under Henry I. I have shown above that Mr. Rye charges me with having 'omitted in the present article' the name of this sheriff,[1] though I have there named him more than a dozen times, and have shown clearly who he was (pp. 482–5).
The importance of dating (so far as possible) and identifying early sheriffs is so great that I need offer no apology for making absolutely clear Mr. Rye's confusion of two men who were named Robert Fitz Walter—the more so as he now fully admits his own confusion on the subject. In my paper I pointed out (p. 482) that the earlier Robert, 'sheriff of East Anglia',[2] has 'been confused by some with the "Marshal of the Army of God" in 1215, or at least assumed to have been a member of his great baronial house'. Yet, as I there observed, 'the latter Robert died about a century later than the sheriff of East Anglia'. Mr. Rye, who has thus confused them, does not venture to deny it: indeed, he thus fully admits it in his reply to my paper:[3]
My mistake arose through my confusing Robert Fitz Walter (de Cheyny) with another Robert Fitz Walter (de Clare).
Just so. But even in this admission we detect a fresh error; for it was not the earlier Robert Fitz Walter, but his wife who was a Cheyny (de Caineto).[4]
As I have written more than any one on the great family of Clare, I desire to make it absolutely clear what is here the point at issue. As I accurately stated:[5]
Mr. Walter Rye of Norwich has plunged the evidence in confusion. Although he knows that the Clares, a great baronial house, were quite distinct from the Cleres, a local Norfolk family, he asserts that in 1166 Ralph de Clere held Filby of John, son of Robert Fitz Walter, i. e. de Clare, and bases a theory thereon.
For this I there accurately cited 'his Norfolk Families (1911), pp. 103, 104–5'. At the top of p. 103 we read:
Clare. The baronial family of de Clare bore Or three chevronels gu.
The family is there disposed of in three lines. On p. 104 (after several other families) we find:
Clere of Ormesby and Blickling, a Visitation family, used arms in 1460 Arg. on a fess az. three eaglets displayed, &c.
For my statement above, which is strictly accurate, as I have here shown, 'there is', Mr. Rye has asserted in this Review (January 1921), 'no foundation'![6]
