Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 5.djvu/416

 414 MOWBRAY. XII. 1484? 12. Sm 'John Howard, s. and h. of Sir Robert 1 to Howard liy Margaret, one of the two daughters (whose 14S5. issue, about 1478, became coheirs) to Thomas (Mowrray), 1st Dcke of NORFOLK, Earl of Norfolk, Earl uf Nottino- ham, Lord Mowdray and Loud Segrave, sue. his father (when an infant) in 14:i6, was n: LORD HOWARD, In Oct. 1470 ami subse- quently, 2S June 1483, was o: DUKE OF NORFOLK ami Karl Marshal of England. The; abeyance of the Bar/mitt of Mowbray and Seagrart appears to have been terminated in his farour(') by Kin}; Richard 111. [14S1 .'J who issued letters missive addressed to Mm oi " DUKE OF NORFOLK, LORD MOBRAY AND SKGltAYK." He was slain at the battle of JJosworth 22 Aug. 1485, aged above 50, when, having kvu attainted, all hi* honours became forfcitcel.{ h ) XIII. 155-1, in. "Sir Thomas Howard, Knt., otherwise to ealleil Karl of Surrey," grandson and h. sp. of Thomas 1572. (Howard), Duke of Norfolk, who was s. and h. ol Thomas Dl'KKOF Norfolk (so cr. 1 .", 1 4 ; d. 1 4 ), who was s. and h. of John, 1st Duke of Norfolk, next abovenauied, was restored in blood and honours, 2 Sep (1553) 1 Mary, whereby it is presumed, that (the next year) on the death of his sai.l grandfather, 25 Aug. 1554, he inherited not only the Dukedom of Norfolk nod Earldom of Surrey (enjoyed by his said grandfather), but also the ttaronits of Mowbray. StffTotC and Howard, which bod been forfeited in 1485 by bis said grandfather's grandfather (the 1st Duke) ;is above stated, thus becoming Duke of Norfolk, Karl of Surrey, Lord Mowbray, SkoraVE and Howard.! 0 ) He was beheaded 2 June 1572 aged 30, when, having been attainted, all his honours became forfeited. XIV. ICO-t. Uf. Thomas Howard, s. and b. of Philip, sometime (15S0-S9) Earl of Arundel, who by attainder (1589) had forfeited that dignity and who was s. and h. of Thomas, Duks of Norfolk, Karl of Surrey, Lord Mowbray, Segrave and Howard next abovenauied, was 6. 7 July 1585 ; sue. his father 19 Oct. 1595 and was restored in blood by Act of Part IS April 11)04, as Earl of Arundel and Earl of Surrey as also to such Baronies a» had ( a ) It should be noted, however, that, in the resolution of the House of Lords, 27 July 1877, on the claim to these Baronies, it is not expressly stated that the abeyance had been terminated by Richard III., but only that it had been so terminated subsequently to 1481 [sic, tho' (as it has never been suggested that the abeyance was terminated by Edward IV. or V.) one would have expected 1483], but before Queen Elizabeth's time [1558] in favour of the Howard family by whom the said Baronies had been forfeited in 1572 tho' restored in 100 1. Their Lordships had taken into consider- ation (1) that Richard III. addressed like letters missive to the other coheir (William Berkeley) as " Earl of Nottingham and Lord Berkeley," of which titles Nottingham was one belonging to the Mowbray family ; and (2) that there had been constant use of the titles of "Mowbray and Segrave,'' by the Dukes of Norfolk on funeral cer- tificates, Garter plates, &c, e.ij., in 1503 at the funeral of Margaret, Duchess of Norfolk, in 1011 on the Garter plate of Thomas (Howard), Earl of Arundel afterwards Duke of Norfolk, &c. (!>) All the Howard titles were forfaited in Aug. 14S5, on the death of the lit Duke of Norfolk, which would include (besides the Dukedom) the Barony of Howard and apparently (as conjectured in the text) the Baronies of Mowbray ami Segrave. ( c ) Their Lordships in 1877 decided that these Baronies were in the Howard family before the time (1558) of Queen Elizabeth (and, consequently, were forfeited in 1572) and it is not seen how that fact can be accounted for otherwise than as indicated in the text.