Within three months of the appearance of this so-called 'correction', Mr. Rye, who had thus lightly accused me of a deliberate misstatement, made the astounding admission that my paper contained, on this point, 'deserved criticisms' of what he had written and that I had 'rightly corrected' him 'for having tried to show a connexion between' the two families! Nay, we even read that he was 'doubly wrong'.
Here are his own words :
His [Dr. Round's] article[1] is very disappointing, and it is chiefly made up of severe and, in two cases, deserved criticisms of the writings of the late Dr. Jessopp and myself.
… … … … … … …
The only items of value in the article are that it demolishes Dr. Jessopp's statement … and that he [i.e. myself] rightly corrects me for having tried to show a connection between the baronial house of Clare [and the family of Clere?][2] by stating that Robert Fitz Walter, … who before 1166 gave Filby to Ralph do Clere, was himself of the baronial family of Clare.[3]
Even here Mr. Rye is guilty of introducing a fresh blunder; for what he actually wrote, on p. 105, was that the Cleres 'may be descended from the noble family of Clere'! He himself however, proceeded to assert, of them, that
The first undoubted ancestor of this family was Robert Clere alias Cleriz of Stokesby, in 1316.[4]
I will now resume the quotation from his reply to my article.
Here I was doubly wrong, for this Robert Fitz Walter has been proved not to be of the house of Clare and the donation was from a William Fitz Walter [sic]. My mistake arose through my confusing Robert Fitz Walter (de Cheyny)[5] with another Robert Fitz Walter (de Clare), the leader of the Barons in 1215, … I find it was very careless of me not to notice the wide division of dates.[6]
Now what is the upshot of all this? Mr. Rye has confused, by his own admission, Bobert Fitz Walter, sheriff of Norfolk in the days of Henry I,[7] with the famous Bobert Fitz Walter, the baronial leader, who died in 1235–6. On this supposed identity—and on this alone—he has based a theory that 'Ralph de Clere was himself of the baronial family of Clare'.[8] This was his basic error,[9] and this he fully admits. As he abandons the
- ↑ Ante, xxxv. 481–96.
- ↑ This addition is required, in order to make sense of Mr. Rye's statement.
- ↑ This erroneous statement is found on p. 105 of Mr. Rye's Norfolk Families. It follows immediately on the passage cited (ante, xxxvi. 160) in his so-called 'correction' of me! The reader should look up this reference.
- ↑ p. 105.
- ↑ The sheriff under Henry I.
- ↑ ? ' discrepancy of dates'. Mr. Rye's English is at fault again. Norwich Castle, p. 29.
- ↑ He was son of Walter de Caen. See my paper, ante, xxxv. 482.
- ↑ p. 29.
- ↑ Ante, xxxv. 482, n. 1, 485.
