156 ARUNDEL. £6,000 but allowed to compound for Lb estates. Ho appears to have contented his father's will and to have behaved very umlutifully to his mother, who had brought aa annual revenue of more than £30,000 to the family, and to whom he allowed l,„t , paltry sum. She. however, outlived him. He m. in 1626 (a marriage for which hji father suffered line and trapiisonment) Elizabeth, da. of Esme (Stuart), 3rd DoKKOF Lennox [S. ], by Katharine, only da. and h. of Gervase (Clifton), LnitB Cuktox. He d. 17 April 1652 at Arundel House, Strand, in his 44th year anil was Imr. at Arundel. His widow d. 23 .Ian. 1673-4. Will (in which she directs to he bur. by her husband) dat. 3 Nov. 1673, pr, 30 March 1074. XXVIII. lGr>2. :?J or KL Thomas (Howard), Eaiu. of Arundel, Earl of Surrey, Kaiii. ok Norfolk, &e., s. and h., b. 12 July Hi28. Ed. at Utrecht. While, with his grandfather in 161.1, at Padua he had a brain fever, from which his mental faculties never recovered. On 29 Dee. 1600 he was restoral (together with the heirs male of the body of the 1st Duke of Norfolk) to the DUKE- DOM OF NORFOLK. He d. num. at Padua, 13 Dee. 1677. and was bur. at Arundel See fuller account, under " NORFOLK," Dukes of. The Earldom of Arundel ami the other honours entailed therewith by the Act. of Pari, of 1627, have been, since 1660. merged in the Dukedom of Norfolk : the Duke of Noifolk in 1660 and each of his successors being heir male of the body of Thomas (Howard), xxvith (21st or 14th). Earl of Arundel, on which class of heirs the jirit limitation is made. If, however, such heirs male were to become extinct the Earldom of Arundel, ire., would pass {under the «c.r( rem. in the entail of 1627) to the heirs general of the body of the said Thomas | which are numerous), and would consequently become separated from the Dukedom of Norfolk, ami could only become re-united therewith on the failure of such heirs general ; when the subsequent limitation would take effect ARUNDEL. Barons by £ Jons Fit/.-Alas alius ok Arvxi>et.,(") younger s. of writ. Richard (Fitz-Alan) xivth (10th or 3rd) Eaul of AnrxDui, by lii» j second wife, Eleanor, da. of Henry (Plantaoknet), Eaul of Lax-
- • '•>'/. CA.sTKff, in., before }:Slil, Eleanor. 2nd and youngest da. of Sir John
Maltravers, by Wensiliana, his wife, which Eleanor was foam! grandaughter and coheir [she eventually was sole h.] of John, Loill) M.U.TIiAVEUS, oil 16 Feb. 1364-5, at which period she was aged 1!'. In consequence, probably, of such marriage, he was sum. to Pari., from 4 Aug. 1377 (1 Hie. ID to 20 Oct. 1379 (no( however as LORD Maltravers, but) as LORD ARtJNDEL,( b ) the writ being directed " Johanni dc Arundel." According to Walsinghaui (IS*-) he was MARSHAL of England in that same year, 1377. He d. 1.1 Dec. 1879, being drowned in the Irish Sea. Will dat. 26 Nov. 137!). Ing. post mortem 3 Rie. II. His widow (mm put, IiAKoNEss Maltravers) m. (as his second wife) Reginald, 2nd Lord Couham (of Sterln. rough 1 , who (/. 1402-3. She d. 10 Jan. 140.1. (*) The family of Fitz Alan, alius de Arundel affords a singular instance of the name of the dignity being adopted as the surname. ( ! 'J Tin's Barony of Arundel must probably be held to be the same Barony as that of Maltravers, and the summons of 1371 to be one jure uxoris, and consequently not one creating any new dignity. The s. and h. of the Baron (so sum. in 1377), (/. before his mother, Baroness Maltravers, and (consequently !) was never sum. ; the grandson and h. of the Baroness became Earl of Arundel within six years after he came of age, and is said to have been sum. as an Earl the following year. Notwithstanding tliif, however, his s. anil h. was sum. in 1420 {not as an Eaul, but) as a Baron (and that too by the title of Lord AliUNDEL, not Lord Maltravers), until his claim to the Earldom of Arundel was idlowed (four years later) in 1433. If the Barony of Arundel he held to be a separate one from that of Maltravers, it is now (188.1) in abeyance between the Lords Mowbray and Petre, the coheirs general of the Baron sum. in 1377. If however it is the same Barony as that of Maltravers it passes (as such) under the Act of Pali, of 1627 to the Duke of Norfolk. See a good account of this branch of the family If Sir C. G. Young (Garter, 1842-69) in " Coll. Top. & Gen.," vol. vi, pp. 1 to 20.
