an individual, a generation, or a district. When, however, we find a distinguished person, like the Sir William Alis of Ordericus and Domesday, who undoubtedly had aliases, succeeded, as we know, for several generations by persons of the same name, and find two of them mentioned a century afterwards (William Alis and Philip Alis), we cannot fairly suppose his immediate successors to have become so obscure as not to appear in a public document (the Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I.), in which almost all families of similar rank, as Venuz, Cantalupe, Norman, Marshall, Auberville, &c., are noticed; but are driven to the presumption that one or more is therein noticed by some other name; that, in fact, the William de Mara before mentioned, of 1131, was son of the

France (to be treated of hereafter), one of whose heiresses intermarried with one of the Sires of Bray, amongst whom the names of Guy and Milo were prevalent, as they were at an early period in that of Dauncy. This is mentioned to account for a relationship that might be supposed to subsist between these two Norman knights. The next notice of the family is in the Pipe Roll for 1131, where Albericus and William are mentioned, the former in Surrey, the latter passim, he being sheriff for several counties; amongst others, for Hants and Berks. Under the former county, he is stated to have given 1000 marks for the office of the Chamberlain of Robert Mauduit, then deceased, and the wardship of his daughter, the office "ad opus fratris Osberti," who, Madox (Hist. of the Exch.) says, was Chamberlain of Normandy, probably in succession to his brother, for William de Pontedarch "Camerarius" was witness to a charter of Henry I., dated 1132 (Dugdale's Monasticon, vi. 1237), as he was to two other charters of the same monarch, though without the official addition to his name (Bentham's Hist. of Ely, Appendix). In the Liber Niger, 1166, the family again appear. Robert de Pontdelarche holds one knight's fee in capite, and five of John de Port, all in Hampshire, besides one in the same county of the Bishop of Winchester, which Robert Mauduit formerly held. In Berks, Ralph de Pontdelarch held half a knight's fee of the Abbey of Abingdon. In 1205, the name of William de Pontdelarch is met with in Dorsetshire; and in 1228, William de Pontdelarch was Bishop of Lisieux. In the Testa de Nevill, Robert de Pontedarch is mentioned in Hants and Wilts. No arms are assigned to this name. But the notices of the name of Punchardon are more numerous, and much later. Robert de Punchardon Ponte cardon) is mentioned in Domesday, as under-tenant in Herts and Devon, in each of which counties his descendants flourished for some centuries. In the parish of Willian, in the former county, he appears as a holder, along with William de Mara and Geffry de Bec. This juxtaposition immediately gives rise to a suspicion of relationship, in connection with the foregoing, and with the fact that one coat of Puuchardon much resembles that of Venour or Venuz; and a conjecture is at once confidently indulged, that this Robert de Punchardon must be the same as Robert de Venuz, the presumed son-in-law of Geffry de Bec, and brother of William de Mara. For it is remarkable, we do not find Robert de Venuz mentioned by that or any other known surname in Domesday, nor do we find William de Pontdelarch mentioned as such either; and the two names, though cer

William Alis or William de Mara of Domesday. Supposing this to be, how long, for how many generations afterwards, was this double designation kept up? When did each name become hereditarily distinct? Soon after 1181, we meet with a William de Mara as witness, along with Roger de Mortimer (who, or his descendant, was feudal superior of the Alises of Allington), to a charter of Henry II. And in the Red Book of the Exchequer of Normandy, 1184, William de Mara is stated to hold half a knight's fee of the honour of Sanctæ Mariæ, whilst the same person occurs frequently in many capacities (as well as a Gilbert and Robert de Mara), in one as farming the land of Elyas de Gundevill-a Norman de Gundevill occurring elsewhere in the same record. Much later, viz., in 1259, a Sir William de la Mare, Knight, occurs in Normandy. Upon the whole, it is probable that the fief of La Mare (at the mouth of the Seine), which gave name to the family, descended from Robert le Marus, alias Normannus, to his son, William de Mara, whose son, William de Mara of tainly the same originally, were kept distinct from the Conquest, as if the two brothers had purposely, for distinction sake, chosen and maintained two different orthographies. The name of Punchardon does not occur in the Pipe Roll, nor elsewhere, as yet discovered, till 1166, in the Liber Niger of that date. In Devonshire, William de Punchardon held four knights' fees, and two in Somersetshire; whilst Mathew held one fifth in Yorkshire, and Roger one fifth in Lincolnshire. Perhaps these two last were bastards. In Devonshire, the family held knightly rank down to the time of Edward III.

But to come back to the question of their armorial bearings. The arms of Venour, Lord Mayor of London in 1389, and of Kent, were argent, on a fesse suble five escallops or, three and two. One of the coats of Punchardon is essentially similar, viz., argent, a fesse sable within a bordure gules, charged with eight escallops of the field. The question is, the identity of Venour and Punchardon. That the Venours of Kent descended from the Venuz or Venours of Hants, may reasonably be presumed. Another coat of Punchardon is sable, six (or ten) plates. This resembles the prevalent coat of De la Zouche, which was ten bezants. Now, in the Parliamentary Writs for the beginning of the fourteenth century, mention is made of two knights, Sir Oliver de Punchardun and Sir Oliver de la Zouche. The identity of names and arms leads to the suspicion of a connection between the families, and that one married a heiress of the other. These bezants are a very ancient coat of De la Zouche; it is probable, therefore, that the assumption was by Punchardun. The occurrence of unusual Christian names, along with other circumstances, is generally a proof of original connection. Now, we have an Oliver de Punchardun a century earlier; in 1166, an Oliver de Mara; and about the time of King John, an Oliver Fitz-Ellis, in Essex. This name of Oliver would seem, in all these cases, to have had a common source, perhaps in Oliver de Tracy, who lived temp. King Stephen, a Devonshire baron. It may be further mentioned, that an Osbert de Mara is found in the twelfth century, who might have been named after Osbert de Pontedarch.

1131, may have transmitted it to his descendants bearing the name, and living in Normandy.

We now propose to trace the origin of a group of families who seem to have a common origin with Normannus, or Robert FitzWalter; indeed, to be descended from two individuals who, there is little doubt, were his brothers. This investigation, however, does not at present much elucidate the subject, but affords paths of future inquiry that will, doubtless, contribute to that end. Roger de Auberville, or Oburville, occurs in Domesday as tenantin-chief or mesne tenant in Essex and Suffolk. He is therein styled "Frater Gulielmi," who also occurs in the same capacities in the same counties. This William's descendants are given in the Baronage to the time of King John, when his family ended in an heiress.1 He is there said to have had a son and heir, Hugh, who died 1139; but it is probable this was his grandson, though a son of William, who was probably the William de Auberville mentioned in the Pipe Roll of 1131, for Staffordshire and Gloucestershire. The descendants of Roger are not given in the Baronage, though he was a tenant in capite. It may be that his barony passed away by an heiress; but it is pretty certain that some of his descendants spelt their name Hovill or Hauvill, D'ayvill or D'eivill, and even Amundeville, unless that be the name of a fief possessed by some of the family. William de Hauvill was Falconer to Henry I.2 By a charter of his, it appears he was son of Ralph, and that his son and heir was William. He owned the manor of Hallingbery, co. Essex, which was part of the possessions of Roger de Auberville, recorded in Domesday. By the Testa de Nevill, it appears Henry de Hauvill held lands

3

1 Either this William de Oberville, or a son or nephew William, perhaps William Fitz-Norman, was probably the "William" who held the manors of Tedinton, Sanford, and Alre, in Somersetshire, of Hugh Earl of Chester, at the Domesday Survey. Collins, in his history of that county (vol. ii. p. 377), under the head of "Sandford-Orcas," says-" Orcas is a corruption of Orescuilz, an ancient family that came from Normandy, and bore [at some period] six lions rampant. They had lands in Somersetshire, Wiltshire, and Gloucestershire, soon after the Conquest." In 1166, Elias, the son of Henry Orescuilz, held lands in Somersetshire (Liber Niger); 7 Richard I., a William Orescuilz occurs in Gloucestershire (Madox's Hist. of the Exch., i. 432). It is probable the Sir Alexander Arcas mentioned in the Roll of the Battle of Boroughbridge, temp. Edward II., as bearing three fleurs de lis, was of this family. Sable, three fleurs de lis argent, are found in the church of Ratby, Leicestershire, where the family had property, and of which church one Elias was vicar, 1220 (Nichols's Leicestershire).

2 Dugdale's Monasticon, iv. 302.

3 A Ralph de Halvile is mentioned as tenant-in-chief, in Domesday, for the county of Wilts, who may have been this Ralph, and son of Roger de Auberville.

in Suffolk by the tenure of the serjeanty of falconry. In this family of Hauvill, the name of Elias was frequent, and their arms were a fleur de lis. In the Abbreviatio Placitorum, there are pleas recorded between the family of Takley (a branch of the Hauvills) and the Amberleys or Ambervills, by which names the descendants of William de Auberville of Domesday were known in Kent. Again, Blakenham, co. Suffolk, was owned at the Domesday Survey by Roger de Auberville, where the Hovells of Suffolk had property, of which family the first known ancestor in the pedigree is "Richard," whose name occurs in Domesday as owner of Wigverston and other places. This was, probably, a son of the aforesaid Roger. The first of the baronial family of D'eivill on record is Robert, temp. Henry I. (of whom a branch held lands, at an early period, at Walton-Davile, co. Warwick), and two members of the same family occur during the same reign, viz., Nicholas de Davidvilla, who was witness to a charter of Henry Newburgh, Earl of Warwick, who died A.D. 1123, and Richard, who occurs in the Pipe Roll of 1131. The Dayvills, Deivills, &c., bore fleur de lis in many ways. The origin of the barony of Deivill is not accounted for, nor is the descent of the barony of Roger de Auberville. The Hayvills or Hauvills were undoubtedly descendants of the latter; they bore fleurs. de lis; so did the Dayvills. Might not, then, Robert D'Eivill, the first known baron of his race, have been a successor of Roger de Auberville-indeed, his grandson-and, probably, Nicholas his father? for, as we shall immediately see, by facts which confirm this conjecture, he could not have been his son. Robert Doisnell is mentioned in the Pipe Roll of 1131, for the counties of Hants and Wilts. Julia, his daughter and heiress, married William Fitz-Adelin or Adelm, who was one of the king's marshals. In the Testa de Nevill, several of this family of Doisnell or Doynell, &c., are mentioned, in the county of Wilts, one of whom, Robert Doisnell, holds lands by the serjeanty of being marshal.

2

From this it is pretty evident, first, that Fitz-Adelm derived his office from his father-in-law; and secondly, that he too inherited the office, as lands held by that tenure were held by a collateral descendant, temp. Henry III., his issue being a sole heiress. Who then was this ancestor? We find a Roger le Marshal mentioned in Domesday, as having lands in Essex, where also Robert Doisnel was owner temp. Henry I. Was not this the progenitor of the Doisnels, in fact, another name for Roger de Auberville? And is not Doisnell and Doyvell a synonym of Dayvill, &c.? We find a Julia de Dayvill temp. King John, and

1 Davy's Suffolk Collections (British Museum).

2 The family of Darnell bore argent, on a bend between two fleurs de lis, three leopards' heads.

the arms of Adelm, or Anselm, are ermine on a canton sable, a fleur de lis or. We now arrive at Robert de Auberville, mentioned in Domesday, who we have before supposed to have been brother of William and Roger, and identical with Robert FitzWalter-a supposition countenanced by what precedes and is to follow. He had several manors in Somersetshire, and is mentioned as one of the "servientes regis." Now, that designation would apply to Robert le Marshal. The family of Wrotham, of Wrotham, in Kent, appear to have had the barony of this Robert de Auberville, in Somersetshire; but it is not improbable that the family of Fitz-Walter, of that county, were his descendants and partial heirs. William Fitz-Walter, in 1146, founded the monastery of Haselborough, in that county, and was succeeded by a son of the same name, who it appears by the Liber Niger, in 1166, had six knights' fees in Devon and Somerset, and six in Lincolnshire. There is a John de Auberville mentioned in the Pipe Roll of 1131, who pays a fine "to have the lands of his uncle Peter till he return from Jerusalem." From him probably descended the Aubervilles, who were represented by the Wrothams, and the "uncle Peter" may probably have introduced that name into the family of De la Mare, which we have assumed to have been the same with Auberville. And this John de Auberville, the preceding William Fitz-Walter, and the Robert FitzWalter mentioned in the Pipe Roll of 1131, for Surrey and Oxon, were probably brothers and sons of "John," a Domesday tenant in the manor of Winterburne. We have now to consider whether the family of Amundeville and Auberville be not identical. The former is not mentioned in Domesday, but occurs in the next public record, viz. the Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I.: it may be a corruption of the latter, or the name of a Norman fief, assumed by one of the family, its owner. The pedigree in Hutchins' Dorsetshire, copied into Burke's Landed Gentry, in the account of the family of Disney, is not implicitly to be trusted, nor the latter in the early part at all. But that Roger de Amundeville, the first mentioned, was father of Joceline, is probable, as the names of "Roger," and "Jocelin," or "Joslan," occur in Domesday, as owners of some of the manors said to be owned by them. The arms assigned to them, viz., three lions or leopards passant, and afterwards borne by their representatives, the Dives and Disneys, were probably the arms of Beatrix Paganell, a heiress, wife of Walter de Amundeville, and foundress of Ellesham Priory. Another coat assigned to the name is fretty: this, and also a fleur de lis, are given as arms to the family of Monderell, in Warwickshire. That the family of Ellesham, or Helsham, or Halsham, was a branch of the Amundevilles, there

1 Testa de Nevill.

2

2 Dugdale.