176 THE ANCESTOR Several writers again have commented on the form of the name; the difficulty of rendering le Gros^ or GrossuSy in the sense required. Whoever heard of the office of Grossocamerarius, or Grossocancellarius ; of Grosmareschal, or Grosbotiller ? ^ Not a word either of the Grosvenor at the battle of Lincoln, the Grosvenor who went on crusade with King Richard, or the Grosvenor who fought at Crecy and Poitiers.^ The last at all events could not have been forgotten. A number of Scrope's witnesses were at Crecy themselves ; but they all declare they had never heard the name. However, it is time to examine more closely the tradition which was actually current at the time of the trial. And first, as to the arms, Grosvenor clearly affects to prove too much. The same must be said of Scrope's case also ; but that is another story. The system of heraldry, as we know it, was no doubt of gradual growth ; but it is generally agreed that hereditary arms cannot be traced in this country much further back than the end of the twelfth century. Even for the leopards of England no higher antiquity is claimed. The Earls of Chester, as we have seen, furnish another example. Yet here is a family of comparatively obscure position pretending that their arms date from before the conquest. Indeed, if coming with the Conqueror mean that they were among the invaders of 1066, there is reason to doubt whether Grosvenor or any of the Cheshire families can claim as much. Beyond, perhaps, a nominal submission, the palatinate probably remained unconquered until the expedition of 1069. Hugh de Avranches was only made earl a year or more later, and with all England at his disposal, there must have been some reason why William should leave so near a kinsman to wait four or five years. According to some authorities, Hugh was a mere boy at the first invasion, and joined his uncle in England at a later time,^ and this reckoning the date of his earldom would certainly support. What then of Gilbert Grosvenor ? It does ^ It should be mentioned that Grauntvenor is twice reported — once in Randle Holmes' copy of the Vale Royal Ledger Book, MS. Harl. 2064, f. 276 ; once in an Arley Charter, as printed by Mr. Beamont. But the other form is practically universal. 2 Ormerod, iii. 146, apparently from Sir P. Leycestre's MSS. Collins gives no authority. When Najara in Spain is mentioned, the nature of the error cannot be in much doubt, for several deponents say Scrope v^^as there. 3 Planche, The Conqueror and his Companions. Recherche s sur Domesday.
