General Notes

Shrewsbury, Earldom of: In early December 1074 Roger de Montgomery was created Earl of Shropshire or Shrewsbury.  As with other medieval earldoms, little distinction was then made between the county town and county proper when designating a specific name for a title, chiefly because an earl, who was then more or less and official, albeit often hereditary, was inconceivable except as earl of a county.

Roger was son of another Roger de Montgomery, seigneur of the Norman places (St Germain-de-Montgomery and Ste-Foy-de-Montgomery) of that name in the Calvados region.  He was a prominent member of the nobles grouped around William (later William I of England, The Conqueror) of Normandy well before the 1066 invasion of England but stayed behind in Normandy during the actual enterprise.  The year after Hastings he went to England and received land grants in Sussex.  He is thought to have constructed the Castle of Montgomery (now in Powys, but formerly named Mongomeryshire after his family), doing so shortly before the Domesday Survey.  [Burke's Peerage, p. 2604]

--------------------------------

The following is copied from the CP entry on the Earldom of Arundel:

EARLDOM OF SHREWSBURY (I)

EARLDOM OF ARUNDEL (I)

ROGER DE MONTGOMERY (who, in right of his 1st wife, Mabel de BellÍme, daughter of William TALVAS, was LORD OF ALENCON, SEEZ, &c., in Normandy), having during the invasion of England, remained, as REGENT, in Normandy, came over thence, for the first time, with King William, in December 1067, and, at the Christmas festival, was created an EARL, receiving, among other large grants from the Conqueror, about one third of the county of Sussex, including the city of Chichester and the CASTLE OF ARUNDEL.(a) By this last grant he may be considered to have become EARL OF ARUNDEL, according to the remarkable admission(b) in 1433 on the claim to that Earldom. At all events he was frequently so styled, though, occasionally, he is styled EARL OF CHICHESTER. Dugdale and many later writers consider him to have been EARL OF SUSSEX. On the dismemberment of Mercia, in 1070, another Earldom was conferred on him, by the grant of nearly the whole of Shropshire (with, apparently, Palatine authority), together with the Castles of Shrewsbury and Montgomery, and the Lordship of the West Marches. He was thenceforth generally known as EARL OF SHREWSBURY, though occasionally (according to modern views, more correctly) as EARL OF SHROPSHIRE. He is the "COMES ROGIERUS " of the Domesday survey, where, of course, no local designation is attributed to him. He died 27 July 1094.

(a)This formed the Honour of Arundel, which consisted of the rapes of Arundel and Chichester, being two out of the six rapes into which Sussex is divided. It contained, besides the city of Chichester and the Castle of Arundel (as abovenamed), 84 1/2 knights' fees, ten hundreds (with their forests, woods and chases), three lordships (Halnaker, Petworth and Midhurst) eighteen parks and seventy-seven manors. See Tierney's Hist. of Arundel, p. 12. G.E.C.

It is pointed out however to the Editor by J. H. Round that, according to the latest view of archeologists, the castle may have been erected by Roger of Montgomery himself, after obtaining possession of the Honour. V.G.

(b)The claim to the Earldom as being one by tenure of the Castle of Arundel was made by John Arundel, who had been sum. to Parl. in 1429, the writ being directed "Johanni ArundeIl' de Arundell' Chivaler." In I433 (II Hen. VI) he petitioned [as Earl of Arundel] to be sum. to Parl. and considered as Earl of Arundel, a dignity or name united and annexed to the Castle and Lordship of Arundel, for time whereof memory of man was not to the contrary--a peculiar and distinct claim (as stated in the First Report on the Dignity of a Peer, p. 406), " not connected with any general, but asserting a special right, and which being founded on prescription, was to be supported by evidence of constant and immemorial enjoyment of the asserted right, which right if not shown to have been so constantly enjoyed, the title by prescription failed. This claim, though opposed by John (Mowbray), Duke of Norfolk, was admitted by the Crown, notwithstanding that the assertion of the constant annexation of the title to the Castle of Arundel could not have been sustained, had it been (which it was not) made the subject of an enquiry." (Courthope, p. 30).

The claim then of 1433 was, as is stated above, "admitted by the Crown, or so far admitted as that the assertion in the petition is made the consideration (with others not connected with the question) for the King's acceding to it, with a saving, nevertheless, of the right of the King, of the Duke of Norfolk (who, being a coheir of the Earls of Arundel, had opposed the Earl's claim) and of every other person; which saving clause, as is remarked in the First Report on the Dignity of a Peer, was that species of saving which is deemed in law illusory operating nothing.' (Courthope, p. xx). See also Tierney's Historv of Arundel (vol. i, p. 106), where the judgment is set out, reciting "that Richard Fitz Alan was seized of the Castle, Honour and Lordship [of Arundel] in fee; that, by reason of his possession thereof, he was, without other reason or creation, EARL oF ARUNDEL, - &c."; and stating also, that "the King, contemplating the person of the present claimant, now Earl of Arundel, &c., has, with the advice and assent of the Prelates, Dukes, Earls and Barons in this present Parl. assembled, admitted John, now Earl of Arundel, to the place and seat anciently belonging to the Earls of Arundel in Parl. and council."

Almost similar words are used in the Act of Parl. obtained in 1627, which, in form of a petition to the King recites that the Earldom of Arundel had been real and local from the time whereof the memory of man was not to the contrary, and had, from the time aforesaid, been used and enjoyed bv the petitioner and such of his ancestors as had possessed the Castle of Arundel, &c. Now it is to be noted that the claimant of 1433 alleged that his ancestors, the possessors of Arundel, were Earls of Arundel, both bs(ore, as well as after, the Conquest. Fortunately, however King Harold and his father, Earl Godwin, have not to be included, and still less a long shadowy race of Earls extending upwards towards (even if not including) primeval man. The words "memory of man " must, of course, be read in their strict legal significance, as indicating the reign of Richard I, so that the Act of 1627 (and, possibly, the admission of 1433 also) would not apply to any Earl of Arundel, prior to I I 89.

The Redesdale Committee remarks on these proceedings that they "ought to be considered as an anomaly influenced by political views, and decided apparently without much discussion, and without the assistance of the judges." Moreover the assertion of fact by the claimant as to the Earldom having always depended on possession of the Castle in the past "seems not to have been true, and not to have been made the subject of enquiry when the question was decided." For a similar case of a charter creating a peerage, and setting out, as facts, unfounded statements of the grantee, see the Barony of LISLE, cr. 1444, in the same reign.

[Complete Peerage I:230-33, (transcribed by Dave Utzinger)]

--------------------------------

The following additional information was supplied in a post-em by Curt Hofemann, curt_hofemann@@yahoo.com:

Seigneur of Montgomery and vicomte of the Heismois [Ref: CP XI:683]
Earl of Arundel or Earl of Chichester, Earl of Shropshire or Salop, called Earl of Montgomery, Seigneur de Bellesme et d'Alencon [Ref: Watney p696]

Seigneur de Montgomery, Vicomte of Heismois, Earl of Arundel and Shrewsbury, Regent of Normandy and England [Ref: Moriarty p44]

Viscount of the Hiemois, Lord of the West Marches, Earl of Chichester, Shropshire, and Sussex [Ref: Turton]
1048: accompanied Duke William on his expedition against Domfront and Alencon [Ref: CP XI:683]
1066: was with the Duke while preparations were in progress for the invasion of England, but did not accompany the expedition [Ref: CP XI:683]

Dec 1067: accompanied the King to England and thereupon received a grant of Arundel and Chichester [Ref: CP XI:683]
1086: 'Comtes Rogerus' at Domesday [Ref: Watney p696]
1st Earl of Shrewsbury [Ref: Doug Smith <alden@@mindspring.com> message to soc.genealogy.medieval 27 Apr 2002]
Roger Earl of Shrewsbury. Also Roger of Montgomery. From Saint Germain de Montgomery, near Lisieux. Lord of Sussex rape of Arundel, with castle there; Earl of Shrewsbury from 1071-74 to death in 1094. Holdings in 12 counties in south, east and west. [Ref: Domesday Online]

Shropshire and the Domesday Book in 1086:
Roger de Montgomery II, better known as Earl Roger in the Domesday, but officially the seigneur of Montgomery, was the major recipient of Shropshire holdings. An old man of considerable wealth and power, he contributed 60 ships to the invasion fleet and was in command of a wing at the Battle of Hastings. He returned to Normandy with Queen Matilda, and the young Duke Robert as Duke William's representative in Normandy. He became head of the council that governed the Duchy of Normandy in Duke William's frequent absences in England. The Norman Montgomery family ancestry was closely interwoven either by blood or marriage with the Duchy of Normandy. However, the family history in Normandy was not without blemish. Roger had four brothers, Hugh, Robert, William and Gilbert. All four brothers were murdered in revenge for the murder of Osberne de Crepon, guardian of Duke William. Roger was the survivor. Continuing, Roger de Montgomery had four sons. Eldest was Robert, Count of Alencon, and successor in Normandy to his vast estates which he still held for his father Roger as his chief domain. He was followed by second son, Hugh, who inherited the Earldom of Arundel, Chichester and Shrewsbury, the life custodian of the main Montgomery family domains granted in England. These would eventually go to Robert in 1098, purchased from William Rufus for 3000 pounds. Next youngest was Count Roger de Poitou who was made the first Earl of Lancaster by Duke William of Normandy, a less maganamious grant which befitted the third youngest son. Philip, the youngest, remained in Normandy and accompanied Duke Robert on the first crusade to the Holy land, and died there in 1094.

Earl Roger was responsible to Duke William of Normandy as his chief architect in the defence of the middle marches of the border in his defence against the Welsh. He built many castles including Montgomery, Shrewsbury, Arundel, Ludlow, Clun, Hopton and Oswestry. His son, Robert, described at the Conquest as a 'novice in arms', but who might have been 40 by the Domesday, represented his father Earl Roger, and created some confusion in the records. Roger, the father, became the Earl of Shrewsbury and the Earl of Arundel in England, and retained his domains in Normandy at Bailleul (Kings of Scotland), Belmeis (Beaumais), Pantulf, Vimoutiers, Say and Tornai. However, Earl Roger also became confused with Roger de Beaumont in Normandy, who, it is claimed, was also head of the council in Normandy. [found this online but didn't cite URL, sorry.  Try google: keywords: (title above)]

Earl Roger's Shropshire Land Holdings
Alveley, Baschurch, Berwick (Shrewsbury), Cheney Longville, Chetton, Chirbury, Claverley, Corfham, Culmington, Donington, Dudston, Eardington, Edenhope, Edgmond, Ellesmere, Fenemere, Ford, High Ercall, Hockleton, Hodnet, Kingsmordley, Leebotwood, Loppington, Lydham, Minsterley, Montford, Morville, Netley, Oswestry, Poynton, Pulley, Quatford, Quatt, Rhiston, Romsley, Rorrington, Rowton, Rudge, Ruyton, Shavington, Shawbury, Shifnall, Shipley, Shrewsbury, Siefton, Smethcott, Spoonley, Stottesdon, Stretton, The Marsh, Tong Tuange, Walcot, Wellington, Whittingslow, Whittington, Wilderley, Wistanstow, Withington, Woodcote(Newport), Wotherton, Wrockwardine, Ackley, Aston, Basley, Churchstoke

[Ref: http://www.genealogyweb.com/Shropshire.htm]

Regards,
Curt