The confusion on the pedigree and relationship of these two families is due, in the first place, to the fact that, for several generations, the successive heads of the family of De Vere were all named Aubrey ("Albericus"); and in the second, to a chronicle of Walden Abbey, which proves as inaccurate as to the marriage of its founder as it is on the date of his creation.[1121] Dugdale, accepting all its statements without the slightest hesitation, has combined in a single passage no less than three errors, together with the means for their detection.[1122] Among these is the statement that Geoffrey's wife was a daughter of Aubrey de Vere, "Earl of Oxford."[1123] Accordingly, she so figures in Dugdale's tabular pedigree, and the same error has now reappeared in Mr. Doyle's Official Baronage.[1124] Oddly enough, in his account of the De Veres, a few pages before, Dugdale makes Geoffrey's wife daughter not of the Earl of Oxford, but of his grandfather Aubrey,[1125] and so enters her in the tabular pedigree.[1126] And yet she was, in truth, daughter neither of the earl nor of his grandfather, but of his father, the chamberlain.[1127] To establish this will now be my task.

Between the Aubrey de Vere of Domesday and the Aubrey de Vere "senior" of the Cartulary of Abingdon Abbey, about twenty years are interposed. Their identity, therefore, is not actually proved, though the presumption, of course, is in its favour. But from the time of the latter Aubrey all is clear. The descent that we obtain from the Abingdon Cartulary is as follows:—

Our next source of information is the Cartulary of Colne Priory,[1128] in combination with an invaluable tract, De miraculis S. Osythæ, composed by William de Vere, a brother of the first earl, and a canon of St. Osyth's Priory, Essex. Dugdale was acquainted with both documents, but lost the full force of the latter by failing to identify its author. He gives us as sons to Aubrey the chamberlain, and brothers to Aubrey the first earl, (a) William de Vere, (b) —— de Vere, canon of St. Osyth's. The identity of the two is proved, first, by a charter of Aubrey the chamberlain, in which he speaks of his "reverend" son William;[1129] secondly, by a charter of Aubrey the earl, witnessed by his brother William, "presbyter;"[1130] thirdly, by the charter from the Empress to the earl, in which she provides for all his brothers, the chancellorship, a clerical post, being promised to William.[1131] We may further assert of this tract that it must have been written after 1163, for the canon tells us that his mother has spent her twenty-two years of widowhood at St. Osyth, and her husband had been killed in 1141.[1132] In it he refers to his father the chamberlain,[1133] as "justitiarius totius Angliæ." To this we may trace Dugdale's assertion that he held that high office, a statement which exercised the mind of Foss, who complains that "it is difficult to tell on what authority" he is introduced among its holders both by Dugdale and Spelman.[1134] He further speaks of his mother as "Adeliza," daughter of Gilbert de Clare, and exults in the fact that she has spent her widowhood, not in the family priory at Colne, but in that of his own St. Osyth. He refers also to his sister "Adeliza de Essexâ filia Alberici de Vere et Adelizæ." Now, we have abundant evidence that "Adeliza de Essex" was sister to the Countess Rohese, wife of Geoffrey de Mandeville, and was aunt to their sons, Earls of Essex.[1135] Accordingly, we find the Countess Rohese giving a rent-charge to Colne Priory for the souls of her father, Aubrey de Vere, and her husband, Earl Geoffrey, and we also find her son, Earl William, confirming the charter "avi mei Alberici de Vere."[1136] It is quite clear that the Countess Rohese, wife of Geoffrey de Mandeville, first Earl of Essex, was sister of Alice "de Essex," and daughter of Aubrey de Vere the chamberlain, by his wife Alice, daughter of Gilbert de Clare.

But who was Alice "de Essex"? We must turn, for an answer to this question, to the Chronicle of Walden Abbey. There we shall find that she married twice, and left issue by both husbands. Her first husband was Robert de Essex[1137]; her second was Roger fitz Richard, of Clavering, Essex, and Warkworth, Northumberland, ancestor of the Claverings. Now, "Robert de Essex" was a well-known man, being son and heir of Swegen de Essex, Sheriff of Essex under William the Conqueror, and grandson of Robert "fitz Wimarc," a favourite of the Confessor, under whom he, too, was Sheriff of Essex. The descent is proved, in a conclusive manner, by the description of the second Robert among the benefactors to Lewes Priory, in one place as Robert fitz Suein, and in another as Robert de Essex.[1138] Robert had founded Prittlewell Priory as a cell to Lewes, "Alberico de Ver et Roberto fratre ejus" attesting the foundation charter.[1139] Robert's son and heir was the well-known Henry de Essex.[1140] So far all is clear. But, unfortunately, it is certain that Robert de Essex left a widow, Gunnor—a Bigod by birth—who was mother of his son Henry. Therefore "Alice of Essex" cannot have been his widow. Consequently she must have been the widow of another Robert de Essex, possibly a younger son of his, who held Clavering from his elder brother Henry. In any case, by her second husband, Roger fitz Richard, Alice was mother of Robert fitz Roger (of Clavering).

We are now in a position to construct an authentic tabular pedigree, showing the relationship that existed between the families of Mandeville and De Vere.

It should be observed that this pedigree is not intended to show all the children. It gives those only which are required for our special purpose. On some points there is still need of more original information. No doubt Beatrice, wife of William de Say, was sister, and not daughter, to Geoffrey de Mandeville. I know of nothing to the contrary. Still the fact would seem to rest on the authority of the Walden Chronicle. The re-marriage of the Countess of Essex to Payn de Beauchamp, and her parentage, by him, of Simon, are both well established, but the date of her death is taken from the Chronicle, and seems suspiciously late. So also does that which is assigned to her brother, the Earl of Oxford, namely, 1194, fifty-two years after the charter of the Empress. Still, the fact that his mother survived her husband for twenty-two years implies that her children may have been comparatively young at his death. Both Aubrey and Rohese may therefore have been several years junior to Geoffrey de Mandeville.

But the main point has been, in any case, established, namely, the true relationship of these baronial houses. That which is given by Dugdale contains the further error of representing Alice de Vere as wife, not of Robert de Essex, but of Henry. Mr. W. S. Ellis, in his Antiquities of Heraldry (p. 210), observes with truth that, as to this relationship, the existing "accounts ... are conflicting, and that of Dugdale contradictory." But I cannot admit that his own version is "correct, or approximately so;" for while, with Dugdale, he errs in assigning to Alice de Vere Henry de Essex for husband, he transforms Roger fitz Richard, whom Dugdale had, rightly, given as her second husband, into her son-in-law.[1141]

My reason for alluding to this passage is that, after I had worked out the heraldic corollaries of this descent in their bearing on the adoption of coat-armour, I found that I had been anticipated in this investigation by the author of that scholarly work, The Antiquities of Heraldry. As the conclusions, however, at which I had arrived differ slightly from those of Mr. Ellis, it may be worth while to set them forth.

Mr. Ellis writes thus of "the simple QUARTERLY shield":—

"There can be little doubt that the source of this honoured armorial ensign is to be found in the distinguished family of De Vere, as all the families in the table who bear it are descended from the head of that house who lived at the commencement of the twelfth century."[1142]

I should differ with no slight hesitation from so ably argued and erudite a work, were it not that, in this case, its conclusions are based on a false premiss. Thus we read, further on:—

"Which was the original bearer of the quarterly coat of De Vere? Was it Say, or Mandeville, or Lacy, or Beauchamp, or was it De Vere, from whom all, or their wives were descended?"[1143]

Now, "the table" given by the writer himself (p. 210) disproves this statement, for it rightly shows us Say as descended from Mandeville, but not descended from De Vere. It is, therefore, shown by his own "table" that this must have been a case of the "collateral adoption" of arms, the very practice against which he here strenuously argues.[1144] Thus the very case he adduces against the existence of the practice is itself proof absolute that the practice did exist. I am compelled to emphasize this point because it is the pivot on which the question turns. If "all the families in the table" who bore the quarterly coat were indeed descended from De Vere, Mr. Ellis's theory would account for the facts. But, by his own showing, they were not. Some other explanation must therefore be sought.

That which had originally occurred to myself, and to which I am still compelled to adhere, is that "the original bearer" of this quarterly coat was the central figure of this family group, Geoffrey de Mandeville himself. It being, as I have shown, absolutely clear that there must have been collateral adoption, the only question that remains to be decided is from which of the two family stems, Mandeville or De Vere, was the coat adopted? My first reason for selecting the former is that the first Earl of Essex was far and away, at the time, the greatest personage of the group. Aubrey de Vere figures, at Oxford, as his dependant rather than as his equal. On this ground, then, it seems to me far more probable that Aubrey should have adopted his arms from Geoffrey than that Geoffrey should have adopted his from Aubrey. The second reason is this. Science and analogy point to the fact that the simplest form of the coat is, of necessity, the most original. Now, the simplest form of this coat, its only "undifferenced" variety, is that borne by the Earls of Essex. We do not obtain recorded blazons till the reign of Henry III., but when we do, it is as "quartele de or & de goulez" that the coat of the Earl of Essex, the namesake of Geoffrey de Mandeville, first meets us.[1145] But all the descendants of De Vere, it would seem, bear this coat "differenced," that of De Vere itself being charged with a mullet in the first quarter, the tinctures also (perhaps for distinction) being in this case reversed.[1146] Thus heraldry, as well as genealogy, favours the claim of Mandeville as the original bearer of the coat.

It has been generally asserted in works on Heraldry that Geoffrey de Mandeville added an escarbuncle to his simple paternal coat, and that it is still to be seen on the shield of his effigy among the monuments at the Temple Church. But antiquaries have now abandoned the belief that this is indeed his effigy, and the original statement is taken only from that Chronicle of Walden which is in error in its statements on his foundation, on his creation, on his marriage, and on his death. Nor is there a trace of such a charge on the shields of any of his heirs.[1147]

But the consequences of the theory here laid down have yet to be considered. A little thought will soon show that no hypothesis can possibly explain the adoption of the quarterly coat by these various families at any other period than this in which they all intermarried. If we wish to trace to its origin such a surname as Fitz-Walter, we must go back to some ancestor who had a Walter for his father. So with derivative coats-of-arms. By Mr. Ellis's fundamental principle we ought to find the house of De Vere imparting its coat, for successive generations, to those families who were privileged to ally themselves to it. Yet we can only trace this principle at work in this particular generation. If Mandeville, and Mandeville's kin, adopted, as he holds, the coat of De Vere, why should not De Vere, in the previous generation, have adopted that of Clare? Nothing, in short, can account for the phenomena except the hypothesis that these quarterly coats all originated in this generation and in consequence of these intermarriages. The quarterly coat of the great earl would be adopted by his sister's husband De Say, and by his wife's brother De Vere, and by those other relatives shown in the pedigree. Once adopted they remain, till they meet us in the recorded blazons of the reign of Henry III.

The natural inference from this conclusion is that the reign of Stephen was the period in which heraldic bearings were assuming a definite form. Most heralds would place it later: Mr. Ellis would have us believe that we ought to place it earlier. The question has been long and keenly discussed, and, as with surnames, we may not be able to give with certainty the date at which they became generally fixed. But, at any rate, in this typical case, the facts admit of one explanation and of one alone.

If, as I take it, heraldic coats were mainly intended (as at Evesham) to distinguish their bearers in the field, it is not improbable that these kindred coats may represent the alliance of their bearers, as typified in the Oxford charters, beneath the banner of the Earl of Essex.[1148]