Online Encyclopedia

Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.

ARUNDEL, EARLDOM OF

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V02, Page 706 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!

See also:

ARUNDEL, EARLDOM OF . This historic dignity, the premier earldom of See also:England, is popularly but erroneously supposed to be annexed to the See also:possession of Arundel See also:Castle. See also:Norman earls were earls of counties, though sometimes styled from their See also:chief See also:residence or from the See also:county See also:town, and Mr J.H.See also:Round has shown that the earldom of " Arundel " was really that of See also:Sussex. Its origin was the See also:grant by See also:Henry I. to his second wife, in See also:dower, of the forfeited " See also:honour " of Arundel, of which the castle was the See also:head, and which comprised a large portion of Sussex. After his See also:death she married See also:William " de Albini " (i.e. d'Aubigny), who from about the See also:year 1141 is variously styled See also:earl of Sussex, of See also:Chichester, or of Arundel, or even Earl William " de Albini." His first known See also:appearance as earl is at See also:Christmas 1141, and it has been ascertained that, after acquiring the castle by See also:marriage, he had not thereby become an earl. Henry II., on his See also:accession, " gave " him the castle and honour of Arundel, in See also:fee, together with " the third See also:penny of the pleas of Sussex, of which he is earl." His male See also:line of heirs became See also:extinct on the death of See also:Hugh " de Albini," earl of Arundel, in 1243, who had four sisters and co-heirs. In the See also:partition of his estates, the castle and honour of Arundel were assigned to his second See also:sister's son, See also:John Fitzalan of a See also:Breton See also:house, from which sprang also the royal house of See also:Stuart. It is proved, however, by See also:record See also:evidence, that neither John nor his son and successor were ever earls; but from about the end of 1289, when his See also:grandson See also:Richard came of See also:age, he is styled earl of Arundel. Richard's son See also:Edmund was forfeited and beheaded in 1326, and Arundel was out of possession of the See also:family till 1331, when his son was restored, and regained the castle and also the earldom by See also:separate grants. Both were again lost in 1397 on his son being beheaded and attainted. But the latter's son was restored to both the earldom and the estates by Henry IV. in 1400. He died without issue in 1415 The castle and estates now passed to the See also:late earl's See also:cousin and See also:heir-male under a family See also:entail, but the See also:representation in See also:blood of the late earl passed to his sisters and co-heirs, of whom the eldest had married See also:Thomas See also:Mowbray, See also:duke of See also:Norfolk.

The descent of the earldom remained in doubt, till the heir-male's son and heir successfully claimed it in 1433, in virtue of his See also:

tenure of the castle, alleging that it was '" a dignity or name See also:united and annexed to the castle and lordship of Arundel for See also:time whereof memory of See also:man was not to the contrary." His 4 claim was opposed on behalf of the Mowbrays, and the allegation on which it was based is discussed and refuted at See also:great length in the Lords' Reports on the Dignity of a Peer (i. 404-429). In the descendants of his See also:brother the earldom remained vested II till 158o, when the last Fitzalan earl died, leaving as his See also:sole heir his daughter's son See also:Philip See also:Howard, whose See also:father Thomas, duke of Norfolk, had been beheaded and attainted in 1572. Philip, who was through his father See also:senior representative of the earls of Arundel down to 1415i and through his See also:mother sole representative of the subsequent earls, was summoned to See also:parliament as earl in See also:January 1581, but was attainted in 1589. His son Thomas was restored to the earldom and certain other honours in 1604, and, in 1627, obtained an See also:act of parliament " concerning the See also:title, name and dignity of Earl of Arundel, and for the annexing of the Castle, Honour, See also:Manor and Lordship of Arundel . . . with the titles and dignities of the Baronies of Fitzalan, Clun and Oswaldestre, and Maltravers, . . . to the same title, name and dignity of Earl of Arundel." This act, which was based on the earl's allegation that the title had been " invariably used and enjoyed " by the owners of the castle, " and by See also:reason of the said See also:inheritance and See also:seisin," has been much discussed, especially in the Lords' Reports (i. 430-434). There is no doubt that the earl's See also:object was to entail the earldom and the castle strictly on a certain line of heirs, and this was effected by elaborate remainders (passing over the Howards, earls of See also:Suffolk). It is under this act of parliament that the earldom has been held ever since, and that it passed with the castle in 1777 to the heir-male of the Howards, although the representation in blood then passed to heirs See also:general. Thus the castle and the earldom cannot be alienated from the line of heirs on whom it is entailed by the act of 1627; while the heirship in blood of the earlier earls (to 1415) is vested in Lords Mowbray and See also:Petre and the Baroness See also:Berkeley, and that of the later earls (to 1777) in Lords Mowbray and Petre. The See also:precedence of the earldom was challenged in 1446 by Thomas See also:Courtenay, earl of See also:Devon, owing to the question as to its descent spoken of above, but the See also:king in See also:council confirmed to the earl the precedence of his ancestors " by reason of the Castle, Honour and Lordship of Arundel." In the act of 1627 the " places " and " pre-eminences " belonging to the earldom were secured to it.

It would appear, however, that the decision of the dispute with the earl of Devon in 1446 restricts that precedency to such as the earl's ancestors had enjoyed, if indeed it goes farther than to See also:

guarantee his precedence over the earl of Devon. But as there is no other existing earldom older than that of See also:Shrewsbury (1442), the See also:present position of Arundel as the premier earldom is beyond dispute. See Lords' Reports on the Dignity of a Peer; See also:Dugdale's Baronage; See also:Tierney's See also:History of Arundel; G. E. C[okayne]'s See also:Complete See also:Peerage; Round's See also:Geoffrey de See also:Mandeville; See also:Pike's Constitutional History of the House of Lords. (J. H.

End of Article: ARUNDEL, EARLDOM OF

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML.
Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.

Links to articles and home page are always encouraged.

[back]
ARUNDEL
[next]
ARUNDEL, EARLS OF