"Hugh Bigod, 5th Earl of Norfolk the eldest son, was born before 1195. He was the hereditary steward of the king's household, and hereditary bearer of the Barons of St. Edmund. Not many particulars of this Baron's life have been preserved, as he enjoyed for only a few years the title of Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk, and his father's estates and honors, to which he had succeeded in the 5th year of King Henry III. 
Marriage and Children
He married probably before Lent 1207 Maud Marshal. 
He married Maud Marshal, eldest daughter of William Marshal, 3rd Earl of Pembroke, and his wife, Isabel Clare, daughter of Richard de Clare, the Strongbow, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, and his wife, Eva, daughter of Dermot MacMurcha, King of Leinster, Ireland. She was also the sister of the Surety William Marshal & she married (2) William, Earl of Warren/Warrenne and Surrey" 
↑ "Modern Bigod family sources...such as C. P. 10 (1945) 590, Paget, Baronage of England (1957) 65:1, and Morris, Bigod Earls of Norfolk in the 13th Century (2005) do not include a son, Simon, in the family of Earl Hugh le Bigod, earl of Norfolk. As such, the alleged connection to Earl Hugh le Bigod seems quite doubtful. Anstis has suggested, alternatively, that the Felbrigg family of Norfolk was probably descended from a cadet banch of Ralph le Bigod, the Domesday tenant [see Anstis, Reg of the Order of the Garter, 2 (1724): 169, which descent may well be more likely. Whatever the case, the matter deserves further study." Douglas Richardson, Royal Ancestry (2013), Volume II, pp. 552-553, footnote.
Richardson, Douglas. Royal Ancestry: A Study In Colonial And Medieval Families, in 5 vols. (Salt Lake City, Utah, 2013): vol. 1 p. 363-364.
Richardson, Douglas. Magna Carta Ancestry: A Study In Colonial And Medieval Families, exp. 2nd ed. in 4 vols, (Salt Lake City, Utah, 2011): vol. I p. 200-202, 421.
This page has been edited according to Style Standards adopted by January 2014. Click the Changes tab to see edits to this profile; from that list, click WikiTree IDs other than Bigod-1 to see changes to those profiles prior to being merged.
Thank you to everyone who contributed to this profile.
Magna Carta Project
As a surety baron, Sir Hugh le Bigod's profile is managed by the Magna Carta Project. See Bigod-1 Descendants for profiles of his descendants that have been improved and categorized by the Magna Carta project and are in a project-approved trail to a Gateway Ancestor. See this index for links to other surety barons and category pages for their descendants. See the project's Base Camp for more information about Magna Carta trails.
Tim, methods of counting can vary which leads to confusion. This is especially difficult in very early creations of a title. You can say he was the 3rd earl of the 3rd creation of the title, or that he was the 5th earl of Norfolk overall. In this case actually, it is clear the the old title was settled on his grandfather (3rd earl) by Henry II so it was not a true new creation as we think of it in modern terms. As a way of standardizing such things, we follow Complete Peerage as the definitive source which makes this Hugh Bigod the 5th earl.
Good catch, Liz. The "III" should be removed from this Hugh le Bigod.
Looking in Royal Ancestry, Vol I, under Bigod starting on page 362, I can't even find any Hugh the third - (this Hugh's father is Roger). This Hugh le Bigod had a son Hugh BUT that son did not have a son Hugh (who would have been Hugh III, but no such person).
The Comment by Chase Ashley regarding the use of "Sir" motivated me to look up Hugh le Bigod's biography in Richardson's Royal Ancestry, Vol I, page 364. Hugh le Bigod is written by Douglas Richardson without the honorific of SIR, as:
"Hugh le Bigod, 5th Earl of Norfolk, died between 11th Feb. and 18 Feb. 1224/5."
Regardless that there may be more to it than can be covered here, and this era produces conflicting opinions among experts, it is my opinion WikiTree should continue to use "SIR" unless a question in G2G produces changes in the guidelines.
Hugh's son also named Hugh is written by Richardson with the honorific "SIR". A survey of other lords shows some with, others without.
Unless an original record can be produced that shows he was called "Sir", it should be deleted as a prefix since "Sir" supposedly wasn't used as an honorific in England until 1297 and, in any event, was for lesser mortal like knights and baronets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir
Deborah, Martha (Yonge) Moore is not a gateway ancestor. The problem is with her father's false father. George Young-3414, b. 1517 in Shropshire, was NOT the father of Christopher Yonges-9, b. 1575(!) in faraway Suffolk. That link should be detached.
My gateway ancestor is not listed on Hugh's information. I am a 23rd G granddaughter and would want to pursue this further. I have a gateway ancestor Martha (Yonge) Moore, ID # YONGE-8 as a possible candidate. What is the next step? Thank you