Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 7.djvu/303

 SUFFOLK. 301 tlio young King, Ed. Ill, and was one of the nine nobles who arrested the Queen dowager's favourite (Mortimer) 19 Oct. 1330, receiving from Pari, in reward a grant (if lands valued at 300 marks a Mar ; P.O. 1330. He was sum. to Pari, from «7 Jan. (1331/2) o Kd. Iir. to 11 Jan. (1336/7) 10 F.d. III., Wing cr. in full purl, 16 March 1336/7/*) KAUI, OF SUFFOLK, '• »ibi et h'cndibu* tdM," with lands and rents (of which the castle and honour of Rye, C". Suffolk, formed part) worth 1,000 marks a year, From this date, till his death, he was, when not in active military service, employed in missions of the highest importance to France, Flanders, Scotland, Italy, &C. ; was Admiral of the North, Jan. to Aug. 1387, and again 1344-47; one of the Marshals of the Host at the siege of Cambray in 1339, being taken prjKinerfj at I.ille, in 131(1, but ransomed, for £500, in July 1341 ; served in the uaval victory over the Genoese and Spanish, oil' llritanny in July 1311 ; was at the siege of Calais, 131tl : K Or. about 1317-18 ; served at the defeat "of the Spanish fleet 29 Aug. 1850 j was in the expedition to Gascouy 1355, at the battle of l'oictiers, 19 Sep. 135(1, and in the invasion of France, 1359-60. He m.( c ) probably about 1320, Margaret, the young and childless widow of Thomas (DE Caii.LY;, Lord C.MLLY, Countess of Ulster [L], da. of Henry (Plantagenet Karl of Lancaster, grandson of Henry III., ami <l. s.p.m. P April 1340, The 0th and yst. son was Sir Kdmund de Ufford, called " le frere," to distinguish him from his cousin of the same name. He A t.p. 1374-75 ; another son. probably the 3d, was Sir John de Ufl'ord, living 1358, who (/. s.p. before 13G9, It lias been suggested that John and Andrew ilc Offord, two ecclesiastics of high distinction were brothers (as "it is chronologically impossible " that they could be sons, as is assumed in Campbell's " Lor, Andrew, Archdeacon of Midx. and l'reb. of York, was administrator to his brother 13-19, and (/. 1358. Chaster Waters, however (see p. 300, note "' c ") shews that it is almost certain that these " belonged to a family, who, derived their name from Oflbrd- Darcy, in Huntingdonshire." (•) See vol. iv. p. -12, note "c." " It was a recognised doctrine in the reign of Kd. III. that an K.ut. M rsx H.vvK lands to si itoiit his K.uii.do.m. Thus, when William de IVUun was cr. Karl of Northampton in 1337. he had not only a fixed charge of £2<) per annum on the issues of the county, but also a grant to him and the heirs male of his body of various castles anil manors. In the same year several other Karls were created, and, at the same time, commonly received lands to the value of 1,000 marks pir annum, as well as a certain sum from the revenues of the County. William ile Clinton was made Karl of Huntingdon on those terms, Hubert de UH'ord, Karl of Suffolk, and William de Montague, Karl of Salisbury. In each case certain •petified lands were assigned in whole or part satisfaction of the claim thus given to 1,000 marks per annum. In each case the LANDS were given to the newly created Kali and the hkiiis MALE <>K Ills Body, with reversion to the Crown, tho', whether from inadvertence or otherwise. THE KENT charged upon the county was to be held, by the Karl and Ills UEiits, of the King and his heirs, for ever. All these Karls were created and belted in Pari, but not ail in the same kind of Pari. The Karl of Huntingdon, the Karl of Northampton, and the Karl of Suffolk, were so made by the common consent and advice of the Prelate. Karls, Parous, and others of the Council in Pari. The Karl of Salisbury was so made at the request of the Prelates, Proceres, and Commonalty of the realm in Pari. In each of these instances, however, it was clearly recognized on all hands that an hau l must have lands to support his Earldom." [Pike's " Cun$titutional History of ihl House of Lnrdt," 1894, pp. 78-76]. C.I " Dugdale follows Haines in stating that it was the son of the Kill of Suffolk who was taken prisoner with [the Karl of] Salisbury, but it is certain that it was the Ktrl of Sullolk himself, for the warrant for the payment of his ransom is printed by Itymer, 25 July 1311." [It. K. Chester Waters, us on p. 300, note "e"J. ( c ) " Belts [Mem. of the Garter] has fallen into the error of supposing that the Karl liiid a previous wife named Kle.inor, who was mother of his successor, Karl William, but it is certain that Karl William was the sou of Margaret de Norwich, for he sue. to the estates of her family us heir at law in 13S0, and it is also certain that his three sisters, who were born before 1337, were his sisters of the whole blood, because their sons were his coheirs in 1381. It follows therefore that the name of Kleanor is a clerical error in the record on which Belts! relies." [II. K. Chester Waters, supra.]