The Earldom of Oxford

[Richard Alexander]

Hi!
I'm new here, so I'm not all that well-acquainted with Google Groups.

What I was wondering is:
what are the details surrounding the ol' Earldom of Oxford? The
original one, that is - created for Aubrey de Vere. What was the
remainder, and how was the peerage created? I have tried googling,
but, alas, I have not found a satisfactory answer.

R.A.

[Richard Alexander]

Also, are there today any reasonably strong claimants to the, as I
understand it, dormant peerage? If so, how do they trace their
descent? If not, does anyone know when it was last claimed?

R.A.

[geneol...@gmail.com]

As I understand it for the original Earl of Oxford, the line began July 1141
with Aubrey de Vere III (c. 1115-Dec. 1194) when he was granted an earldom
by the empress Maud and confirmed as the first earl of Oxford by her son,
King Henry II of England. The line became extinct, some say dormant, upon
the death of the 20th Earl of Oxford, Aubrey de Vere, the last de Vere to
hold the title, on March 12, 1703 who died with no male issue.

The 20th earl of Oxford had only one child, Lady Diana de Vere, by his
second wife Diana Kirke. Lady Diana de Vere married King Charles II's
illegitimate son, Charles Beauclerc (sometimes seen as Beauclerk), the 1st
Duke of St. Albans.

I've been doing some research into this line looking to see how the deVere's
in my family tree relate to this line but have come up null so far.

Claude
Ai Oboete Imasu ka
Love, Do You Remember It

*********************************
"Tomorrow's just a future yesterday" - The Craig Ferguson Show

My published work:
http://www.authspot.com/Short-Stories/The-New-Brother.56035
http://www.authspot.com/Lyrics/For-Honor-and-Glory.56036
http://www.authspot.com/Poetry/Surfing-Through-the-Mind.56423
The Parker Chronicles: A collaboration with Anitra
For a complete list of current installments (up to Chapter 17 currently) go
to : http://www.authspot.com/writers/CPerry%20and%20Ann%20Franchi.22488 and
bookmark/favorite the page and check back often.
Comments for each installment is greatly appreciated

[Richard Alexander]

Interesting.

So the Earldom of Oxford was definitely not able to pass through a
female line? Well, that is pretty obvious. It's just that I read
somewhere that baronies created by writ and some "early earldoms" are
able to pass through a female line, by the rules of male
primogeniture. I imagined that the de Vere earldom, which, as you say,
was created during the reign of Empress Maud, would fall into the
category of "early earldoms".

I also remember reading in a topic somewhere here in Peerage News that
the Earldom of Oxford had an "unusual remainder". I would like to know
what was so "unusual" about that remaider.

R.A.

[zetland]

I believe the special remainder applies pronarity to the creation of
1711 to the brother of the first earl. He was called "Oxford and
Mortimer" because, at that time it was not clear that the de Vere male
line was extinct. Subsequent research. according to Coayne,
determined that it most likely was extinct. Perhaps a problem exists
in the fact that the original de Vere title was attained and restored
a few times with the tide of contests over the crown.

[marquess]

See also the complete peerage for the G C Cokayne's lament at the
passing of so illustrious and earldom.

[Raveem]

Asquith was created Earl of Asquith & Oxford. He wanted Earl of Oxford
though.

Raveem.

[marquess]

As too did Mortimer, but he was created the earl of Oxford and
somewhere else, I doubt that the original earldom could be revived
now, but such and ancient and illustrious peerage, whose, limitation
has not quite been proved, may well have been to heirs male in tail,
therefore, the remote possibility does exist of it being revived!

[Richard Alexander]

Wasn't it Earl of Oxford & Asquith? :-P

[Richard Alexander]

Unfortunately I do not have acess to the Complete Peerage. I presume
it is still copyrighted, since I can't seem to find it on the web? I
would be very interested in knowing what the Clarenceux King of Arms
thought about the earldom.

[marquess]

The Complete Peerage is a must, full of so much information, and
especially the foot notes, G.E.C Cokayne, compares the De Veres to the
Percy and the Howards, to highlight the superiority of lineage of the
De Veres, saying that the others were mere pavenus in comparison. The
only thing that I can fault the Complete Peerage for is its lack of
inclusion of a letter from Henry St John, to a colleague, expressing
his mortification at only being made a viscount in stead of an earl.
The complete Peerage is not online, but every good library should have
one, or a personal purchase (as I did some 18 years ago) is well worth
while.

[Hovite]

"A family of Vere seated at Carlton, Notts, which traces back its
ancestry to William Vere, of Hints, co. Stafford, temp. James I., has
long asserted a claim to the Earldom of Oxford" (Burke's Extinct
Peerage)

[marquess]

So why then has it not been able to prove it? Surely it might be
money, or not so strong a claim it would be wonderful if it were so.
How long have they been claiming?

[Hovite]

On Aug 23, 7:26 pm, Richard Alexander <ox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting.
>
> So the Earldom of Oxford was definitely not able to pass through a
> female line? Well, that is pretty obvious. It's just that I read
> somewhere that baronies created by writ and some "early earldoms" are
> able to pass through a female line, by the rules of male
> primogeniture. I imagined that the de Vere earldom, which, as you say,
> was created during the reign of Empress Maud, would fall into the
> category of "early earldoms".

Some earldoms, especially old Scottish titles, can pass to females.
Whether this was possible for English earldoms is less clear. A claim
to the old Earldom of Oxford as senior coheir by the Duke of Atholl in
1909 failed because it was held that, regardless of the original
remainder, when the peerage was restored in 1393 the remainder was to
heirs male. This case is discussed in The Complete Peerage, 2nd
edition, volume IV, Appendix H, pages 680 and 752 to 753.

> I also remember reading in a topic somewhere here in Peerage News that
> the Earldom of Oxford had an "unusual remainder". I would like to know
> what was so "unusual" about that remaider.

The creation was by a charter issued by the Empress Maud to Auberi de
Vere, Comte de Guisnes:

http://tinyurl.com/5kpbvz

[marquess]

The were never in remainder in to female, but the unusual remainder
was probably in Tail Mail, just like the earldom of Devon, which means
that every male in the family is in remainder, though in terms
seniority that is the problem of where the claims lay.

[Raveem]

Yeah. Bit of a slip there.

Raveem.

[Richard Alexander]

Hm, it is out of print, I gather? It might be hard for me to track it
down, seeing as I live in Sweden. I suppose I could check the local
library, but somehow I doubt that they have it. Using their search
function on the web I can safely determine that they lack this piece
of literature - they don't seem to have anything regarding the
peerage!

[Richard Alexander]

Tail Mail? How exactly does that work - I have not heard the term
before. "Every male in the family"? Isn't that the usual type of
remainder?

[Richard Alexander]

Thank you for that link! I shall attempt to have it translated, hehe.

I was aware that the Scottish titles were able to pass in that way.
How exactly did the Duke of Atholl argue his claim? And, you must
forgive me, english not being my first language, I am not all that
sure what the definition of coheir is.

On Aug 24, 1:30 pm, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 23, 7:26 pm, Richard Alexander <ox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Interesting.
>
> > So the Earldom of Oxford was definitely not able to pass through a
> > female line? Well, that is pretty obvious. It's just that I read
> > somewhere that baronies created by writ and some "early earldoms" are
> > able to pass through a female line, by the rules of male

> > primogeniture. I imagined that the de earldom, which, as you say,

[Richard Alexander]

Doing a quick google search, I came across this:
http://www.abc-publications.co.uk/shop/products.php?p=33931f

You reckon it's worth buying?

[the_ver...@comcast.net]

Considering what a printed copy of the entire work would cost that is a bargin!


--
The Verminator
"Nec petita nec cupita approbatio tua"

[marquess]

That is good to have it on CD, I was thinking though of the slightly
condensed version where where they have four pages of the original to
a page, it its original format it is enormous. Still I would like to
hear more information on those Oxford De Veres and the strength of
their claim to the earldom of Oxford?

[Richard Alexander]

Same.

[Richard Alexander]

I assume you mean the 2000-2001 edition by Sutton Publishing? I found
traces of it on Amazon, but it seems to be out of stock :(
I have only heard good things about this literary work, and I find it
ghastly that they have taken it out of print!

On Aug 25, 1:39 am, marquess <marquessmarqu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[Richard R]

The great Complete Peerge (second edition) volume X p 261 puts it
simply in a note as follows: 'It is now possible to state with
assurance that the Earldom of Oxford became extinct in 1703...'
The note goes on to say there was not that certainty when Robert
Harley was granted the earldom in 1711 and so his earldom was created
with Mortimer in the title.
For many years it was believed that the actions of 1393 (ie the
restoration of the earldom of Oxford) simply restored the original
earldom and, in addition, created a new earldom of Oxford in remainder
to heirs male. And that was the argument put forward in the Duke of
Atholl's claim in 1909. It's now clear that belief was wrong. The 1393
action restored the original earldom of Oxford but with an altered
remainder to descend to heirs male of the earls, the last of whom was
the 20th Earl of Oxford who died in 1703. I would add that at no point
in the earldom's history (before or after the restoration of 1393) did
the title pass through a female heiress.

On the other matter of owning a copy of the Complete Peerage. I have
both the paper and CD versions and urge you to buy the CD. It's very
convenient to have the whole CP on my computer and I consult that now
more often than I consult the paper copy. I also have the Scots
Peerage on CD as well.

> > a page- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Richard Alexander]

Thank you for that piece of information! It really made things clear!

I'm thinking of buying the CD. I'm not all to fond of buying books on
the internet, mainly because of the hussle.

How did you purchase the CD? From the website I linked?

[marquess]

Now the Scots Peerage is something I have not had to the chance to
peruse since my Debrett days. So then this family that was mentioned
above as having a claim, does anyone know what their true lineage is?
I am in agreement with the view that the earldom was only to males, on
ancient English earldom was ever otherwise. What I am in some doubt
about is the remainder, how can you restore the original earldom with
a new remainder, that is not a restoration of the original but a new
creation with precedence of the original. I am of the belief that the
earldom was in remainder to heirs male in tail, this would be the only
basis upon which the Veres of Notts would have a chance to claim. When
one of the previous poster stated that the Veres of Notts has long
asserted a claim, just how long have they been claiming?>

[Richard Alexander]

Forgive me for asking, but what does "heirs male in tail" mean? All
those legal phrases baffle me sometimes.

[marquess]

From my understanding of it, it means that all the male line of the
family are in remainder, just like in the earldom of Devon, though it
is an English term, in the Scots Peerage, it would to in remainder of
males whatsoever. No doubt there will be those amongst us with more
precise legal minds than my own. The trouble is determining the
seniority of who should be first when the line of the grantee and his
immediate male relatives become extinct. This is reason why I have
argued that the Notts De Veres have a chance but they would have to
prove that all senior lines are extinct.

[Richard Alexander]

Oh! So that it what it means?

You're saying that a person who isn't 'of the body' of the original
grantee can inherit a title? Like the first peer's cousin's nephew? I
never knew that, that's interesting. I have only lightly read about
the Earldom of Devon (I find the Devonshire one more interesting,
hehe). I will have to go and read up on it! Thanks!

[Richard Alexander]

Nevermind :)

I've investigated the Courtenay earldom of Devon, and I can now with a
high degree of certainty say that I know what you were referring to.

[marquess]

There is a probability that the earldom of Oxford may have had a
similar remainder, G E Cokayne is some prejudice against such
remainders, see his comments on the revival of the earldom of Devon.
So the De Veres of Notts might not be totally out of the game, though
any claim will be exceedingly difficult to realise.

[marquess]

Come on anymore info on the Notts De Veres, i.e how vigerously they
have pursued their claim, and why they have only appeared since the
temp of James I???

[Richard R]

The quote about the Notts Veres comes from Burke’s Dormant & Extinct
Peerages - now THAT IS a publication you have to treat with a great
deal of caution! The Ulster King of Arms and his father (ie the
Burkes) didn’t let facts get in the way of a good story! The simple
fact is the Nottingham-based Vere family trace their descent back to
one John Vere (note not de Vere) the ILLEGITIMATE son of Sir Robert
Vere, a younger son of the 11th Earl of Oxford. So, no right to a
claim to the earldom from that quarter! The present representative of
the family appears to be Maj George Edward Vere-Laurie of Carlton,
Notts (born 1932). The family were just Laurie until Maj George’s gf
married Florence Clementina VERE, great niece and eventual heir of
John Vere of Carlton Hall, Notts (and, through her father, Florence is
a gd of 10th Viscount Masserene & Ferrard. She married, as her 2nd
husband, her first cousin the 12th Viscount Masserene &c).
[This is a summary of the info in Burke’s Landed Gentry under the Vere-
Laurie of Carlton entry, which is not up-to-date.]

> > R.A.- Hide quoted text -

[marquess]

Well if the family claim through a female then they would have no
right to the peerage, and if the other family are an illegitimate
branch, then that is that, it is perhaps then in all honesty it is
dinosaur extinct. I can say with as much certainty as anything can be
said in this world that, the peerage is in remainder to males only. A
successful claimant would have to do three things, first of all prove
that they are descended in the male line, legit, then that they are
the senior heirs, and then if they are not descended from the original
grantee, they would have to prove that the peerage remainder was in
Tail Male, three very difficult tasks. In the days of yore they would
have been some kind of regrant like in the current Dukes of
Northumberland, who are really Smithsons, but had married the senior
female Percy.

[Richard R]

I'm sorry I meant to comment on the status of the earldom that became
extinct in 1703.
IT IS the original earldom granted in c 1142 (and confirmed c 1156).
The 1912 decision in the Atholl claim went against the claimant
precisely on those grounds. Parliament CAN alter the descent of a
peerage title. The intervention of Parliament is the only time when
this can happen. The 1393 Act simply restored the original earldom to
the family and set out that its descent should be to HEIRS MALE OF THE
BODY of the 1st Earl. We shouldn't confuse what happened with this
title with the situation where a monarch grants a new peerage of the
same title but with the precedence of a peerage of an earlier
creation. (i.e. the action of the monarch alone cannot restore an old
title, it requires an Act of Parliament to do this.)

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[marquess]

This is true about parliament, but they usually do so erroneously, as
in the Norfolk case, Earls of Effingham excluded, but of the body of
the original grantees, and the Mar peerage case too. Such restorations/
alterations are really a regrant, as a full restoration should be just
that, a restoration with the original grant.

[Richard R]

It's an interesting view but, in British Law, Parliament cannot be in
error. There may be good and bad laws but all enactments of Parliament
are, quite simply, the law of the land and may only be overturned by
other such enactments. So, not a regrant in the legal sense.

[marquess]

It's not papal infallability! But I know what you mean.

[Richard Alexander]

I want to thank everyone for their contributions to this thread. You
have shed a well-needed light upon this matter, and I got the
answer(s) to what I was wondering.

Shame about the Earldom, though.

On Aug 23, 7:31 pm, Richard Alexander <ox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
> I'm new here, so I'm not all that well-acquainted with Google Groups.
>
> What I was wondering is:
> what are the details surrounding the ol' Earldom of Oxford? The
> original one, that is - created for Aubrey de Vere. What was the
> remainder, and how was the peerage created? I have tried googling,
> but, alas, I have not found a satisfactory answer.
>
> R.A.