Gents Mag 1839 part 1 p.520
|
|
|
|
|
introduction | ||
|
|
list, 2nd qtr 19th century | ||
|
|
previous page
next page |
||
|
Gentleman's Magazine 1839 part 1 p.520
[Car]lisle," of which we are told at p.438 that it "was given to Ranulph de Meschines by William the Conqueror, but surrendered by his son of the same name, to Henry I.;" that it was "revived in the person of Sir Andrew de Harcla, in 1322, but was extinct in the following year, when he was executed;" that "in 1622 Sir James Hay was created Earl of Carlisle; but in 1660 the title again became extinct by the death of James the second Earl, without issue;" and lastly, that "the Earldom of Carlisle was again revived in 1661, in the person of Charles Howard," in which family it still remains. Now, we are aware that the above statement is the same which has long been copied from book to book; but the fault we have to find is, that in a History of Carlisle so important a feature as the earldom (if an Earldom there was) should not be more fully investigated. With respect to the person first mentioned, we find it stated in Brooke's Catalogue, 1619, p.51: "Randolphe de Meschines, sonne of Randolphe Viscount of Baieulx, and Alice his wife, base daughter of Richard the third Duke of Normandy, came into England with William the Conqueror, who gave him the Earldom of Carlisle." and of his son, the second Randolph (in p.38) that, succeeding in right of his mother to the Earldom of Chester, he "surrendered Carlisle, his father's earledome, to king Henry the first." But Sir Harris Nicolas, in his Synopsis of the Peerage, remarks, without noticing the first Ranulph, "Ranulph de Meschines, afterwards Earl of Chester, is by many writers called Earl of Carlsle, though there is but little, if any, authority for the statement." Then, with regard to Sir Andrew de Harcla, it would have well become our historian to have inquired what authority there is for attributing to him the title of Earl, beyond the circumstance of his having been Governor of the royal castle of Carlisle; and if Edward II. really did, in the warmth of his favour, confer that dignity upon him, whether or no it should not be considered the creation of Cumberland into an earldom, for in ancient times the dignity of Earl always implied jurisdiction over a considerable district or county; and though some Earls might chose (sic) to be designated by the name of their chief residence, yet that was merely the head, of which the county at large was the body. Thus the Earl of Salisbury was, in fact, Earl of Wiltshire; the Earl of Striguil was Earl of Pembrokeshire; the Earl of Arundel was Earl of Sussex, and sometimes, if he moved his residences, was called Earl of Chichester. History seems to mention no Earl of Cumberland until that dignity was conferred on the Clifford family by Henry the Eighth: but Brooke states (ubi supra) that John Duke of Bedford (the Regent of France), and Richard, Duke of Gloucester (afterwards King Richard III.) both bore among their titles that of Earl of Carlisle, which is not mentioned by our author. The fact of the latter being governor of the castle and sheriff of the county is noticed by Mr. Jefferson at p.96; and its memory is preserved to modern times by a tower called after his name. We may here remark that the chronological list of the governors at page 119 should have been made more complete by the additions of such dates as might have been ascertained. With respect to the title of Earl as enjoyed by the families of Hay and Howard (by the way, "Sir James Hay" was previously Lord Hay and Viscount of Doncaster), it had been evidently a mere nominal dignity, like all those of modern origin, the creation of which has been found compatible with the existence of other earldoms derived from the county; so much so that we have now a Duke of Buckingham and an Earl of Buckinghamshire; an Earl of Devon, a Duke of Devonshire, and a Marquess of Exeter, and indeed there are few counties that do not furnish many titles of earldoms instead of only one. These remarks we have made merely to point out a line of research which an historian of Carlisle should have taken: to pursue it further is beyond both our limits and our means; but our author will, probably, allow there must be some relation, if not identity, in the titles of earl of Cumberland and Earl of Carlisle, when we merely point out to him in the second page onwards |
|||
|
|
next page | ||
|
|
|||
Lakes Guides menu.