roach in a mainsail (or jib) = extra power per mast or boom.

Roaches to the New World - hoping the sails are roached.

What we are NOT!!!

There is no BUG in Roache-Roach-Roche-Roch

People of that Mind have been known to visit Outpatient Clinics though!

What is a Cockroach?

Here is a tree of cockroach species.

Microchips look like roachs. Fried chips & roached software = a problem.

Some microchips even resemble marijuana roach clips - don't smoke one!

Marijuana "roach" clip. Creative minds in high tech?

This is a marijuana roach - the remnant of a toke --- no clip = burned fingers.

(Source: Surnames of the United Kingdom, A Concise Etymological Dictionary, Henry Harrison, Genealogical Publishing Co., Baltimore, 1969 -- orig London 1912/18).

If they weren't simply thrown out in the trash, I would love to hear from anyone who has one. Even a photo would be a nice remembrance of Ireland, and all the wonderful friends I made during my month-long visit! I wouldn't expect it for free.

Arthur and the Round Table

There is a scene - in The Knights of the Round Table where they are about to search for the Holy Grail in the Dark Forest, and:

Joseph Campbell: THE POWER OF MYTH, Bill Moyers

Chapter III - Wales - Roch in the Hundred of Rhos

Roch Castle

R[H]O[O]SE ONE HUNDRED

(Source: Old Pembroke Families, Henry Owen, Chas. J. Clark, London, 1902 pp 69-73).

The Temple of Thebes - la Roche Headquarters for a time

An interesting modern song - appropriate in some strange way - as is the Chateau - both echoes of a long gone past. Listen and then visit the site. Hit Return on your browser to come back to this page.

Compare "The Course of Irish History", Moody T.W. and Martin F.X., eds., Cork, Mersier Press, 1967, pp. 123-143; "Clans and Families of Ireland" Grenham John, Gill and MacMillan, Dublin, 1992, pp 177-8; and Hilary Murphy, "Irish Roots", 1992, No 3.

(Charter Roll, 25 Ed I, Membrane 7, July 13, 1294-5, reproduced in Calendar of Charter Rolls, Vol. II, Henry III - Edward I, 1257-1300 (1906), 468-9).

Please cite as: Pill Priory, 1996-1998: Recent Work at a Tironian House in Pembrokeshire, Medieval Archaeology 46, 2003. It can be seen (in Draft Form using the link below - but without graphics):

(Source: Old Pembroke Families, Henry Owen, Chas. J. Clark, London, 1902 pp 69-73).

(Source: West Wales Historical Records, Vol. V, pp 271-290).

"The Flemish were a people "brave and robust, ever hostile to the Welsh, well versed in commerce and handicraft, a hardy race, equally ready for the plough and the sword."

[Source: A Topographical Dictionary of Wales (S. Lewis, 1833).]

Chapter IV - Operation Ireland

I use the term, "Operation Ireland" to describe the tiny slice of history carved out by the renegades, MacMurchada and de Clare. The whole "Operation" can be summarized in one simply graphic.

(Source: Curry's Review of the Civil Wars, pp. 78-9),

(Commons Journal II, VOL. I, 45-7) -- Source: Journal of the Waterford and SE of Ireland Archaeological Society, Vol. II; c 1850

I should perhaps have made mention that their descent in SW England from Ireland is documented in Archivium Hibernicum (The Irish Historical Record) by the Catholic Record Society of Ireland; 1960; Item Notes 23-7.

(Source: The Cork Historical and Archaeological Society [Eithne Donnelly]).

Trabulgan Roche Ex Libris

Courtesy of Alph�e Roche-No�l, Paris, France

EXTRACT from THE TIMES, 10 SEPTEMBER 1856

NEW PEER

Courtesy of Karl Longley, Melbourne, Australia

(Source: Old Pembrokeshire Families by Henry Owen, 1902 -- pp. 67-80), and elsewhere as Rodbert. The Father of these FitzGodeberts was Godebert Flandrensis (the Fleming) of Rhos.

(Source: Irish Pedigrees by O'Hart, Vol. 1, p. 555).

(Source: Burke's Peerage, Oranmore, B., and Gort., V,)].

Bull Laudabiliter

(Source of 1st document: Lyttleton's "Life of Henry II.," vol. v. p. 371.) Source of 2nd: Appendix, "Primer of the History of the Holy Catholic Church in Ireland; Rev. Robert King

Source: Wilhelm, J. (1907). The Apostolic See. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved December 19, 2008 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01640c.htm

Source: Henderson, Ernest F. Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages London: George Bell and Sons, 1896.

(Source: "Hammer's Chronicle;" and Finglas's "Breviate of Ireland," in Harris's "Hibernica").

Mallow Castle - lost by the Roches to the Geraldines [1282]

Source: "The Ancient Churches of Wexford" - in the "The Centenary Record of Wexford's Twin Churches."(Berney, Fr. M.J., Ed.,John English & Co. Ltd., Wexford, 1958)

Chapter V - Roche - England

Wexford turned into an area under the square grid (see map) during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I (a Tudor and a Stuart). The Roches were stripped or their rights, holdings and titles in AD 1618 because they were considered anti-English and pro-Rome.

Source: Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited and Extinct Peerages of the British Empire, Sir Bernard Burke, Harrison 59, Pall Mall, 1883).

Source: The Heraldry of Fish; Thomas Moule, Printer Samuel Bentley, Bangor House, Shoe Lane, London, UK - 1842; and Heraldry of Fish: Notices of the principal Families Bearing Fish in their Arms; Thomas Moule; Kessinger Publishing - Rare Reprints; Montana, 2004.

Murder of Thomas Becket, 15th Century Manuscript, Lambeth Palace Library, London; Source: Eye Witness to History, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (1997)

On a rock proper, an osprey (or other bird of prey) rising argent beaked and legged,
holding in its dexter claws a roach argent.

Chapter I - Introduction
Anglo-Frisian, Saxon or Celt

Note: Brackets are used throughout [where possible] to show alternate spellings for the same names.
Square brackets denote the dates of the reign of the various monarchs, where required.

(Source of 1st document: Lyttleton's "Life of Henry II.," vol. v. p. 371.)
Source of 2nd: Appendix, "Primer of the History of the Holy Catholic Church in Ireland; Rev. Robert King

Wexford turned into an area under the square grid (see map) during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I (a Tudor and a Stuart).
The Roches were stripped or their rights, holdings and titles in AD 1618 because they were considered anti-English and pro-Rome.