de Vere and de Mandeville
There is a similarity in the sheilds of the two families. Under normal heraldic norms this would
indicate a connection between the families.
J. H. Round in his book "Geoffrey de Mandeville - A Study of the Anarchy"
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.
^ 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.
Top
The de Veres and Belchamp Walter
The generally accepted theory relating to the history of Belchamp Walter the
de Vere's are the "owners" at the time of the General Survey.
I am not sure what the (still officially held by the de Veres) means and even if it is a true statement
of fact. I would suggest that it is a gross over simplification of the history in the period between
the 11th century and 1611.
Under the de Veres it was held by a number of families until in 1539 it came to Sir Roger Wentworth.
Sir Roger's grandson, John Wentworth, commissioned the surveyor Walker to prepare a map of his estate,
which was completed in 1605 and showed that the house was surrounded by a garden with an orchard,
a rectangular pond, and a dovecote, and was enclosed to west and north by a ditch.
John Wentworth sold the manor (still officially held by the de Veres) to
John Raymond in c 1611.
Mandeville, Normandy
The connection to William the Conqueror and the de Mandeville family is starting to reveal itself.
In the attempt to work out why the de Veres got to be so influencial and where they are from led me to
postulate that the de Mandevilles were originally from Mandville in Normandy.
The association of a modern place name with an individual from history is problematic.
