ARUNDEL COMPLETE PEERAGE 241 Sussex (') in 1289, when (being just of age) he was knighted and " received the sword of the county or Sussex " From Edward I " ut vacatur [Qy ^ vocetur Comes ; " but it seems more probable that this creation was as EARL OF ARUNDEL. (") At all events no more is heard of the former title (Sussex) as connected with this family, but only of the title ot Arundel. On 12 Feb. 1 290/1 there is a grant to him as Richard de Arundel, Earl of Arundel. (") In Oct. (1292) 20 Edw. I he was sum- moned by a writ directed to the Earl of Arundel, (**) and was sum. to Pari. 24 June (1295) 23 Edw. I, by a writ directed Ricardo filio Alani Comiti ArunJeir, ranking him ^.s junior to all the other Earls. He fought in the Welsh wars 1288, in Gascony 1295-97, and in the Scottish wars 1 298-1 300, being present at the siege of Carlaverock in 1300. He signed the Barons' letter to the Pope, 12 Feb. 1 300/1. He wz., before 1285, (when he was but 18) Alasia, (') da. of Tommaso I, Marquis of Saluzzo in Piedmont [1244-1299], by Luisa, da. of Giorgio, Marquis of Ceva. She d. 25 Sep. 1292, and was bur. at Todingham Priory. He d. 9 Mar. 1301/2, in his 36th year, and was bur. with his ancestors. Xn. 1302 9 or 2. Edmund (Fitz Alan), Earl of Arundel, s. to and h., b. i May 1285, in the Castle of Marlborough. 1326. His wardship was obtained by John, Earl of Surrey and Sussex, whose granddaughter he m. He was knighted, C) " The Earldom of Sussex must at this period have been a subject of contention between the De Warrens and Fitz Alans, for John de Warren, Earl of Surrey, was receiving, at the very time that this investiture occurred, writs directed to him as Earl of Sussex. John de Warren was perhaps the greatest noble of the time in which he lived, and his power and influence may have operated to induce Fitz- Alan to abandon his claim upon the Earldom of Sussex and to adopt that [i.e. the Earldom of Arundel] by which his descendants have ever since been known. " {Courthope, p. 29). () It is worthy of remark, in connection with the very doubtful right, either of his father or grandfather, to the Earldom of Arundel, that it was not till 1282, viz. sometime after their death and during this Earl's minority, that Isabel, Countess of Arundel, * widow of Hugh (d'Aubigny), died. It would almost appear (possibly owing to the largeness of her dower) that the Earldom was not dealt with during her lifetime. A somewhat parallel case occurs, later on, in this same family, when Richard, Earl of Arundel, who, in 1347, had sue. his maternal uncle the Earl of Surrey, did not assume the Earldom of Surrey till the death of Joan, widow of the afsd. Earl, in 1361. • Planch^, in his Earh of Sussex, has hopelessly confused the abovenamed Isabel, the widow, with Isabel the sister and (in her issue) coh. of Earl Hugh. Had this last- named lady been alive, she (and not her son, grandson, and great-grandson), would (according to the decision of 1433) have been entitled to the Earldom of Arundel ; but this lady died before her husband, who himself died three years before the said Earl Hugh. (=) Patent Roll, 19 Edw. I, m. 18. V.G. C) Placita de quo warranto, p. 681. V.G. (') Her father's sister, another Alasia, m. Edmund (de Lacy), Earl of Lincoln, whom see. V.G. 32
