SURREY — SUSSEX. XVIII. 1G52. 6. Thomas (Howard), Earl of Arundel, Eaiu, of Sithrf.t, Kaiil op Norfolk, See., s. and h., 6. 9 March lii27 ; sue. to the peerage as above 17 April 1852. The forfeiture, in 1.172, of the Dukedom of Norfolk having been repealed by act of Pari. 29 Dec. 1660, Ue became at that date DUKE OP NORFOLK. See •' Norfolk " Dukedom, with which dignity the Earldom ofSarreyi*) has continued ever siuce united. SUSSEX. (The family uf MONTGOMERY, who poswRSPtl the Castle of Arundel, the city of Chichester and other Lordships in Sussex by gift of William I, are called by Dugdale (tho' not by Brooke, Vincent, W other earlier writers) Eakls of SusSKX. Bj virtue of their rank as Counts in Normandy, and of their possession of nearly the whole of the county of Salop, they unquestionably ranked as English Earls, but presumably as lAUj.s OF Shkkwsbi'kV J see that Earldom, er. 1071, forfeited 110'.!. From their residence at Arundel they were frequently styled (and, according to the remarkable admission '•) of 1483, rightly style. 1) Eaui.s OF ASDNBBL (see "ARUNDEL" Kirldom, er. 1070), hut it Would have been contrary to the usage of those times that they should have been Earls of a county [Sussex] of which they do not appear to have possessed the third penny]. Earldom. /, Wiluam de Ai.mxi, by his marriage, in 1138, 1 | = I 1141? with Adeliza, Queen Dow. of England, acquired with her gj the castle aud houour of Arundel, whereby, according to the remarkable admission; 1 '; of 1-133, he became [at once] EARL OF ARUNDEL,. ; c ) He was doubtless spoken of as EAIU. OF SUSSKX, before Christmas 1141, when he witnesses, as such, the King's charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville,(d) as also, probably about the same date, Stephen's charter" to Barking Abbey. As KARK UF CHICHESTER, he attests four ^charters, one dated 1147, being confirmed by King Stephen as the grant. ( a ) It has generally been made use of as the style of the heir ap. of the Dukedom of Norfolk, tho', sometimes, the more ancient Earldom of Arundel has been so used, and sometimes both Earldoms (" Karl of Arundel anil Surrey") together. ( b ) See vol. i, p. 138. uote " c," sub " Arundel," as to this admission. ( c ) J. H. Round observes [" Geoffrey de Ma-idtrille," p. 322] "The assertion that he became Earl on his marriage in virtue tit his possession, of Arundel Castle is pure assumption and nothing else. Robert of Torigny, a contemporary witness, speaks of him iu 1139 as 1 Willelmus de Albinneio, tpii duxerat Aliz quondam Regiuam, qua; habebat castelhim et comitatum Harundel quod Kex Henricus dederat ei in dote.' The possession of Arundel by Queen Adeli/.a may probably be accounted for by William of Malmesbury's statement that Henry I. had settled Shropshire on her— 1 ujcori sua . . . comitatum Salopcs/jcrice dedit ' — for this would represent the forfeited inheritance of the house of Montgomery, including Arundel and its rights over Sussex." But, says Round, " the fact remains on first hand evidence [i.e., that of the curious and valuable Chronicle of the Holy Ghost oj Waltham, the work of one who was acquainted — indeed too well acquainted — with the persons and doings of de Mandeville and de Albini] that William was not yet an Earl [' I'inccrna, nondum Gomes '] at a time when he possessed his wife's dower [among which was Waltham, then 'fired' in revenge by Earl Geoffrey] aud consequently Arundel Castle. This fact, hitherto overlooked, is completely destructive of the time honoured belief that he acquired the Earldom on, and by, obtaining possession of the Castle ... So far as the Earldom of Arundel is concerned . . . there is nothing to distinguish it in its origin from the other Earldoms of the day. The erratic notion of Earldom by tenure, held, when the strangest views prevailed as to peerage dignities was a fallacy of the post hoe, proper hoc kind, based on the long connection of the Castle with the Earls. Nor has Mr. Freeman's strange fancy that the holder of this Earldom is ' the only one of his class left,' any better foundation iu fact." ( d ) This charter, writes Round (ut supra) "affords the earliest record evidence of the existence of two famous Earldoms, that of Hertford or Clare, and that of Arundel or Sussex."
