Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 1.djvu/161

 AEUNDEL. 139 At all events he was frequently so styled, though, occasionally, he is styled EARL OF CHICHESTER. Dugdale and rainy later writers consider him to have been KARL OE SITSSEX.(' 1 ) On the dismembtrmont of Mereia, ia 1070, another Earldom was conferred on him, by the grant of nearly the whole of the co. of Shropshire with, apparently, Palatine authority), together with the Castles of Shrewsbury and Montgomery, and the Lordship of the West Marches.}') He was thenceforth generally known as EARL OE SHREWSBURY, though occasionally (according to modern notions, more correctly) aa EARL OE SALOP. He is the " COMES ROOERUS " of the Domesday survey, where, however, no local designation as attributed to him. He d. 27 July 168* II. 1094. 2. Hugh (be Montgomery), Earl of Shrews- nuitv, &c, ami (who may be considered according to the admission of 1438(°) abovenamed) Earl Of ARUNDEL, second s. but h. to his father's English possessions. He s.p. 1098. HI. 1098. S. Rouert (de Bellesme), Count of Alencon afsd. (having, in 1082, sue. his mother as such ) was permitted, by William II, to succeed to the English Earldoms of his yr. br. He became therefore E.utL OF Shrewsbury, &c, and (may be considered according to the n(hnission( c ) of 1433 abovenamed) E.vUL 09 ARUNDEL. He was exiled and attaiided in 1102, whereby all hit English honours and estates became forfeited to the Crown. IV. 1138, fe 1176. 1. William db Ai.ul.vi, or (aa it was always as had possessed the Castle ofc Arundel, &c. Now it is to be noted that the Claimant of 1433 alleged that his ancestors the possessors of Arundel were Earln of Arundel, loth lie/ore, as well as after, the Otmijiied. If this were true, not only would King Harold stud his father, Earl Godwin, have to be included, but, it is to be piesumed, a long shadowy race of Earls extending upwards towards (even if not including) the primeval man. If, however, on the other hand, the words 'memory of man" be taken in their strict legal significance, as indicating the reign of Richard I, the act of 1627 (and, possibly, the admission of 1433 also) would not apply to any Earl of Arundel, prio' to 11S9. (•') In 'in article, pub. in the " Archaeological Journal," on the " Earls of Sussex," by J. R. l'lauche (Somerset Herald, lStitf-SO), the writer (after stating that without the third penny of the pleas of the county " the greatest authorities have denied that a man could be an English Earl," argues that Earl Roger, having the custody of Chichester, may (as did the Earl in the time of King Edward) have had a third of the annual rental of the city of Chichester, and might, therefore, with good reason, be considered E.HL ok CHICHESTER. Mr. Planehe states, however, that, on the other baud (to quote a parallel case) William de Warenne, who, in the Domesday survey, held the borough of Leices and the Rape of Pevensey, receiving a third of the profits thereof, is never styled Earl (either of Lews, or of Sussex) but simply William de Warenne. The fact, however, appears to be that Roger de Montgomery was AN EARL (pure and simple) and that (as was usual in those early times) his Earldom was iiultjTercntly tykd either from the territories of Chichester or of Shiiopshire, or from the Castles of Arundel, Shrewsbury, or Montgomery, which were, respectively, the "caput" of the Honours. Ex inform. R E. Chester Waters. A parallel case, in which the Earl of a county is indifferently styled either from the capital or from his stronghold therein, is that of William, Earl of Ghueesler, who, on 29 Sep. 1185, tests a charter to Shrewsbury Abbey as Earl of Bristol (Eyton's Itiu. of "en. II, p. 12). Ex inform. J. H. Round. (•) The {palatine) Earldom of Chester (by gift of the county thereof), was, with smnhir power and privileges, granted, at the same time, to Ghorbod the Fleming.