SURREY. 323 Earldom. /. WtttTAM de Wa rest nk, ( a ) generally considered Count T 1083 ? 0F Warfnne in Normaudy,( h ) (a dignity, which, as his parentage is uncertain, ( c ) he may have acquired by creation) was 4. before 1036 ;' d ) obtained in 1"T'4 a grant of the Castle of Mortimer, forfeited by his relative Roger de Moi timer; was one of the Council at Lillehonne that agreed on the invasion of England in 1060, in which he took part, receiving in reward some 300 manors (of which about half were in Norfolk), together with the Castles of Lewes, co. Sussex, ami Conishorough, co. York, to which he himself added that of Hcigate, co. Surrey, and of Castleacre, co. Norfolk. From March to Dec. 1067, he was, during the King's absence in Normandy, one of the Council of Regency. In 1074 he was Joint Justiciar, and, in that year, routed the rebels in Norfolk during the insurrection of the Earls of Hereford and Norfolk. He stood firm to the new King, William II (during the rebellion of I'.ishop Odo), and was accordingly by him cr.. about 1088,{°) EARL OF SURREY, titt, he (as were his immediate successors) ( a ) " I have thoroughly investigated the spelling, and am satisfied that the tnie form is Wartime. The second "r" [WarreA or Warrenne] is a mistake, for it is never found in Pornesday or in any old chronicle, and the river is Guarenne or Varenne to this day. [Letter from H. E. Chester Waters, 26 Nov. 1884.] The name Warenne " was furnished by a town [near Arques] and river 6o called, where [subsequently] the Castle of Bellencomhre £ BtllVt Cumulus, was built, which] exists to this day a melancholy wreck." [Ritrosp. Rev.. No. iv, Aug. 1S53, p. 389.] ( n ) See, however, the " Remarks" [p. 322] Dugdale says "it is manifest (ex ipso autoyr. in Biol, Cotton) that he was £'<n7 of Warren in Normandy, in the Conqueror's days." His name, indeed, appears as Comes ile Warenne among the witnesses to the Battle Abbey charters of 1076 and 1086, but the authenticity of these is very doubtful. His creation as Count, if such he was, must, however, have been after 1066, as "until after the Conquest of England there were no Earls in Normandy outside the pale of the reigning family, and the Sovereign himself was properly called Comes NorinQnnice " [Waters'* " O'lunh-ada '"]. William de Wareune is not described as an Earl in the Domesday book, which implies that be was not then an Enylith Earl, tho' it is to be observed that the 1 Marls mentioned therein all held Palatine Earldoms, which the Earldom of Surrey was not. It is suggested by Waters [Post- script to " Gvndrada "] that, as the King's Vice Hegent in 1074, he possibly runted as an Earl, as did his colleague, Richard Kit/Gilbert, who is not so styled in Domesday. ( c ) William de Wartime, 1st Earl id Surrey (who is sometimes [Coll. Top. el Gen., vii, 378] but. apparently, erroneously called sou of William, Count of Warenne, said to be son of [V alter] de St. Martin was probably a son of Kalpb, or Rodolf, de Warenne, " a benefactor to the Abbey of La Trinite du mont " about 1060 [Planche's " The Conqueror"] by Emma his second wife, which Ralph was one of the sous of Hugh, afterwards (990 — 1020) Bishop of Cotitanccs, by a sister of Herfastus (grandfather of William FitzOsbern, Earl of Hereford), and of the Duchess Gunnora, great grand- mother to William the Conqueror, to whose father Robert, Duke of Normandy, he would accordingly be second cousin. See tabular ped. as in note on p. 325. Wace {" Roman de Sou ") tells us nothing of his race (and, indeed, no more about himself, save as to the perfect fit of his helmet) beyond that " De Garenes i vint Willeni e." ( d ) Watson's "Earls of Warren and Surrey," (of which the 3d. edit, was in two vols., 4to., 1782, with numerous illustrations! is an elaborate, sumptuous, but most uncritical work, and of little practical value. The best analysis thereof is by J. 0. Nichols in " The Herald and Genealogist," Vol. vii, pp. 193-219, and Bee also vol. viii, pp. 65-80, of that work. (°) Whether his creation as Earl of Surrey was by William II. (as stated in the text) or by William 1., "has been the subject of dispute amongst historians: the following extract from his own Charter of Foundation of the Priory of St. Pancras, Lewes, in the co. of Sussex, seems however to be conclusive on this point : — ' Pro salute dominie uieaj, Matildis regime, uiatris uxoris mete, et pro salute Domini mei, Willielmi Regis, filij sui, post enjus adventum in Angliam terram, banc Chartam feci rtoui me eomitevi Suireijia- fecit' William II. succeeded his father in Sept. 1087, and the Earl of Surrey died in June 1089 j the creation must therefore have been between these two periods, which time would agree precisely with the account given by Ordericus Vitalis, that William Kufus gave him the Earldom at the time he
