| Stephen (1140). | Maud (1141). | Henry (1156). |
|---|---|---|
| Sciatis me fecisse Comitem de Gaufrido de Magnauillâ de Comitatu Essexe hereditarie. | Sciatis omnes ... quod ego ... do et concedo Gaufrido de Magnavilla ... ut sit Comes de Essexâ. | Sciatis me fecisse Gaufridum de Magnauillâ Comitem de Essexâ. |
The explanation is, of course, that the first and third are new creations, while the second is virtually but a confirmation of the previous creation by Stephen. So again, comparing this creation with that of Hugh Bigod, the only instance in point—
| (1155). | (1156). |
|---|---|
| Sciatis me fecisse Hugonem Bigot Comitem de Norfolca, scilicet de tercio denario de Nordwic et de Norfolca. | Sciatis me fecisse Gaufridum de Mandavillâ Comitem de Essexa, et dedisse et hereditarie concessisse sibi et heredibus suis.... Tertium denarium de placitis meis ejusdem Comitatus. |
Here the absolute identity of the actual formula of creation accentuates the difference between the clauses relating to the "Tertius Denarius." It will therefore be desirable to compare the clauses as they stand in the Mandeville and the Vere charters (January, 1156):—
| Mandeville. | Vere. |
|---|---|
| Sciatis me ... dedisse et hereditarie concessisse sibi et heredibus suis ad tenendum de me et heredibus meis tertium denarium de placitis meis ejusdem Comitatus. | Sciatis me dedisse et concessisse Comiti Alberico in feodo et hereditate tertium denarium de placitis Oxenfordscyre ut sit inde Comes. |
It is said with truth in the Lords' Reports that "inde" is an ambiguous word, as it might refer either to the county or to the "third penny" itself. And, indeed, the above extract from the charter to Hugh Bigod would lend support to the latter view. But the case of Earl Aubrey was, we must remember, peculiar. As we saw in the charter of the empress (1142), she recognized him as already a "comes" in virtue of his rank as Count of Guisnes (p. 188). It is my belief that in the present charter he is styled "comes" by Henry on precisely the same ground. For if Henry had recognized him as Earl of Oxford in virtue of his mother's charter (1142), he must also have recognized his right to "the third penny" of the shire which was granted by that same charter.[738] But he clearly did not recognize that right, for he here makes a fresh grant. Therefore he did not recognize the validity of his mother's charter. Consequently, he styled Aubrey "comes" in virtue only of the comital rank he enjoyed as Count of Guisnes. And as he could not make a "comes" of a man who was a "comes" already (p. 187), he merely grants him "the third penny of the pleas" of Oxfordshire, "that he may be earl of that county" ("ut sit inde Comes"). Hence the anomalous form in which the charter is drawn.[739]
Different, again, yet no less instructive, is the case of the Earl of Sussex. There the grant runs—
"Sciatis me dedisse Willelmo Comiti Arundel castellum de Arundel cum toto honore Arundel ... et tercium denarium de placitis de Suthsex unde comes est."
This charter has been looked upon as relating to the earldom itself, whereas it is clearly nothing but a grant of the castle and honour of Arundel and of the "Tertius Denarius" of Sussex, "of which county he is earl."[740] When these two phrases are compared—"ut sit inde Comes" and "unde Comes est"—their meaning is, surely, clear. William was already Earl of Sussex (alias Arundel alias Chichester), but his right to the "Tertius Denarius" of the county was not recognized by the king. The fact that this right required to be granted nominatim confirms my view that it was not conveyed by Stephen's charter to Geoffrey.[741]