O R I G I N A N D H I S T O R Y OF THE

MONTGOMERYS Comtes de

Montgomery, Ponthieu, Alençon and La Marche

Earls of Arundel , Chichester, Shrewsbury, Montgomery, Pembroke, Lancaster, Mercia, Eglinton and Mountalexander

Princes de Bellême

Marquis de Montgomery de Lorges

By

B. G. DE M O N T G O M E R Y

JAMES DAVID MONTGOMERY'S SEAL

As reconstructed by the College of Arms, London

C O N T E N T S

ORIGIN OF THE NORDIC RACE . . . . i

T H E SUEVIC DYNASTIES . . . . . . 1 2

INGVAR'S L I N E OF YLVINGS . . . . . - 2 4

ROLLO'S AND GORMERIC'S DESCENDANTS . . . - 3 °

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY . . . . - 3 4

MONTGOMERYS, COUNTS OF PONTHIEU . . 78

MONTGOMERYS, COUNTS OF A L E N Ç O N . . . . 8 0

MONTGOMERYS, COUNTS OF L A MARCHE . . . 81

SETTLEMENTS OF ENTAIL AND THE N A M E OF MONTGOMERY . . 82

ENGLISH MONTGOMERYS . . . • - 8 4

A N C I E N T I R I S H B R A N C H . . • . 1 0 0

MONTGOÎ 'ERYS, EARLS OF E G L I N T O N . . . . 1 0 1

MONTGOMERYS OF SWEDEN, ELDER HOUSE . . . 119

MONTGOMERYS OF GREENFIELD, M E I K L E D R E G H O R N AND S T A N E 129

MONTGOMERYS OF LAINSHAW . . . • 13°

AMERICAN BRANCHES . . . . • • 132

MONTGOMERYS OF FRANCE . . . . • • 134

MONTGOMERYS, BARONETS OF THE H A L L . . . • 135

MONTGOMERYS OF BRIGEND AND OF SMITHTOUN . . . 137

MONTGOMERYS, LAIRDS OF BRAIDSTONE . . . . 138

VISCOUNTS MONTGOMERY OF GREAT ARDES . . . . 1 4 0

EARLS OF MOUNTALEXANDER . • • • 15°

MONTGOMERYS OF BLESSINGBOURNE . . . . • i57

MONTGOMERYS OF GREY ABBEY . . . • J75

MONTGOMERYS OF BLACKHOUSE AND CREBOY . . . 177

MONTGOMERYS OF HESSILHEID . . . • • i79

V

vi HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS PAO»

MONTGOMERYS OF MOVILLE • .181 MONTGOMERYS OF BEAULIEU . . . . . 208 BARONETS MONTGOMERY OF SKELMORLY . . . . 226 MONTGOMERYS OF GIFFEN 228 BARONETS GRAHAM-MONTGOMERY OF STANHOPE . 230 COMTES AND MARQUIS DE MONTGOMERY DE LORGES . . 232 MONTGOMERYS OF SCOTSTOUN . 278 MONTGOMERY-CEDERHIELMS, YOUNGER HOUSE OF SWEDEN . . 280 INDEX 284

P R E F A C E

HISTORY begins where archaeology leaves off. Separating these two fields of human knowledge, however, is a wide borderland—the land of sagas and folklore. Here the

historian never feels on really safe ground and is inclined to reject everything that is not absolutely palpable, while the archaeologist is all too prone to let the sagas get the better of his imagination and wanders off into fantastic speculation. And yet, it is just in this borderland—while prudently dealing with sagas and folk­lore, chronicles and annals—that archaeology has to be linked up with historical research. Only by doing this is it possible to carry the history of a nation or of a royal house back to its remotest origin.

The period of the sagas in Scandinavia is shrouded in mystery. Here we can only grope our way along by comparing the Edda poetry, Beowulf, Langfedgetal, the Icelandic sagas and Snorre with the Danish, Icelandic, Saxon, French and German chronicles and with the works of French and German historians of the time. Al l these sources, however, must be treated with the utmost caution. They are generally a mixture of fact and fancy and the borderline between the two is hard to distinguish. But at the same time we must be grateful for all the facts of real value they do give us. To be critical of these sources to the point of com­pletely refusing to acknowledge their value in historical research would be a grave mistake. Such a hypercritical attitude would not only display a questionable sense of judgment but also disclose the fact that the critic himself is uncritical of his own criticism.

Generally speaking, it is not difficult to criticize. But to reconstruct, to infuse life into the little one knows of those ancient days, when memorials were carved in stone and history handed down by word of mouth from father to son, is quite another matter. To do this one has to sift carefully the written material, separating the wheat from the chaff.

ix

H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

When deducing the truth from the sagas and from the in­complete and often obscure chronicles of the monks one must tread warily, and it is by no means an easy task to reassemble the true and probable facts so that they form a complete picture of the historical development.

In England and France the saga period was shorter and also better known than in Scandinavia because of the monkish chron­icles. Offshoots of the higher culture of these countries reached Scandinavia, and an observant investigator, by drawing com­parisons with conditions in these countries, can arrive at certain conclusions regarding the historical development in the North The subject dealt with in the following pages falls partly within this obscure period; for the Montgomerys are sprung from the same roots as the Scandinavian kings, whose history in turn is known to us chiefly through the sagas and folklore.

The fortunes of early Scandinavian kings and dynasties are a much favoured subject with Scandinavian historians of the Middle Ages and during the beginning of the modern era. Generally, however, they were far too uncritical in their judgment of historical relationships to be able to draw as true a picture of the period as is desired. Very often sagas were confused with reality; dynasties were established with the help of a lively imagination; often, too, schedules of kings and royal pedigrees were reckoned as one and the same thing, i.e. kings were accepted as sons of their pre­decessors, even in cases where they had achieved power through conquest or marriage. Patriotism, and particularly local patriot­ism, often played a decisive role when relating historical incident to certain countries or areas, while the connection between the history of Scandinavia and that of other countries was completely overlooked. The similarities between Scandinavian, Saxon and German heroic sagas were noted, yet no attempts were made to draw any conclusions from this remarkable fact. Even the im­portant role played by hereditary claims in the history of the Vikings was passed over, and it was never realized that the Ulvunga kings

HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS xi

in Håtuna and Lejre were the principal kings in Scandinavia, to whom not only the minor kings (Fylkes-kings) in Sweden, Denmark and Norway paid homage, but also the Stol-kings (' Chair-kings ') of Upsala.

In the opening chapters I have sought to make this point clear and to show how the descendants of the Asar, the powerful Ulvungar or Uffingas, led the historical development of Europe for nearly a thousand years. From the sagas it is possible to follow this family through the Middle Ages right down to the present day.

As far as I am aware, only two branches of this family can trace their ancestry on the paternal side back to the Ulvungar— the Montgomerys and the Harcourts. Not only ancient tradition and statements in the Germanic genealogical records, kept in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, serve to confirm their descent from the Ulvungar, but also clear circumstantial evidence.

In studying the history of the Montgomery family, I have not confined myself to the genealogical side, but have also dealt with the subject in a wider sense—as a matter of history—many person­alities of this family having played notable and at times decisive roles in the countries in which they have lived and worked. It is only natural that in such an old tree there are some decayed branches, but the odd thing is that it is still capable of pushing out new shoots.

The oldest branch of the family, the Norman line, died out on the paternal side at the beginning of the thirteenth century, but the Scottish branch was more resistant. It is still alive and has sent its members to many parts of the world. From Scotland one branch emigrated to France at the beginning of the fifteenth century, where it came into possession of the domains and feudal rights of the extinct French line. Later the main Scottish branch spread to Ireland and Sweden during the seventeenth century, and to America at the beginning of the eighteenth century. A younger branch settled in Sweden about 1720. The second line in France

H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

died out in 1731, but was replaced at the beginning of the nineteenth century by another branch which emigrated from America.

The wide dispersion of the family has naturally increased the difficulties of research, which has been done partly by corre­spondence, partly by the aid of paid research workers. For my own part, I have concentrated on the most important archives: Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, British Museum and Record Office in London, Register House in Edinburgh, Riksarkivet and Krigsarkivet in Stockholm.

The principal collections examined are: French: Généalogies d'Allemagne, cabinets des titres; Collec­

tion Baluze; manuscrits nouveau-latins; manuscrits français; manuscrits du fonds Godefroy; Trésor des Chartes; manuscrits de la Bibliothèque impériale; Archives de Saône-et-Loire; Archives de la Côte-d'Or; manuscrits Clairambault.

English: State Papers, Domestic and Foreign; Close Rolls; Fine Rolls; Hundred Rolls; Patent Rolls; Acts of the Privy Council; Feudal Aids; Exchequer Rolls; Rotuli Normanniae; Rymer's Foedera; Patronymica Britannica; Ancient Deeds; Ancient Charters; Chronicles of the White Rose of York; Issue Rolls of the Exchequer; Parliamentary Writs; Papal Petitions; Carew Manuscripts; Harleian Manuscripts; Pepys Collection.

Scottish: State Papers of Scotland; Exchequer Rolls of Scot­land; Registers of Sasines, Testaments and Services of Heirs; Acts of Parliament; Military Reports of Scotland; Register of the Privy Council of Scotland; Registrum Secreti Sigilli; Registrum Magni Sigilli.

Irish: State Papers; Cartulary of St. Mary's Abbey; Calendar of Documents; Inquisitions; Charters; Letters.

Dutch: Muster Rolls of Dutch General Staff. Swedish: Riksregistraturet; Rantekammarboken; Axel Oxen-

stiernas Brev och Koncept; Stegeborgssamlingen; Förteckningar

HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS på vårvat krigsfolk i Pommern 1630-48; Hinterpommerische Journal; Sköldebrevsamlingen; Letters and pedigrees in the Montgomery archives.

.The most important sources for studying the origin of the Norsemen are: Pytheas, in Pliny's Historia Naturalis, 300 B.C. ; Caesar, De Bello Gallico, about 50 B.C. ; Tacitus, Germania, about A.D. 100; Ptolemy, Geographice hyphegis, A.D. 150; Eutropius, Breviarium Historiae Romanae, A.D. 370; Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum Gestarum, A.D. 380 ; Orosius, Historiarum Adversus Paganos, libri vu, A.D. 420; Jordanes, De Rebus Geticis, A.D. 500; Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum, end of the sixth century A.D. ; Procopius, Histories, end of the sixth century A.D.

The history of the Suevic kings is dealt with in the following sagas, early historical works and chronicles:

Beowulf, end of the eighth century; the Edda poetry, end of the ninth century; Widukind, Res Gestae Saxonicae, end of the tenth century; Amoine, Historia Francorum, end of the tenth century; Dudo de St. Quentin, De Moribus et Actis Primorum Normanniae Ducum, beginning of the eleventh century; Adam of Bremen, Gesta Hamburgensis and De Situ Daniae, end of the eleventh century; William of Jumièges, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, end of the eleventh century; William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum; Rerum Gallicarum Scriptores, beginning of the twelfth century; Ordericus Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica, twelfth century; Wace, Roman de Rou, twelfth century; Lang-fedgetal, twelfth century; Saxo Grammaticus, Gesta Dannorum, beginning of the thirteenth century; Snorre Sturleson, Konun-gasagor, beginning of the thirteenth century; Annales Bertiniani; Annales Fuldensis; Annales Danici Bartoliniani; Annals of Ireland; Annals of Ulster; Annals of Inishowen; Annales Cambriae; Annals of the Four Masters; Annales Xantenses; Petrus Olaus, Minoritae Roskildensis Annales Rerum Dannicarum; Florence of Worcester, Chronicon Saxonicum; Chronicles of Man; Chronicon Scotorum; Cornelli Hamsfortii Series Regum Daniae; Anonymi Roskildensis

xiv HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

Chronicum Danicum; De Ecclesia Bremensi Vetus Scriptum; Chronologia Rerum Septrionalium; Brut y Tywysogion; Einhard Vita Car oli Magni Imperatoris; Vita Sancti Anscharii, Sancto Remberto conscripta; Vita Sancti Willehadi, Anschario conscripta; Series Runica Regum Daniae, prima; Series Runica Regum Daniae, altera; Muratori, Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi.

Modern textbooks in this field are very numerous and space does not permit a list of all the works, from early and later times, which deal with the history of the Suevic kings. Among the more important historians who have dealt with different aspects of this subject the following may be mentioned: Bugge, Collingwood, Depping, Dozy, Duchesnes, Du Motey, Dümmler, Fahlbeck, Favre, Freeman, Geijer, Herzberg, Lair, Liebermann, Lindqvist, Mabille, Montelius, Nerman, Rydberg, Steenstrup, Stevenson, Storm, Strinnholm, Suhm, Tegnér, Vogel, Weibull, Wenck, Worsaae. One of the most important books dealing with this subject is A . O. Anderson, Early Sources of Scottish History, London, 1922, which covers a much wider field than the title suggests.

A number of works on the Montgomery family have been published previously, the most notable of which is: William Fraser, Memorials of the Montgomeries, Earls of Eglinton, Edin­burgh, 1859. What makes Fraser 's book particularly valuable is the fact that it contains a number of original documents relating to the family, which have been preserved in Scotland. The book deals with the main Scottish branch of the family, and also with the Seton branch.

Another work of considerable historical value is The Mont­gomery Manuscripts, compiled by William Montgomery of Rose-mount about 1700. A printed edition was published by George Hi l l in Belfast in 1869. The book deals principally with those branches of the family which settled in Ireland at the beginning of the seventeenth century, particularly Viscounts Montgomery of Great Ardes, and the Earls of Mountalexander.

HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS The Broomlands Manuscript, written by Hugh Montgomery of

Broomlands about 1760, has only been published in part. The information it contains about the earlier history of the family is valuable, as it is believed to be based on copies of family papers which were destroyed when Eglinton Castle was burnt down in 1528. It is not altogether reliable.

Among other valuable works relating to the Montgomery family may be mentioned:

William Anderson, A Genealogical Account of the Family of Montgomery, formerly of Brigend, Edinburgh, 1859.

John Anderson, Montgomerie, Earl of Eglinton, in the Scots Peerage, Edinburgh, 1906. The author is very critical of Fraser 's Memorials, but his criticism is not always well founded.

E. G . S. Reilly, A Genealogical History of the Family of Mont­gomery, printed for private distribution in 1842.

John Hamilton Montgomery, Genealogy of the Family of Montgomery, compiled from various authorities—remains in manuscript.

Thomas Harrison Montgomery, A Genealogical History of the Family of Montgomery, Philadelphia, 1863.

James Paterson, History of the County of Ayr, Edinburgh, 1847; Account of the Families and Parishes of Ayrshire, Edinburgh, 1863 ; History of the Counties of Ayr and Wigton, Edinburgh, 1863-64.

William Robertson, Ayrshire and its Historic Families, Ayr, 1908.

Du Motey, Origine de la Normandie, Paris, 1920; and Robert I I de Bellême, Paris, 1923.

Amédée Boudin, Généalogie de la Maison de Montgomery, Histoire Généalogique du Musée des Croisades, Paris, 1858 (unreliable).

Léon Marlet, Le Comte de Montgomery, Paris, 1890. D. E. Montgomery, Bidrag till Âtten Montgomerys Historia,

Personhistorisk Tidskrift, 1913, and his article 'Montgomery' in Svenska Adelns Attartavlor, edited by Elgenstierna.

H I S T O R Y OF T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

I wish to make grateful acknowledgment to all those who have assisted me by offering useful suggestions or kindly answering my letters regarding particular branches of the family. I owe a special debt of gratitude to kinsmen, near and distant, who have lent me family papers or biographical notes.

B. G. DE MONTGOMERY

ORIGIN OF THE NORDIC RACE

DU R I N G the nineteenth century German anthropologists and ethnologists generally held that the races of Europe had sprung from the very countries where they were to be

found in greatest numbers. This meant breaking with the earlier theory, that the Indo-European or Caucasian group of races first developed in the highlands of Iran, from whence it spread in stages over the European continent. Modern scientific research seems to favour a return to this older theory, with the reserva­tion always that in certain countries there is left a stratum of palaeolithic man from the Glacial Age.

Al l trace of settlements in Scandinavia, Finland, Russia and northern Germany was completely defaced by the inland-ice, and it was only when the ice gradually melted that the fauna and human life spread to these areas. The extreme south of Sweden was laid bare some 15,000 years ago and the melting—as far north as Jamtland—of the mighty crust of ice, which was in places nearly 3000 feet deep, took more than 5000 years. Theoretically it is possible that man settled in Scandinavia as soon as Scania was inhabitable—at the time when there was still land connection with Denmark—but the archaeologists seem to favour the opinion that the earliest immigration began about 6000 years ago. At this time there were no Goths in Europe. Very likely the first settlers in Scandinavia belonged to the Cro-Magnon race. This long-skulled and large-limbed race of giants—one of the races that lived in the south of Europe during the Glacial Age—has left clear traces both in Scania and other parts of Sweden. It was a magnificent sub­stratum upon which the Nordic race was built.

Swedish archaeologists generally do not believe that Sweden was ever inhabited by Celts. For my own part I am perfectly convinced that the Celts, on their westward wandering, also over­flowed Scandinavia and remained there for a considerable length of time. In fact, this is in my opinion the second layer of the

A

2 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

Nordic race. The Greek word Keltos, which means 'the well-bred,' has given this race its name. In the Indo-European group of races they were the nearest relations of the Goths, whom they excelled as well in appearance and deportment as in craftsmanship. One needs only to glance at the many beautiful works of art from the Bronze Age which have been excavated in Sweden to under­stand that they are of Celtic and not of Gothic origin.

The Celts were the first to leave the racial home in the highlands of Iran, and they were soon followed by the Goths. In the European countries where they settled they became the ruling upper class. The subjected classes belonged either to the short-skulled Alpine race or to the long-skulled Aurignac and Cro-Magnon races, which lived in Europe in the Palaeolithic Age.

During the Bronze Age Celts ánd Goths were certainly much closer connected than their descendants are to-day, both in appear­ance and language. It must have been difficult at that time to distinguish them from each other. They were both tall, blond and blue-eyed. The eyes of the Celts were lighter blue, almost steel-grey. It was only by mixture with the Iberic and Alpine races that the Celts turned dark. The Celtic language has also been strongly influenced by the language of these races and was every century carried farther away from the tongue of the Goths.

The theory brought forward by Professor A. Bugge, that the Cimbri, à large tribe that left Jutland in 120 B.c. and struggled against the Romans, was of Celtic origin and of the same strain as the Cymric population of Wales, has not been generally accepted by ethnologists. But I am convinced that this theory is correct. The reason why the Cimbri have been called a Teutonic tribe was no doubt the difficulty of distinguishing between Celts and Goths. It was probably for the same reason that Tacitus questioned whether the Caledonians in Scotland did not belong to the Ger­manic race. They were no doubt Celts but belonged to a tribe *"hieh had not by that time been mixed with the Iberic people, in i consequently much more resembled the Goths. The Cimbri

O R I G I N O F T H E N O R D I C R A C E 3 of Jutland probably belonged to some of those Celtic tribes which lived in Scandinavia long before the arrival of the Goths, and Jutland was called after them the Cimbric peninsula. According to Roman historians they were gigantic and had thunder-like voices. It does not seem unlikely that the Cimbri had been mixed with some of the Cro-Magnon tribes, which were the earliest inhabitants of Jutland. The chief of the Cimbri had the Celtic name Bojorix, while the leader of the Teutons had the Gothic-sounding name of Teutobuch. The Cimbri were defeated by Marius at Verona in i o i B.c. and the whole tribe was completely dispersed. Whether the remnants of this tribe fled to Wales or the Cimbri of that country came by sea straight from Jutland is not known.

In the middle of the fourth century B.c. the Greek explorer Pytheas of Massilia made a journey to Britannia and Scandinavia. His diary has not been preserved, but Polybius, Strabo and Pliny have seen to it that fragments of this most important document have reached posterity.

In the Historia Naturalis Pliny describes the land of the Guttons according to Pytheas—as it seems he had never been there himself. The coast of this country, from which the Romans got their amber, was low and marshy, some 6000 stades long. This was obviously the coast of Prussia and Pomerania. It had the Celtic name of Mentonoon (Menntonnman is the Cimbric name for a marshy land which at times is under water).

On the authority of Tacitus we know that the Gotins were a people of Celtic origin, and the fact that the country of Guttons bore a Celtic name seems to indicate that they were also a Celtic tribe, or at any rate a people mixed with Celts. It is quite possible that both Guttons and Gotins were a Celto-Gothic product, the Gothic strain being stronger in the Guttons, the Celtic stronger in the Gotins. In any case, it must have been very difficult at the time of Tacitus—owing to the proximity of these races both in language and appearance—to tell with certainty whether a people was preponderantly Gothic or Celtic.

HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

Celtic tribes seem to have spread as far north as Esthonia, for Tacitus has made the important observation that the people of Esthonia 'have the same habits and appearance as the Sueves, but a language that more resembles the British.' There has always been intimate communication between Esthonia, Gottland and the Swedish coastal countries, and it seems likely that at the time of Tacitus the inhabitants of Esthonia were closely related to the Celto-Gothic Guttons of Gottland and Ostro-Gothia. It seems reasonable to conclude that this population mixed with the Fenni in Finland, where one sometimes meets as good-featured men and women as in Scotland and Ireland. Fenni no doubt belongs to the same root as the Irish Sinn Fein.

The time of the first Gothic immigration into Scandinavia is not known with certainty. It seems probable that it took place in stages and that the Celts who had previously settled in Scan­dinavia were gradually merged into this new race. Yet even nowadays there are people in Norway, Jamtland, Darlecarlia and Gottland of purely Celtic type.

The newcomers also mixed with the still older race of Scan­dinavia. In the Nordic sagas, which speak about giants and the giant-people, we see them not only as mythological beings but also as men of flesh and blood. It often happened that a Gothic man entered into marriage with a giantess. These broad-shouldered, heavy forms belonged with certainty to the Cro-Magnon race, which handed over to the Gothic people both weight and gigantic strength. The skeleton of a woman from the Stone Age measuring 183 centimetres in length, which is 24 cm. above the Swedish average for that period, was recently found during excavations at Va near Kristianstad.

The Celtic empire reached its maximum extension by the middle of the fourth century B.c. It covered Gaul, Spain, Britain, northern Italy, parts of Germany, parts of Scandinavia and the Baltic states. In all probability there were also Goths in Scandinavia by that time. As early as 513 B.c. when the Persian king Darius Hystaspes

ORIGIN OF T H E NORDIC RACE 5 launched his great campaign against the Scythians, the Thracians, a people noted for valour and culture, were called the Getae. Greek and Roman writers later on refer to the same people as Goths. To the west of them, round the affluents of the Danube, lived another Gothic tribe, the Daci.

The Getae (Anglo-Saxon geatas or eatas) were the ancestors of the Jutes, while the Daci have given Denmark her name. In his book on Caracalla, Spartianus has definitely declared that Gothi and Getae were the same people. This opinion is also expressed by Procopius, and Orosius writes about A.D. 400: 'Getae il l i , qui nunc Gothi.' The Romans also referred to the Daci as Goths.

The Gothic tribes penetrated through Denmark into Scan­dinavia or travelled in their ships down the Vistula to the Baltic, which they crossed. At a later period a small stream flowed in the opposite direction, and it is this secondary movement of the Gothic people which made many historians and anthropologists believe that this people originally came from the North.

Jordanes' Getica, written in the sixth century A.D., describes a Gothic emigration from Scanza (Scandinavia) to the south of Europe. This gave rise to the theory that Scandinavia was the earliest home of the Gothic people and, in fact, the very cradle of Europe. The sagas of Snorre pointed in the opposite direction, but Swedish historians in the seventeenth century, being all too anxious to glorify their great new power, gave preference to the testimony of Jordanes.

The theory that Scandinavia was the original home of the Gothic people found many supporters and was embodied in the voluminous work Atland, published by Olaus Rudbeck the elder about 1700. This rag-gatherer of human knowledge presented his book with such a magnificence that people bowed in admiration of so learned and brilliant a scholar. Intelligent men like Örnhielm and Hadorph, Dahlin and Atterbom tried in vain to disperse the phantom. The 'patriotic' theory of Rudbeck has triumphed in

6 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

Sweden ever since, and a new edition of this 'giant-book' is just being published.

When reading up the facts about the Gothic people it is im­possible to understand how historians of the Rudbeck type, who make the Goths a product of the snowy North, have ever found ready listeners for their ideas. The great people which ruled over Thrace five hundred years before Christ, conquered the whole south of Russia and later overthrew the Celtic empires in Gaul and Spain, had certainly not sprung into being from the little expeditions described in Jordanes' Getica. It is not only probable, but absolutely certain, that the big movements went in the opposite direction. The emigrations of little groups of Goths from the scantily populated Sweden were occasional and secondary events without any influence on the big developments in Europe.

From Caesar we know that the Svessiones, a tribe of Gothic descent, had conquered Belgium before the great contest between Caesar and Ariovistus. 'Most Belgians,' he writes, 'are descended from the Germans and have in olden times crossed the Rhine. They settled in Gaul as it was a fertile country and drove away the Gauls which previously inhabited these parts. They were the only people who, when Gaul was devastated in the times of our fathers, prevented the Teutones and Cimbri from crossing their borders. . . . In our time they had a king named Divitiacus, the most powerful ruler in the whole of Gallia, who governed not only these provinces but also Britain.'

Caesar has thus informed us that the Svessiones ruled not only over Belgium but also over Britain, before the Romans arrived, and that they had settled in Gaul before the country was invaded by the Cimbri and Teutones, i.e. before 100 BX.

The Svessiones of Caesar and the Sviones of Tacitus are probably the same people and identical with the Suear, the leading Gothic people in Sweden. This tribe belonged to the Suebic or Suevic group of Gothic tribes. Suebia or Suevia was the name Tacitus

ORIGIN OF T H E NORDIC RACE 7

gave to Scandinavia, a country 'divided by one long unbroken mountain ridge.'

Ariovistus, who was defeated by Caesar in 53 B.C., was the chief of the Sueves. It was probably after this event that they turned northward and invaded first Denmark, where they settled side by side with the Jutes, and later Scandinavia. Hengist and Horsa, who invaded Britain in A.D. 455, were Sueves. Their homeland was Schleswig, and their grandfather Vitta or Vecta is described in Beowulf as a Suevic chief. He was the son of the Saxon chief called Woden.

Caesar has given the following characteristics of the Sueves: 'They are the biggest and most warlike of the Germanic nations. . . . Merchants are allowed to visit them, more because they wish to sell what they have captured in the wars than to export anything. They do not even import horses which the Gauls much love and procure at considerable cost. They use their own horses, which are ill-bred and clumsy, but by daily practice they make them support the hardest work. . . . The import of wines is not allowed, since they believe that men thereby lose their strength and become incapable of supporting hardships. . . . They spend the whole of their life hunting or in warlike practices. From childhood they are accustomed to perseverance. Those who remain in a state of continence are highly praised, as this is considered to increase stature and to harden the nerves.'

It is interesting to note that the Asa-cult had not developed among the Sueves in Caesar's time. Among the gods they counted only those whose favours they enjoyed—Sun, Fire and Moon. From this we can infer that Ariovistus was never deified, like Woden.

In the Germania, written about 150 years later, Tacitus makes it clear that the Asa-cult had not even then been accepted by the Sueves. Among the gods they worshipped in the first instance Mercury (in Greek, Hermes; in the Saxon pedigrees, Heremod; in the Nordic pedigrees, Heremotre), to whom on certain days of the year they sacrificed human beings.

8 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

The cult described by Tacitus reminds one in many ways of the Asa-cult, but the names of Woden and Thor never appear, which proves that these gods came into being at a later time. According to his various pedigrees, Woden was descended in the ninth generation from Heremotre.

In Konungasagor Snorre has written the story of Woden. This story has been told from father to son generation after generation, and by learned men and scalds to the kings. It is impossible now to determine the exact elements of truth in Snorre's relation, but to dismiss it as a myth would certainly be a mistake. Even if it only contains a core of truth it is valuable as a clue when looking for the origin of the early Nordic and Saxon kings. In this connection it may be mentioned that the Swedish state has guarded this tradition. The preface of Svea Rikes Lag (The Laws of Sweden) clearly states that the first royal house of Sweden came into the kingdom from Asia.

Snorre tells us that Woden and his hosts came from a strong­hold called Asgaard situated east of Tanaqvisl (the river Don). Woden was chief of the Asar and leader of the worship and sacri­fice. He owned large domains in Turkey. It should be noted that all pedigrees of Woden trace back to the kings of Troy. Woden is said to have fled before the Romans and wandered right across Europe. He established his rule over Saxony, where he left some of his sons, proceeded to Denmark and settled at Odense in Funen. He later on crossed to Sweden and eventually settled at Fornsigtuna on the lake of Malar, where he had his place of sacrifice.

The story of Woden must be seen against the background of the general developments in Europe. When the Goths, many centuries earlier, emigrated from their original home in the high­lands of Iran they had apparently left their Deity behind. Woden and his Asar belonged to the oldest and most famous of all Gothic families, and wherever they appeared they were offered hospitality by the Gothic tribes and accepted as their natural leaders. It is

ORIGIN OF T H E NORDIC RACE 9 Snorre's opinion that Woden fled before the Romans. It seems more likely, however, that it was the westward march of the Huns that compelled Woden and his hosts to look for a safer abode. 'As Woden was a prognostic and a magician,' so Snorre tells us, 'he knew that his descendants would live in the northern half of the world.'

From the Saxon sons of Woden are sprung the royal houses of Denmark, Sweden, France, Wessex and Northumberland. Woden belonged to the Suevic group of Goths, but it seems more likely that the Semnones were his tribe, and not the Sviones, which settled in Sweden long before his time. According to Tacitus, the Semnones were the most noble of all the Gothic tribes and were charged with the sacrificial service for the tribes. It was typical for the Semnones to settle in a village community of one hundred (hundrade), vide Erlinghundra, Fjårdhundra, Lyhundra, Långhundra, Nårlinghundra, Seminghundra and Sju-hundra, the names of communities in Upland where Woden settled down. The same communities are also to be found among Franks and Anglo-Saxons. In England the 'hundred' is a division of the county.

As we shall see in the following chapter, Woden must have arrived in Denmark some time at the beginning of the fourth century A.D. Danish archaeologists have proved that at that time a foreign invasion of Denmark took place, and the archaeological finds seem to indicate that the invaders had been in close contact with the Romans. It seems more probable that the invaders were Gothic tribes trying to escape from the advancing Slavs, than Slavs themselves, who as a rule destroyed everything in their way.

The Frankish historians were unanimously of the opinion that their own royal house, the Merovings, were descended from Danish kings, and through them from the kings of Troy. As we have seen, Snorre mentioned that Woden had large domains in Turkey (Tyrkland). Tacitus had already called attention to some

i o H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

sepulchral mounds and monuments with Greek inscriptions at Augsburg (Asciburg). This gave rise to the idea that the town of Augsburg was the very place that Snorre called Asgaard. A more natural explanation seems to be that this monument was raised in commemoration of Asgaard in Russia by some Gothic tribes who had been in contact with Greek civilization in Thrace. Another possible solution is that Tacitus took Runic letters for the Greek alphabet, to which they bear a certain resemblance.

The intercourse between the Gothic tribes and the Huns, which is very evident from the Edda poetry, has made some people think that they were closely related. A Danish ethnologist has even gone so far as to assign his own people to the Huns. That this theory, if one can speak at all of a theory in this connection, is absurd appears from the fact that the Huns were a Turkish tribe and thus semi-Mongolian. When Woden had properties in Turkey the country was not populated by Turks but by Troyans. That makes the whole difference.

On the other hand, the stories of Huns and Hunaland in the Edda and other Nordic sagas clearly prove that Huns and Goths were to some extent intermingled. Both Ostro-Goths, Visi-Goths and Alans were at times under Hunnish dominion, and, as we have already stated, it was probably the pressure exercised by the Huns that drove Woden from Asgaard. The Nordic tradition about a passage of arms with Romans certainly originated from the times of Ariovistus and Caesar, when the Gothic tribes were expelled from Gaul.

In the fifth century A.D. the Visi-Goths wandered into Europe, plundered Rome and conquered Gaul and Spain. It is interesting to note that in the battle of the Catalaunian Fields in 451, when the Roman general Aëtius defeated the Huns under Attila, the Visi-Goths and the Franks fought on the Roman side, whereas the Ostro-Goths, who were then under Attila's dominion, took his side m the battle. After this event, however, they freed themselves from the Huns, and in 493 their king, Theoderic the Great,

O R I G I N O F T H E N O R D I C R A C E n

conquered Rome, where the Ostro-Goths remained in power for a period of fifty years.

The first Viking raids began in the sixth century, but it was only when the Gothic tribes in Scandinavia had increased suffi­ciently in numbers and strength, in the ninth and tenth centuries, that they became a real plague to western Europe.

When reading a relation of these raids one easily gets the impression that they aimed at nothing but plunder and destruction. This opinion, however, is somewhat one-sided. It is quite true that the raids of the Vikings were both cruel and voracious, but we must not forget that they were often out for conquest and laid under their rule great countries, which they afterwards adminis­tered with skill and sagacity.

Claims of inheritance often played an important role in these raids. Nordic descendants of dethroned kings in Gaul and Britain returned to demand the soil of their ancestors or com­pensation for it, and in many cases they were successful. We shall see in the following chapter how extremely interwoven the royal houses of Scandinavia, France and England were, and here is to be found the chief explanation of the great wars and Viking raids of the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries.

T H E S U E V I C D Y N A S T I E S

TH E Suevic kings, descended from the Suevic or Saxon Woden, are in England known under the name of Ylvings or Uffingas. In Sweden they were called Ulvungar,

Ylvingar or Ynglingar, the last being a distortion for which Tjodulf of Hvin and Snorre are responsible. In Germany they were called Völfungen or Vôlsungen, and in Beowulf, Vylfings. In Denmark the Ulvungar were often mistaken for Sköldungar or Skilvingar (in Beowulf, Scyldings), descended from earlier Gothic kings.

The name is derived from U f f e , Ulf or Völf, a king in Jutland, who was a lineal descendant of the Saxon Woden. Some historians have given his name as Völsung, but this shows complete ignorance of the way in which the Gothic words were formed. The termina­tion ung means descendant of. Thus the name of the king was Völf and the name of his descendants Völfungen.

Ynglingatal, the royal pedigree drawn up by Tjodulf of Hvin and quoted by Snorre, is an omnium gatherum of invented and real names. The same may be said of all other Nordic pedigrees, whether they trace back to Woden or through him and the royal trees of Troy to Japhet, Noah and Adam. The reason of this confusion is first of all that Woden has been placed too far back in time—about 300 years—the gap being filled by invented kings. The series : Fridleif, Fridfrode, Fridleif, Havarr and Frode seems very much artificial; also the sequence: Yngve Frej, Fjolner, Svegder, Vanland, Visbur, Domald, Domar, Dyggve and Dag. These kings are certainly nothing but a fiction, produced by the scald with the intention of connecting later generations with a Woden who lived at the time of Christ.

The Anglo-Saxon pedigrees are, notwithstanding many de­ficiencies, far more reliable. By comparing these pedigrees with historical facts and dates given in contemporary Saxon and French chronicles it is possible also to produce a pedigree for the Nordic

12

T H E SUEVIC DYNASTIES 13

kings which satisfies reasonable demands for probability and reliability.

On the one hand, we have to fix the approximate time for Woden's arrival in Scandinavia. On the other hand, we must always keep in mind that not only Scandinavia but also the whole of western Europe became the dominion of Woden's descendants. They conquered all the countries of this large territory and guarded through intermarriage the interests of the divine dynasties. Every royal house descended from Woden had claims of inheritance on one or several of these countries, and often the Ulvungar sat as superior kings in countries ruled over by local kings of less famous dynasties.

The ancient Danish dynasties in Jutland, Funen, Lolland and Zeeland did not descend from Woden, but possibly from some of his ancestors far back in time. The Danish Sköldungar, Scyldings or Skilvings had as their ancestor Sköld, Sceldwea or Scealdne, who according to Saxon chronicles lived nine generations earlier than Woden. He was the son of Heremotre, who, at the time of Tacitus, was worshipped as a god and may be considered as the elder Woden.

The intimate connection between the Nordic and the West European dynasties has been noticed by Professor E. G. Geijer in Svea Rikes Havder.

'But the Nordic stories about Woden also make him and his Asar from the Black Sea come through Russia to the lands of Saxon and Frank before they turned to Scandinavia, and that the ancient sagas of those nations are closely related to our own can be proved by mutual testimonies. Here in the north we traced the royal pedigree of the Franks from Woden, and the story of his descendants, the Völsungar, was a favourite theme of the ancient Nordic sagas. But the descent of the kings was almost everywhere in the ancient sagas equally that of the people, and the Franks were considered, according to their own attestation, as descendants of the Danish and Nordic people. With the Saxons there is the same tradition. Ynglingasagan and the Edda tell us that their kings as well were descended from Woden, and the

H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

Saxon chronicles from heathen times, which are better preserved than those of the Franks, who became Christians earlier, give even stronger evidence to this effect, for to Woden the Saxon kings themselves traced their descent, and this Saxon Woden was no doubt identical with the Nordic Woden.'

Thus Geijer clearly recognized that there was a close connec­tion between the saga-woven annals of the Nordic and West European countries, and in the following chapter we shall see that this unanimity was so strong that in many cases the same kings ruled both in Scandinavia, Gaul and Britain.

According to Saxon chronicles, Woden had two sons : Beldaeg (Nordic, Balldr or Balder) and Vegdegg or Vecta (Nordic, Vetta,Vitta or Vidar). The former was ancestor of the kings of Wessex, and to him Asser traced the tree of King Alfred. From Vegdegg were descended the Frankish kings, the Suevic chiefs Hengist and Horsa, who led the Saxon invasion of England in 455, and the Swedish kings.

Gregory of Tours, who lived in the sixth century, has translated the answer of the Frankish king Clodvig to his wife when she urged him to become a Christian: 'Your god cannot be proved to belong to the strain of gods.' Clodvig was obviously quite convinced that he himself was descended from the gods, while Gregory was sufficiently unprejudiced to point out that the gods of Clodvig were only human beings and magicians. The French theory of the divine origin of kings has certainly its explanation in the fact that they traced their descent from Woden.

That Woden was a Gothic chief, and a magician at that, appears clearly from Snorre. It was certainly first after his death that he was deified. O. Verelius and J. Peringskiöld have contended that Woden during his lifetime bore the prosaic name of Sigge Frid­leif sson, and that the town of Sigtuna was called after him. This theory is by no means improbable, but another explanation may be that the town was called after his descendant Sigmund, who gave to his son Helge Hundingsbane the royal estate of Håtuna in the neighbourhood of which the town of Fornsigtuna grew up.

T H E S U E V I C D Y N A S T I E S 15

Let us now try to determine the approximate time for Woden's arrival in western Europe. On Catstane near Edinburgh, Sir James Simpson has found the inscription of a Gothic chief Vetta,dated 364. It may reasonably be inferred that this Vetta was identical with Woden's son Vecta. This in turn leads to the conclusion that Woden must have arrived during the latter half of the third or the first half of the fourth century, and that in fact he must have led the invasion of Denmark which, in the opinion of Danish archaeologists, took place at that time. This overthrows in one stroke all the Scandinavian pedigrees, which make Woden a contemporary of Christ, but gives a strong support to the much shorter Saxon pedigrees.

The eldest son of Woden was Beldaeg or Balder, from whom the kings of Wessex and Alfred the Great claimed descent. The kings of Northumberland belonged to a younger branch of this family. It should be noted that both the kings of East Anglia and the kings of Kent were descended from Woden's younger son Vegdegg or Vecta. The following table shows the descent from Woden of the early Saxon kings:

Beldaeg Bo Vegdegg I I

Brond Sigear

Geuvis Vaermund Vuetgis

Elesa Uffe Hengist

Cerdic Sigmund Oeric

Creoda Tytla Octa

Cynric a son Eormenric

Ceaulin a son Ethelbert, d. 616

Cuthwine Redwald, d. 627

16 HISTORY OF T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

Alfred the Great was descended in the ninth generation from Cuthwine. The descendants of Uffe, kings of East Anglia, were called Uffingas or Uffingi, and belonged to the same family as the Ulvungar and Ylvingar in Sweden and the Völf ungen in Frankland. The conquering chiefs Hengist and Horsa were the sons of Vaer-mund's brother Vuetgis. They were ancestors of the kings of Kent. To this family belonged Eormenric or Jörmunrek, who married Svanhilda, daughter of Sigurd Fafnesbane, the most famous of all Völfungen whose deeds were celebrated both in Nordic and German poems.

According to Saxo's Baldersaga, Woden had a son, Bo, by a Ruthenian princess, Rind. Bo, who in the Edda is called Vale or Vale, avenged the death of Balder.

According to the Nordic sagas, the Frankish dynasty traced their descent from Sigge, said to have been the son of Woden. The Saxon chronicles, however, make Sigear the son of Vecta and the grandson of Woden. This is probably correct. Also in this case the Frankish kings are descended from Sigge, for Sigear and Sigge are clearly the same man; the fact that he was the grandson and not the son of Woden is of little importance. The main thing is that Sigge, from whom the Nordic sagas traced the descent of the Frankish kings, also appears in the Saxon pedigrees.

The Annales Islandorum Regii state that Faramund, the first king of the Franks, the son of Marcomir, ruled for eleven years. History knows the name of Marcomir from the Roman Emperor Julian's campaign against the Batavians in 358. Gregory of Tours also mentions Marcomir as a Chattish chief, who was attacked in 392 by Argobast, a Roman general of Gothic descent.

According to Asser, Clodio succeeded Faramund as king of the Franks in 430. At the death of Clodio the crown was taken over by Merovaeus, but French historians seem to hold the opinion that he was not the son of his predecessor. Already Gregory of Tours had expressed doubt on this point : ' Some say that King Merovée, who had a son Childerik, was born within his (Clodio's)

T H E S U E V I C D Y N A S T I E S 17

family' (Historia Francorum, ed. Guizot, p. 76). As we shall see presently, it seems more probable that Merovaeus was the son of Faramund.

According to an ancient Frankish tradition, a god, coming from the sea, forced Clodio's wife, who after that bore him a son. This boy was given the name of Merovaeus or Merovig, which means 'from the sea' (German, Meer-Weg; French, mervoie), and became the king of the Franks after Clodio. To derive the name of the Gothic king, as some have done, from the Latin, mereo, or from Sanskrit, mar, seems more far-fetched.

With regard to the contention in French and Nordic chronicles that the Merovaean kings were descended from Woden, it seems natural to infer that at the back of the above tradition lies a Suevic conquest of the land of the Batavians, the two peoples being fused into one, with a Suevic king and a Suevic upper class. Faramund would in that case be identical with Vaermund the Wise, a Suevic king in Jutland. Chronologically this theory fits in very well, for Vaermund was the great-grandson of Woden and must have lived about A.D. 430. If Merovaeus was the son of Vaermund by Clodio's wife, he was thus unquestionably of 'divine descent.' His claim to the Frank throne was probably not based upon the conquest of his father, but on the right of inheritance from his mother. The Icelandic annals state that Faramund was the son of Marcomir, probably because Merovaeus was the grandson of Marcomir. The explanation seems to be that Clodio's wife was the daughter of Marcomir and by his mother Merovaeus was thus the grandson of Marcomir, the Batavian chief. This must have been the ground upon which he eventually established his claim.

The Greek historian Priscus tells us in his Fragmenta that on the death of Clodio there were rivals for the Frank throne. Only Merovaeus is known by name. He applied for Roman support of his claim, whilst the other pretender was backed by Attila. Priscus met Merovaeus during his stay in Rome and describes him as ' quite a young man with an abundance of long, fair hair, dropping

B

i 8 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

down over his shoulders.' Thus there can be no mistake about the fact that Merovaeus was of Nordic descent.

The Roman general Aètius also met Merovaeus in Rome and tried to win his friendship by precious gifts. As we know, Mero­vaeus afterwards fought side by side with Aetius in the great battle of the Catalaunian Fields, where the power of Attila was broken for ever. Merovaeus' rival for the throne was probably his half-brother, the son of Clodio. After Attila's defeat Merovaeus had nothing to fear from his brother.

The following table shows the descent of Merovaeus according to the above analysis :

Woden I

Vegdegg, 364

Sigear Marcomir, 358, 392

seized Vaermund = Clodio's wife=Clodio I I

Merovaeus a son

As we have seen, this genealogy fits in well with the Frankish tradition about the Danish descent of the Merovaean kings (vide Ermoldus Nigellus, ninth century) and the statement of the Edda that the Nordic kings were also kings in Frankland. The doctrine of the divine descent of the French kings is another matter which in this way finds its solution.

The Nordic sagas tell a great deal about the ancient kings of Sweden and Denmark, but as there has been no determination of time they have been vague and mysterious figures, whose existence has been doubted. As we have mentioned already, some of them were simply invented, but a comparison with certain historical dates in England and France makes it possible to determine which of them really existed and the approximate times when they lived. In this way they have been brought back to reality.

U f f e or Ulf, the ancestor of Ulvungar, Völf ungen and Uffingas,

T H E SUEVIC DYNASTIES 19

was according to the Edda (Sången om Hyndla) the son of Sjöfare. In practically all chronicles Uffe is said to have been the son of Vaermund, while the latter must have been identical with Sjöfare. Since Uffe was the son of Vaermund (the chronicles) and Merovaeus was the son of Vaermund or Faramund, Uffe and Merovaeus must have been brothers. In all probability they had different mothers.

From Merovaeus, who was probably the elder brother, was descended the French dynasty, while Uffe was the ancestor of the Swedish kings. The Edda gives us the key of the lineage of the Swedish king Ottar Wendelkråka. Hyndla sings: 'You are Ottar by Innsten begot, as Innsten was by Alf the Old, as Alf by Ulf, Ulf by Sjöfare (Seafarer) and Sjöfare by Sven Rôde (Sweyn the Red).'

Ottar belonged to the same generation as the Frankish king Clotar, who died in 561, while Innsten was contemporary with Clodvig, who died in 511. Alf lived at the same time as Childeric or Heidrec, who died in 481. According to the Edda, Heidrec had a daughter Borgny. The Danish king Hjålprek (Chilperic) was probably the brother of Heidrec. According to the Edda, Hjålprec was the father of Borghild, who married the Völf ung king Sigmund of Frankland. This king was equally king in Sweden, for he gave Håtuna, where half the king's army was kept, to his son Helge Hundingsbane, elder brother of Sigurd Fafnesbane. Helge also received as a gift Ringstad in Zeeland. By Borghild Sigmund had another son called Håmund, Amund, or Anund.

This all shows how extraordinarily interwoven the Suevic dynasties in France, Denmark and Sweden already were at this time. A comparison with the French kings gives us the following approximate dates for the Swedish kings:

Uffe, about 450

Alf, 490 Sigmund, 490 I I

Innsten, 520 Helge, 520 I

Ottar, 550

2o H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

Helge Hundingsbane inherited his mother's Danish dominion. Gregory of Tours tells us in Historia Francorum that a Frank king about the year 500 fled to Denmark to seek the protection of King Cochilaik (Hugleik, Helge). The French chronicles record that Cochilaik devastated Flanders in 515.

Sigmund of Frankland married first Borghild, daughter of King Hjålprek of Denmark, and secondly Hjördis, daughter of King Öilime. On the death of Sigmund she married his brother Alf. The Prose Edda states that Alf was the brother of Borghild, which is a mistake. He was her brother-in-law, and from Sangen om Hyndla we know that he was the son of Ulf.

According to the Edda, Sigmund had by his sister Signy a son called Fjötle, in Beowulf Fitela, and in the Saxon chronicles called Tytla or Tytili. From him was descended Redwald of East Anglia, who was tributary king under Ethelbert of Kent, the son of Jörmunrek and Svanhilda.

The names of the Suevic dynasties, which appear in the Edda, in Beowulf and in the chronicles, are as follows: Skoldungar, Skilvingar (Edda) and Scyldings (Beowulf) were the descendants of Sköld (Nordic), Sceldwea or Scealdne (Saxon), the son of Heremod (Saxon) or Heremotre (Nordic). From Sköld descended the ancient kings of Denmark, and Woden, although he arrived later in Denmark, was the male representative of the oldest branch of this family. He was ninth in descent from Sköld. Al l the Suevic kings were Scyldings, whether or not they, for the sake of distinction, called themselves Uffingas, Merovings or any other name. In England the Danish kings were mostly known as the Scyldings. The main line of this family led from Beldaeg down to King Alfred.

Rodungar descended from Sigear or Sven Rôde, the son of Vegdegg and the grandson of Woden.

Vaermundingar descended from Vaermund, the son of Sigear. Merovings descended from Merovaeus, the son of Vaermund. Ulvungar, Ylvingar, incorrectly Ynglingar, descended from

Uffe, Ulf or Völf, the son of Vaermund. This name was generally

THE SUEVIC DYNASTIES applied to the royal house of Sweden, descended from Alf, the son of Ulf.

Völfungar were also descended from Uffe, Ulf or Völf, but the name was generally applied to Sigmund, the son of Völf, and his sons Helge Hundingsbane and Sigurd Fafnesbane.

Uffingas descended from Uffe, but the name was generally applied to the descendants of Tytla, the son of Sigmund and the grandson of Uffe. To this dynasty belonged King Redwald of East Anglia.

Both Sigmund and Helge Hundingsbane were Chief kings over Denmark and Sweden and also ruled over parts of Frankland. Their Nordic dominions were governed from the two strong places Håtuna on the lake of Malar and Ringstad in Zeeland. At these places they kept their armies and fleets (Helge Hundingsbane I, 26).

In the Langfedgetal and Ynglingatal there is no distinction made between Ulvungar and Völfungar. Apart from the fact that many of the kings are pure inventions, especially the early ones, there is nothing to show that these tables are pedigrees. On the contrary, it seems clear that when a Völfung king appears in this list he is either placed there as a Chief king or breaks the pedigree of the Ulvungar.

In the Ynglingatal Ulf and his son Alf are taken up as joint kings under the names of Yngve and Alf. In the Langfedgetal Yngve is made contemporary with his grandson Helge. Anund in the Ynglingatal is surely identical with the Völfung Håmund, brother of Helge. In order to make the generations fit, Anund the Old has been given an age of 210 years. In Jörund we recognize Jormunrek, the son-in-law of Sigurd Fafnesbane. He was probably king in Sweden only by name. After the expulsion of Ingiald Illråde's descendants at the beginning of the seventh century, other less famous families than the Ulvungar got into power. About 100 years later, however, the Ulvungar returned stronger than ever, not the descendants of Ingiald, but those of Ingvar, younger brother of Brötanund.

HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS We are now in a position to give the pedigree of the elder

Ulvungar. ^

Alf

I Innsten

I Ottar

I Adils

.. I Osten

Brötanund Ingvar

Ingiald Illråde

According to the sagas, Olof Tràtàlja, the son of Ingiald, was sacrificed by his people to the gods. Snorre states that his son Ingiald was king of Vårmland. Others hold that he settled in England. In fact, there was a K i n g Ingiald in England who died in 720. If he was identical with Olofs son, the pedigree of K i n g Alfred should branch off at that point and go back through the Ulvungar to Woden.

Walther Vogel writes (Die Normannen und das Frankische Reich, p. 18): ' Svear and Göter had one king in common who had his seat at Sigtuna.' The observation of the German historian is correct both in respect of that time when the Völfungar ruled in the North, and for that later period when the Ulvungar had re­turned into power. It must be noticed, however, that many of these Chief kings at Sigtuna ruled over dominions far beyond the frontiers of Sweden—in Denmark, Norway, England, Frankland and Esthonia. In Sweden their principal fastness was Håtuna, from which the entrance to Upsala was controlled. It seems probable that A l f and his descendants down to Ingiald Illråde resided at Upsala, while the Volfunga kings, Sigmund, Helge and

T H E S U E V I C D Y N A S T I E S 23

Hårnund, stayed at Håtuna, when they returned for the summer to the North from their expeditions in southern countries. The later Ulvunga kings, Sigurd Ring and his descendants, resided at Håtuna in Upland, at Ringstad in Zeeland and in Ringerike in Norway. We now proceed to a study of this powerful line of Ulvungar or Ylvings, the house of Ingvar.

I N G V A R ' S L I N E O F Y L V I N G S

MA N Y historians have made desperate efforts to connect the pedigree of the Swedish King Olof Scottking, who died in 1020, with Ingiald Illråde in order thereby to

trace his descent back to Woden. Ingiald's son Olof was supposed to have had a son Inge, from whom Olof Scottking was descended in the fourth generation. In order to get Ragnar Lodbrok (Lothroc or Lothbroc) into this pedigree as well, a marriage was arranged between Inge and Ragnar 's daughter. By doing this, however, they overlooked the not quite unimportant detail that there were five generations between Olof Tråtalja and Ragnar. This pedigree was in fact a very poor construction.

That famous house which has given to history Sigurd Ring, Ragnar Lodbrok, Sigurd Snake-eye, Biorn Jarnsithe, Sweyn Fork-beard, Canute the Great, Rollo and William the Conqueror, traced its descent from Woden, not through Ingiald Illråde, but through his uncle Ingvar, king of Esthonia and Ingria. His son Skira was the father of Radbart, father of Randver, father of Sigurd Ring, king of Sweden. Aud the Deep-minded, daughter of the Scylding king, Ivar Wide-fathom, overlord of Sweden, Denmark, North­umberland, parts of Norway and Saxony, married the Danish king Roric. There is no evidence to prove the statement of the pedigrees that Aud took Radbart for her second husband. In fact this seems most improbable, since the Runic series definitely says that Ring was the son of Harold Hylthetan's sister, and it is not likely that Randver married his half-sister.

The Swedish king, Sigurd Ring, Randver's son, defeated his uncle, Harold, in the battle of Brâvalla in Ostro-Gothia about 780, the first phase of a long struggle for predominance between the Ylvings, represented by Sigurd, and the Scyldings, headed by Harold Hylthetan. In describing the battle Saxo has emphasized this fundamental contrast by letting Woden himself appear in the battle in the disguise of Bruno, who gave Harold the mortal

24

INGVAR'S LINE OF YLVINGS 25

wound. After this victory Sigurd Ring, an Ylving and descendant of Woden, also became a king in Denmark. But the whole of Denmark did not come under his sceptre, only Zeeland, Scania, Halland, Blekinge and Viken. The rest of the country was held by Harold, the son of Harold Hylthetan.

The struggle between Ylvings and Scyldings continued. Harold's son Godfrid or Goder had two sons, Olof and Horic. In 810 they attacked and killed Annulo, the son of Halfdan and the grandson of Sigurd Ring, and conquered his part of the country. Annulo's brothers Harold Klak and Ragnar Lodbrok or Lothbroc then turned to the Roman Emperor for support and eventually recovered their father's dominions. At the wish of the Emperor they were baptized in 826, when Ragnar took the Christian name of Raginfrid (Reginfred, Reinfrid). According to Adam of Bremen, discord arose between the brothers and Ragnar was compelled to leave Denmark. From his father Halfdan he had inherited Ragnarike (Viken), and parts of Norway which once belonged to Ivar Wide-fathom, and was, in fact, a Norwegian king (G. Schönning, Norges Riiges Historie, Soroe, 1773, pp. 61, 445). About 860 Ragnar conquered the Orkney Islands, from where he and his sons organized Viking raids on a large scale. It should be noticed that Ragnar, who moved up the Schelde in 836 and died during this expedition, was never called Lothbroc in the chronicles, and the Danish chief, Ragnar, who became famous for his conquest of Paris in 845, was the brother of the Danish king Horic. He died in 847.

During an expedition to England Ragnar Lothbroc was captured by Ella, the King of Northumberland, and put to a cruel death in a snake-pit. The time when this happened is not known with certainty. Icelandic chronicles give different dates. Hamsforth says that Ragnar was killed and succeeded by his sons Ivar and Sigurd in 854. The Saxon chronicles are probably more reliable. According to their version, Raghnall, the son of a Norwegian king Halfdan, was cruelly killed by Ella in 865. The correctness of

26 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

this statement is vouched for by the fact that England was invaded the following year by very strong forces under the command of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish kings and earls, foremost among whom were the sons of Ragnar. The first onset was made upon Deira. Ella fell during the initial stages of the campaign and his country was conquered. This was the beginning of the big struggle which eventually led to the Danish conquest of England.

The sons of Ragnar Lothbroc were Sigfrid or Sigurd Snogeoeje (Latin, anguis in oculo; Swedish, Ormöga), Bier Costa Ferreae or Biorn Jarnsithe (Swedish, Björn Jàrnsida), Ivar (Benlös or Bagsaeg) and Halvdan Ylving (Fornaldar Sögur, I, 387-8), in Swedish Vitserk, Ingvar Ragnarson and Ubbe. The annals and chronicles add four more sons : Aryc, Ormic, Godfrid and Rothulph. These, however, were Ragnar's grandsons or nephews. Thus Aryc was Eric, the son of Biorn, while Ormic was Ingvar's son Gorm or Gormeric. Godfrid and Rothulph were the sons of Ragnar's brother, Harold Klak.

It seems unlikely that Sigfrid, who was a great Viking chief, ever settled down in Denmark as a king, but his son, Hardesnuth, appears in the records as a Danish king. Biorn resided at Sigtuna on Ansgar 's first visit to that town in 829, when the Swedish king was Anund or Onund Upsale. On his second visit the name of the king at Sigtuna was Olof (vide pedigree, p. 29). In all prob­ability the brother of Horic had, during Biorn's absence abroad, been recognized as a Swedish king. Olof led several successful expeditions to Poland and the Baltic countries. It is known that Ansgar was sent to Olof by Horic on a special mission, probably telling his brother of his approaching death. Horic died in 854 and Olof succeeded him. Olof was succeeded in Denmark by his son Edmund. In Series Runica, prima we read: 'Then was Edmunder king, Olafs son.' On his return to Denmark Biorn was proclaimed king, and after him his son Harold. 'Then was Biorn king, Jarnsithe. Then was Harald king, Biorn's son,' say the runes.

INGVAR'S LINE OF YLVINGS 27

Biorn's younger son, Eric, was at some time a king in Sweden, but he was succeeded by the Scylding king Edmund's son Eric, who got the surname Weatherhat. The latter was succeeded by his son Biorn, the father of Eric the Victorious and the grandfather of Olof Scottking, who was thus a Scylding and a descendant of Harold Hylthetan.

In Denmark Horic's son Horic ruled for some time, but on his death the crown reverted to Gorm, the son of Harold and grandson of Biorn Jarnsithe. The runes tell us 'then was Gorm king, the Old, Harald's son.' He was succeeded by his son Harold Bluetooth, father of Sweyn Forkbeard, father of Canute the Great who died in 1035.

The Scylding King Edmund or Anund had a younger brother Guthorm who became a great ruler in England. On his arrival in East Anglia the Ylving chiefs Ingvar and Ubbe, sons of Lothbroc, departed (Matthew of Paris, Chronicon Majora, ed. 1857, I, 399). There was never any real friendship between the repre­sentatives of these two dynasties in England, and they often fought against each other in spite of the fact that they belonged to the same nation.

The table on pp. 28-9 shows the main lines of these families:

28 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

Y L V I N G K I N G S

overlords in Scandinavia who ruled their dominions from Ringerike in Norway, Ringstad in Zeeland, Ringsta in Ostro-Gothia, Håtuna in Upland and Sotanes in Ragnarike.

Sigurd Ring 1

I Halfdan

Harold Klak Ragnar Lothbroc 2

Godfrid Torny Sigfrid Biorn :

Ingvar4

d. 872

Ragnhild Hardesnuth Harold Rollo 5

d. 931 Gormeric e

Harold Fairhair

d. 933

Gorm William William Bernardus Sihtric the Old Longsword Danus fl. 942 d. 950 d. 942 fl. 930-50

1 Ring Kunung Haralths suster sun Hylthetans (Series Runica, prima). - Ragnar had three more sons : Ivar Boneless, Halfdan Vidserk, Ubbe. 3 Biorn Kunung Jarnsithe, Haralth Kunung Biorns sun, Gorm Kunung hin gamle

Haralths sun (Ibid, and Runic inscription at Jellinge in Jutland). 4 Annales of Ulster. 6 and 6 Vide pp. 30-32.

INGVAR'S LINE OF YLVINGS 29

S C Y L D I N G K I N G S

rulers over Jutland, the Danelaw in England and Sweden as rivals of the Ylvings.

Harold Hylthetan I

Harold 1

I Godfrid

Olof 3 Horic, d. 854 Ragnar, d. 847

Edmund Guthorm (Aethelstan)

d. 890 3

Horic, d. 868

Eric Bothar I

Gorm á.918

Sihtric d. 926

Biorn Godfrid Olof Quaran

Olof Eric the Victorious

Styrbiorn Olof Scottking the Strong d. c. 1020

1 Haralth Kunung Hylthetan sun (Series Runica, prima). * Olaf Kunung Rings Bane Goders sun (Ibid.). 3 D C C C C X I V moritur Gormo Danus in Anglia succedente filio Siderico qui

ducta Editte Tyrae sorore, genuit Olaum et Gotoricum (Hamsfortii Chrono-logia, secunda, ad. arm.). Guthorm died in 890 (English chronicles). Gorm Danus was killed at the battle of Tempsford in 918.

R O L L O ' S A N D G O R M E R I C ' S D E S C E N D A N T S

SNORRE made Rollo (Hrolf the Ganger or Going Rolf) the son of the Norwegian earl Ragnvald of More. This theory has been much discussed by Danish and Norwegian his­

torians, and many arguments have been raised for and against it. The Norwegians have supported Snorre, while the Danes have asserted the opinion that Rollo was a Danish prince. There is no doubt that in all this discussion patriotic feelings have influenced the arguments of the contending parties, but such feelings are particularly out of place in this connection, since Rollo was an Ylving and his ancestors were rulers both in Denmark and Norway.

The pedigree of Rollo and Gormeric, ancestor of the Mont­gomerys, given on p. 28 is supported by the following clear or circumstantial evidence :

1. The statement of Dudo de St. Quentin (De Moribus et Actis Primorum Normanniae Ducum) that Rollo was a Danish prince.

2. Dudo wrote his story some sixty years after Rollo's death at the request of Richard I, Rollo's grandson. Snorre wrote his saga two centuries later.

3. The inconsistency of Snorre's story. He tells us that Ragnvald Jarl was Harold's dearest friend. It does not seem likely, therefore, that Ragnvald's son descended on Viken as an enemy. If Rollo raided Viken, it is far more probable that he did this to establish his claim of inheritance or to avenge some wrong he had suffered. As the grandson of Lothbroc he had a better right to Viken (Ragnarike) than Harold Fairhair, whose mother was Ragnar's granddaughter.

4. The existence of another Earl Rolf or Riulf in Normandy, whom Snorre may have mistaken for Rollo.

5. According to Dudo, Rollo had a brother with the name of Gorm. This prince arrived in France in the company of his uncle Sigfrid, Ragnar's son, and of Godfrid, the son of Harold Klak.

30

ROLLO'S AND GORMERIC'S DESCENDANTS 31

He took a prominent part in the battle of Saulcourt fought on the 3rd of August, 881 (Alberic of Trois-Fontaines, Rerum Gallicarum Scriptores, IX, 58 B) and passed to Lorraine. He used the palace of the Emperor Otto at Aachen as stables (Adam of Bremen) and in the treaty of Esloo he was paid off in gold and silver ('plura millia argenti et auri' according to Chronologia Rerum Septrionalium, Langebek, V, 127).

6. Rollo was present at the siege of Paris in 885, and according to Dudo, Aethelstan sent Rollo presents asking him to leave the siege and come to his assistance against his rebellious subjects. Thus we know that Rollo was fighting in France with the sons of Lothbroc, like his brother Gorm.

7. According to the Germanic genealogies in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris (Cabinet des titres, vol. 20780), the ancestor of the Montgomerys was Gommer, 'one of the princes who accom­panied Duke Rollo at the conquest of Neustria in 885.' This prince must be identical with Gorm. That he was of Danish nationality is clear from the fact that his son Bernard (Christian name for Biorn) was called Danus.

8. Bernardus Danus, who was thus a first cousin of William Longsword, was regent in Normandy during Richard's minority.

9. That the Montgomerys were of Nordic descent is clear from the fact that Gommer's lineal descendant Roger de Mont­gomery signed himself ' ego Rogerius ex Normannis Normannus ' in the foundation charter of Troarn, 1050 (original document in Bibliothèque Nationale, Collection Baluze, vol. 554v).

10. Gommer had three sons : Guillam, ancestor of the Mont­gomerys; Bernardus Danus, ancestor of the Dukes of Harcourt; and Sihtric, a Viking chief, described as the grandson of Ingvar Ragnarson (Annals of the Four Masters). Bernardus Danus called Sihtric to his assistance against the King of France (vide p. 28).

11. The Danish name Gorm or Gormeric (Saxon, Eormenric) has in Frankish been distorted into Gommer or Gommeric and

HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

in Gaelic into Ormic, and is mentioned among the descendants of Lothbroc (Annal. Esrom, Langebek, I, 229).

12. William the Conqueror was a descendant in the fifth generation from Rollo, Ingvar 's son. After his arrival in England William opened Ingvar's grave (Ragnar's Saga, ch. 22).

During many generations the families of Hrolf the Ganger and of Gormeric were closely connected. Bernard the Dane was the chief counsellor of Rollo's son Guillam, and during the minority of Richard I he was regent in Normandy. Bernard's grandson, Thurold de Pont-Audemer, married Aveline, the sister of Gunnor, wife of Richard I, and Roger de Montgomery married Josceline, daughter of Senfrie, another sister of the Duchess. When William the Bastard conquered England, Roger de Montgomery led the operations, while Roger de Beaumont, the grandson of Thurold de Pont-Audemer, was regent of Normandy.

Ever since armorial bearings came into use the Montgomerys have carried much the same arms as the royal houses of Denmark, France and England. The royal arms of Denmark are: or three lions passant guardant azure, while the arms of Philip de Mont­gomery the crusader were: azure a lion rampant or lampassé argent. The arms of Plantagenet were : gules three lions passant guardant; those of the Counts of Montgomery and Alençon, when they did not use the arms of Bellême: gules a chevron ermine between three lions passant guardant or. The Swedish Folkings, the royal house descended on the female line from the Ylvings, used arms similar to those of Montgomery and Plantagenet, while the not regal branch of the Folkings used a fleur-de-lis. The arms of Capets and Bourbons, the royal houses of France, were : azure, three fleurs-de-lis or. Those of the Scottish Montgomerys were the same as these in first and fourth.

Al l these houses were closely related. It is only natural, therefore, that they used the same or similar arms. The Danish house of Ylvings descended from Biorn Jarnsithe became extinct

ROLLO'S AND GORMERIC'S DESCENDANTS 33 on the death of Hardesnuth, the son of Canute the Great, in 1042. The Norman line descended from Hrolf the Ganger died out with Henry I in 1135, but the Ylvings descended from Lothbroc's grandson Gormeric survived in the families of Montgomery and Harcourt. The former remains in Scotland, Ireland, England, Sweden, France, the United States of America and Canada; the latter in France and England.

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY

B L A S O N

Philip de Montgomery, 1096 (Ar- Shield: Azure lion rampant or morial des Salles des Croisades, lampassé argent. Musée de Versailles).

TH E large domains situated within the present departe­ments Calvados and Orne, which once formed part of the feudal county of Montgomery, comprised nearly

150 different enfeoffments, in the first place, Saint-Germain -de-Montgomery, Saint-Foy-de-Montgomery, La Chapelle-Haute-Grise, Vignet and Mesle-sur-Sarthe. The greater part of these lands was probably conquered in 885 by Gormeric, nephew and companion-in-arms of Sigurd. After Rollo's conquest of the country they were held as enfeoffments by Gormeric's descendants. According to Généalogies d'Allemagne (Cabinet des titres, vol. 20780), Gormeric built the stronghold after which the family later got its name. The MS. , referring to Gommer, reads: 'fit bastir la maison nomma de son surnom et de la situation du lieu, qui lui escheut au departement de Normandie.'

The English historian E. A . Freeman, who personally examined the remains of this ancient stronghold, writes (History of the Norman Conquest, London, 1867, II, 197):

'That renowned name first belonged to a spot in the southern part of the diocese of Lisieux, where three successive dwellings have borne the name of the castle of Montgomery. In two of them we at first sight see no reason for a name which bespeaks a fortress set on a hill. On no lofty ground, on either side of a small stream, stand the small remains of a mediaeval castle and a house of the sixteenth century of no great pretensions. This last belongs to times when the name of Montgomery calls up quite another meaning from that which it bore in the days of William. But, high above both these rose the true castle of Montgomery, the fortress

34

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY 35

reared on the true Mons Gomerici, no square donjon, but a vast shell-keep, on a mighty mound, girded by a fosse worthy of the famous spot which it fences in. Only the faintest traces of the building itself can be made out, but the mound and the fosse are there, to keep up the memory of the great house to which that hill gave its name, and which has, in so strange a way, spread its name over many lands. For the castle of Montgomery enjoys a peculiar privilege above all other castles in Norman geography. Other spots in Normandy have given their names to Norman houses, and those Norman houses have given their names to English castles and English towns and villages. But there is only one shire in Great Britain which has had the name of a Norman lordship impressed upon it for ever.'

It seems doubtful whether Gormeric's son William already used the name of Montgomery. One knows with certainty, however, that William's grandson Roger bore the name. Of Gormeric's sons, Bernard was the most famous, and, as we shall see, it was largely owing to his shrewd policy that the Norman throne was saved for Rollo's descendants.

BERNARD THE D A N E

The Norman chiefs exchanged when they were christened their heathen Nordic names for names which sounded better to Christian ears. Thus Hrolf the Ganger took the name of Robert after Robert, Count of Paris, who acted as sponsor at his baptism. Equally, Bernardus Danus must have been the Christian form for the Nordic name Biorn Danske (Latin, Bern or Berno; French,Bier).

The following biographical notes about Bernardus Danus are based chiefly on the relation given by Dudo de St. Quentin in De Moribus et Actis Primorum Normanniae Ducum. Even if this great Norman historian sometimes lets his imagination play him false his story is invaluable, written as it is by a man attached to the court of Richard I. Hardly more than a generation younger than Bernard, he had received first-hand information from eye-witnesses.

3 6 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

Where his relation of events is obviously wrong it has been corrected.

The Norman Duchy was only nineteen years old when its great founder laid his head to rest for ever. The young Duke William was hardly equal to the occasion, swaying as a reed before the breeze which soon grew into storm. French plans of conquest and usurpers' intrigues made the dominion creak in every joint. A strong hand and a wise leadership was indeed required to safeguard the existence and development of the new state. It was in this grave moment for his country that Bernard the Dane, Gormeric's son, seized the reins of government, determined that the Ylving dynasty should be protected and never renounce its superiority .

His first care was to turn the weak Duke into a hard warrior, capable of riding out the approaching storm. William had not inherited his father's strength and genius. Educated by monks and accomplished in manners, he preferred the company of his mother's family and friends in Paris to the rough-and-ready Norman barons in his own country. These had not yet received the Christian refinement which after another two generations distinguished them favourably from their heathen kinsmen in the North. Many Normans despised the Duke for his friendly attitude towards the French, and those heathens who lived in the districts of Besin and Cotentin and still sacrificed to the gods of their ancestors feared that they would be deprived of the freedom they had enjoyed in Rollo's time. Their displeasure found expression in hostile demonstrations against the Duke.

At the head of these unruly citizens was a Norwegian jarl, Riulf or Hrolf, probably the very man whom Snorre mistook for Rollo. Wace calls him in the Roman de Rou Count of Cotentin. His intention was apparently to make himself the Lord of the country. In order to equalize the distribution of power Hrolf demanded large territories situated east of the river Risle. The Duke answered that he was not prepared to cede any land to Hrolf and his men, but he would listen to their counsel in matters of

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY

state interest and act in common with them against all enemies of the country. He also promised them splendid gifts of armour and horses. This friendly answer was interpreted by the Northmen as a sign of weakness, and Hrolf, scenting an excuse to usurp the power, gave his bands the order of a general advance against Rouen. When informed about the new move of the rebels the Duke was seized with fear, and his negotiator now offered also to accept their demands for land. This new concession only strength­ened the rebels in their intention of driving the Duke from the throne. Hrolf declared that he no longer recognized the super­iority of the Duke and advised him to remove to his friends in France as soon as possible, else Rouen would be taken by assault, in which case William's life would not be spared.

Fearing the worst, the Duke left the town with his counsellors and climbed a hill, from whence he could follow the moves of the hostile army. There his own men, all Christian soldiers, eventually assembled and waited for the order of their lord. At this critical moment William turned to Bernard the Dane suggesting that the town should surrender to the rebels without resistance while he and his party proceeded to France and asked for the assistance of Bernard of Senlis, his kinsman. Bernard the Dane, who spoke on behalf of the Council and the Army, declared:

'To Epte we shall follow you, but we shall not go with you into France. I have previously together with your father fought and killed many Franks, whose descendants are still alive and who are not likely to look at us with gentle eyes. As for yourself, do you prefer to lead a useless life dependent upon the grace and charity of others to governing and defending your own country? I and my companions-in-arms will not come with you. We would much rather go back to our ships and return to the North, there to look for a prince and defender worthy of governing such a dukedom as Normandy. A man like you, who is weak as a woman and fears death at the hands of your enemies, is no longer worthy of ruling over us ! '

38 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS

The words of the old Danish warrior brought the Duke to his senses. Instead of fleeing from the enemy he decided to attack him in the open field. At the side of Bernard the Dane he led his men in the assault, which came as such a surprise to the rebels and was directed with so much skill by Bernard that the hostile army, which was vastly superior in number, was completely overthrown. The whole rebel army was dispersed. Those who were not killed, drowned or captured, fled for their lives. According to La Petite Chronique de Tours, Hrolf and his son Anschetil were slain and the enemy camp was totally destroyed.

The rumour of the victory spread like wildfire not only through the Duchy of Normandy but also through France, and for the time being the dynasty of Hrolf the Ganger was saved. The first to be credited with victory was certainly Bernard the Dane, but from that day the Duke had become a power to reckon with. Under the influence of Bernard he developed into one of Normandy's greatest warriors, known to history by the surname of Longsword. At his court assembled a brilliant circle of nobles, and his name was mentioned with reverence by all princes in Europe who were not envious of his position.

Arnulf of Flanders was one of those who could not get over the success of the Duke of Normandy, and at his instigation William was stabbed by an assassin on 17th December 942. His son Richard was then only eight years of age, and Bernard the Dane took the reins. For ten years he was Regent of Normandy, and once more the son of Gormeric had the privilege of saving the Norman state.

When the news of William's death reached Hugo the Great, Count of Paris and Duke of Burgundy, he at once raised an army and marched towards Normandy to seize parts of the country. He captured Evreux, but his two allies, the Counts Allan and Berenger of Brittany, were defeated by the Normans under Bernard the Dane. Louis VI , King of France, arrived at Rouen with the avowed intention of securing the loyalty of the regency to their

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F N O R M A N D Y 39

feoffor. His real object was probably the reunion of Normandy with France, if a favourable opportunity arose. During his visit to Rouen, however, he did nothing which might disclose such a plan. On the contrary, he behaved as a friend of the Norman state, promised to avenge the death of William and confirmed on oath his wish to respect the rights and possessions of Richard. He also promised him protection against his enemies. Even Bernard the Dane was misled by the King's benevolent and friendly attitude and raised no objection when he proposed taking Richard to Laon in order to give him a good education and that knowledge of the arts of chivalry which became a prince.

Whether the King only feigned friendship, or changed his views under the influence of his counsellors once he had the young Duke in his power, is not known, but after his return to France he reversed his attitude towards Normandy. He came to an under­standing with Arnulf of Flanders, and at the Count's suggestion he had the young Duke put into semi-captivity. Arnulf reminded the King of all the evils the Normans had done to France for generations and advised him to burn the heels of the Duke and to impose heavy taxes on the Norman state. Luckily the King did not listen to his advice, and Richard returned to Normandy. According to an older story he was rescued by a faithful servant, but modern historians hold that the King himself released the Duke and sent him back to Normandy after negotiations with the Regent.

But soon afterwards the King and Count Hugo made a pact by which the Norman state should be divided between them. Arnulf readily promised his support for the realization of this plan. Big armies were raised in different parts of France, and never before had there been a more deadly threat to the safety and liberty of the Norman state. Now again Bernard was responsible for the safety of his country. Realizing the seriousness of the situation, he was determined to take no risks and sent messengers to a powerful Danish chief who had settled at Cotentin to ask for his assistance.

4o HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS As his name was Harold (in French Aigrold), Dudo identified him with the Danish king Harold Bluetooth. However, the chronicles of Frodoard and of the monk Richer prove that Dudo was mistaken on this point. Bernard also asked his brother Seitric (Sihtric) for his support.

In order to allay suspicion Bernard sent Louis messengers protesting friendship and loyalty. He also paid the King a personal visit and had a heart-to-heart talk with him about the threatening crisis. He pointed out to the King that he had a bad ally in Hugo, his most dangerous rival in France. There was no necessity to wage war on Normandy. The King had only to come and take possession of it. The thought of French dominion did not alarm the Normans : what they feared was a division of the country, which would not only encroach upon their own dignity but also on the rights of France. Should the King nevertheless insist upon his plans, Bernard would go north to raise an army and then return to fight France as Hrolf the Ganger had done. 'Then it might well be, that the country will be neither yours nor Hugo's.'

Before his arguments and obvious threat the King yielded, little suspecting that Bernard had already sent his messengers to Harold. Consequently he requested Hugo to raise the siege of Bayeux and withdraw his troops from Normandy. The Duke of Burgundy, who feared united action between Louis and the Normans, reluctantly complied with the King's demand.

Once Bernard had succeeded in creating a breach between Hugo and Louis he spread the rumour all over Normandy that the French intended to seize all big properties in the country and that Louis had chosen Bernard's own wife for one of his men. While the King and Count Arnulf planned the peaceful occupation of Normandy Bernard thus prepared opinion against them, and when Harold's fleet of 60 long-ships cast anchor at Cherbourg the Danes were greeted by the Normans as friends, and warriors streamed forward from all parts of the Duchy to join forces with them.

Now the situation had changed and it was no longer Louis but

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY 41

Bernard the Dane who held the trumps. The French army suffered a smarting defeat at Varaville on 13th July 945 and the King himself was captured at Rouen where he had taken refuge. He was handed over to Hugo the Great of Burgundy, who had gone over to Bernard's side, and was not released until he had guaranteed the independence of the Norman state. His sons Lothar and Carloman and several French officials were kept by Bernard as hostages until the peace treaty was solemnly signed. Through this treaty Normandy was ensured the position of a sovereign and independent state, which it had not been according to the agreement between Charles the Simple and Hrolf the Ganger signed at Saint-Clair-sur-Epte in 911.

Some historians have severely criticized Bernard the Dane for his deceitful policy. We must remember, however, that Bernard acted under very strong provocation. Assassination, treason, violence and plundering marked the path of his enemies. Against those who were guilty of such offences no complaint is raised, perhaps because their wickedness is so generally known. But Bernard was a high-minded statesman who placed the welfare of his country before every other consideration. This is just the reason why the critics have been so hard on him. A good man is always more severely criticized than a bad man, when he departs from the generally recognized code of morality.

'Right or wrong—my country' is a much disputed principle, but seldom has its application been better justified and founded on more unselfish motives than in the case of Bernard's hard struggle for the life of the Norman state.

ROGER I DE MONTGOMERY Gormeric's eldest son, William, had a son Hugo. His

son Roger de Montgomery is the first member of the family of whom one knows with certainty that he used the surname. The French historian, the Vicomte Du Motey, calls Roger 'one

HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS of the most powerful Norman Barons at the end of the tenth century.'

William the Bastard, the name of the Norman Duke before he conquered England and gained the prouder surname of the Conqueror, was the son of Robert II and Ariette or Herlève, the daughter of one Fulbert, tanner of Falaise. Judging by his great care of churches and monasteries, Roger must have been a very religious man. No wonder, therefore, that after Robert's death he refused to recognize William, born out of wedlock, as the legitimate heir to the throne. He and his sons Hugo and Robert organized the opposition against the young Duke, whose guardian was Allan, Duke of Brittany. They struggled against heavy odds, since the Duke's supporters were far more numerous, but Mont­gomery defended himself with great courage and tenacity behind the walls of his castle. Allan died at Vimoutiers during the siege, but in the end Montgomery had to surrender. He was banished from the country and went to France, where he was well received by Henry I, who shared his views. Roger died in Paris about 1040. According to the Cartulary of Troarn, his wife Josceline was still alive in 1068.

During Roger's exile his sons remained in Normandy, continu­ing to fight for what they considered a just cause. This struggle eventually developed into sheer vendetta. Allan's successor as guardian of the young Duke was Osbern de Crépon, the son of Herfast, brother of Duchess Gunnor. He was a cousin of Richard II and also of Roger de Montgomery's wife Josceline. In spite of this kinship Osbern pitilessly persecuted Roger's sons, and one of them, William, determined to capture the Duke, who lived with Osbern in the strongly fortified castle of Vaudreuil. The guardian watched like a hawk over his precious life, but one night William and his confederates managed to penetrate within the castle to the Duke's chamber. He was not there, but Osbern, whom they found alone, was summarily strangled. Ordericus says that on this occasion the Duke's life was saved by his uncle Gautier,

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F N O R M A N D Y 43

brother of Arlette, who had hidden him in his bed. Some days later one of Osbern's men, Barnous de Glos, surprised William in his quarters and killed him during his sleep. Now the vendetta was accomplished and the way open to reconciliation between the Duke's party and the Montgomerys.

HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS

ROGER II D E M O N T G O M E R Y

The question whether Roger II de Montgomery, Earl of Arundel and Shrewsbury, was the son or the grandson of the elder Roger has been the subject of much unnecessary controversy. With this question has been combined another : whether it was the elder Roger or his son Hugo who was married to Josceline, niece of Gunnor, Duchess of Normandy.

The cause of all this discussion is the following statement by William of Jumièges (Vol. VIII , ch. 35): 'Rogerius Comes, filius Hugonis de Monte Gomerici . . . natus est ex quadam neptium Gunnoris comitissae, scilicet ex Joscelina filia Weviae.' Robert of Caen, Benoit and Francisque Michel have given the same pedigree.

From his own words in the third Charter of Troarn we know, however, that Roger II was the son of Roger L This statement reads: 'Ego Rogerius, ex Normannis Normannus, magni autem Rogerii filius ' (Cartulary of Troarn, fol. 1). After the discovery of this charter the question was settled.

That Josceline was married to Roger I and mother of Roger II is clear from the above statement when compared with the pedigree given by Ives, Bishop of Chartres, in a letter to Henry I. He writes : ' Gonnora et Senfria sorores fuerunt . . . ex Senfria excivit Joscelina, ex Joscelina, Rogerius de Monte Gummeri, ex Rogerio, Mabilia soror Roberti Bellimensis' (Migne, Patrologia latina, C L X I I , 261). This pedigree also informs us that Josceline was the daughter of Senfrie, Gunnor's eldest sister, and not of Wevie as stated by William of Jumièges.

Roger I had by Josceline five sons: Hugo, Robert, William, Roger and Gilbert. William, we know with certainty, was killed during the succession war after the death of Robert II. Hugo and Robert probably met with the same fate. In any case, they seem to have been dead in 1050 when Roger inherited the feudal domains. That Hugo was older than Roger is proved by the fact that he signed

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY 45

an endowment charter of Jumièges together with his father. Under his signature was written ' Signum Hugonis filii ejus ' (Rotuli Scacc. Normanniae, I, 73). Gilbert was poisoned in 1063 by Mabile de Bellême (Ordericus Vitalis, II, 81, 106-7).

The first time we meet Roger II de Montgomery is during the siege of Domfront in 1052. Geoffrey Martel, Count of Anjou, had attacked the Duke and by means of treachery come into posses­sion of the strongly fortified castle of Domfront. The Norman army raised in Hiémois was commanded by Roger de Mont­gomery, William of Breteuil, the son of Osbern, and William of Talou, Count dArques, the son of Richard II. The Duke decided to seize Domfront, but the garrison left by Martel put up a strong defence and the siege was making slow progress. Mean­while the Duke and his companions-in-arms made merry by hawking in the Domfront grounds.

One day a report reached the Duke that the Count of Anjou was approaching with a strong army. Now the Duke suddenly found himself between two fires, since the strong garrison might at any moment venture a sally. He decided immediately to raise the siege and to attack Martel as far as possible from Domfront. By forced marches the Norman army hastened in the direction of the enemy, while Roger de Montgomery and William of Breteuil were sent in advance to reconnoitre the enemy's movements. Approaching his advanced posts they were met by an officer followed by a horn-blower. He informed them that the Count of Anjou intended to attack the Duke the following day, and described the horse he would ride in the battle, his armour and arms. The object of giving this information was apparently to inspire his enemy with fear, but Roger simply declared that the Duke would soon be there and intended to lead the attack himself.

Martel rose early the following morning, drank a wine-soup and put on his armour. Hearing that the Duke's army was quite close, he drew the conclusion that Domfront had fallen, and fearing to meet his dangerous enemy alone he ordered retreat. This soon

4 6 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS developed into a rout after some of his troops had been caught in an ambush laid by the Duke. Roger de Montgomery is de­scribed on this occasion as 'young and very brave' (William of Malmesbury, ed. Saville, p. 96).

But Roger was also a man with a strong sense of spiritual values. In 1050 he founded the church of Troarn. His father had made an endowment for the support of twelve deacons, but he made provision for twelve monks.

Roger's own domains stretched from Hiémois almost to the sea. Besides the castles of Montgomery, Trun, Saint-Sylvin, Thuit and Montaigu-la-Brisette he owned the town of Bernay and the major part of the forests of Gouffern and Auge. Through his marriage to Mabile de Bellême, the daughter and heiress of Guillaume Talvas, Prince de Bellême, he more than doubled his domains, which covered almost one-third of all land in Normandy. Very probably his marriage was arranged by the Duke out of regard to the defence of the Norman frontier. Bellêmois had an exposed position and always received the first blow when the Count of Anjou attacked Normandy. Moreover, the people in Bellêmois were not altogether reliable. In this part of the country the Duke needed an experienced warrior who was equally a man with a strong will. Such a man was Roger, and he was therefore chosen as husband to the richest heiress in the Duchy. Through his marriage to Mabile de Bellême Roger wás tied to this restless corner of Normandy after the death of her father.

Mabile was no ordinary woman. Du Motey gives this portrait of her: 'His future wife was a young girl, quite small, with an exceptional ''finesse d'esprit" and full of energy. She was cheerful, expressed herself with great ease and made her decisions boldly. These qualities have been recognized even by a bitter slanderer (Ordericus Vitalis), who does not hesitate to darken the picture by calling her cruel and inclined to do evil ' (Origine de la Normandie, Paris, 1920, p. 219). She was undoubtedly a great and fascinating

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY 47

personality. During the violent war which shook her country to its very foundations she defended her own territory sword in hand, while Roger, as second in command to the Duke, drove out the invaders, Henry I of France and the Count of Anjou. The abbot Durand at Troarn called her 'the shield of the country and the bulwark of the frontiers.' When Roger was called by the Con­queror to follow him to England, Mabile took over the administra­tion and defence of Hiémois and Bellême. This best shows of what metal Mabile was wrought.

Herbert II, Count of Maine, died in 1062. His sister Marguer­ite, who was engaged to marry Robert, the eldest son of the Duke of Normandy, died the following year. As she was the sole heiress of this county, of which Foulques le Rechin, Count of Anjou, was the feoffor, the Duke made with him an agreement by which Robert should enter into her feudal rights. The insignia were handed over during a solemn act at the castle of Alençon, where Roger and Mabile held the reception. The Duke and his son, the Count of Anjou with his suite, and a great many nobles and vassals from both countries, were present at the ceremony. The moment was considered most expedient for the organization of revolt, and Geoffrey of Mayenne, who refused to recognize the legality of the agreement between the Duke and Foulques, hoisted the standard of rebellion.

After a very hard struggle Roger de Montgomery, who had raised an army at Alençon, succeeded in repressing the revolt and reducing all the strongholds occupied by the insurgents. Maine was after these events incorporated with the Norman state.

Once the Duke had quelled the rebellion within his own country and added this new county to his territory, Normandy had become a very powerful state. Not even the King of France would risk a war against such a neighbour. It was in consciousness of this fact that William the Bastard planned his great expedition to England.

The Norman conquest of England was by no means the whim of a powerful prince or the manifestation of his love of conquest.

48 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS On the death of Edward the Confessor in 1066 the Duke was, if not the legal heir, at any rate the pretender. For Edward already in 1051 had held out to William the prospect of being his successor. On his death-bed, however, he provided otherwise. Harold, the son of his much trusted Earl Godwin and brother of his own wife Edith, was chosen as his successor. Harold accepted the crown although he had on oath bound himself to support William's claim, and broke his promise to marry the Duke's daughter.

William's claim to the English throne was also a hereditary one. His grandfather's sister, Emma, married, first, Ethelred, King of England, and secondly Canute the Great. By Canute she had a son Hardicanute, King of England. By Ethelred she had a son Edward the Confessor. These two kings were thus first cousins of William's father. Moreover, both William and Roger were lineal descendants of Ingvar, King of East Anglia and Northumberland.

William did not overlook the necessity of preparing his enter­prise by diplomatic action. In the first instance he assured himself of the support of the French king and also of his kinsman, the Emperor Henry IV. He managed even to get the Pope's recogni­tion of the legality of his claims. This was all the more easy since the Pope, Alexander II, was ill-disposed towards Harold and the English owing to the fact that Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury, who was a Norman by birth, had been displaced by an Englishman without papal consent. Harold was openly branded as an oath-breaker for the breach of his promise to William's daughter, and the thunders of excommunication were hurled against him.

In this way the expedition to England was given the appearance of a crusade, and the Pope in person consecrated the great banner of the Norman army.

Tostig or Toste, Earl of Northumberland, King Harold's eldest brother, also took the side of William, considering himself superseded. Probably in a secret understanding with William, he paid a visit to his cousin, the Danish king Sven Ulfson, in order

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY 49

to persuade him to assert the Danish rights to the English throne. Sven, however, did not consider himself strong enough to partake in an attack on England. Toste then proceeded to Norway and succeeded in the end in persuading King Harold Hårdråde to risk a toss in order to win the crown of England. Toste had also been promised support from Flanders, which is an indication that he co-operated with William, whose wife, Mathilda, was a princess of Flanders.

Everything was thus well prepared by diplomatic methods before the Duke embarked upon his perilous enterprise. In the summer of 1066 the nobles of Normandy met at Lillebonne, and William put his plans to them. The assembly at first refused to vote for the grants he proposed, but talking privately to all the members he eventually got them to agree. Thereby he obtained good support from Roger de Montgomery, who promised him 60 ships for the expedition. The whole fleet reckoned some 400 ships. In comparison it may be mentioned that the Norwegian fleet comprised only half that number, besides small boats (vist-bördingar and småskutor). There were also the ships which took across the army raised by Toste in Flanders.

On 24th September the English army commanded by Harold himself completely routed the united forces of Harold Hårdråde and Toste in the sanguinary battle of Stamford Bridge, and three days later the Norman fleet of invasion set sail. It reached the harbour of Pevensey the following day without any adventures. On 14th October the victorious English army met its new adversary on the field of Hastings. Harold grouped his forces, which were chiefly on foot, on a hill and waited there for the Normans to attack. William's army had the best equipment possible in those days. The horsemen carried full armour and lances. The archers handled cross-bows and all of them had helmets. But the English army also was well armed, and the struggle was long and fierce. The Duke himself commanded the centre, Roger de Montgomery the right wing. Robert Wace described this battle in the Roman

D

5o HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS de Rou when it was still fresh in the memory. A prose translation of this great epic contains the following striking passage :

'William called out "Rogier, whom they call de Montgomery; I rely much on you; lead your men thitherward, and attack them from that side. William, the son of Osbern, the seneschal, a right good vassal, shall go with you and help in the attack, and you shall have men of Boilogne and Poix, and all my soldiers. Alain Fergant and Aimeri shall attack on the other side and they shall lead the Poitevins and the Bretons and all the barons of Maine. I with my own great men, my friends and kindred [among these were Gosselin, William, Ralph and Ansfrid de Montgomery] will fight in the middle throng, where the battle shall be hottest." . . . The Normans were playing their part well, when an English knight rushed up, having in his company one hundred men, furnished with various arms. He wielded a northern axe, with a blade a full foot long, and was well armed after his manner, being tall, bold and of noble carriage. In the front of the battle where the Normans thronged most, he came bounding on swifter than a stag, many Normans falling before him and his company. He ran straight upon a full-armoured Norman mounted on a war horse, and tried with his axe of steel to cleave his helmet, but the blow miscarried, and the sharp blade glanced down before the saddle bow, driving through the horse's neck down to the ground, so that both horse and master fell together to the earth. I know not whether the Englishman struck another blow, but the Normans who saw the stroke were astonished and about to abandon the assault. Roger de Mont­gomery came galloping up, with his lance set, and heeding not the long-handled axe, which the Englishman wielded aloft, struck him down and left him stretched upon the ground. Then Rogier cried, "Frenchmen, strike, the day is ours."'

William of Jumièges states in general terms that Roger took part in the war against England : ' Predictus autem Rogerius bello Anglico interfuit,' while Ordericus Vitalis says that he was Regent in Normandy during the transmarine war: 'Quern—Rogerium—

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY

tutorem Normanniae, dum ad bellum transmarinum profisceretur, cum sua conjuge dimiserat.' We must note, however, that Orderi­cus never denies the fact that Roger fought in the battle of Hastings. Guillaume de Poitiers declares definitely that Roger de Beaumont at that moment was Regent in Normandy.

The detailed description of the part played by Roger in the battle of Hastings given by Robert Wace, who was contemporary with Henry I, can hardly have been based on mere imagination. It seems far more probable that he had got reliable information from men who well knew the events of this momentous struggle. Nor have such great authorities as E . A . Freeman and C. L . Kingsford questioned the testimony of the Norman troubadour, and on the plate over Roger's grave in Shrewsbury Abbey is written: 'Sir Roger de Montgomery, second in command of the army of his Kinsman William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings.' Finally, Patronymica Britannica (ed. M . A. Lower, i860, p. 228) is equally explicit: 'Roger, a kinsman of the Con­queror, accompanied him, and led the centre of his army at Hastings.'

Roger's combat with the English knight was apparently the prelude to the decisive phase of the battle. So long as the English army remained on the hill in unbroken battle-array the Normans made no headway, but as soon as Harold risked a sally he weakened his position. The experienced Roger immediately seized this opportunity, and killing with his own hands the leader of the attacking force he led his men through the gap in the enemy's line as it was rolled up. This determined the battle. Harold, who had fought bravely, fell, and with him many English earls. After his victory William planted the banner consecrated by the Pope on the battle-field.

His good relations with the Pope secured him from the be­ginning the support of the English clergy and facilitated the occupa­tion of the country. Al l organized resistance in the south-west of England was broken and the way to London lay open. Soon after

5 2 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

his arrival in London William was crowned with great pomp and splendour. It was probably on this occasion that Roger was created Earl of Arundel and Earl of Chichester in recognition of his services during the whole expedition, and especially in the decisive battle. Certainly the King also thought of the importance of having the right man in these key-positions, from which the southern coast of England and the communications with Normandy could be protected.

As usual, there was a great deal of unrest in Normandy, in Maine and along the French frontier. The King's presence in London was needed, but he sent Roger to Normandy and made him Regent at the side of the Queen. At Easter 1067 William also returned to Normandy for a short visit. Roger received him at Rouen, where he exhibited the trophies and precious objects of art taken from the conquered country—vases of gold and silver, and Saxon drinking-horns, and gold embroideries, a speciality of the Saxon women. William spent Easter at his castle of Fecamp, but he was soon compelled to leave the country. Disquieting news arrived from London, where his brother Eude and William Fitz Osborn headed the government during his absence. They had embarked upon a rule of the most fearful oppression and the heart-rending cries of the distressed people reached even to Normandy. The King decided to return to London and to take Roger with him, so as to clear up the situation and complete the conquest of those large territories which had not yet been incor­porated with the Anglo-Norman empire.

Before leaving the country Roger placed his wife Mabile at the head of the government in Hiémois and Bellême with full powers in every respect. With his eldest son, Robert de Bellême, he paid a farewell visit to the Church of Troarn, which again received large endowments, including the greater portion of the domains he had inherited from his mother Josceline. The charter of endowment was signed by himself and his eldest son and also by the King, the Queen and Robert, Prince of Normandy. Among

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY 53

his vassals Roger chose Robert Picot of Say, Corbet of Boitron, William Pantoul of Noron and Guérin le Chauve to come with him to England. They crossed the Channel in December and Roger spent Christmas with the King in London.

Now began for Roger a period of very hard but also very interesting work. On the one hand, he had to conquer and lay under Norman rule the large portions of the country which were still free. On the other hand, it proved necessary to take the Norman lords by the scruff of the neck in order to prevent them from totally destroying the Anglo-Saxon population by oppression and cruelty. As a rule, Roger was known as ' the Great Earl' to distinguish him from the other earls (Shrewsbury Historical, p. 23), and it was he who planned and organized practically the whole conquest, from the moment when the assembly at Lillebonne voted for the expedition until the last corner of English soil was placed under Norman rule. It is natural, therefore, that Freeman calls Roger 'literally foremost among the conquerors of England,' while Kingsford in his article on Roger in the Dictionary of National Biography gives him the epithet 'greatest of the Norman lords.'

King Harold's mother, Gytha, sister of the Danish king Sven Ulfson, had, with the remainder of the defeated army, locked herself up in the strongly fortified town of Exeter. As to the northern counties, their struggle for liberty was supported by Malcolm Canmore, King of Scotland. The Danish chief Asbiorn ravaged the country along the Humber, and the Saxon earl Edric had raised the banner of rebellion in Shropshire. Finally, the warlike Celts of Wales refused to submit to the new lords, whose atrocities were giving rise to the most alarming stories.

William and Roger took these centres of unrest in hand in the above order, and in most cases it was a hard and sanguinary struggle. The garrison of Exeter defended itself with the utmost vigour and the Normans suffered heavy casualties. It proved impossible to reduce this strong fortress by military dispositions, but it fell in the end through treason.

54 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS

In the north, too, the struggle was long and bitter but after the Scots had been driven back across the frontier the border counties gave up. Northumberland was heavily punished for its fierce resistance and large portions of the county were laid waste.

The Danish chief was easier to cope with. Roger saw in him almost a compatriot and treated him in the most fnendlj' way. Asbiorn willingly left the country with his ships loaded with girts

instead of stolen goods. While William and Roger fought in other parts of the country,

Edric, who co-operated with the Welsh, had seized the old fortress of Shrewsbury, throwing out the Norman chief Scrob the son of Richard. Scrob had received large grants m Herefordshire from Edward the Confessor. By 1069 Roger had arrived m tins part of the country, where he afterwards remained for the greater part of his life Having received the news of Edric's victory over the Normans in Shropshire, William and Roger, who were with the main army in Lincolnshire, hastened to their rescue and defeated the Saxon army at Stafford. Edric defended himself bravely at Shrewsbury, but, since the town had partly been shot into ruins by catapults, it surrendered. Edric and some of his troops nianaged to cut their way through the Norman lines and afterwards hid m the neighbouring forests, from which they harassed the Normans bv continued raids. The following year, however, the Saxon chief was captured, and from that time onwards law and order were also established in that part of the country. For his servicesi during this campaign William rewarded Roger with the earldom of

Shrewsbury. . . , The Great Earl now directed his attention to Wales, tne

mountainous little country with its brave people, who with the courage of despair defended their corner of the island, over which their ancestor once ruled. After a long siege Roger managed to reduce Baldwin Castle in Powis, the principal seat of resistance, whereupon he occupied the country bit by bit, building a castle or fortress to defend each new conquest. The biggest of these

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY 55

was Montgomery Castle, which gave the name to the county in which it was built. This castle is said to have been destroyed by the Welsh in 1095, but it was still in existence in 1264, when the King repealed his orders to Adam Fitz Philip (de Montgomery) to deliver it up to John Lestrange.

Roger's domains in the west of England comprised not only the greater part of Shropshire but also his conquests in Wales. He owned large parts of Sussex which belonged to the earldom of Arundel. According to the Domesday Book he owned altogether 150 castles and lordships within ten counties. He built the Norman parts of Arundel Castie, and also Shrewsbury Castle situated in the middle of the town of Shrewsbury on the spot where the old fortress stood. Fifty houses were pulled down to make room for this castle.

According to J. C. Whyte (History of the British Turf, 1840, i , 19), Earl Roger imported well-bred stallions from Spain to his estate in Powis. This is the first time on record that steps were taken to improve the breed of horses in England. In a sense Roger can be considered as the founder of the British turf, of which the history thus covers nearly nine centuries.

From his big domains in Normandy Roger had experience both in agriculture, horse-breeding and cattle-breeding, and one can be certain that a man of his character did his utmost to develop those lands which were placed under his immediate care. But tie time was warlike and he was not left long to pursue this pleasanter avocation.

The lords in conquered Maine, who well knew that the King and Earl Roger were engaged in bitter struggles throughout England and Wales, began to get restive; and this time Geoffrey of Mayenne led the rebellion. Roger's wife Mabile fought for her country, often at the head of her troops, and during two long years of incessant warfare she managed to hold her own with the insurgents. However, at the beginning of the year 1073 t r i e

situation was getting so serious that the Conqueror decided to return to Normandy to quell the revolt with English troops. As

56 HIST ORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

usual, when he had to master a really difficult situation, he took Roger with him. Roger's eldest son, Robert de Bellême, who was then only seventeen years old but had received an excellent educa­tion and good training in the use of arms, was also of his company. During the siege of Fresney-le-Vicomte Robert distinguished himself by great personal courage and was knighted by the King in recognition of his services, a good manhood test for a boy of seventeen.

Between Robert de Bellême and the young Duke Robert, to whom his father gave the unpleasant nickname Courte-Heuse, on account of his short legs—a name which he kept all his life—a great friendship grew up, which in later years passed the hardest tests. Unfortunately it was this friendship that gave Roger so much anxiety during his old age and, as we shall see presently, cost the family all its domains in England.

After much hard fighting the King and Montgomery succeeded in quelling the rebellion, and English troops were garrisoned in most of the Norman strongholds. These troops had a bad char­acter with the Norman people, not only because they belonged to a foreign and conquered nation, but also for acts of aggression against the population in the districts where they were quartered.

As we often find in history, small occasions sometimes have most devastating consequences. Thus a private quarrel between William's sons led to open breach between him and his eldest son, Robert. One evening when Robert and his friends sat on his balcony, the whole company was suddenly drenched by water from the rooms above, where his brothers lived. Robert rushed up and attacked them sword in hand. Neither party suffered any injuries, but when the father afterwards intervened to settle the quarrel Robert transferred his hatred to him. The English troops in Normandy were also an eyesore to him, and the end of it was that he opened hostilities against his own father. The French king, to whom he applied for support, and Robert of Bellême, both took his part.

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY 57

This quarrel between father and son threatened to throw the Norman state into a terrible civil war. Both parties raised large armies, and William is said to have put no less than 60,000 mounted troops in the field. At the decisive moment, however, the Great Earl, as he had done so many times before, intervened and suc­ceeded by the good offices of the clergy in settling the dispute between William and his son, but the bone of contention remained. According to the agreement the King made Robert his heir as Duke of Normandy, but his own conquest, the Kingdom of England, was to go to his third son, William Rufus.

After this settlement William and Montgomery could return to England, where their presence, as usual, was badly needed. Many important matters had to be settled between the King and his vassals. In 1081 he held his court at Winchester, where the lords of the country assembled. After the conquest William had laid all land under the crown, including also the land owned by Saxon lords, but now he made enfeoffments, chiefly to his Norman vassals, as rewards for military and other services. As chief liege lord of the whole country he had a much stronger position in England than in Normandy, where many vassals had other liege lords than the Duke. During his long reign in England he managed to hold his own with the earls and barons. This was also the result of the wise policy pursued by Roger. Although he stood up for the interests of his own class he always advised the vassals to be fair and moderate in their claims and when dealing with the people. That the conquered race was not completely ruined was largely to his credit. From the very beginning of Norman rule in England it was clear to him that the power of the temporal lords would become intolerable and endanger the royal power unless there was found some counterpoise against it. This was first found in the Saxon people, whom he took under his protection and advised the King to do likewise. Moreover, he made the clergy strong and was himself the greatest benefactor in the country.

58 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS Mabile de Bellême only went for short visits to her husband in

England. The life of intrigue and fighting which she led in her own country suited her nature much better than the comparative quiet of England where, owing to the judicious policy of William and Earl Roger, order reigned. Before she left England Mabile followed her husband's example by making big endowments to the Church.

Early in 1082 Robert Courte-Heuse started on a combined tour of study and propaganda through France, Flanders, Germany and other countries, visiting their greater courts on the way. To them he complained about the harshness of his father and applied for subsidies. To the great regret of his mother, Robert de Bellême accompanied the Prince on this pitiful journey.

Roger was a good husband, and to console his wife he visited Normandy in June that year, but his many duties in England compelled him to return after only a short stay with her. One day in December he received the news that Mabile had been assassinated—beheaded in her bedchamber. The murderers were four officers suspected of treason. Roger's sorrow and indignation were boundless, and the King deeply regretted his best and most reliable supporter in Normandy. Big rewards were promised to those who could capture the murderers dead or alive. They were chased over practically the whole continent, but left no trace. One of them was found in the Orient during the first crusade, sixteen years later. He had sought refuge amongst the Mussulmans.

After the death of Mabile Roger immediately went to Nor­mandy, where he remained for several years. During this time he married again. His wife was Adelaide de Puiset, whose character was the very opposite to that of Mabile. While Mabile was born to intrigue and to lead out troops to battle, Adelaide spent most of her time at home embroidering altar-cloths or arranging church festivals. Which of his wives was nearest his heart is difficult

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY 59

to tell. Mabile was the love of his youth, and no doubt he admired her most. But the sweet and gentle Adelaide was the comfort and companion of his old age. Roger's sons by Mabile were :

(1) Robert, Prince of Bellême, Count of Alençon and Ponthieu. (2) Hugh, Earl of Shrewsbury. (3) Roger 'Pictavinus,' Earl of Lancaster, Count of La Marche. (4) Philip ' Grammaticus,' crusader. (5) Arnulf 'Cimbricus,' Earl of Pembroke.

His daughters were :

(1) Emma, Abbess of Almenèches. (2) Mathilde, married to Robert, Earl of Morton, half-brother

of William the Conqueror. (3) Mabile, married to Hugo I de Châteauneuf. (4) Sibylle, married to Robert Fitzhamon, Earl of Gloucester

and Bristol.

Adelaide bore him one son, Everard, chaplain to the kings William Rufus and Henry I.

During his stay in Normandy Roger persuaded his son Robert to return home, and according to the wish of Mabile and with royal consent arranged his marriage with Agnes de Ponthieu, daughter and heiress of Guy, Count of Ponthieu, whose lands had the King of France as feoffor. The Counts of Ponthieu were descended from Angilbert, who married Bertha, daughter of Charlemagne. After his marriage Robert settled at Bellême, where he took over his mother's role as defender of Normandy's southern frontier. He also was destined to play an important but tragic part in the history of his country. We shall deal with his career in the following chapter.

Roger still to some extent supervised the activities of his son in Normandy. A letter to Robert is still preserved. It must be

6o HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS

characteristic of Roger's manner of writing and of getting things done:

' Earl Roger to Robert de Bellême, his very dear son. Greeting.

I wish, provide and permit that you confirm, guarantee and honour in all respects the endowment comprising vineyards, a mill, and land in my feoff made for the benefit of Saint Martin and for the salvation of his soul by Gilbert, son of the bishop who became a monk. You shall deal likewise with any endowments that Gilbert's mother may be making to the church in so far as they con­cern property in my feoff. If the same lady wishes to give to the monastery land which has other feoffors, I would have you endeavour to procure their permission, reminding them of their friendship for you and me.' (Cart, de Saint-Martin-de-Sees, C C X X X V I I I , quoted Du Motey, Origine de la Normandie, p. 288.)

This is certainly a remarkable letter, written by a man nearly nine centuries ago.

After his marriage Roger lived for some time with his wife at the castle of Alençon, where his son Everard was born, but when Robert had been installed in his mother's office Roger could return to his beloved Shrewsbury. The King was at that time in Nor­mandy, and it was probably also at his wish that Roger returned to England to supervise the government of that country during his absence.

A little later Adelaide also went to England. It has been told that she had a very bad crossing and that the ship was nearly wrecked. In her despair she made a holy vow to found a nunnery at the place where she first met her husband. The nunnery of Madeleine at Quatford is said to be the result. She made another endowment to the idyllic little monastery of Wenlock, which Roger according to her wish restored and partly rebuilt.

History knows of no noble who has been more generous to the Church than Roger de Montgomery, and many other Normans

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F N O R M A N D Y 6 i

followed his example. Almost boundless riches in this way flowed from the temporal to the spiritual lords and the Church of Rome. Since wealth means power, the influence of the Church over the government of the country in temporal matters steadily increased. This was, as we have seen, one of the objects of Roger's policy.

Foremost among all the churches Roger built was Shrewsbury Abbey. To this church was attached a monastery of the Bene­dictine Order which was recruited chiefly from Norman monks. Roger's own chaplain Odelerius inspired him to the endowment.1

For the maintenance of Shrewsbury Abbey he donated all the suburbs east of Shrewsbury and issued a proclamation that one-tenth of all game killed in Shropshire should accrue to the Church.

The tragic death of William the Conqueror in 1087 was a hard blow to Roger. In him he lost his most reliable friend. But not only this : the death of the great chief loosened the bonds between England and Normandy and both countries became scenes of sanguinary strife between his sons. The old Earl was dragged, against his will, into a fraternal war which made a sad conclusion of his long life of achievement.

William died in Normandy while Roger was still in England. The King had entered into negotiations with Philip I of France concerning his claim to the county of Vexin, a disputed territory which Henry I of France had once handed over to Robert, Duke of Normandy, but had taken back during William's minority. The Conqueror suffered from excessive stoutness, due to disease, and had to go through a treatment. The French King, a sardonic man, made some biting references to his stoutness, which put William, who was sensitive on this point, into such a rage that he immediately declared war on France, and marched straight for Paris. Things

1 In this connection it may be mentioned that his son, Ordericus Vitalis, became one of the most deadly enemies of Roger's family, a man who used his great skill and learning to blacken them before history. Much of what he has written is stamped with the spirit of revenge and personal animosity. It gives a quite unjust version of the lives and deeds of Robert de Bellême and of his great mother Mabile.

62 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

looked very bad for the French. The Norman army ravaged the country, as in the days of Rollo, and the beautiful town of Mantes went up in flames. Riding through the town the King was nearly caught by a firebrand, and when his horse shied the heavy rider was thrown with such force against the pommel of the saddle that he was badly injured. He died in great pain a few days later.

That was the end of this violent campaign. It was not planned by Roger and certainly not carried through in a way which would have found his approval. Unfortunately he did not arrive at the King's death-bed in time to prevent those misfortunes which befell both England and Normandy during the wars of succession. William's eldest son, Robert Courte-Heuse, was unquestionably the lawful heir to the throne in both countries, and it was a fatal mistake of the King to hand over England to his third son. Feelings that time overruled sound judgment to the detriment of all parties concerned.

The Norman nobles received the news of William's death with mixed feelings. On the one hand, the idea of acting contrary to the expressed will of their dead monarch was repugnant to them. On the other, they fully realized the serious consequences for them­selves of breaking up the Anglo-Norman empire. After all, they had sworn fealty to Robert not only for Normandy but also for England, and if they took the side of William Rufus they ran the risk of having their Norman properties confiscated. For them one ruler would be far better, and this must be Robert, who by birth had the right to both crowns. With his friendly manners he was far more attractive to them than the reserved, distrustful and haughty William, who had become too English for their taste.

The situation was discussed at a meeting in Normandy presided over by the Conqueror's two brothers, Eude, Earl of Kent and Bishop of Bayeux, and Robert, Earl of Morton, Roger's son-in-law. Robert de Bellême, Eustache de Boulogne and other great nobles

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY 63

were also present. It was decided that William Rufus should not be recognized as King of England, but instead all possible support should be given to Robert Courte-Heuse.

At Easter 1088 William Rufus held his court and Eude went over in order to inform the Norman lords in England of the resolution passed at the meeting. They were also secretly told about the plans. Robert de Bellême and Eustache de Boulogne armed at full speed and the Duke promised them his support. Al l the leading Norman lords in England placed themselves on the side of Robert, since they considered him as the lawful heir not­withstanding the Conqueror's will and the fact that William Rufus had been elected King of England.

The supporters of Robert made their secret preparations for taking over power in England, and before the King knew where he was large portions of the country were in their hands. In Shrop­shire Montgomery handed over to Raoul de Mortimer and went himself to Arundel Castle in order to wait for the arrival of the Duke. Robert de Bellême and Eustache de Boulogne held Rochester. Eude and Morton were also in the south-east of England, the former at Pevensey, Robert de Moubray had occupied Bath, Roger Bigot held Norwich and Hugo de Grentemesnil was at Leicester. William d'Eu penetrated into Gloucestershire and war raged in Worcestershire. At this moment William's position was very serious, and had Robert been a little more resolute he would easily have won the game.

But Roger de Montgomery waited in vain for the arrival of the Duke at the head of a Norman army. Meanwhile William called his vassals to arms and from all parts of England soldiers streamed in under his banners. Everyone who was called up but did not appear was, in accordance with ancient Saxon rule, declared outlaw. Preparations for war were discussed at an assembly of temporal and spiritual lords. In the middle of the deliberations appeared, to everybody's great astonishment, the leader of Robert's supporters, Roger de Montgomery, Earl of Arundel and Shrewsbury. Such

6 4 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

was his authority among the assembled lords that he was chosen to command the army that was being raised in support of the elected king. Roger accepted their choice, and from that moment William's victory was certain. The Norman lords knew well that if he had changed sides it was to safeguard the interests of the country.

Seeing how things had developed, when finally the Duke was spiritless enough to leave his supporters in the lurch, Roger had come to the conclusion that there was no other course open than an immediate secession to William. This he did and maintained his prestige. It was no longer possible to save the unity of the two countries. The war was soon over, and William Rufus heaped tokens of honour and gratitude upon the old Earl, whose inter­ference had saved England from destruction.

William's uncle Eude, who disapproved of Roger's policy, now became his most deadly enemy and the spiritus rector of a con­spiracy directed against him and his family. Although Robert de Bellême, despite the active part he had played in the war, was pardoned for his father's sake, Eude was punished. During the conflict he had behaved badly alike to enemies and friends. He was now banished from the country and his domains in England were confiscated. Eude suspected that Roger was at the back of the King's decision and brooded on revenge. An opportunity soon presented itself. In conjunction with the old enemies of Roger and Mabile he invaded Hiémois and spread the false rumour that Robert de Bellême had planned a conspiracy against the Duke. When Robert returned to Normandy he was promptly captured and thrown into prison. He was also deprived of his Norman feoffs.

This was more than old Roger could stand. With the King's permission he crossed to Normandy and managed cleverly to evade the coastal guards. Aided by loyal subjects he quickly occupied his own castles and strongholds, and from them bid defiance to every comer. This time the Duke was not slow to act. His first attack, led by Eude and William of Breteuil,

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY 65

aimed at the castle of Saint-Cénery, a well-fortified place to which Roger had conveyed Robert's wife and little son. The garrison was commanded by Robert Quarrel, a brave and experi­enced warrior, who after a prolonged siege had to surrender owing to famine. Probably at the instigation of Eude, Quarrel had his eyes torn out and many of his officers were mutilated in different ways.

There was no chance, however, of reducing Roger's main strongholds, and in time Robert Courte-Heuse got tired of a war which ravaged the country and drained his resources. Other considerations may also have weighed with him when he decided to open negotiations with the Earl. He may have been ashamed of thus persecuting his father's old friend and companion-in-arms. Possibly his new friends had shown a little too much of their real character. One can be certain, also, that the clergy did all they could to bring to an end this struggle directed against their best friend and greatest benefactor.

After short negotiations an agreement was reached by which Robert de Bellême was reinstated in his old position, and his family immediately released; but the Duke kept the castle of Saint-Cénery, which was handed over to Robert Giroie. He was happy to see Robert de Bellême his friend again, and when he heard about the vile game that had been played by Eude he made Robert his Grand Sénéchal by way of redress.

Despite all his endeavours, Roger failed to bring about re­conciliation and lasting peace between the sons of the Conqueror. The last years of his life were also darkened by the violent rebellion in Wales, during which much of his work there was undone. There is no doubt that all these sorrows undermined his health and reduced his desire to live. Feeling his end near, he retired to the monastery of Shrewsbury Abbey, assumed the habit of a monk, and died a few days later after almost incessant devotion. The inscription in brass over his tomb in Shrewsbury Abbey gives 1st August 1095 as the date of his death. According to Ordericus

E

66 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS

Vitalis (II, 203) he died a year earlier, on 27th July 1094. The latter date is probably correct.

Roger de Montgomery bore many titles. In Normandy he was Count of Montgomery and Viscount of Exmes. In England he was Earl of Arundel, Chichester, Shrewsbury, Mercia and Mont­gomery. He was also styled Earl of Sussex and Earl of Salop.

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY 67

ROBERT, PRINCE OF B E L L E M E , A N D HIS BROTHERS

In his history of Normandy (Origine de la Normandie, Paris, 1920, p. vi) Vicomte Du Motey calls the Princes of Bellême and their descendants through the house of Montgomery the Champions of Normandy. Their state was situated between Normandy proper and Maine, and the last prince of this house was Robert II.

When William Rufus died on 1st August 1100 Robert Courte-Heuse, Duke of Normandy, was the lawful heir to the English throne, not only through birth-right but also on account of an agreement between him and William. But the Duke had not yet returned from the first crusade, during which he and his Knights —including Philip de Montgomery, who was killed at the assault on Antioch in 1098—distinguished themselves by many great feats. He himself was offered the crown of Jerusalem but humbly declined. The Conqueror's youngest son, Henry, was not slow in seizing the opportunity, and only three days after his brother's death he was proclaimed King of England, while the Duke of Normandy was still in the Mediterranean with his army of crusaders. By return­ing Archbishop Anselm to power and by pledging himself to respect the laws of Edward the Confessor, Henry had won the support of the clergy. He further strengthened his position through his marriage with Mathilde, daughter of Malcolm of Scotland. Her mother, Margaret, was sister of Edgar Ætheling and a lineal descendant of Alfred the Great.

Roger's sons, headed by Robert de Bellême, saw with grief and indignation this treachery against the lawful heir to the throne at the very time when, owing to his expedition to the Holy Land, he was unable to look after his own interests. Robert Courte-Heuse arrived in Normandy only a month after his brother had seized the English crown. The Montgomerys immediately placed them­selves on his side, ready to fight for what they considered a just and honourable cause. For this, however, they had to pay dearly:

68 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

in challenging the elected King of England, supported as he was by an almost unanimous public opinion, they became outlaws. Their struggle for justice brought them up against forces which had very different interests to guard, and were little particular about the means they used to crush the supporters of the lawful heir. Hatred against them was fomented by tales of their treachery, and their properties were seized. The English clergy, who natur­ally sided with Henry, took part in the campaign of lies, and with such skill and efficiency that Robert and his brothers were branded for generations to come as scoundrels of the worst type.

Tall and proud, the Prince of Bellême stood up against this storm, knowing full well that one day history would do him and his brothers justice for their brave but hopeless struggle in the name of equity and decency. By their side stood other honest men: William de Varenne, Earl of Surrey; Gautier Giffard, Earl of Buckingham; Yves de Grentemesnil and Robert de Lacy. A l l longed to hail as rightful King of England the Duke of Normandy, eldest son of the Conqueror and hero of innumerable fights with the Mussulmans. In June i i o i an heir was born to him by his spouse Sibyle de Conversano. He was called William after his grandfather and was later given the surname of Cliton.

Robert Courte-Heuse disembarked with his army at Ports­mouth, where he was met by Bellême, Varenne and others. The first object of their operations was to occupy Winchester, but the race for this important stronghold was won by Henry's troops. A big battle between the armies seemed inevitable. But rather than encounter the armour and discipline of the Norman army, Henry was ready to settle the dispute by diplomatic methods. He therefore sent Robert a message asking for negotiations. The two monarchs met in an open space between the armies, and fell into each other's arms. The sly Henry had won the contest. Robert little suspected that this smiling and friendly brother would before long let executioners tear the eyes out of his head and throw him to pine in the dungeons of Cardiff.

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY 69 According to the agreement, Robert resigned all claims to the

throne of England in return for a yearly pension of 3000 marks. The King pledged himself to restore all strongholds in Normandy which he had occupied during the Duke's absence, except Dom­front, the strongest of them all, and the property of Robert de Bellême. This was the way the latter was rewarded for his services. Henry also promised to reinstate the Duke's supporters in their rights in England. Finally, Robert was declared heir to the English throne if Henry died before him without leaving legitimate issue.

On these conditions Robert embarked with his troops for Normandy, while Henry, contrary to the provisions of the agree­ment, started legal proceedings against his adherents. In the first instance, he intended to crush for ever the influence of Bellême, who had succeeded his younger brother, Hugh, as Earl of Shrews­bury.

Hugh had been killed in a battle against Norse raiders under Magnus Barefoot descending upon Anglesey. The Earl rode through the water in full armour to meet the Norwegians, who were then still on board their ships. Snorre Sturleson gives the following description of this fight: 'Then King Magnus brought his army to Brittland. At Angelsösund there met him an army from Brittland under two Earls, Hugh the Prude (Montgomery) and Hugh the Stout (Chester). There began a hard fight. Magnus shot with his bow, but Hugh the Prude was so well covered by his armour that no part of him was bare except his eyes. Magnus and one hollow-eyed shot at the same time against him. One arrow struck the nose-ridge of his helmet, which was bent aside; the second shot struck his eye and went straight through his head. This shot was said to be the King's. Thus fell Earl Hugh, where­upon the Britons fled. They lost many men.' Hugh's body fell into the sea and was washed out by the tide. It was only recovered seventeen days later. The Earl was buried with great grief and lamentation by his father's side in Shrewsbury Abbey.

As Hugh was unmarried, he was succeeded by his eldest

H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

brother, Robert de Bellême, who at this time was the greatest landowner in England and Normandy. From his father he in­herited the county of Montgomery in Normandy. Through his mother he held the state of Bellême and the county of Alençon, and by his marriage the county of Ponthieu and the greater part of Picardy. Finally, he inherited from his brother Hugh the earldoms of Shrewsbury, Montgomery, Arundel and Mercia. Merely by his possession of these large territories he was con­sidered a very dangerous subject; and when, in addition, he took the side of Robert, the King deemed it necessary for his own security to render him harmless in one way or another.

Henry and his advisers handled the matter in a most diplomatic way. It was important at the beginning not to raise Bellême 's suspicion. The threads had to be spun with great caution and the traps laid imperceptibly. It was necessary to put spies on the tracks both of Bellême and the Duke. For this purpose clergymen were engaged and the King paid them wages worthy of their work. When the network was at last complete, Robert de Bellême was called before the King's court to answer for what he had done. A long indictment was read. His own letters were presented as proofs and their meaning was distorted beyond recognition. Robert realized that the verdict of the court was already determined and that he had no hope of indulgence. Wisely enough he had arrived with an armed retinue, and withdrew for deliberation. During this pause he and his men left the court and rode full speed back to Shrewsbury. The King was clearly not at that moment prepared to lay hands upon him.

After these proceedings it was clear to Robert that his case was one of life or death, and he made his preparations accordingly. Instead of returning to the court, to which he was again summoned, he prepared his various strongholds for defence. His brothers arrived at Shrewsbury together with the Welsh chiefs Cadogan and Gervat. The King responded to this open defiance by raising a big army with which he marched to Shrewsbury.

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY 71

One of Robert's most dangerous enemies was William Pantoul. He was at one time under suspicion of being one of Mabile's murderers but proved his innocence by handling red-hot iron unscathed. Nevertheless Robert had dismissed him from his service, as he considered him unreliable. This suspicion proved to be well founded. Pantoul knew, from the long time he had served under Robert, all Robert's castles and garrisons, and he now moved from place to place. He could always find someone who was willing, for the promise of a substantial reward, to open the gates to the King's troops as they arrived. In this way many of Robert's most important strongholds fell by treason. He soon realized that the game was up, and as the King arrived at Shrews­bury he rode with his retinue out of the castle to greet him. This saved his life, but his own and his brothers' properties in England were confiscated, and they were driven out of the country.

'Supplied with a letter of safe conduct,' writes Du Motey, 'the champion of legitimacy for ever left the country which was conquered by his father, his brother and himself' (Robert I I de Bellême, Paris, 1923, p. 125). We should add, as a free man, for Robert died a cruel death at the hands of his persecutors in an English prison. The King went so far in his blind hatred of the family that he robbed the nunnery of Almenèches, where Robert's sister Emma was the abbess, of all its property in England. This was secularized and handed over to one of Henry's friends.

The King had several reasons for allowing Robert and his brothers to return to Normandy. First of all he had bound himself by his agreement with the Duke not to persecute his adherents. He also reckoned that Bellême would be a suitable instrument for sowing the seeds of unrest in Normandy which in time might lead to an English armed intervention and the conquest of the country. In a letter to the Duke he pointed out that Bellême had taken up arms against him and that he was now on his way to Normandy. He warned his brother against Bellême and referred to the terms of the agreement which stipulated that they should fight common

HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS enemies. Developments proved that Henry's calculations were right.

Robert Courte-Heuse was easily deceived, especially since he himself had an eye on the big domains of Bellême. He made common cause with the enemies of his old friend and occupied in the first instance Exmes. The nunnery of Almenèches was also seized by his troops and used as stables for his horses. The Duke had raised a big army commanded by Roger de Lacy, an experienced warrior, and amongst his men were many heroes from the first crusade. Rotrou, Count of Perche, son-in-law of King Henry, and the Count of Conversano were with the Duke and the main army.

Robert de Bellême had collected all his available troops to protect his part of the country, especially the town of Sées, which was directly threatened by the enemy. From innumerable minor battles he knew this country well and how to make the best use of it. He kept his army hidden but learnt from his advanced guards that the Duke's army was proceeding along the Roman road from Exmes to Sées. At a point not far from where this road crosses the river Eure he rode to the attack. His onslaught was so impetuous that the whole ducal army was overthrown. The personal courage of the crusaders was of little avail, and many great lords fell into the hands of Bellême. The Duke saved himself by flight, but the Count of Conversano was captured.

As a result of this battle there was only one large army in the field and Bellême could, in fact, have done whatever he liked. Du Motey has given the reasons why the Count preferred modera­tion. He writes (Robert I I de Bellême, Paris, 1923, p. 134): 'After such a disaster for the enemy and such a victory for himself Count Robert could, if he had had the ambition Ordericus Vitalis does not fail to lend him, have marched to Rouen and seized Normandy, since there were no obstacles before him. But so far from doing this he did not even change a defensive war into an offensive war. He had kept, deep in his heart, a real affection for the Duke, and

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY 73

it was with regret that he had been compelled to fight him and beat him.'

That Bellême showed loyalty to this monarch who had so often deserted him, persecuted him and drained his economic resources was due also to the fact that he knew the Duke had no desire or intention to hurt him but that he had been deceived by his brother's wiles. After his defeat the Duke went to England to see Henry, and the result of this visit was that he was also deprived of the pension he had previously been granted. Soon after his return to Normandy he was reconciled with Bellême. He knew better then his real enemy.

This turn of affairs, however, did not suit King Henry. From his stronghold at Domfront he organized opposition against the Duke. One of the leaders of the movement was Robert de Torigny, brother-in-law of Bellême, and he went so far as to agitate for union with England. The rebels raised an army but were defeated by the Normans under Gontier d'Aunay and Renault de Varenne. Torigny himself was struck on the head and went out of his mind. Henry, however, fomented the revolutionary movement in every way, and in April 1105 he disembarked with an army at Cotentin with the avowed object of saving the country from further de­vastation.

The campaign began with victories for the invaders. The English troops occupied Bayeux, after they had demolished the cathedral by catapults and burnt down the greater part of the town. From there they marched towards Caen, where the Duke had enclosed himself with his comparatively small force. Henry here used the same method that had previously proved so efficient against Bellême. He simply bribed some of the burghers, who opened a passage for his troops. The Duke and his men escaped at the last minute. The English then penetrated into the territory of Bellême but were met with such resolute resistance that the King withdrew to collect superior forces. He crossed to England and came back with a strong army in the following spring.

HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS The King feared Bellême far more than the Duke, and the first

objective of his operations was Exmes, the headquarters of Bellême. The King won the first round by defeating the Norman army, which was much inferior in numbers, at Tinchebray on 28th December. Robert Courte-Heuse was captured after the battle, but Bellême got away. His first thought was to save the Duke's five-year-old son William, who had been left by his father at the castle of Falaise. The keeper, however, refused to admit Bellême but opened some hours later to the King, who arrived bringing with him the captured Duke. The little heir to the Norman throne was taken to the castle of Saint- Saèns. He never saw his father again. The Duke had to accompany the King on his triumphal ride through Normandy in order to facilitate the sur­render of castles and other strongholds. His adherents were declared outlaws and their properties confiscated. In order to save their lives many hid in the forests or fled to France. The King's supporters in Normandy demanded that the Duke should be imprisoned in England, and Henry decided accordingly. He was thrown into the keep of Cardiff and his eyes were torn out. But owing to his strong constitution he lingered on until 1134 and died only a year before his brother. The Earl of Morton shared his fate.

Henry I, a beast in human guise, also intended to remove the Duke's little son, but the peasants in the neighbourhood of Saint-Sáëns got word of this plan and moved him secretly to a safe place, from which he was later taken to France.

The indomitable Bellême had not given up the fight. He and his faithful vassals still bid defiance to the King, sword in hand.

The longer Henry's rule of devastation and persecution lasted, the greater grew the number of Robert's adherents. He also entered into communication with his feoffor for the county of Ponthieu, Louis VI of France, who pledged him his support and promised to take care of the young Duke and give him a good education. The Dukes of Brittany and Burgundy also placed

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY

themselves on the side of Bellême. Robert often visited the latter, who became one of his best friends during this critical time. This friendship eventually led to the marriage between Robert's only son, Guillaume Talvas, and Héle, Princess of Burgundy.

Bellême left the defence of the fortresses to his son and took the field himself. During the ensuing operations Robert defeated the Anglo-Norman forces under the Count of Perche, who was captured. The French troops whom Louis had sent to his support were victorious, and the position of King Henry in Normandy became untenable. The French King therefore intended to dictate the conditions of peace, the first of which was the return of the Duke to Normandy. Robert de Bellême was appointed his Ambassador for these negotiations. The choice was accepted by Henry, from whom Robert duly received a letter of safe conduct. Ever since Roman days the inviolability of an Ambassador had been a corner-stone of international law, and the French King did not doubt for one moment that the English King would respect this code of honour.

On 4th November 1112, Robert de Bellême reached the royal headquarters at Bonneville in his capacity of French Ambassador. He had hardly passed the gate when he was attacked and put in chains. William of Malmesbury writes about this incident (De Gestis Regum Anglorum, ed. Stubbs, II, 474-5): 'Cum Robertus Bellismensis, anno 1112, Franciae regis nomine legatus, Angliae regem in Normannia de pace convenisset, protinus is ipsum, spreto jure gentium, comprehendi jussit.'

To crush the firm resistance of Bellême, Henry embraced every means. After judicial proceedings before a dummy court Robert was transferred to England and thrown into prison at Wareham Castle. There he suffered the same fate as the Duke, but he died sooner, for his eyes were burnt out with a white-hot sword. The date of his death is probably 1114.

The King of England had won the battle, but would have lost it if he had played an honest game. He and his advisers did

76 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS everything in their power to darken the memory of the leader of the Norman legitimists, but the judgment of history will be less severe on Bellême than on the monarch who killed his own brother by slow torture and broke his pledge to the King of France.

It is interesting to note that Du Motey writes about the Anglo-Norman chroniclers: 'They have managed to deceive most historians—even Normans—who had uncritically accepted wrong facts, mistakes, exaggerations and lies. Some of these Norman writers, implacably hard against Robert de Bellême, are full of indulgence for Henry, whom they admire. They sponge out the awful crimes through which this prince destroyed the independence of the Norman state, and see in him only the poet and patron of literature, who encouraged theatrical performances in his beautiful town of Caen. But may I be permitted to prefer to this sovereign the warrior—tall, strong and brave—who turned against him with all his might. So also, after eight hundred years, do the people of Alençon. . . . He was the most faithful and loyal of the vassals of the Norman Duke. He loved him, although compelled to defend himself against him. When he fought for Robert Courte-Heuse and William Cliton he took the side of justice and died for this cause. He held a position before all other warriors and diplomats of his time and more than once made England tremble.'

The ancestor of the surviving branches of the family, Robert's brother Arnulf, Earl of Pembroke, also played his part in the wars of succession. The conditions at Alençon, which Henry had taken from Bellême and handed over to his favourite Etienne de Blois, were gradually becoming intolerable. The soldiers of the garrison raped the wives of the burghers, and women and children were brought up to the castle as hostages. In 1118 Amiot, one of the leading burghers, whose wife had been raped, organized the opposition and sent a message to Arnulf de Montgomery. He hastily raised an army to deliver the people from their oppressors.

MONTGOMERYS OF NORMANDY 77 Ordericus Vitalis writes (IV, 331): 'Unde Arnulfum de Monte-gomerici, fratrem Rodberti Belismensis, adierunt, et per eum Fulconem, Andegavensis comitem, requisierunt ut Alencionem, quam tradere parati erant, reciperent, comitisque custodibus de turri expulsis, libertatem incolis impetrarent.'

When Montgomery's army arrived at Alençon it was immedi­ately admitted and the siege of the castle began. For Henry, who was then in La Marche, this new turn of events was extremely unwelcome. He collected his troops and marched towards Alençon to quell the 'rebellion.' Montgomery held the town while Foulques, Count of Anjou and Maine, took the field. Now followed one of the biggest battles in the history of Normandy, which ended in the complete defeat of the King's army. Arnulf seems to have had no share in this battle, but the Count of Anjou covered himself with glory. As a result of the Norman victory, however, Arnulf took over the administration of the family domains in Normandy until Guillaume Talvas arrived. This was a temporary arrange­ment, but the matter was settled definitely by the treaty of peace concluded between the King and the Count of Anjou in 1119.

During the peace negotiations Anjou demanded the return and reinstatement of Robert de Bellême in all his Norman possessions. The King refused to comply with this condition, and the fact that Anjou did not insist seems to suggest that he had been secretly informed of Robert's death.

MONTGOMERYS, COUNTS OF PONTHIEU

B L A S O N S

Montgomery arms in the Musées des Shield : or a lion rampant lampassé Croisades, first and second cru- argent, sades.

Robert de Montgomery, Prince of Shield : Paly of six or and azure. Bellême.

GU I L L A U M E T A L V A S was the only son of Robert de Bellême by his wife Agnes, daughter and heiress of Guy, Count of Ponthieu, and Ade of Amiens. In 1119

he entered into all the feudal rights of his father except the fief of Bellêmois, which had been granted to the Count of Perche. His domains included Alençon, Sées, Essai, Boitron, La Roche-Mabile, Le Mesle-sur-Sarthe, Almenèches, Montgomery, Trun, Vignats, Saint-Sylvin, Le Thuit, Montaigu-en-Cotentin and parts of the town of Bernay, in which the King was allowed to keep a garrison.

Guillaume founded the abbeys of Perseignes in Perche, Saint-Fosse in Artois, Valloire and Saint-André in Gouffey. He died in 1171. By his wife, the Princess Héle, daughter of Eude, Duke of Burgundy, he had three sons: Philip, who died without issue (he was buried at Samt-Martin-de-Sées); Guy, Count of Ponthieu; and Jean, Count of Alençon.

Guy de Montgomery, Count of Ponthieu, accompanied Louis VII on the second crusade and was at one time his private coun­sellor. He tried in vain to dissuade Louis from divorcing his wife, Eleanor of Guyenne, who afterwards married Henry Plantagenet and became Queen of England. For more than two centuries her possessions in France were a constant cause of war and unrest, and it would certainly have been better for France if Louis had listened to his adviser.

By his wife Beatrix de Saint-Pol Guy had a son Jean, Count of Montgomery and Ponthieu. He married Beatrix of Arques and

78

MONTGOMERYS OF PONTHIEU 79 Montreuil and had by her a son Guillaume, Count of Montgomery and Ponthieu.

Guillaume married the Princess Alix of France, daughter of Louis VII . Their son Guy was killed in the battle of Bouvines, 1214. After the death of Guillaume the line of the Montgomerys of Ponthieu became extinct. Guillaume and Alix had two daughters : Mary, who married Simon de Dammartin, Count of Aumaie ; and Jeanne, who married Ferdinand III of Castile. Eleanor, daughter of Ferdinand and Joan, married Edward I of England.

MONTGOMERYS, COUNTS OF ALENÇON

B L A S O N

Shield : Paly of seven or and azure a franc-canton ermine.

JE A N D E M O N T G O M E R Y , Count of Alençon, like his brother, took part in the second crusade. He married Beatrix, daughter of Ely of Anjou, Count of Maine, and niece of

Geoffrey Plantagenet, father of Henry II of England. Their son Robert, Count of Alençon, married Jeanne de La Guerche and had by her three sons: Jean, who died without issue in 1191 ; Robert, Count of Alençon, who died in 1219 leaving his property to his daughter Héle, wife of Robert Mallet, Seigneur of Graville, and to his cousin Emery, Viscount of Châtellerault ; Guillaume, Seigneur of La Roche Mabile, who might have left descendants in England. He was probably the ancestor of the Montgomerys, Seigneurs of La Plesse, of which the male line was maintained as nobility in 1666. It is believed to be extinct. (Arms : argent a chevron gules between three roses of the same.)

The ancient branch of Montgomerys in France is now repre­sented by the Dukes of Harcourt descended from Emery de Châtellerault. The Dukes of Harcourt are, as we have seen in a previous chapter, direct male descendants of Bernard the Dane, son of Gormeric, the Danish prince, from whom the Montgomerys also trace their descent.

It should be noted that the arms of the Mallets (Malets) are azure three escallops or, the same as second and third in the shield of the Marquis Montgomery and Lorges.

The family Dalançon, or d'Alançon, which is now extinct, was descended from a bastard son of a Montgomery, Count of Alençon. Arms : argent a chevron gules between three eagles displayed sable. (Communication from Marquis du Four de La Londe, 9th April

1947O

80

MONTGOMERYS, COUNTS OF LA MARCHE

ROGER T H E POITEVIN (Pictavinus), Earl of Lancaster (Ord. Vit., II, 423, and III, 425-6), was third son of Earl

„ Roger. In 1090 he fought with his brother, Robert de Bellême, against Hugh de Grentemesnil, but when he sided with Duke Robert in 1102 he was deprived of his earldom and expelled from England. He retired to the castle of Charroux in the county of La Marche-Limousine. Roger married Almodie, daughter of Boso, Count of La Marche, and succeeded to that title on the death of his brother-in-law. They had three sons and three daughters :

Boso, Count of La Marche, d.s.p. Eude, Count of La Marche, d.s.p. Aldebert, Count of La Marche, of whom presently. Sibyle. Marquise, who married Guy, Count of Limoges. Ponthia, who married Wulgrin, Count of Angoulême.

Aldebert, Count of La Marche, married first Arengarde and secondly Chalon de Pons. He had one son, Bernard, Count of La Marche, who left two sons :

Aldebert, who sold his fief to Henry II of England in 1177. He died in Constantinople three years later.

Gerard, d.s.p. (Du Motey, Robert I I de Bellême, p. 126).

F 31

S E T T L E M E N T S O F E N T A I L A N D T H E

N A M E O F M O N T G O M E R Y

BEFORE passing on to the British branches of the family it must be remarked that the name of Montgomery in England, Scotland and Ireland is borne also by others than those who

have a lineal descent from the ancient Norman family. This is first of all owing to the fact that names in these countries sometimes follow settlements of entail; in other words, they follow land in­stead of ancestry. There are also instances where the name of Montgomery has been adopted for other reasons. On the other hand, it must be noted that certain branches of the family use other names, which have been assumed in accordance with settlements of entail.

The sixth Earl, Alexander Seton, adopted for himself and his descendants the names of Eglinton and Montgomery as heir to the estate of the fifth Earl (vide p. 115). From the point of ancestry he was a Seton, but his father, Robert, first Earl of Winton and first Lord Seton, married Margaret, daughter of Hugh, third Earl of Eglinton, who was a Montgomery by lineal descent.

There is a practice that the descendants of the sixth Earl spell their names with ie at the end, which means Seton by ancestry, while the lineal descendants of the Norman Montgomerys spell the name with a y.

Certain members of the family of Herbert also use the name Montgomery. Richard Herbert, Esquire, who lived during the latter part of the sixteenth century, was the owner of the lands of Montgomery Castle in Wales. These lands were inherited by his son, first Lord Herbert of Cherbury, who at one time was British Ambassador in Paris. His kinsman, Philip Herbert, a younger son of the second Earl of Pembroke, was one of the favourites of James I. On 9th February 1606 he was created Earl of Montgomery, the Montgomery Castle lands being handed over to him. This is the reason why the Earls of Pembroke have adopted the title of Earls

82

SETTLEMENTS OF ENTAIL 83 of Montgomery. Even such a well-informed source as Larousse is ignorant of these facts. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, who signed himself de Montgomery as owner of the Montgomery estates in Wales, has by Larousse been mistaken for a Montgomery of Norman descent.

The family Lyons-Montgomery of Belhavel are Lyons by descent, but on the female side their ancestry includes a Mont­gomery. Equally the family Montgomery of Carboldisham are Molyneux by lineal descent but include a Montgomery of Broom­lands in their ancestry.

Arnulf de Montgomery was at one time Castellan of Pembroke Castle. He was succeeded in this office by Gerald, son of Walter Fitz Otho, Castellan of Windsor Castle. The family of Carew are said by some to be descended from Arnulf, while others state that Gerald was their ancestor.

Camden says: 'Upon another creeke also of this haven, Carew Castle sheweth itselfe, which gave both name and originall to the notable family de Carew, who avouche themselves to have been called aforetime de Montgomery; and have been persuaded, that they are descended from Arnulf de Montgomery of whom I spake erwhile' (Britannica, ed. 1637, 651-2).

Sir John Maclean, who wrote the Life of Sir Peter Carew, rejected this theory and saw in Otho, the son of William Fitz Gerald (d. 1173) of Carew Castle, the-true ancestor of the Carew family. This genealogy has since been generally accepted.

E N G L I S H M O N T G O M E R Y S

B L A S O N S

Sir William de Montgomery, Co. Derby, c. 1240 (British Museum Cat. 11892).

Admiral Sir John de Mont­gomery, siege of Calais, 1347 (Roll of Arms).

Sir John de Montgomery, Sei­gneur d'Ambrières, and Sir Thomas de Montgomery, Knight of the Garter (British Museum Cat. 11890).

Sir Nicholas de Montgomery, Co. Derby, 1428 (British Museum Cat. 11891).

Stephen Montgomery of Acton-Burnell branch, 1690 (Mont­gomery Manuscripts).

Shield: ermine spots within a border gules charged with eight horse­shoes argent nailed sable.

Shield : or an eagle displayed azure.

Shield : gules a chevron ermine between three fleurs-de-lis or.

Crest : on a helmet and mantling out of a ducal coronet a plume of feathers.

Shield: quarterly first and fourth or an eagle displayed azure second and third ermine spots within a border gules charged with eight horse-shoes argent nailed sable.

Shield: quarterly argent first and fourth three fleurs-de-lis azure second and third an eagle dis­played proper.

TH E English Montgomerys after the times of Roger's sons are little known. Encyclopaedias and dictionaries make little or no reference to this branch of the family or to any

of its members. And yet, Sir John de Montgomery, Admiral of the Fleet, largely contributed to the victories of Edward III over the French, and the Ambassador of Edward IV and Edward V , Sir Thomas de Montgomery, Knight of the Garter, conducted important negotiations with the Emperor and with the Kings of Scotland, France and Spain.

In 1101 Arnulf de Montgomery, fifth son of Earl Roger, 84

ENGLISH MONTGOMERYS 85 married the Princess Lafracoth, daughter of Murtagh O'Brien, King of Munster. He had two sons and one daughter:

(1) Robert, who settled in Scotland and was ancestor of the Scottish Montgomerys whose story will be told in the following chapters.

(2) A son whose name is not known with certainty. In a printed pedigree at Shrewsbury Museum and in various other unverified pedigrees he is called Adam.

(3) Alice, who married Maurice Fitz Gerald, ancestor of the Dukes of Leinster.

The name of Adam's son might have been Eugenius, as stated by Vowell, but the name of his wife was Amicia and not Eugarthe. This we know from a statement by her own grandson, Sir Adam de Montgomery. In 1278 he complained against Llewellyn, Prince of Wales, that he unjustly took grain from his Ellinook (Close Rolls). To prove his title to these lands Sir Adam gave the following pedigree (Lambeth Palace Library, Carew MSS., vol. 607, fol. 135): Johannes (Welsh, Owain), father of Hoellus (Welsh, Howel, Hywel or Hoel), father of Amicia, mother of Philip, father of Sir Adam. He points out that Johannes held the lands in fief.

It is known that Nesta, daughter of Rhys, King of South Wales, had a son Howel by one of her lovers (Giraldus Cambriensis, De rebus a se gestis, I, ch. 10). Before she married Gerald Fitz Walter in 1106 she was the mistress of Henry I, who bestowed upon her the lordship of Carew (Clark, Land of Morgan, 2nd ed., p. 45). The father of Howel was probably Owain, the Welsh chieftain who assisted Hugh de Montgomery, Earl of Shrewsbury, during the English invasion of Anglesey in 1098. The Welsh therefore called him 'The Traitor.'

The armorial bearings of the Carew family are exactly the same as those of Sir Adam de Montgomery, 1278, i.e. or three lions passant guardant sa. There is no doubt that Adam's arms were

86 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS those of Amicia. The table below shows the probable relationship between the families of Montgomery and Carew.

Arnulf de Montgomery, Earl Owain = Nesta = Gerald Fitz Walter of Pembroke

Adam Howel William 1 J . . I Eugenius = Amicia a son

Philip Peter the Clerk

Sir Adam Sir Nicholas de Carew Richard de Carew, in Berkshire, before Bishop of St. David's 1290 (Pari. Writs) 1277 (Ibid.)

In 1225 Peter is described as 1 libr ad apacoes de Mutgumy libacoes svient existatiu faciendas' (Close Rolls ad ami.). On 22nd July Henry III sent his clerk Peter de Montgomery to view the corn and stock of the manors in the counties of Northampton, Rutland, Huntingdon and Middlesex (Patent Rolls).

Philip's son Sir Adam de Montgomery is mentioned in 1264 when the King repealed the orders to Adam Fitz Philip, Constable of Montgomery Castle, to deliver up to John Lestrange that castle (Rymer's Foedera). In 1282 and 1285 Adam had safe conduct for going beyond the seas (Patent Rolls). He died before 1290, for in that year the executors of Adam de Montgomery, tenant in chief, had exemption on account of his services in the Welsh wars. Howel de Montgomery, who in 1286 married Gwenllian, late wife of Griffin ab Hereward, was probably his brother (Patent Rolls).

Adam seems to have had the following sons: Sir John, of whom presently. Thomas de Monte Gomeri, Lord of Lydom, who in 1311

entered into a covenant with Roger, prior of Chirbury, relative to a grant in frank almoin by Adam de Monte Gomeri, Knight, father of the said Thomas (Ancient Deeds, B 928). In 1316 he had a licence to enfeoff John de Cherleton of his manor of Lydom

ENGLISH MONTGOMERYS 87 (Patent Rolls). He had a son and a grandson, both called Adam (Ibid., 1327).

Owen, who was Commissioner of Array in the Welsh marches in 1298 and in South Wales in 1335. He was also keeper of the forest of Salop (Pari. Writs and Fine Rolls). In 1313 he had a pardon for having adhered to Thomas, Earl of Lancaster (Pari. Writs), and on 25th July 1335 he was appointed Constable of Lampeter Castle (Close Rolls).

Hugh, who succeeded his brother Sir John in the lands of Lyndon in 1348 (Fine Rolls).

Philip. In 1284 the whole bailiwick which Hugh de Loges held in the forest of Canok was transferred to Philip de Monte Gomeri (Charter dated Carnarvon, 20th July 1284, Patent Rolls). In 1289 he had safe conduct for going to the King in Gascony. In 1290 Adam Dehewend was pardoned for the death of Thomas, son of Philip de Monte Gomeri (Patent Rolls). In 1292 he ad­ministered the forest of Edward I in Staffordshire (Chief Justice Coke, Institutes, ch. 73, p. 313). In 1297 he prayed the King to give him a horse and arms and whatever he may gain from the Scots enemy (Tower Miscellaneous Rolls, no. 459). In 1311 Philip, Peye of Ledum (Lydom), son of Adam de Monte Gomeri, had a pardon for trespass (Patent Rolls). In 1312 he brought 200 pounds from Darlington to Berwick (Scutiferi Furnivale), and in 1322 he was one of the inquest impanelled for the county of Buckingham (Pari. Writs).

ADMIRAL SIR JOHN DE MONTGOMERY Sir John was a man of great ability who took a prominent part

in important public matters, both civil and military. He started his career under most unfavourable auspices as one of the adherents of Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, grandson of Henry III. There was a commission of oyer and terminer to John ap Adam and Owen de Monte Gomeri in 1312. He was pardoned three times—in

88 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS

1313, in 1318 and again after the battle of Boroughbridge in 1322. He was then described as of the county of Salop and marches of Wales As a condition of his pardon he had to perform military service in Guyenne in 1324-25 (Pari. Writs). During this campaign he distinguished himself, and in recognition of his services was awarded a grant for life out of the customs of Bordeaux (Patent Rolls) In 1328 he was appointed yeoman of the King and usher of the King's chamber (Ibid, and Close Rolls). The same year he had a grant of the reversion of the custody of Llampader Castle. From time to time he was appointed Constable of that castle (Rot. Orig. Curia Scacc).

Montgomery was a big landowner in Rutland, Hampshire, North Wales and other parts of the country. From the Crown he got a grant of Lyndon in Rutland, in 1328 (Patent Rolls). In 1332 the manors of Farlington and Creuquer in Hampshire were granted him and his wife, Rose, for life. In 1339 he held the manors of Dalham and Bredefeld in Suffolk, and in 1342 he had a grant of lordships in Carnarvon (Patent Rolls and Fine Rolls). He was summoned to Parliament in 1342 (Fine Rolls, Pari. Writs).

Like Earl Roger, Sir John was a religious man, and m 1332 he and his wife founded a chantry at Heene in Sussex (Patent Rolls). The same year they both went on a pilgrimage to Santiago in Spain (Ibid.).

At various times Sir John is described as Steward of Queen Philippa's lands, but this post does not seem to have interfered with his other important duties. In October 1337 he was one of the King's deputies to treat with David of Scotland for peace (Rot. Scot.). It is interesting to note in this connection that m 1358 Alexander de Montgomery of Eaglesham, son of another Sir John de Montgomery, was one of the Scottish Commissioners appointed to negotiate the treaty for the release of David, then a prisoner in England.

The English Sir John de Montgomery was also employed as Ambassador. In 1336 he conducted negotiations with the Arch-

ENGLISH MONTGOMERYS 89

bishops of Cologne and Liège, and the following year he made a treaty with the King of France (Rymer's Foedera). In 1338 he was sent to 'Almain on the King's affairs' (Close Rolls).

Sir John played a prominent part in the wars with France. He fought in the battle of Tirache, 23rd October 1339, in the company of Robert de Ferrers, Earl of Derby, Thomas de Braid-stone and Sir Geoffrey de Say (Jean Froissart, Œuvres, Bruxelles, 1868, XVIII , 91), a descendant of Robert Picot, Seigneur de Say, one of Earl Roger's vassals, who received extensive grants by his feoffor (Du Motey, Origine de la Normandie, p. 242).

In order to prevent reinforcements from England a strong French fleet gathered at Sluys, but it was defeated by the English on 24th June 1340. There is no mention of Sir John in the records of this battle. At that time he seems to have been with the expedi­tionary force in Flanders. However, he took a hand in other naval engagements and on 3rd April 1342 was appointed Admiral of the Fleet 'from the north of the Thames South and West with full powers of discipline' (Patent Rolls). His flagship was the Edward (Exch. Accts.). Soon after this appointment he had to make pre­parations for the transit to Brittany of the King in person. Public prayers were offered for the success of the expedition. At the beginning of October Edward III embarked on the George and reached Brest towards the end of the month. Montgomery took an active part in the campaign in Flanders, 1345, in company of the Earls of Derby and Arundel and was present at the siege of Aiguillon, of which he was afterwards made a Captain. Jean Froissart, who was secretary of Queen Philippa and must have known Montgomery well, called him 'a wise and gallant knight' (Ibid., IV, 283).

In February 1347 Montgomery superseded the Earl of Arundel in command of the Western Fleet and soon afterwards Sir John Howard was appointed to the Northern command. In June the two Admirals intercepted a French convoy of forty-four ships (W. Laird Clowes, The Royal Navy, 1897, I, 266).

9o HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS

Sir John and several other Montgomerys were present at the siege of Calais, and in October he was appointed Captain of that town The French garrison and population were saved thanks to the interference of Queen Philippa, whose orders were earned out by her faithful Steward. Montgomery died the same month.

Montgomery's first wife died before 1345. His second wife, Margery, was maid in waiting of the Queen. By his first wife Sir John had a son, Giles (or Nicholas). On 27th September 1328 the King ordered the keeper of his wardrobe to deliver armours to John de Montgomery for the use of his son Giles. There is no further record of Giles. .

Hugh de Montgomery, brother of Sir John, succeeded him in the lands of Lyndon (Fine Rolls, Exch. Roll and Pari. Writs). John de Montgomery in Lyndon, 1428 (Feudal Aids), was probably a descendant of Hugh.

In 1665 and 1690 William Montgomery of Rosemount met some Montgomerys who, no doubt, belonged to an ancient English branch. They lived in Milk Street in London. The father was a silk merchant and had two sons, Lewis and Stephen, and a daughter. Their family estate of Acton Burnell had been sold at the time of Henry VIII , when it yielded five thousand pounds old rent per annum. Thus it was a very big place. William Montgomery gives the following blason of their coat of arms: 'quarterly for all ye feilds argent, in ye first three flowers de lice Azure, in ye second one spread eagle propper, ye third as ye second and ye fourth as ye first' (Montgomery Manuscripts, ed. Hi l l ,

P- 459)- T h e f a t h e r t o l d ^ 0 1 3 1 t h e s P r e a d e a g l e b e l o n ë e d t o

the family of an heiress with whom one of his ancestors had been matched in marriage.

These Montgomerys were probably descended from Roger de Montgomery, whose son Stephen was killed at Acton Burnell in 1283. The wool merchant, Robert de Montgomery, to whom the

ENGLISH MONTGOMERYS 91

King acted graciously in 1338 (Close Rolls), may have belonged to the same branch.

The Montgomerys of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire seem to be descended from Radulfus de Monte Gomerico, who signed a covenant between Robert de Ferrers and Geoffrey, Abbot of Burton, about 1121 (Add. Ch. 27313, British Museum). No doubt, this Radulfus was the son of Radulfus de Montgomery who fought at Hastings, a grandson of Roger I de Montgomery and a nephew of the first Earl of Shrewsbury. The elder Radulfus witnessed a charter by Queen Mathilde (Monasticon Anglicanae, II, 456). Robert de Ferrers was the son of Henri, Seigneur de Ferrières and de Chambrais, who also fought at Hastings. Henri had large grants of land in the counties of Derby and Stafford, and his son Robert was created Earl of Derby and Earl of Ferrers. His son Robert, second Earl, had a son William, third Earl, who was one of the adherents of the younger Henry in 1173. He was sent to France and imprisoned at Caen. He died during a crusade in 1190.

Walter de Montgomery held four fees of Ferrers in 1166 (Liber Rubeus de Scacc.) and was probably the son of the younger Radulfus de Montgomery in Berkshire before 1166 (G. Warner, Royal and Other Charters in the British Museum, London, 1903, no. 13). Walter's son Walter was styled Earl of Ferrers when the King granted him restitution of his land of Houdesdoun in 1216 (Rymer's Foedera and Close Rolls). Robert in Ferneberge, Warwickshire, 1211, may have been his brother (Liber Rubeus de Scacc). Sir Walter's son, Sir William de Montgomery, held the lordship of Eketon (Ecton, Eyton, Ekenton, Ekton). In 1230 William de Ferrers, Earl of Derby, was given the custody of the lands in England which were of his fee (Patent Rolls), but in 1264 Robert, sixth Earl of Derby, ceded the manors of Cubley and Marchyntane to Sir William de Montgomery, who thus held the original lordship of Ferrers near Tutbury (Rot. Orig. Curiae

9 2 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS

Scacc). These lands were also held by Sir Nicholas de Mont­gomery in 1428 (Feudal Aids).

The popular story that Henri, Seigneur de Ferrières, received his surname from holding the office of master of the farriers of the invading army may not be true, but the fact is that he owned large forges in Normandy and was one of the premier ' barons fossiers.' The bordure of the arms of the Earls of Ferrers was charged with eight horse-shoes argent.

It is interesting to note that this bordure was adopted by the Montgomerys of Derbyshire and appears in the coats of arms of Sir William de Montgomery in 1240 and of Sir Nicholas de Montgomery in 1428. This must have been due either to inter­marriage with the de Ferrers or to the fact that the Montgomerys held the fief of the earldom.

Another interesting fact is, that the later Earls of Ferrers adopted the arms of the Montgomerys, Counts of Alençon (paly of seven or and azure a franc-canton ermine), with the only difference that the paly was of six, as in the coat of the Mont­gomerys, Counts of Ponthieu. This would almost lead us to the conclusion that Walkelin, ancestor of the Seigneurs de Ferrières, belonged to the house of Bellême, since the arms of the Counts of Ponthieu and Alençon were those of Bellême.

Fulco de Montgomery in Huntingdon, 1215-23, and Roger de Montgomery in Lancashire (Close Rolls) may have been Walter's brothers, or possibly descendants of Roger de Mont­gomery, Earl of Lancaster. There was also a Roger de Mont­gomery, Seigneur de Caudemonne, in 1201. His line became extinct in the fifteenth century. (Communication from Marquis du Four de La Londe, 9th April 1947.)

William de Montgomery, to whom the Earl of Derby ceded the manors of Cubley and Marchyntane in 1264, had a son William who was summoned in 1297 to perform military service against the Scots and to muster in person at Nottingham on 7th July (Pari. Writs). His son Walter, described as Lord of Eketon, had

ENGLISH MONTGOMERYS 93 a similar summons in 1316 and was one of the commissioners to raise and arm the inhabitants of Derbyshire (Ibid.). Besides Eketon he held Marchyntane and Cubley (Feudal Aids, 1302, 1316). In 1319 he was commissioner of array in the counties of Nottingham and Derby, and in 1324 he was summoned to attend a Great Council at Westminster. He seems to have been knighted on that occasion. In 1325 he performed military service in the Guyenne (Pari. Writs).

His son, Sir William, succeeded him in the lands of Eketon (Eyton), Sudbury and Marchyntane (Feudal Aids, 1330). His name and coat of arms are on the Boroughbridge Roll, 1322. Sir William had a son, Walter, 'fitz and heir Will de Montgomery,' 1335 (Rot. Scot.). His son Nicholas de Montgomery of Sudbury, Cubley and Marchyntane in 1401 (Feudal Aids) had a son, Sir Nicholas de Montgomery, 'chivaler,' of Eketon, Marchyntane and Cubley (Feudal Aids, 1412, 1428 and 1445). He was present at the battle of Agincourt and had with him three Men-at-Arms and nine archers of foot (De Belleval, Azincourt, p. 360). In 1418 he received money for the safe conduct of John, Duke of Bourbon, the King's prisoner, from Portchester to Somerton Castle, there to be securely kept (Issue Rolls of the Exchequer). The Duke had been captured at the battle of Agincourt. Camden states that he was detained nineteen years under the custody of Sir Nicholas Montgomery the younger (Hollande's trans.), but the fact is, that the Duke was released and returned to France in July 1420, whereas the Duke of Orleans, committed to the custody of Sir Thomas Burton, was not released until the year 1440 (Acts of Privy Council). Sir Nicholas had a son,who had the same name and title. He was a great landowner in Derbyshire,Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire in 1483 and was on the Commission of the Peace in 1485 (Patent Rolls).

SIR JOHN DE MONTGOMERY, SEIGNEUR D'AMBRIÈRES

Walter (Feudal Aids, 1316, and Rot. Scot., 1335) had a son Robert and a grandson John, who held Blunteshale, Challeton,

94 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS Feukebourne and Magna Teye, 'quod Robertus filius Walteri quondam tenuit' (Feudal Aids, 1428). Most of this land was situ­ated in Essex, where John lived with his wife, Elizabeth, Lady Say.

John de Montgomery served in France, first under Henry V and later with the Duke of Bedford. In recognition of his services he was granted several lordships in the conquered country. He has sometimes been mistaken for Sir John de Montgomery of Giffen (e.g. A. Boudin, Histoire Généalogique du Musée des Croisades —Montgomery, Paris, 1858, p. 41), a Scottish Knight in French service, younger son of Alexander, first Lord Montgomery.

Sir John was present at the battle of Agincourt (De Belleval, Azincourt, p. 360). In a letter dated 14th November 1419 the King calls him 'fideli militi nostri Johanni Montgomery gubernatori castri et castellanie nostrorum de Maulenii.' The King calls upon the authorities of Normandy to facilitate the transfer of this castle with all its furniture to the said knight (Bibl. Nat., Pièces originales, 2012, no. 2). In May 1423 he was styled 'chevalier, seigneur dAmbrières, de Saint Aubin et capitaine de Domfront' (Ibid., 4). These lands, and also La Fosse-Lavin, which had been confiscated from Jean de Craon, were definitely granted to Mont­gomery on 14th June the same year (Trésor des Chartes). On 30th April 1424 the King of France and England writes to 'nos amez et feaulx Jehan de Montgomery etc' (Ibid., 2). In 1434 he went to England in the King's service (Ibid., 21), and in 1445 he was styled 'Conseiller du Roy' (Ibid., 41).

Through English documents we know that Sir John was one of the principal personages present at the battle of Verneuil, 1424 (Harl. M S . 782, fol. 51b). He took part in the expedition to Anjou in 1425 (Ibid., 49b) and was in the Duke of Bedford's retinue in 143 5. He was styled Knight Banneret, Captain of Arques and Bailie of Caux (Ibid., 52b). In 1430 he was sent to assist the Duk- of Burgundy: 'The lord of Montgomery and his engines were posted at Venette at the end of the meadow' (John de Waurin, Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores, ed. Hardy, 1891, I,

ENGLISH MONTGOMERYS

216). After fighting at Compiègne he returned with the English to Normandy (Ibid., 221). In December the same year payments were made to him and the Spanish Ambassador (Rymer's Foederd). In a list of the forces in France his command at Arques in 1335 is referred to as follows : ' castrum fortissimum, Johannes de Monte-gomyerie, chevalier banerettus, capitaneus et ballivus de Caux, X lanceas équestres, x lanceas pédestres et lx archiers.' In 1437 the Earl of Warwick, Lord Talbot, Sir John de Montgomery and many other knights passed the river Somme beside the town of Saint-Valéry (London Chronicles, C, IV, fol. 55).

In 1444 Sir John was back in Essex, for the King issued a warrant to the Chancellor in favour of his well-beloved Knight, Sir John de Montgomery of the shire of Essex, and Elizabeth, Lady Say, his wife, for a tun of Gascony wine at Christmas yearly (Privy Seals, 23 Henry VI , fol. 8). They had two sons, Thomas and John.

SIR THOMAS DE MONTGOMERY, K . G . , AMBASSADOR

Edward IV of England was born at Rouen on 28th April 1442. His godmother was Elizabeth, Lady Say, Thomas Montgomery's mother. From his early youth Thomas was closely attached to the Plantagenets, and on the outbreak of civil strife in England he carried with pride his white rose. Al l his life he was a staunch supporter of the House of York.

Sir Thomas was born in 1416. In 1446 he was rewarded by the King for coaching a duellist for a single combat at Smithfield, teaching him the points of arms. In the same year he was a co­adjutor of Sir John Astley, the famous ' champion ' and considerably his senior in deciding appeals of battle (F. P. Barnard, Edward IV's French Expedition of 1476, London, 1925, p. 50).

In 1447 Thomas Montgomery, Esquire, was one of the Marshals of the King's Hall (Issue Rolls of the Exchequer), and in 1461 he is described as Warden of the Mint in the Tower and Lynge Armurer to the King (Patent Rolls). Year after year he had extensive

96 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS grants of land in the counties of Essex, Buckingham, Bedford, Hertford, Suffolk and Cornwall. He was also appointed Steward of the King's manors of Haddele and Haveryng in Essex. In 1463 he was Sheriff of Suffolk and the following year was raised to knight­hood for good service rendered against the rebels. In June 1467 Sir Thomas was among the nobles who accompanied Lady Margaret of York to Flanders on the occasion of her wedding to Charles the Bold of Burgundy. He sat at the Diet of Bruges and on his return to England was appointed Constable of Bristol Castle (Ibid.). The Chronicles of the White Rose tell us that the King (Edward IV) went to stay with Sir Thomas on his way to Colchester in 1474.

Sir Thomas was often entrusted with difficult diplomatic missions. In December 1474 he had the power to treat with the Emperor Frederick for an alliance against Louis, 'usurper of the Crown of France.' He had a similar commission to treat with Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary (Rymer's Foedera).

To make an alliance with these princes proved an impossible task, and for the following reasons. Charles the Bold of Burgundy, Edward's brother-in-law, had by conquests and treaties added big territories to his dominion, and his neighbours began to fear his might. In 1475 Louis X I of France, the Emperor Frederick, René II of Lorraine and the Swiss Confederation formed an alliance against him. It seems as if the arrival of the English mission in the Duke of Burgundy's camp, and also rumours about an English expedition to Normandy, had hastened this development. Mont­gomery met the King of Hungary's embassy to Charles, but his efforts to obtain an alliance with Hungary failed, since Matthias Corvinus was most anxious to avoid a rupture with Louis. How­ever, Montgomery, who was also an experienced soldier, did his utmost to persuade the Duke to raise the siege of Neuss, which served no good purpose and would hamper his movements in the event of an armed conflict with greater powers (Cornmines, Mémoires, ed. Lenglet du Fresnoy, Paris, 1747, II, 215, III, 459).

Edward had decided to succour his brother-in-law and sent an

ENGLISH MONTGOMERYS 97

army to Normandy. On 4th June 1475 the King crossed to Calais, and two days later the Duchess of Burgundy paid a visit to her brother. Charles himself arrived on the 14th, not at the head of an army, as Edward and his men had hoped, but only with a small retinue. Edward felt that Charles had let him down, and opened negotiations with Louis for a truce, in which he meant Charles to be included. The King of France was as anxious as Edward to avoid the outbreak of hostilities and was willing to enter into negotiations. As a result of these, in which Montgomery, on the English side, and Philippe de Commines, on the French side, took a prominent part, four different documents were signed at Picquigny on 29th August: (1) an arbitration treaty dealing with the claim of the King of England to the throne of France; (2) a truce; (3) a treaty of amity; and (4) an undertaking by Louis to pay to Edward the sum of twenty-five thousand crowns every year. The English negotiators also received yearly pensions. Lord Hastings headed the list with two thousand crowns, followed by Lord Howard and Sir Thomas Montgomery with twelve hundred each (Manuscrit français, ff. 1-27).

The King returned to England in September, but Howard and Montgomery remained in France for another month, filling their trunks with gold and silver plates of great value which Louis had bestowed upon them (Commines, Mémoires, I, 330). They had also received his promise to ransom Margaret of Anjou, who was a prisoner in England, for fifty thousand crowns. This money Louis eventually recovered by seizing her extensive domains in Lorraine, Anjou and Provence.

On 13th November the King of England renounced all rights over Margaret and handed her over to Montgomery with the instruc­tion to convey her safely to the King of France. In January Mont­gomery surrendered her to Seigneur de Genlis, Captain of Rouen, and Jean Raguier, Receiver General of Normandy, on the receipt of ten thousand crowns and a bond signed by the King of France for the remaining forty thousand (Warrants for the Great Seal, file 1511,

G

98 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS no. 4816, and Patent Rolls, Close Rolls and Tellers Rolls). Mont­gomery also obtained certain facilities for English merchants trading with France (Ordonnances des Rois de France, XVII I , 160-66).

In the years 1476-81 Montgomery conducted important nego­tiations with the Duchess of Burgundy and Maximilian of Austria. In 1482 he was appointed the King's Ambassador at Bruges (Patent Rolls). In 1484 he had a commission to assist John, Lord Dynham, and Sir Richard Tunstell in defending against the French Guisnes Castle, in which the Lieutenant, Lord Mountjoy, lay i l l (Rymer's Foedera). In August the same year he had power to treat with Maximilian, Duke of Austria and Burgundy, concerning a truce and mercantile intercourse (Ibid.). Montgomery's last public function on record was to raise troops in Essex for the relief of

. Brittany in 1488 (Rer. Brit. Med. Script.). At Michaelmas term the same year he received a small reward from the King (Patent Rolls).

Montgomery was a member of the Privy Council, a Knight of the Garter and a Knight of the Order of the Bath. On 20th December 1495 Henry VII made Sir Gilbert Talbot a Knight of the Garter in succession to the deceased Sir Thomas Montgomery (Shrewsbury MS.), and John, Earl of Essex, was made bailiff of the hundred of Racheford in Essex in reversion after him (Cal. State Papers, 1509).

Several French genealogists have wrongly made Jacques de Montgomery, Seigneur de Lorges (vide p. 99), the son of Sir Thomas. The latter died without issue. His sister Alice was served heiress both of him and of his younger brother John (Ancient Deeds, 20 Henry VIII).

John was beheaded in 1462 together with the Earl of Oxford, Sir Thomas Tudenham and William Tyrrell on a charge of con­spiring with Queen Margaret. It has been said that the Earl of Worcester, who determined the case of high treason, passed his judgment according to the law of Padua. The Great London Chronicles (fol. 170) state definitely that John was 'brothyr into Sir Thomas Montgomery.' John fell for his red rose, Thomas was honoured for his white.

Roger I de Montgomery

I Roger II de Montgomery

Earl of Shrewsbury, d. 1094

Arnulf , Earl of Pembroke, called Cirnbricus, d. c. 1130

Gilbert, d. 1063

Radulfus, 1066

Robert of Eagles ham, called M a c Cimbric , c. 1179

Alan of Eaglesham d. c. 1190

Sir John, d. c. 1214

Sir A lan , d. c. 1234

I Adam

Eugenius

Radulfus,

I 121-27

I

Radulfus, 1154-66

I Philip Peter the Clerk, 1225,1237 Sir Walter, 1166

Sir Adam, 1264 d. b. 1290

I

Howel 1286

Sir John, d. c. 1285 I I I I I

Sir John, Thomas, Owen Hugh Philip Admiral Lord of 1310 1348 1290

Sir John, d. b. 1328

Sir Alexander, d.c. 1370

Sir John, d. b. July 1401

Sir John, d. 1429

Alexander, 1st L o r d Montgomery, d. 1470

d. 1347 Lydham 1322 1290,1311

I I Giles Adam, 1328 elder, 1327

Adam, younger

132a

Thomas

d. 1290

Sir Walter, Earl of Ferrers, 1216

Sir William of Eketon, 1264

Walter of Eketon 1302, 1316

I Sir Will iam of

Eketon, 1302, 1316 I

Sir Walter, 1345

I I

Alexander, Master of Montgomery

d. 1452

Alexander, 2nd Lord Montgomery, d. 1483

Hugh, 1st Earl of Eglinton, d. 1545

John, L o r d Mont ­gomery, d. 1520

I Sir John of Giffen,

Seigneur d'Azay 1424-44

I René, Seigneur

de Lorges

Nicholas of Eketon, 1401

I Sir Nicholas,

1412, 144s

Sir Nicholas 1483

I Robert

d. b. 1428

I Sir John, Seigneur

d 'Ambrières, 1419,1445

I Sir Thomas,

K . G . , Ambassador

d. b. 1495

John d. 1462

I I Hugh, Robert,

2nd Earl , 1510-74, d. 1546, ancestor of

line extinct the elder house 1612 in Sweden

Georges, Seigneur de Lorges, 1495

I Jacques, Comte de Montgomery,

Seigneur de Lorges, General d. 1560

Gabriel, Comte de Montgomery, d. 1574, ancestor of the Comtes and Marquis de Montgomery and Lorges in France, line

extinct 1731

Robert, Seigneur de Lantenay

I Louis, Seigneur

de PontaUier

Philibert, Seigneur de Chamay

ANCIENT IRISH BRANCH

IT is not generally known that there were Montgomerys in Ireland several centuries before the plantation of Ulster.

In i i o i Arnulf de Montgomery, Earl of Pembroke, visited Ireland and married Lafracoth, daughter of the King of Munster. He returned to Normandy and lived there for many years without having any fixed place of residence. It seems probable, however, that the sons or grandsons of Lafracoth found a way to Ireland, and that the ancient branch in that country was descended from her.

When Sir John de Courci made his descent on Ulster in 1176 he had with him a Montgomery, described as esquire and Sir Amore's (Tristerame, later Saint Lawrence) sister's son (Cal. Carew Papers, V, 92). He carried the standard and seems to have been a man of great courage.

Sylvester de Montgomery is mentioned in a ratification by Eugenius, Archbishop of Armagh (Chartulary of Saint Mary's Abbey, 1206-16). We have not been able to ascertain whether Eugenius was the son of Eugenius de Montgomery, the son of Arnulf and Lafracoth, Constable of Montgomery Castle.

In 1278 Ralph de Montgomery, Richard Talbot and others were jurors in a lawsuit in Dublin (Cal. Doc. Ireland).

In 1281 Bendimus received the annual fee of Richard of Exeter for the use of Philip de Montgomery (Ibid.).

In 1286 Walter de Montgomery was fined for trespass. In 1296 he was mentioned in inquisitions, and he received some money for royal services in 1299 (Ibid.).

In 1302 Canon Edward (also called Geoffrey) Montgomery was sent by the Dean and Chapter of Ossory to the King to notify him of the death of Michael, their late Bishop (Ibid.).

Michael and Galfrid Montgomery were mentioned in an inquisition concerning lands near Dublin (Chartulary of Saint Mary's Abbey, 1339-40).

100

MONTGOMERYS, EARLS OF EGLINTON

B L A S O N S

Sir John de Montgomery, 1177. Sir John de Montgomery, 1388.

Alexander, first Lord Mont­gomery, 1429-70.

Hugh, first Earl of Eglinton (Book of Arms), 1542.

Hugh, third Earl of Eglinton 1585 (Lansdowne M S . 877).

Seal : One fleur-de-lis. Shield: Three fleurs-de-lis for Mont­

gomery between them an annulet stoned for Eglinton.

Shield: Quarterly first and fourth three fleurs-de-lis for Mont­gomery second and third three annulets stoned for Eglinton.

Shield: Quarterly first and fourth gules three fleurs-de-lis or for Montgomery second and third azure three annulets or stoned gules for Eglinton.

Shield: Quarterly first and fourth three fleurs-de-lis second and third three annulets stoned for Eglinton.

Crest: Out of a crowned helmet a reversed anchor.

Supporters: Female figures each hold­ing an anchor.

Shield: Quarterly first and fourth azure three fleurs-de-lis or second and third gules three annulets or stoned azure.

Crest : A lady seated on the helmet hold­ing in her dexter hand a reversed anchor and in her sinister the head of a savage couped.

Supporters: Two dragons vert. Motto: Garde bien.

A CCORDING to Master James Fraser (Wardlaw Manu-/ % script, Polichronicon Sen Policratica Temporum, Scottish

1 m. History Society, Edinburgh, 1905, p. 38) the first Mont­gomerys arrived in Scotland in the company of the French Am­bassador, the Count of Chartres, and settled in the West (about

101

Hugh, fifth Earl of Eglinton, 1598.

102 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

1057). James Paterson states on the authority of the Broomlands Manuscript that a son of Arnulf, whom he calls Philip, accompanied David, Earl of Huntingdon, from France to Scotland {History of the County of Ayr, II, 229). Sir William Fraser, on the other hand, holds the view that Robert, son of Arnulf, accompanied Walter the High Steward when he emigrated to Scotland (Memorials, I, 8). John Anderson, finally, dismisses all these theories and simply states that Robert Montgomery may have been a cadet of the family whose name he bore, though his relationship to them is not clearly proved (Scots Peerage, III, 422).

There is no doubt that Fraser's theory is very strongly sup­ported by circumstantial evidence, and it has also been accepted by the authorities both in England and France. Fresh evidence makes the reasons advanced by Fraser even more substantial.

Arnulf de Montgomery, Earl Roger's fifth son by his first marriage—mentioned last of all the sons in a document of 1079 (Cal. of Documents, France, 165)—was Earl of Pembroke and built Pembroke Castle about 1090. During the wars of succession he was deprived of all his titles and land in England. In 1101 he married the Princess Lafracoth, daughter of Murtagh O'Brien, King of Munster. Arnulf was called Cimbricus or Cambricus (the Welshman), and, according to the Broomlands Manuscript, Robert, who settled in Scotland, bore the name Mac Cimbric.1 He arrived there about 1160 at the invitation of Walter Fitz Alan, the High Steward. Walter was the son of Alan FitzFlaald, one of Earl Roger's companions-in-arms and his vassal in Shropshire.

1 Anderson suggests that Robert was not the son of Arnulf but belonged to a younger generation, else ' he must have been a man aged uppwards of fiftyyears when he is first named in Scottish writs.' This argument does not carry sufficient weight, since all writs are not preserved, but Fraser's argument to the contrary is weak. He ruled out Philip, who appeared in the older pedigrees as son of Arnulf and father of Robert, on the ground that ' Philip was the brother and not the son of Arnulf.' There is obviously no reason why the son should not be called after his gallant uncle. A careful study of the pedigree of the Welsh branch compared with that of the Fitz Geralds makes it perfectly clear that there is no room for a generation between Arnulf, who died about 1130, and Robert, who died about 1179- It should be remembered that Arnulf married Lafracoth in n o t . Robert was probably born in Normandy or in Ireland about 1110.

E A R L S O F E G L I N T O N 103

He also held Stretton and Wolston under Roger in Warwick­shire (Domesday Survey). Alan made several endowments at Shrewsbury Abbey, founded by Roger, and Robert de Mont­gomery signed Walter's charter of donation to the monastery of Paisley in 1173 (Reg. Car. de Kelso, I, 138).

The friendship formed between Earl Roger and Fitz Flaald, the ancestor of the Stuarts, kept their families together for centuries. Robert de Montgomery, the first member of the family who settled in Scotland, is said to have married Marjory, daughter of Walter the High Steward.1 It was probably on this occasion that Walter conferred upon Robert the valuable lands of Eaglesham. It is interesting to note also, that Robert II of Scotland was a descendant in the eighth generation of Earl Roger, and that Mary Stuart was descended from him in the fifteenth generation. Sir John Montgomery of Giffen fought in France with Alan Stuart, Lord Darnley, and succeeded him as Constable of the Scots army in France. His sister Margaret married John Stuart, Lord Darnley, first Earl of Lennox.

Robert de Montgomery died about 1179 leaving three sons: Alan, who succeeded him, William and Hugh, a courtier whose daughter Egidia married Shaw Mackintosh, second son of Duncan Macduff, third Earl of Fife (W. Macfarlane, Genealogical Collec­tions, Edinburgh, 1900, p. 158).

Alan was a witness to various charters of Walter in the years 1177-90.2 He had two sons: Robert, who succeeded him, and John, who succeeded his brother.

Sir John, the son of Alan of Mundegumeri, is mentioned in a charter relating to certain lands in Innerwick about 1180. His

1 This marriage fits in well in time, for Fitz Walter was born about 1100 and his daughter would be the right age to marry Robert about the year 1145. Robert's son Alan was, no doubt, named after his mother's father.

' Here again Anderson has tampered with Fraser's carefully-drawn-up pedigree. Thus he has identified Robert's son Alan with Sir John's son Alan. The fact is that the second Alan held the lands of Innerwick. These lands belonged to Robert of Kent, whose daughter married Sir John Montgomery. Alan succeeded his mother in these lands.

i o 4 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

seal, a fleur-de-lis, is appended to the document. He married Helen, daughter of Robert de Kent, who brought him a third part of the Innerwick estate. He was succeeded by his son Alan.

Sir Alan witnessed a charter by Alan Fitz Walter in 1203 and several other charters dated before 1230. He died about 1237, leaving three sons: Robert, who succeeded him; John, who succeeded Robert; and Henry.1

Sir John II succeeded his brother about 1260. He is said to have married Margaret, daughter of William Murray, Baron Bothwell,and left four sons : John, who succeeded him; Murthaw, ancestor of the Montgomerys of Thornton and Innerwick; Alan of Stair and Cassillis, father of Sir Neil de Montgomery, executed by the English in the barn of Ayr, 1296 (Patrick Abercromby, Material Achievements of the Scots Nation, Edinburgh, 1711,1, 525); and Thomas.

Sir John III succeeded his father about 1285. He was among the great barons summoned by Edward I to meet him at Norham Castle, and in 1296 he swore fealty to the King of England. After the cruelties committed by the English he joined the party of Bruce. He married Janet, daughter of Sir John Erskine of Erskine. He was succeeded by his only son, Alexander.

Fraser writes of Sir Alexander (Memorials of the Montgomerys, Earls of Eglinton, Edinburgh, 1859, I, 13): 'It is clear from the part which he took in public matters, and the important and often difficult and delicate duties he was called on to perform, that Alexander was a man of great ability, and undoubted honour and integrity.' He was one of the Scottish Commissioners who negoti­ated with the English the release of David II in 1358, and later in the same year he obtained permission to pass through England with armed retinues. He married Margaret, daughter of William, first Earl of Douglas, and was succeeded by his son John, 'fuit nepos de Magni Comiti de Douglas' (Harleian MS. , British Museum).

1 Anderson makes Sir John the son of Robert, although John calls himself ' Johannes filius Alani de Mundegumeri ' in a charter of donation to the Abbey of Melrose. Even in this case Fraser's pedigree holds good.

EARLS OF EGLINTON

SIR JOHN IV DE MONTGOMERY (1370-1401) Sir John de Montgomery was ninth at Eaglesham and first

Lord of Ardrossan. He is well known in Scottish history for his great victory over the English at Otterburn in 1388. The English army was commanded by Sir Henry Percy, commonly called Harry Hotspur, ancestor of the Dukes of Northumberland. He was an experienced and daring warrior, and a defeat might have cost the King of Scotland his crown. The Scottish troops were commanded by James, second Earl of Douglas, and Sir John de Montgomery, his nephew, was second in command. It was a mighty struggle between two well-disciplined armies of chivalry and the issue was long uncertain. Douglas fell, but Sir John took over and went for Hotspur himself. The battle came to a standstill. Both armies watched with breathless tension this tremendous single-combat. It ended with Montgomery's victory, and at the point of his sword he made Hotspur his prisoner. Encouraged by his example the Scottish army broke all resistance and won the day. It has been said that Montgomery's son Hugh was killed in this battle, but there is no evidence to prove this rumour. Hotspur was brought to Scotland and for his release had to pay a large sum of money, with which Montgomery built Polnoon Castle, in lands granted by the King. It was for a long time the chief messuage of the barony of Eaglesham.

Montgomery's victory at Otterburn has been the theme of many poems. Here is a verse out of an old ballad dealing with the subject:

' Sir Hugh was slain, Sir John maintained The honour of the day;

And with him brought the victory, And Percy's son away.

He with his ransom built Polnoon, A castle which yet stands ;

The King well pleased as a reward Did therefore give him lands.'

io6 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

Sir John married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Hugh Eglinton by his first wife, Agnes More. 1 Through this marriage Sir John acquired the Baronies of Eglinton and Ardrossan. He had two sons, John, his successor, and Alexander of Bonnington, ancestor of the Montgomerys of Scotstoun.

SIR JOHN V DE MONTGOMERY (1401-29)

Sir John, who was born about 1360, began his military career under less favourable auspices than his father. He accompanied Archibald, fourth Earl of Douglas, who invaded England in 1402 with an army of 12,000 men. At Homildon Hil l they were attacked by the English under Percy and defeated after a hard struggle, leaving a big number of killed and wounded on the battlefield. Both Douglas and Montgomery were captured, but it is clear that the latter was back in Scotland in 1404, for he then introduced to the court of Robert III the dethroned English King Richard II, who had escaped from Pontefract and arrived as a refugee in Scotland. Richard was allowed to live in the castle of Stirling, where he died about 1423 and was buried with royal honours (Tytler, History of Scotland, third ed., II, 401, and Winton's Chronicle, II, 389).

Douglas and Percy, who captured him, made great friends, and in 1403 they united their forces to overthrow the usurper, Henry IV, and seize the Crown of England. Whether their inten­tion was to reinstate Richard is not known. However, their plans were frustrated by Henry's victory at Shrewsbury. Douglas was wounded and taken prisoner. Sir John de Montgomery went to England to treat for the ransom of the Earl, but this was no easy matter and his mission failed. In 1408 he nobly delivered himself up as hostage for Douglas, but had regained his liberty by 1412.

1 Fraser states that Elizabeth was Sir Hugh's daughter by his second wife, Egidia Stuart. Anderson is no doubt right in correcting this point, for Alexander was old enough to grant writs in 1379. Sir Hugh seems to have married Agnes More about 1340 and Sir John's marriage to Elizabeth Eglinton could have taken place about twenty years later.

EARLS OF EGLINTON 107

On 24th November 1413 he granted a charter for infefting Stephen Ker of Trearne in the lands of Quirtoun of Giffyne. To this document is appended his seal: three fleurs-de-lis between them an annulet stoned. The crest is the head of a savage couped.

In 1423 Sir John went to England again as ransom, this time for James I, who had been captured and imprisoned by the English. In a statement of the annual incomes of the various hostages Sir John was set down with an income of 700 merks. Next to him came the Earl of Angus with 600, the Earl of Strathearn with 500, and Lord Gordon with 400.

Sir John married, first, Agnes of the Isles, who died in 1413, and secondly, Margaret, daughter of Robert Maxwell of Caer-laverock, ancestor of the Earls of Nithsdale. He had three sons : Alexander, who succeeded him; Robert of Giffen; and Hugh.

ALEXANDER, FIRST LORD MONTGOMERY (1429-70)

succeeded his father in 1429 and is mentioned, with other coun­cillors of the King, in an indenture dated 10th August 1440. In this document he is styled Lord Montgomery, and in the charter of the lordship of Hamilton on 3rd July 1445 he is named as one of the Lords of Parliament. His seal affixed to an instrument by Parliament dated the 9th of June the same year is slightly different from that of his father : quarterly first and fourth three fleurs-de-lis second and third three annulets stoned.

While his ancestors had all been great warriors, the first Lord Montgomery was decidedly a man of peace. He was one of the Commissioners who negotiated a treaty of peace with England in 1438, and in 1459-60 he was sent to England as special Ambassador for the same purpose. This mission was also successful and a truce with England was procured. In recognition of his important public services Montgomery was munificently rewarded by the King and many new lands were added to his estates.

io8 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

The first Lord Montgomery married Margaret, daughter of Sir Thomas Boyd of Kilmarnock, and had by her three sons: Alexander, Master of Montgomery, who predeceased his father; George, ancestor of the Baronets Montgomery of Skelmorly; John of Giffen, ancestor of the Montgomerys of Giffen and of the Comtes and Marquis de Montgomery of Lorges; 1 and Thomas, rector of the University of Glasgow.

ALEXANDER, MASTER OF MONTGOMERY (1430-52)

married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Adam Hepburn of Hailes, and had by her three sons: Alexander, second Lord Montgomery; Robert Montgomery of Braidstone, ancestor of the Viscounts of Great Ardes, the Earls of Mountalexander, the Montgomerys of Greyabbey and the Montgomerys of Blessingbourne ; and Hugh Montgomery of Hessilheid, ancestor of the Montgomerys of Beaulieu, and the Montgomerys of Killee and probably also of the Montgomerys of Moville.

1 In his pedigree Fraser has placed John of Giffen as third son of Alexander, first Lord Montgomery, in accordance with the M S . of Captain J . H . Montgomery of Bamahill, which was based upon the Broomlands Manuscript. In a note, however, Sir William points out that there is no evidence showing that John was son of Lord Montgomery. Anderson finds it more probable that John was a descendant of Robert of Giffen. Marlet and other French historians trace the descendants of the Montgomerys de Lorges from the first lord. This, in our opinion, is correct, and for the following reasons :

(1) Sir John went to France in the company of Sir Alan Stuart, whose son married the daughter of the first Lord Montgomery.

(2) Sir John succeeded Sir Alan as Captain of the Scots Guards and Constable

of the Scots Army in France.

(3) These high posts were strictly reserved for noblemen.

(4) There is no evidence to prove that Sir Robert of Giffen was married or that he was succeeded by Sir William. In all probability Robert died without issue and was succeeded by Sir John, who handed over the estate to his eldest son, Sir William. His younger sons remained in France.

Fraser has mistaken Sir John Montgomery of Giffen for a John Montgomery in Giffen who lived at a much later date. This latter John was the second son of Robert, fourth Laird of Giffen, and flourished 1483-88.

EARLS OF EGLINTON 109

ALEXANDER, SECOND LORD MONTGOMERY (1470-83)

was born about 143s.1 He married Catherine, daughter of Gilbert, Lord Kennedy, and had by her three sons : Hugh, third Lord and first Earl of Eglinton ; John Montgomery of Bowhouse, whose son Hugh is called 'my gudschiris brother sonne' by the second Earl of Eglinton (Testament, 30th September 1546); and James, ' brother-german of Hugh, Earl of Eglinton.'

H U G H , THIRD LORD MONTGOMERY, FIRST EARL OF EGLINTON

(1483-1545)

was born about 1460. According to Fraser, he succeeded his father about 1483, and in the following year he was one of the Commissioners who settled the disputes on the marches. In October the same year he revoked all the grants made in his name during his minority.

In the prolonged quarrels between James III and the great Barons of the country the heir-apparent took their side. Lord Montgomery also espoused the cause of the opposition and was largely responsible for the issue of the battle of Sauchieburn, where the Prince won a decisive victory over his father. The latter was killed during the flight and his son ascended the throne as James IV. The new King showed great liberality to all his supporters, and Montgomery received several grants of land by Crown charters. In 1489 he was made a Privy Councillor, and in January 1506 was created Earl of Eglinton. Shortly after this occasion fresh grants were bestowed upon him.

James IV fell at Flodden in 1513 and, since his son James V was then only an infant, the Queen Dowager was constituted interim Regent of the Realm. The Earl of Eglinton was appointed one of the Councillors of the Regent. On the return of John,

1 Anderson (Scots Peerage, III, 432) gives 1445 as the probable year of his birth. This must be wrong, if the marriage to Catherine, daughter of Gilbert, Lord Kennedy, as Anderson states himself, took place before 1459.

no HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS Duke of Albany, from France the Earl was charged with the tuition of the young King. In 1526 he was made Justice-General of the northern districts until the King should attain the age of twenty-five.

But the brilliant career of the Earl was marred by two tragic incidents. In 1520 he suffered the loss of his eldest son, John, during a fight in the streets of Edinburgh between the Earls of Arran and Angus, and in 1526 his castle was burnt to the ground by the Cunninghams. Al l the portraits and a great many documents were destroyed by the flames, an irretrievable loss to the family.

In 1533 the Earl of Eglinton was appointed Admiral-depute within the bounds of Cunningham, i.e. between Kellyburn and the bridge of Irvine. The anchor used as a crest in the armorial bear­ings of the Earls of Eglinton may have been an allusion to the time when the first Earl guarded the west coast of Scotland. It should be noticed also that many Montgomerys in those days were sea­faring men and had their own ships.

In 1536 the King proceeded to France to marry the Princess Magdalene, daughter of François I. During his absence the Earl of Eglinton was appointed one of the Regents of Scotland, his highest and last official post. He died in 1545 at the age of eighty-five. In his marriage with Lady Helen Campbell, daughter of Colin, first Earl of Argyle, the Earl had six sons and eight daughters. The sons were: John, Master of Eglinton, who predeceased his father; William, ancestor of the Montgomerys of Greenfield and Stane; Sir Neil Montgomery of Lainshaw, ancestor of various branches in America and of one branch in France; Hugh, killed in the battle of Pinkie in 1547; Robert, Bishop of Argyle; and Alexander, who died young.

JOHN, LORD MONTGOMERY, MASTER OF EGLINTON (1480-1520)

took a prominent part in the unfortunate family feuds which tore the country asunder during the sixteenth century, and perished in one of the skirmishes, a ' Cleanse the Causey ' in Edinburgh, on

EARLS OF EGLINTON i n

2nd May 1520. He married Elizabeth (Bessie), daughter of Sir Archibald Edmonstoun of Dunthreat, and had by her three sons : Archibald, Master of Eglinton, who predeceased his grandfather ; Hugh, who succeeded his grandfather and became second Earl of Eglinton; Robert, ancestor of the Montgomerys of Sweden, elder branch.

H U G H , SECOND EARL OF EGLINTON (1545-46)

was served heir to his grandfather on 3rd October 1545 but did not long enjoy his position, as he died on 3rd September 1546. During his lifetime, however, he was one of the Judiciars of Scotland and held other posts of distinction. He married Marion Seton, sister of George, Lord Seton, and had by her two sons: Hugh, his successor, and William.

H U G H , THIRD EARL OF EGLINTON (1546-85)

revoked all charters granted in his name under his minority. He was one of the Scottish nobles who in 1561 accompanied

Queen Mary to Scotland. Before leaving France she asked Queen Elizabeth for safe conduct in case she should have to take shelter in an English harbour. Balfour says that Elizabeth refused to comply with this request, while others pretend that she granted Mary safe conduct. In any case, the English squadrons in the Channel had orders to intercept her vessel and bring it to an English port. On this occasion, however, there was a thick fog and she eluded her pursuers, while the ship that brought the Earl of Eglinton and some other members of her suite was captured. When the mistake was discovered they were soon released and arrived at Leith only a few days after the Queen.

'The Earl,' says Fraser, 'continued one of Mary's most stead­fast adherents during the troublous and eventful period which immediately followed her arrival in Scotland, accession to the throne, and marriage with Darnley.' But after her marriage in

112 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

1565 intrigues and conspiracy made the position of the Queen more and more involved and put the loyalty of her friends to the hardest tests. Her favourite and secretary, the Italian Rizzio, was murdered the following year by Protestant lords, probably at the instigation of Darnley. He was never punished, but there is no doubt that this crime estranged him from the Queen, who found another lover in James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell. On the night of 10th February 1567 the house in Edinburgh where Darnley lived was blown up and he himself was found strangled in the neighbourhood. It was generally thought that Bothwell was at the back of this murder, but he was acquitted of the charge against him on 12th April the same year. The Earl of Eglinton is said to have been present in Parliament on that occasion. Bothwell afterwards entertained his friends, including Eglinton, at a tavern in Edinburgh. In the middle of the supper the house was suddenly surrounded by armed men, and Bothwell, producing a letter from the Queen in which she expressed her wish to marry him, demanded the written consent of his guests to this act. The result was a general uproar during which the Earl of Eglinton managed to escape and so avoided putting his name to a document of most doubtful character. Barely a month after this event the Queen married Bothwell.

This was more than the people of Scotland could stand, and Eglinton, too, took part in the action which eventually led to her dethronement and Bothwell's banishment from the country. On the other hand, his sense of chivalry drove him to fight for her in the battle of Langside, where James Stuart, Earl of Murray, the Regent, won a decisive victory over the Queen's forces.

After the murder of Murray in 1570 by one of the Queen's party, Eglinton was apprehended by the Earl of Lennox, the new Regent, and imprisoned for a short time at Doune Castle in 1571. Lennox himself was assassinated in August of the same year by a soldier in the service of the Laird of Buccleuch.

After his accession to the throne James VI was ruled by

E A R L S O F E G L I N T O N 113

favourites : in the first place the younger Lennox, who was created a duke, and Captain James Stewart, who was made Earl of Arran. This system gradually became intolerable to other members of the Scottish nobility, headed by Eglinton, Mar, Glencairn and Gowrie. In August 1582 they raided Ruthven Castle where the King was staying and captured him, Lennox and Arran. The King eventually regained his liberty, but Arran was kept in prison and Lennox was banished from the country. This determined action against the King and his favourites proves that Eglinton was a man of great power and resolution. He died in 1585.

He married, first, Lady Jane Hamilton, daughter of James, Earl of Arran, Duke of Châtellerault, but had by her no children. In his second marriage, with Agnes, daughter of Sir John Drum­mond of Innerpeffray, he had two sons: Hugh, his successor, and Robert Montgomery of Giffen, who left three daughters. The third Earl had two daughters; the elder, Lady Margaret, married Robert, first Earl of Winton, Lord Seton. Their third son, Alexander, eventually became sixth Earl of Eglinton, whereby this title passed over from the Montgomery to the Seton family.

H U G H , FOURTH EARL OF EGLINTON (1585-86)

was treacherously murdered by the Cunninghams only ten months after his accession to the Earldom. By his first wife, Egidia, daughter of Robert, fourth Lord Boyd, he had one son, Hugh, his successor.

HUGH, FIFTH EARL OF EGLINTON (1586-1612)

was only a small boy when he was bereaved of his father, and he was also motherless, for his mother had died soon after he was born. However, his uncle, Robert Boyd of Bedinheath, saw to it that he was well educated, and the King took great interest in the infant Earl. In 1598 James VI arranged a marriage contract between Eglinton and Lady Gabriella Stuart, sister of the Duke

H

114 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

of Lennox,. This contract was never fulfilled, since the lady who should thus be coerced into marriage preferred to take the veil and enter a nunnery in France. But a second marriage was arranged for the young Earl, and this time by his own uncle, Robert Montgomery of Giffen, Master of Eglinton, whose choice fell on his eldest daughter, Margaret. This marriage of cousins, calculated to unite the possessions of the family, turned out to be unhappy and childless. The fifth earl of Eglinton, the last Montgomery with that title, died on 4th September 1612.

EARLS OF EGLINTON " 5

HOW SETON BECAME M O N T G O M E R Y

James Montgomery, the son of Captain Robert Montgomery and grandson of John, Lord Montgomery, seems to have been the nearest heir male of the fifth Earl. Since James Montgomery was in French service and unable to look after his own interests, probably also ignorant of the situation, it had been arranged between the families of Eglinton and Winton that Alexander, third son of Robert Seton, first Earl of Winton, and Lady Margaret Montgomery, daughter of the third Earl of Eglinton, should inherit the Earldom of Eglinton. This was purely a family arrange­ment, without any legal foundation, but it was a comparatively easy matter for the Earls of Eglinton and Winton and their in­fluential friends to obtain official recognition for their action. It was sanctioned by a Crown Charter dated 28th November 1611, which transferred the Earldom of Eglinton to the Seton family.

Whether Sir Alexander Seton made some arrangement with James Montgomery in France or made certain that Montgomery was kept in ignorance of his own lawful claim to the Earldom of Eglinton is not known. But there is undoubted proof that Seton was in France immediately before the death of the fifth Earl.

On 20th October 1612 Sir Alexander Seton was served heir to the Earldom of Eglinton before an inquest including several men of distinction and influence: the Earls of Angus, Home, Perth and Lothian and the Lord of Torphichen, Balfour of Burleigh, Colville of Culross and Cranston. Six days afterwards the Chancery of Henry, Prince and Steward of Scotland, issued a precept for infefting Sir Alexander Montgomerie, Earl of Eglinton, Lord Montgomerie, formerly named Sir Alexander Seton of Foul-struther, in the Earldom of Eglinton. The new Earl was infeft on this precept a few days later and adopted the style and title of Earl of Eglinton.

So far everything had gone according to plan, but, informed

i i6 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

about this bold stroke, James VI immediately put his foot down on such an obvious breach of the laws of Scotland. By royal command Sir Alexander was summoned to appear before the Privy Council of Scotland to be discharged from using the title of Earl. Sir Alexander refused to appear in person, but sent his uncle, Sir William Seton, to represent him. He declined the jurisdiction of the Council in this matter and insisted upon his right to use the title supported by official documents and His Majesty's great seal. The matter was cleverly handled and the Council were obviously doubtful as to what course to pursue. In their letter to the King, dated i8th May 1613, they write: 'And then he produceit ane lettre under the said Sir Alexander his hand, whilk we haif heirwith send up to your Maiestie, conteining the excuse of his not com-peirance, and the defensses whilkis he had to use in this matter, being groundit upoun ane heritable infeftment of tailyes, past your Maiesties grite seale with all solempniteis requisite, and upoun ane retour of your Maiesties Chancellarie, past be ane ordinar forme of inqueist of ane nomber of nobilmen, whairby the said Sir Alex­ander wes served as narrest and lauchfull air of tailye to the last Erll of Eglintoun.' The Council refused to take the responsibility for a decision in this case, since they found themselves neither fit nor competent to do so, but asked the King to take the matter in his own hands. Seton had scored in the first round against the King.

That the King considered Sir Alexander Seton as a usurper is amply proved by his own words in a letter addressed to the Secre­tary of State and to the Lord Advocate for Scotland, 27th February 1615: 'Our iustlie conceaued offence for the intolerable abuse likelie to have taken roote in that our kingdome, by transferring the titles and dignityes of Lords of Parliament frome the lineall discente of the race which we our royall progenitours had honored with that eminent dignity, to strangers, by infeftements of intayle or other alienations exped there under our casheite, moved us to prohibite Sir Alexander Montgomerie (who by such meanes was

EARLS OF EGLINTON I i y

prouided to the liuing and Earldom of Eglinton) to usurp that title and place.' (The italics are ours.)

It should be noted that the infeftment of entail in itself was a breach of law, since there was already in existence an entail in favour of the nearest heir male to the title, a descendant of John, Lord Montgomery. Failing this line the heir would be found among the Montgomerys of Greenfield, whom failing among the Montgomerys of Lainshaw, whom failing among the Montgomerys of Braidstone, and so forth.

Finding the King unyielding, Seton went to see one of his favourites, Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset, telling him that although he was little skilled in the subtleties of law and the niceties of court etiquette, he knew the use of his sword. Apparently Somerset was impressed by the manner of 'Greysteel,' the name acquired by Seton for his readiness with the sword, and decided to help him. It was probably Somerset who worked out the subtle plan according to which Seton should resign his claims and leave the matter entirely in the hands of the King. So he did, and in this round the King scored.

In another letter to the Secretary of State and to the Lord Advocate for Scotland, of the same date, the King wrote : ' We haue receaued your letter together with the coppie of Sir Alexander Montgomeries dimission of the stile and dignity of Earle of Egling-toun; and although in your letter yee say that the said dimission hath all the substance and forme which may denude him of that dignity, yet seeing that ye are they on whose iudgement and sufficiencie wee must relie in that pointe, wee haue thought good to require yow to aduise before yee giue the infeftmept oute of your handes, if any thing be to be added to the said dimission, wherby to make it euerie way sufficient in law, and not doubting your care hereof, wee bid yow farewell.'

The King and his advisers well realized that a refusal to recognize the claims of Seton would turn him into a deadly and most dangerous enemy, whereas concession to his demands would

i i 8 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

make him a reliable and useful subject. This consideration deter­mined the course taken by the King. To give the matter an appearance of legality the King, by a charter dated 24th March 1615, 'of new united, annexed, erected, created and incorporated the earldom, with all lands, lordships and baronies in one whole and free earldom, to be called in future times Earldom of Eglin-toun.' Referring to the matter in a letter to Lord Binning, the King writes: 'Wee haue bene pleased to confirme unto him that honour which by an other, although without our knowledge, had bene conferred upon him : and so deliuering unto him our infeft-ment, yee may shew unto him how gracious a souerane he serueth, who so easilie could be mooued to pardon an offence so highlie touching his prerogative.' In this way the Earldom of Eglinton was transferred from the legal holders to strangers, from Mont­gomerys to Setons, and the right of the Seton Earls to the titles, names and lands of the Montgomerys was established by law. Sir Alexander Seton had won the final round of the contest, while the King saved appearances.

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F S W E D E N , E L D E R H O U S E

B L A S O N

Shield: First and fourth azure three fleurs-de-lis or for Montgomery second and third gules three annulets or stoned azure for Eglinton.

Crest: Out of a crowned helmet with a mantle gules doubling azure an inverted anchor.

Motto: Gardez bien.

IT has long been held that the elder branch of the family in Sweden was descended from Jacques de Montgomery, Baron d'Ecouché, fourth son of Gabriel, second Count of Mont­

gomery, in France. Recent research has proved, however, that this genealogy is mistaken. In an article in Personhistorisk Tidskrift, 1913, the Swedish genealogist David Montgomery, who had gone very carefully into the matter, arrived at the conclusion that this branch came from Scotland. Since then several important docu­ments have been found which prove beyond question that his conclusion was right. Among the more important of these acts may be mentioned:

(1) A muster roll of 8th August 1641 signed and sealed by Captain (later Major-General) David Montgomery, the seal being that of a cadet of the house of Eglinton without differencing marks.

(2) A letter from the Marquess of Montrose, May 1649, to Secretary Long in the service of Charles II (Pepys Collection, Cambridge). The letter reads: T shall intreat you doe me the faviour to draw on pass for on Lieutenant Collonel Montgomery a Scots gentilman who is to repair to Sweden, and iff I chance not to be att court while you ar ther you will be pleased to gett his Majesty to seigne it, in respect I forgott to remember it

119

I20 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

yesternyght. It must be ready once this foornown, for the gentillman is to part with the post. Intreating you will heasten itt I am, Sir, Your affectionatt freind, Montrose.'

(3) A letter from Lieutenant-Colonel David Montgomery to the heir-apparent to the Swedish Crown, Charles Gustavus, 1649 (Stegeborgssamlingen, Ser. II, A). He mentions his long service during the Thirty Years War and applies for a pension. During the last two years he had been ' in the service of his most gracious Royal Majesty of Great Britain,' who had given him a passport to the Swedish headquarters. His application was eventually granted.

Before these documents were known a confusion with the French branch was possible and, in fact, quite natural, because Robert de Montgomery, grandfather of Major-General David Montgomery, played an important part in the Huguenot wars on the same side as the French Montgomerys.

ROBERT DE MONTGOMERY Robert de Montgomery was the third son of John, Lord Mont­

gomery, Master of Eglinton (1480-1520), and brother of Hugh, second Earl of Eglinton (1545-46). His existence and also the fact that he was married have been proved, but his Christian name was apparently not known to Fraser when he wrote the Memorials of the Montgomeries (vide II, 36). However, an eighteenth-century pedigree of the elder branch in Sweden states quite definitely that Robert, grandfather of Major-General David Montgomery, was 'brother of Eglinton.' His name is also mentioned in several Scottish documents. He must have been born about 1510, and like so many other members of the Scottish aristocracy in those

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F S W E D E N 121

days he joined the Men-at-Arms of the French King, commanded by his distant cousin Jacques, Seigneur de Lorges, and later on by James Hamilton, second Earl of Arran. He appears in the muster rolls of that famous corps in 1546, the year when Lorges returned to France after his expedition to Scotland, 1550 and 1554.

Robert had two sons: James, recorded in the above-mentioned pedigree, and John, who is called 'fatheris brothir sone of the third Earl ' in a Commission by the Earl dated 26th May 1571 (original at Eglinton).

In 1560 Robert was back in Scotland. He was then entrusted by the Lords of Scotland to inspect the fortifications of Dunbar in the company of Robert Hamilton and two French officers. His report was signed on 13th July 1560. The French officers in their report mention the fact that he had served in France and refer to him as a Scotch nobleman (Cotton Coll., Calig. B.X. 114, British Museum). Thus he must have been either a lord or the son of a lord. In his signature the surname is written in full, but instead of the Christian name he has written a scroll. We find the same signature on his letter to the English Minister in Scotland dated 2nd August 1573. From letters by Lord Burghley and others we know, however, that this scroll stands for Robert.

On 8th July 1572 Sir William Drury writes to Lord Burghley: 'Montgomery, something in yeres, who has served in France, is left in charge of 100 horsemen and new levies' (State Papers, Foreign, 1572-74).

In another letter to Lord Burghley, dated Edinburgh, 26th July 1573, the following reference is made to Montgomery's expedition to Holland: 'They are not of such as have always lavit by wages in former wars, but rather some in the rank of nobility who willingly have done valiant and good service in the cause of religion and repressing of civil sedition here and thinking the quarrel with you are likewise willingly inclined to follow their

122 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

weiris kair with ane tried company of good horsemen and for that purpose is the present Captain, Robert de Montgomery, a gentleman of approved truth, good credit, a long experience both here and in foreign countries, expressly directed towards you, and to return speedly with resolution of your pleasure, that thereupon the expedition may be made as shall be thought convenient' (Cal. Scot. Papers, 1905, 600-2).

In a letter of 2nd August 1573 to the Rt. Hon. Maister Harry Kyllegraye, Robert Montgomery writes :

' I am directed by my Lord Regent's grace to go towards Flanders, to the Prince of Orange, to offer him 1000 horsemen or more, as he requires, with 2000 footmen to be "liftet" to this country to assist him in the general cause under my Lord Cath-cart's charge, he being general to the whole, and so intends, God willing, to make hasty expedition, that after the knowledge of the Prince's will he may have our men already to march and to be embarked' (State Papers, Elizabeth, Vol. X X V , no. 82. Seal destroyed, signature preserved).

Some of the troops were brought over by Captain Edmonstoun, probably Robert's cousin by his mother Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Archibald Edmonstoun of Dunthreat (Cal. Scot. Papers, IV, 601).

Sir Thomas Morgan refers to the event in a letter to Lord Burghley dated 13th September 1573 : ' Montgomery, of Scotland, is come to the Prince to make offer of service with 2000 light horse' (Cal. State Papers, Foreign Series, 1573, no. 460).

No one but the Earl himself, his brother William, or his uncle Robert could have been thus described, and it seems unlikely that any other Montgomery would have been allowed to raise such a big force in Scotland.

That Robert was a Scottish nobleman is clear. The French officers in their report have given evidence to this effect, and the way in which he wrote English clearly proves that he was a Scotsman

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F S W E D E N 123

and not a Frenchman who knew English. He has sometimes been mistaken for Jacques de Montgomery (son of the French Count Gabriel), who also fought in Flanders at the same time. In a letter to Philip II of Spain, dated 6th July 1573, the Duke of Alba writes : ' Quite recently eight companies of French, Walloons and English with six guns under the command of a son of Montgomery (he refers to Gabriel, not to Lord Montgomery) left England for Holland in order to join the Prince of Orange at Ley den ' (Lettre du duc d'Albe au Roi, Nimègue, le 7 juillet 1573, cit. Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II sur les affairs de Pays Bas, II, 372). These forces were soon afterwards routed by the Spanish General Don Fadrique.

It was partly to make up for this reverse that Robert de Mont­gomery brought over fresh troops to Flanders in September.

Considering all this, it seems quite natural that Swedish genealogists have mixed up the Scottish branch, from which the Swedish house is descended, with the French Montgomerys.

JAMES MONTGOMERY

According to the Swedish pedigree, James, the son of Robert de Montgomery, brother of Eglinton, was married to Catherine de Balduine. There is no evidence to prove that she was French, as the name seems to suggest. She might just as well have had the Scottish name Baldovy or Baldowey, which was turned into French. James is said to have been in French service, but according to the genealogical notes of Captain David Christopher Montgomery he was never in Swedish service. He must not be mixed up with Lieutenant-Colonel James Montgomery, of the Hessilheid branch, who took part in the battle of Breitenfeld and was killed in a duel by General Bouillon before 28th August 1534 (Monro His Expedition with the Worthy Scots Regiment).

On the death of Hugh, fifth Earl of Eglinton, in 1612, James

124 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

was the lawful holder of the titles of Lord Montgomery and Earl of Eglinton, which he lost in 1615 when these titles were transferred by a Royal Charter on Sir Alexander Seton.

MAJOR-GENERAL DAVID MONTGOMERY

James had a son James David, who always signed himself David for the sake of distinction. Nothing is known about his youth. It was probably spent either in France or in Holland. In 1629 he joined the forces of Gustavus Adolphus with a squadron of dragoons raised and paid by himself. He served under Johan Mauritz Wrangel and later under Johan Lilliehöök. According to his own words he did altogether eighteen years' service with the Swedish forces and must have taken part in most big battles of the Thirty Years War. In 1647 he returned to Scotland and was promoted to lieutenant-colonel in the Royalist army. In 1649 he returned to the Swedish headquarters in Germany and applied for a pension. He was afterwards promoted to major-general, pro­bably in the force of 4000 horse raised in 1652 by Sweden, Hanover, Celle and Cassel, since he is said in the pedigree to have been in Hanoverian service.

That General Montgomery retained his Scottish citizenship appears from the above-quoted letter by Montrose, who called him a ' Scots gentilman,' and also from the fact that he arrived at the Swedish headquarters with a British passport. He signed the receipt of his Swedish pension in 1650 (Rantekammarboken, Riksarkivet, fol. 315).

It seems probable that Montgomery, during his stay in Scotland, tried to uphold his claim to the Montgomery titles. But 'Grey-steel ' was a powerful noble and certainly not inclined to part with any of his rights to anybody, especially to a poor cavalier who had fought all his life abroad. However one may feel about it, the case was settled once for all in favour of the new Earl by a Royal Charter, and the man who should have had the titles was certainly not safe

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F S W E D E N 125

for his life in Scotland. All he brought with him was the seal of his ancestors, which he was no longer entitled to use in Scotland, and the signature of the King himself on his passport.

General Montgomery was married to Anna Eleonora von Schell and had by her one son, David Christopher. According to a state­ment of his great-grandson, he died in Pomerania in 1660. Others have given 1654 as the year of his death.

The seal he used in 1641 was that of a cadet of the house of Eglinton. It shows no trace of the differencing marks of the Lainshaw, Braidstone, Hessilheid, Skelmorly, Scotstoun or Giffen branches.

DAVID CHRISTOPHER MONTGOMERY

This gentleman was the first Montgomery who settled in Sweden. He became captain in the Swedish cavalry in 1679 and later lieutenant-colonel. He was severely wounded in the battle of Lund in 1676 and also in some minor struggles in Pomerania. When Frederick IV, brother-in-law of Charles XII , visited Sweden, Montgomery conducted him through Ostro-Gothia.

Montgomery was always styled by the King as a nobleman but refused to join the Swedish nobility. General Burenskiöld states in a letter that he often talked with him about his relations in Scotland. He married Emerentia Rosenstråle and had by her two sons, Carl Gustaf and Hans, who was killed in battle during the campaign of Charles XII . By his wife he got the estate of Svart-torp. He died in 1708.

CARL GUSTAF MONTGOMERY As a young cornet in the cavalry Montgomery was wounded in

the battle of Helsingborg, 1710, and when three years later a transport ship was wrecked on the shores of Bornholm he was the

126 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

only officer to escape. If he had died then the Swedish branch would have been extinct.

After the wars he settled down in his estate, Hölja, in Ostro-Gothia. He was first married to Catherine Grubbensköld and had by her one son. Two years after her death he married Anna Victorin and had by her three sons. The two elder sons were officers in the cavalry, the two younger sons were infantry officers. They all became hereditary members of the Swedish House of Nobles.

CARL JOHAN MONTGOMERY He was the eldest son of the second marriage. Like his father,

he was a major in the cavalry and fought in several battles during the wars in Pomerania 1757-62. T. Save writes about him: 'Montgomery fought with equal courage, although he had had a bullet through the body* (Sjuåriga Kriget, Stockholm, 1915). He was later transferred to the King's Body-Guard. After the wars he settled down on his estate Fyrby. He married Ulrika Svedmark and had by her several children. The fourth son, David Robert, continued the line.

DAVID ROBERT MONTGOMERY

became a corporal in a regiment of dragoons at the age of eight. He took part in the war of Gustavus III against Russia. On one occasion Montgomery attended the King when he visited the outlying pickets. They were attacked by three Cossacks. Montgomery killed them all and carried the King back to his quarters. For this bravery the King conferred upon the young subaltern the Knighthood of the Order of the Sword. He eventually reached the rank of lieutenant-colonel, but since his health was bad owing to wounds received during the wars he retired to his estate, Falsterbo. He married Gertrud Liljenstolpe

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F S W E D E N 127

and had by her a son, Carl Hampus, who was a captain and had several estates. He had four sons :

(1) Hugo, who died young.

(2) Robert, captain in the Dragoon Guards. His eldest son Hugo, Director of a company in Stockholm, is the present head of the family.

(3) Edward, sometime Member of the Swedish Senate, owner of Rottneros Bruk. He had several sons and daughters who left issue.

(4) Carl, major in the Swedish army. He had two sons and one daughter: (a) the elder son, David, was in the Swedish diplomatic service. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Major-General Hugh Montgomery of Bles-singbourne. Their son Carl has been educated at Eton and is B.A. of Cambridge, (b) The younger son, Bo-Gabriel (vide Who's Who), married Brita Dahl and has two sons and four daughters.

Henrik Victor belonged to a younger branch of the family. He owned big estates in Vàrmland and married Ida Maule. Their daughter Henrietta married twice: (1) the Hon. Charles George Henry Cadogan; (2) Harry Hinton, Esquire. Another daughter, Charlotta, married three times: (1) Arnold Crossley, Esquire; (2) Major Charles Childe, who was killed in the battle of Potgisters Drift, 1900; and (3) Colonel Ralph Bromfield Willington Fischer-Childe. The youngest daughter, Signe, married Captain Archibald Miles.

This branch of the family is now represented by Albert Edward, who is Director of a company in Stockholm. He married Britte Hedenblad and has two sons and one daughter.

Frederick Fabian, Marshal of the Swedish Court; John Samuel, Colonel 1st Swedish Life Guards; Gustav Adolf, Lieu­tenant-Governor; and Robert August, President of the High Court at Vasa, also belonged to younger branches of this house.

MONTGOMERYS IN SWEDEN AND FRANCE Sir John de Montgomery, Lord of Ardrossan and

Giffen, d. c. 1429 in England

_J Alexander, first Lord Montgomery Robert, first

Laird of Giffen

Alexander, Master of Montgomery

Alexander, second Lord Montgomery

Hugh, first Earl of Eg­linton

John, Lord Montgomery, Master of Eglinton

Robert de Montgomery, ' brother of Eglinton,' served in France 1546-54, inspected fortifications at Dunbar 1560, led ex­pedition to Holland 1573

I i ;

James, served in John, France, m. Cath- commission erine de Balduine 1571

David, Major-General, served in Thirty Years War and with Royalist forces in Scotland 1647-1649, m. Anna Eleonora

von Schell

John, second Laird of Giffen, Seigneur d'Azay-le-Rideau, Captain of Scots Guards and Con­stable of Scots army in

France, d. 1445

Sir William, third Laird of Giffen, m. Jonet Hous­ton, d. b. 10.3.1471, an­cestor of the Montgomerys

of Giffen in Scotland

I Georges de Montgomery, Seigneur de Lorges, ac­companied Charles VIII

to Naples 1495

I Jacques, Comte de Mont­gomery, Seigneur de Lorges, Captain of Scots Guards and of Men-at-

Arms, d. 1560 I

Gabriel, Comte de Mont­gomery, Captain of Scots Guards, Huguenot leader,

d. 1574

Gabriel II, Comte de Montgomery, Captain of Men-at-Arms, Maréchal

de Camp

Margaret, m. Sir John Stuart, first Earl of Len­nox, eldest son of Sir Alan Stuart, L o r d Darnley, Constable of the

Scots army in France

I René de Montgomery, in Scots Guards and Cup­bearer to the Duke of

Orleans 1464-86

Robert de Montgomery, Seigneur de Lantenay, in

Scots Guards 1479-98

Louis de Montgomery, Seigneur de Pontallier, Charnay et Bragny, in

Scots Guards 1507-46

Philibert de Montgomery, Seigneur de Charnay et

Guimette

David Christopher, Lieutenant - Colonel

in Sweden

128

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F G R E E N F I E L D , M E I K L E

D R E G H O R N A N D S T A N E

THIS branch of the family is descended from William, second son of Hugh, first Earl of Eglinton. His son Arthur of Stane was married, first to Lucie Cairnes, heiress

to Meikle Dreghorn. By her he had a son John Montgomery of Dreghom. In his second marriage, to a daughter of the Laird of Fairlie, he had the sons Hugh of Stane and Thomas in Greenfield.

John Montgomery of Dreghorn was married to Jonet Mure, and Hugh Montgomery of Stane married Lady Margaret Mont­gomery, daughter of the second Earl of Eglinton. Both these marriages are said to have been childless.

Thomas Montgomery in Greenfield married Katherine Lindsey and had by her the sons John, Alexander and Mathew, and a daughter Effie, married to John Hamilton of Hairshaw. The younger John in Greenfield had a son William in Greenfield and a daughter Elizabeth (who was elder).

William in Greenfield is mentioned in the money accounts of the sixth Earl of Eglinton, 1616, and Elizabeth in two testaments (Glasgow Test., nth June 1607). Alexander and Mathew were killed in Flanders in 1591 and 1593 respectively (Ibid.).

The Greenfield branch is said to have become extinct at the beginning of the seventeenth century.

Master William Montgomery, Laird of Stane

Arthur of Stane

I I i 1

John of Dreghom =Jonet Mure Hugh of=Lady Margaret Thomas in = Katherine Stane Montgomery Greenfield Lindsey

John in Greenfield Alexander Mathew Effie = John Hamilton fl. 1616 d. 1591 d. 1593

William, 1616 Elizabeth, 1607

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F L A I N S H A W

B L A S O N S

Lairds of Lainshaw.

Montgomerys of Fervacques.

Shield : Quartered arms Mar-Lyle-Mur of Skeldoun by way of surtout quartered arms Montgomery-Eglinton.

Crest: Cock rising. Supporters : Two leopards proper. Motto : And I may.

Shield: Quartered arms Montgomery-Eglinton.

Crest: A lady dressed in ancient ap­parel holding in her dexter hand an anchor and in her sinister the head of a savage couped.

Motto : Garde bien.

SIR N E I L M O N T G O M E R Y , first Laird of Lainshaw, was the third son of Hugh, first Earl of Eglinton, who granted him as an enfeoffment Lainshaw and the stronghold

Stewarton, which Neil, by an obligation dated 25th August 1531, undertook to keep in good repair. On 12th April 1546 the Earls of Angus and Eglinton concluded a bond of mutual defence to which Sir Neil Montgomery of Lainshaw was a party. After the death of the second Earl of Eglinton in September 1546 Sir Neil took over the management of the Eglinton estates arid the command of the vassals and dependants. According to an agreement between him and the family he was to act as its temporary head until the third Earl attained the age of sixteen. Sir Neil, however, did not enjoy this position long, for in the following year he was assassinated by Robert Lord Boyd and others. It was generally thought that the Dowager Countess of Eglinton had part in this murder, but she was acquitted by the High Court of Justiciary.

The first Laird of Lainshaw was the owner of a considerable fortune which he had got by his wife Margaret, daughter and

130

HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS 131 heiress of Quentin Mure of Skeldoun. His eldest son, John died young and he was succeeded by his second son, Neil, who became second La i r d of Lainshaw. His third son, James of Cockilbie is mentioned m a contract between Neil Montgomery of Lainshaw and others and Gawyn Hamilton (Reg. Deeds, 1577). James of Cockilbie (Reg. Deeds, X V I , fol. 105) had sons Hugh, James Neil, Archibald and Alexander (Glasgow Test., 1604).

Neil, second Laird of Lainshaw, married Jane, only daughter and heiress of Lord Lyle. They had two sons: Sir Neil, who became third Laird of Lainshaw, and Robert (Edinburgh Test 31st January 1580). The third Laird was also Lord Lyle, although he appears not to have used the title. His sons were Sir Neil, his successor; William of Brigend, whose descendants live in America and France; James, Minister of Dunlop, who died in May 1613; and John of Cockilbie. The fourth Laird had sons Neil and John. Neil died before 1654. His sons were John, who sold Lainshaw to his kinsman David Montgomery of Cockilbie; Hugh, William and Neil. David's son James married Barbara Kennedy.' He was eighth and last Laird of Lainshaw.

AMERICAN BRANCHES

TH E first Montgomery of whom one knows with cer­

tainty that he emigrated to America is David Mont­gomery, second son of Hugh Montgomery, the

Seneschal, of Newtown in Ulster. It seems likely that John Montgomery, who sold Lainshaw,

emigrated to America, perhaps also his brothers William and Neil, of whom there is no trace either in Scotland or m Ireland.

Whether John Knox Montgomery, who died in 1931, belonged to the Lainshaw branch is not known with certainty. His father's name was Andrew, his grandfather's William. Like David and his family, William settled in Carolina, although at a much later date. It seems possible that he was a descendant of David's uncle William.

The well-known lawyer Alexander Brooks Montgomery was the son of William Montgomery and Catherine Brooks. His grandfather emigrated in 1798 from Tyrone in Ireland. A William Montgomery emigrated from Tyrone In 1802. The American surgeon Edward Emmet Montgomery was descended from him in the third generation. These two lines may be descended from the house of Lainshaw or from the Blessingbourne branch, which also settled in Tyrone. Colonel James Montgomery was born in the Ashtabula country in 1814. He belonged to the Montgomerys of Beaulieu and was probably the son of General Richard Mont­gomery's brother.

One William Montgomery seems to have emigrated in 1692 and another in 1701. The latter was the son of Hugh Montgomery of Brigend, a great-grandson of Sir Neil Montgomery, third Laird of Lainshaw. From Hugh Montgomery of Brigend are descended the most numerous of all branches of the family. Among the better known men belonging to this branch may be mentioned :

Thomas Harrison Montgomery, who wrote the history of the 132

HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS 133 University of Pennsylvania and was chairman of the American Fire Insurance Company. He died in 1905.

His son, Thomas Harrison Montgomery, Junior, Professor of Zoology at the University of Pennsylvania. He died in 1912.

William Reading Montgomery, an American officer. He served with distinction in the Mexican War 1846-47 and commanded the first infantry regiment of New Jersey in the battle of Bull Run 1861. He was afterwards promoted to Brigadier-General and Military Governor of Alexandria, U . S A . He died in 1871.

John Berrien Montgomery, a naval officer in American service. He took part in many battles and was a Rear-Admiral. He died in 1873.

William W. Montgomery, a distinguished financier, who was Chairman of the Bank of Louisiana. In 1813 he married Marie Louise d'Elincourt of French extraction. His daughter Marie married Count Léon de Béthune, and his daughter Euphrosyne married Count Olivier de la Rochefoucauld.

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F F R A N C E

AY O U N G E R branch of the American family settled in France. Jules Alfred de Montgomery, a son of William W. Montgomery of Louisiana, acquired the

castle of Fervacques in Calvados and assumed the title of Count. Jules Alfred married Blanche, daughter of the Marquis de

Portes, and had by her several children. His son Alan Louis had a son Louis, who is the present head of the house in France.

In France all the members of the family descended from Roger, Earl of Shrewsbury, have the right to the title of Count. It should be noticed, however, that this is merely a courtesy title.

Charles, Marquis du Four de La Londe, has made the following statement on the subject : ' Tous les historiens et juriconsultes du droit nobiliaire français, anciens et modernes, reconnaissent que tous les descendants mâles d'un comte (de l'époque féodale) sont comtes. Or les Montgomery ont possédé plusieurs comtés: Alençon, Ponthieu, etc., sans parler de ceux d'Angleterre et du comté de Montgomery lui-même. C'est cet argument juridique qui peut justifier le port de ce titre actuellement par tous les membres de la famille, tous descendants du comte Roger (qui épousa Mabile de Bellême).' (Communication from Marquis du Four de La Londe, 9th April 1947.)

Henri Renault, Vicomte Du Motey, recognized the right of the members of the Swedish branch to the title of Count. (Compare also Personhistorisk Tidskrift, 1913, and Du Motey, Orderic Vitale, Alençon, 1912, p. vii.)

134

M O N T G O M E R Y S , BARONETS OF T H E H A L L

B L A S O N S

Montgomerys, Baronets of the Shield: Quartered arms Montgomery-• Eglinton within a bordure

argent charged with eight tre­foils slipped vert on an es­cutcheon by way of surtout argent a tilting spear and a sword saltier-ways proper.

Crest: On a chapeau gules turned up ermine a cubit arm in armour the hand grasping a tilting spear broken proper.

Motto: Gardez bien.

BO T H Paterson and Lodge's Peerage seem to have identified Hugh Montgomery of Auchinhood, ancestor of the Mont­gomerys, Baronets of the Hall, with Hugh Montgomery of

Stane. From several sixteenth-century documents it is clear, however, that these were quite different men. Moreover, the sixteenth-century pedigree of the Montgomerys of Stane does not mention Hugh of Auchinhood.

The pedigree of the Montgomerys, Baronets of the Hall, states that Hugh of Auchinhood was the son of William, fourth son of Hugh, first Earl of Eglinton. From the much older pedigree of the Montgomerys of Stane we know that William was the second son of the Earl. The name of the fourth son was Hugh. He married a daughter of John, Lord Lyle, and seems to have been the father of Hugh Montgomery of Auchinhood. The elder was killed in the battle of Pinkie, 1547.

The name of Hugh Montgomery of Auchinhood appears for the first time in a marriage contract between Thomas Kennedy and Lady Agnes Montgomery, dated 12th January 1555. It seems reasonable to infer that Hugh Montgomery of Auchinhood, mentioned in the money accounts of the Earl of Eglinton in

135

i 3 6 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

1616-17, was his son. This last Hugh is said to have died in 1658 and left three sons: Hugh Montgomery of Bowhouse; George, ancestor of the Montgomerys of Broomlands; and Robert, who settled in Ireland and married a daughter of Alexander Cunningham in Raphoe. Their son Robert of Bonnyglen was born at Rosemount in 1660. His son Alexander had two sons: James, ancestor of the Montgomerys of Bonnyglen; and Alexander of the Hall, County Donegal, whose son Sir Henry Cunningham Montgomery was the first Baronet of the Hall (vide Burke's Peerage).

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F B R I G E N D A N D O F

S M I T H T O U N

A M E S M O N T G O M E R Y , brother german of Hugh, first

%/ Smithtoun and James of Brigend. Hugh Montgomery of Smithtoun was described as 'vicecomi-

tibus ac balliuis in hac parte regalitis de Kylwynning' in 1545 and as balze-depute of that district in 1547 (Fraser, II, 136). His son Hugh was bailie of Kilwinning. Hugh, younger, had three sons: Hugh of Smithtoun, John and William (Reg. Priv. Council, 1607). The last of this line seems to have been Hugh of Smithtoun, Sheriff-Depute in 1668.

James Montgomery of Brigend is mentioned in a document 1530 (Reg. Sec. Sig., no. 642). He was then entrusted by the Earl of Cassilis to look after his interests during his pilgrimage to France and other countries. Through his grandmother, Catherine Kennedy, he was a near relation of this nobleman. James Mont­gomery of Brigend is mentioned in several documents of the years r532» I534> x544 and I547- In 1546 he bought some land in Burrowfield. He married Marjory Muir (T. Harrison Mont­gomery, A Genealogical History of the Family of Montgomery, Philadelphia, 1863, p. 71) and had by her two sons: James Mont­gomery of Brigend and John Montgomery also of Brigend, mentioned in several documents in the years 1562-65. Jean, daughter and heiress of James Montgomery, younger, of Brigend, married William Montgomery, second son of Neil, third Laird of Lainshaw, whereby Brigend passed over to the Lainshaw branch. William Montgomery was also heir of John Montgomery of Brigend, who died without issue in 1612 (Glasgow Test, ad ann.).

sons: Hugh of

137

MONTGOMERYS, LAIRDS OF BRAIDSTONE

B L A S O N

Shield : Party per pale azure and gules three fleurs-de-lis in chiefs and three annulets stoned turquoise in base over them a sword and a lance saltier-ways.

Crest: A fleur-de-lis or. Alternatively an arm in armour erect the hand grasping a fleur-de-lis or.

Motto : Garde bien.

ROBERT, first Laird of Braidstone, was second son of Alexander, Master of Montgomery, and brother of Alex-

„ ander, second Lord Montgomery. He inherited from his grandfather, the first Lord Montgomery, the old lairdship Braid-stone in the bailiary of Kyle, Ayrshire. His brother, the second Lord, renewed this grant in 1468. Robert was still alive in 1478, when he was a witness to two contracts signed by Lord Home. His eldest son, James (Reg. Deeds), predeceased him, as the name of the second Laird was Alexander. He was one of thirteen commissioners who held an inquisition on the lands of Giffen in 1501. He had a similar appointment concerning the lands of Potterstown and Dyconisbank in 1515.

The third Laird of Braidstone, Robert Montgomery, married Margaret, daughter of Sir Adam Mure of Caldwell. Robert's eldest son, Adam John, was the fourth Laird of Braidstone. According to Paterson, he signed himself either Adam or John. In the death certificate of the first Viscount he was called John; he died before 1st December 1576. In his marriage with Elizabeth, daughter of Jervice Colquhoun, he had three sons: Adam, who became fifth Laird; James, ancestor of the Montgomerys of Blessingbourne ; and Robert, ancestor of the Montgomerys of Greyabbey.

In 1567 Adam and his brothers James and Robert were sus­pected of piracy and were declared rebels when they did not appear before the court (Reg. Priv. Council, 1567, vol. 290). He signed a

HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS 139 inilitary report together with Robert Montgomery on 10th Nov­ember 1572 (Ref. Mag. Sig., 1632, 1969). On 22nd October 1577 Adam got permission to raise troops in Scotland for service in the Netherlands (Reg. Priv. Council). On his arrival in that country he was placed under the orders of Colonel Balfour (information from archives of Dutch War Office). A few years later he seems to have gone back to his favourite occupation, for he was tried for piracy both in 1582 (State Papers, Scotland) and 1586 (Reg. Priv. Council). There is no record of his being punished; these years were the heyday of piracy. It formed part of England's struggle with Spain for supreme command of the seas, and many Scotsmen found this a good opportunity to make their fortunes. Adam married Margaret, daughter of John Montgomery, fourth Laird of Hessilheid. He had by her four sons : Hugh, first Viscount of Great Ardes; George, Bishop of Clogher; Patrick, Colonel in France; and John, Doctor of Medicine.

VISCOUNTS M O N T G O M E R Y OF G R E A T ARDES

B L A S O N

Same as the Lairds of Braidstone.

HUGH, FIRST VISCOUNT OF GREAT ARDES (1560-1636), was educated at Glasgow College. To complete his education he went to France and stayed for some time

at the French court. He afterwards repaired to Holland. Like his father, he joined a Dutch regiment and got a commission as a captain.

After his father's death Montgomery returned to Scotland and was received into favour by James VI. Through his brother, who was at that time Dean of Norwich, Montgomery was able to keep the King informed about the attitude of the English nobility and gentry towards his claim to the English throne. This source of information was of great value to the King, who later on liberally rewarded Montgomery for his services.

In 1587 Montgomery married Elizabeth, daughter of Alexander Shaw, Laird of Sauchie. As appears from the following table, the families of Montgomery and Shaw were united by many bonds.

Alexander, 2nd Laird of Braidstone

Robert, 3rd Laird of Braidstone John in Flatt

Adam John, 4th Laird of Braidstone a son

Adam, 5th Laird of Braidstone John of Flatt Alexander Shaw of Sauchie

Hugh, i st Margaret Jean m. Patrick of Viscount, m. m. James Patrick Blackhouse Elizabeth Shaw of Shaw m. Margaret Mont- Viscount

Mont- gomery Mont­gomery gomery

James Patrick Elizabeth Shaw m. m. Jean m.

Isobel m. John

Lindsay

Christian m. Patrick

Mont­gomery Shaw Greenock Christian

Shaw

John Robert William Grisell Marion (Ed. Test., vol. 42)

Elizabeth m. James Montgomery, curate of Greyabbey

HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS 141

Hugh Montgomery was appointed one of the squires of the body and attended the King on his journey to Westminster for the coronation in 1603. He was knighted in 1605, and by an Act of Parliament 20th July 1610 he and his sons Hugh and James were naturalized in England. On 3rd May 1622 he was raised to the peerage and created Viscount Montgomery of Great Ardes.

This was not a distinction conferred upon a court favourite but the reward of valuable services. Montgomery had acquired large estates in Northern Ireland and was the leader of the planta­tion of that country at the beginning of the seventeenth century. In his letters patent stress was laid upon his merits, especially in restoring peace and order in Ulster after the rebellion, spreading the Protestant faith and turning the inhabitants of Ardes into the King's loyal citizens.

Montgomery's acquisition of big domains in Ulster had taken place with the King's consent. It was, in fact, a link in the policy deliberately pursued by the English Government of placing reliable Scotsmen on the big estates and in key-positions in Ulster in order to gain complete control of this territory. With Ulster securely in their hands the English Government could more easily master the situation in the rest of the country.

A better and more loyal representative for English interests than Montgomery could hardly be found. On his arrival in Ulster most of the country lay waste. The Irish rebellion 1595-1603 had been quelled by the English governors Mountjoy and Chichester with ruthless ferocity. Their policy was to deprive the Irish patriots of all possible means of livelihood. Towns, villages, farm buildings, woods and corn-fields were burnt, with the result that large portions of the population died of starvation. In the parishes of Donaghadee and Newtown there were only about 30 houses in 1606. The churches were stripped of their roofs and left to ruin. Under these horrible conditions many people turned cannibals. Those who died from starvation were eaten up by surviving

142 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

relations, and according to Captain Trevor's report women in the woods got hold of children, whom they killed and ate.

Thus the country where Montgomery had settled was unhappy and devastated, but he laid balm on the wounds and in a few years he had founded economically sound industries and turned large portions of Ulster into prosperous country. From Scotland he brought settlers of good quality, farmers, smiths, carpenters, bricklayers and other craftsmen. From Norway he imported timber for dwelling-houses and farm-buildings. Fields that had been laid waste were again brought under cultivation and gave big harvests. Mills, linen and wool factories were built, around which towns grew up. The country began to export its products. Corn and cloths were exchanged for raw materials and machinery, and every year there was a considerable surplus on this trade. Montgomery7 founded the harbour of Donaghadee and restored Portpatrick in Scotland. Charles I changed the name of this harbour to Port Montgomery and ordered that Montgomery's trade and shipping between Ulster and Scotland should be afforded facilities in every way.

Montgomery used his enormous income for building and restoring churches and houses. Greyabbey (Monastre Lea) was almost wholly rebuilt. He built churches at Donaghadee and Port Montgomery, and presented bells and Bibles to the six churches of Down. He brought over from Scotland several clergymen whom he paid himself. In Newtown he built a school where the teaching comprised Latin, Greek, philosophy, arithmetic, music and orthography. A novelty was that girls were also admitted to this school. For the recreation of teachers and pupils he laid out golf-links, a football-ground and archery-butts.

For the defence of the country he kept a body of iooo well-trained and well-equipped soldiers.

Much of what Montgomery had done for the welfare and development of his new country was spoilt by subsequent rebellions and wars, but the most important part of his work survived these

V I S C O U N T S O F G R E A T A R D E S 143

terrible inflictions. Through indefatigable energy and superior power of organization this far-sighted statesman had turned the page of Irish economic history and shown the people of Ulster the way to economic prosperity and flourishing civilization. When he died in 1636 there was national mourning in Ulster, and his funeral was celebrated with almost royal splendour. The peers of Scotland were represented on this occasion, and the Ulster King of Arms carried his sword and armorial shield.

The first Viscount Montgomery of Great Ardes had three sons : Hugh, second Viscount; Sir James Montgomery, Colonel, father of William Montgomery of Rosemount, author of the Montgomery Manuscripts; and Captain George Montgomery, ancestor of the Montgomerys of Dunbrackley.

H U G H , SECOND VISCOUNT OF GREAT ARDES (1636-42)

married Jane, daughter of Sir William Alexander, Secretary of State for Scotland and later Earl of Stirling. Montgomery was made a member of the Privy Council not more than a year after his father's death. His prospects seemed bright and his position secure. But a storm was gathering. The great Irish rebellion broke out in October 1641, led by Phelim O'Neill and Maguire, both descendants of Irish kings. Witiiin a few months much had been destroyed of what had been built up by Scottish and English settlers. The counties of Tyrone, Monaghan, Longford, Leitrim, Fermanagh, Cavan, Donegal and Deny were in the hands of the Irish patriots, while Great Ardes and the other territories controlled by Montgomery were still in British hands. Refugees gathered to these parts from the other counties. Aided by his brother James, who was a soldier by profession and had experience from service abroad, Montgomery hastily raised an army to defend his boundaries.

On 23rd October, Bishop Leslie of Lisburn sent a letter to Lord Montgomery asking for assistance, since the troops garrisoned in

144 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

that district had fled before the patriots. In October Montgomery's total strength was only 400 foot and some 60 horse, whereas the forces of the Irish patriots numbered above 10,000 men. In a comparatively short time Montgomery got together some 1000 foot and five troops of horse which he equipped and paid himself; he got a royal commission as colonel. His brother, Sir James, also raised a regiment of his own. With these forces the British bid O'Neill and Maguire defiance.

But since it would be ruinous in the long run to the two brothers Montgomery to keep and pay these troops out of their own pockets, the Viscount despatched a courier to the Earl of Ormond, Lieu-tenant-General of the British forces in Ireland, to ask for economic assistance. This letter, dated 5th December 1641, is preserved among the Carte MSS. in the Bodleian Library, Oxford.

'Upon the breaking out of this Rebellion and receaving of advertissement from the Bishop of Downe, Captain Chichester, Mr. Arthur Hil l , and others, that the town of Lisnegarvy was threatened to be pillaged and burnt by the Rebells, whoe had resolved, that being done, to have marched forward to Belfast and Carrigfergus, I drew the country together and marched up towards Lisnegarvy for securing of that place, which is a mayne passage both to the County of Antrym and to the Comity of Downe, whereafter meeting with Captain Chichester, Sir Arthur Tyring-hame and Sir Thomas Lucas, and having receaved the Lord Justices' Commissioner, it was thought fitt that a garrisone should be established there and the like at some other place. Soon after both my Brother Sir James and myself returned home to take order for securing the best we could the rest of the countrey, since which tyme we have been in perpetuall actione sometymes in one part of the county and sometymes in another, and have kept a force at our own charges, three or four hundred foote and two or three troupes of Horse, besides drawing together oftymes of our whole

V I S C O U N T S O F G R E A T A R D E S 145

tenantry. My Lord, if we had not been thus imployed I would not have soe far overseen myself as not to have acquented the Lords Justices, or your Lordship with estate of those parts and our wants, which were well seen to Sir Thomas Lucas whoe I do assure myself has made a true relatione to the Lords Justices in the state we are in, which made me confident that their Lordships would have long before this supplied us with Armes and ammunitions. But perceaving that no armes is comeing here to us, and have receaved His Majesty's Commissione both for myself and my Brother we have thought fitt to acquent my Lords the Justices, and state in what case we stand here, which is for the present more dangerous nor ever it was by the accessione of Sir Phelemy O'Neall, who has now joined with Sir Con Magenis and the rest of the Natives in this County, and likewise have sent by this gentleman the copy etc. of our Commissione, both to the Lords Justices and to your Lordship from whom we expect present supplyes to be sent us by this bearer, Mr. John Galbraith, both of moneys, armes and ammunition, in some reasonable proportion according to the charges we have. My Lord, this gentleman is able to give your Lordship a full relatione of the state of this countrey and in the state we are ourselves. I dare bouldly say it unto your Lordship that the charges we have hitherto borne, being upon such a suddent, has soe exhausted us that we are no longer able to indure it. Besides that there is no rent to be had now from our people at this tyme. Your Lordship has always been my most Noble friend, and now my Brother and I both must rely upon your favour to us, being hopefull that your Lordship will earnestly move that this bearer may be despatched with supply unto us as desired. What further concerns me or my Brother I shall intreat your Lordship to receive it from this gentleman in whom I do repose absolute trust.'

By a letter to Ormond dated 24th March 1642 we know that Montgomery only received a small contribution towards his

K

i 4 6 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

expenses. Good arms and ammunition arrived from Scotland, but Montgomery had to pay for them himself. Al l the winter he kept the enemy away from his territories in the Ardes and Comber. Montgomery has given the following vivid description of the situation in Ulster in a letter to the Earl of Eglinton dated 31st December 1641 (Fraser, I, 244-6):

' M y lord, the trueth is we are kept exceeding busy with the rebells, whoe burne and kill within a myle and a half to this place [Mount Alexander]; insoemuch as from the Newry to this ther is not a Scotts or Inglishe dweller, this being thirty four myles; nor from Downepatrick to Killileagh, nor from thence hither. At Lisnegarvy there is a garrisone of seven or eight hundred men, and some two troups of horse; at Belfast there is a garrisone of a matter of three or four hundred men; at Carrigfergus ther is like-wise a troup of horse and some sex or seven hundred foote; at Mosryne I heere ther is gathered together a matter of one thousand men. Heer I ly with a matter of eight companys of foote and three troups of horse. At Killileagh ther is the Lord Claneboy es, whoe to speake truely, is extreame weake, onely that he hes a stronge house. Upon Wensday last Major Barclay, Captain Inglis and Mr . Elliott went abroade with ellevin or twelve score of men, as the report comes to me, whereof ther wes seaven score mus-quetiers and the rest pykemen, some fyve or sex myles from Killileagh. They mett with a party of the rebells, whose custom is to fall on with a great shout or cry, whereupon the most parte of the soldiers that wer with Barclay and Inglis fled before ever the rebells charged them; soe as these two or three gentlemen, with the most parte of all the men, together with ther armes, wer losed. Captain Alexander Hamiltone was come to the Newtone before upon some occasiones soe as now I beleeve my Lord Claneboys has not above ane hundred men with him. That night I sent out my Lewtenant Collonel and Major Crawfurd, with a party of 300 foote and 80 horses, whoe marched all night, and in the dawning

VISCOUNTS OF GREAT ARDES i 4 7

came to the Leigure where the rebells ly that are on this syde of the countrey, whoe we did not thinke to have been soe stronge as indeed they wer. But, praised be God! they returned home yesternight with the losse onely of twoe or three foote soldiers, and four or fyve wounded, whoe I hope will not be the worse. They brought with them a prey from the rebells of a matter of twelve or thirteen score of cowes; and had the cutting off of above fyfty of the rebells, whoe were uppwards of iooo men. Major Blare being heer accidentally went out upon the party with them, he will acquent your lordship with the maner of the service. The rogues raised ther cry, but I thank God it wrought not upon our men. M y brother Sir James lyes at Downepatrick, with a matter of sex or seaven companys of his owne, and a troup of horse; he has ther likewise an old foote company and a troup of horse; and soe my lord this is the strength of these two countys for matter of soldiours. The people that are fled out of the countys of Ardmagh, Fermanagh, Tyrone, Managhan, and these of this county itself, from the Newry all the way to this place, ar soe burdensome that in trueth we much fear that ther will be scarsety. My lord, the intelligeince that we had from the neighboring countyes of Ulster is cutt off by Sir Phelemy O'Neall; soe as I can give your lordship no good accompt what the estate of the British is towards Colraine and Londonderry. By sea we have receaved intelligence from Dubline that all the Lords of the Pale ar in armes, and that the papistes all over the kingdome are also up; that Tredath, which is within 20 myles of Dubline, is besieged, wher the Lord Moore commands some four or five troups of horse, and Sir Harry Touch-burne, a very brave gentleman, a regiment of foote. The passage to them by sea being blocked up; the Lord Moores house of Mellefant taken by the rebells with the loss of some men on each side; sex hundred men that wer sent from Dubline to Tredath wer cutt off by the way. It is reported that they robbe, burne and kill neer to Dubline. It is likewise said that ther ar ioooo Englishe landed at a place in Monster, called Yoghill; that 20000 l i . of

i 4 8 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

moneys is likewise sent over; and that the Londoners have con­tributed ioooo l i . to the maintenance of the ware. By advertise­ment from my brother Sir James, I understand that Sir Cone Magenis, Turlogh O'Neall, Sir Phelemys brother, and McCarten are joyned together, having at least 2500 horse and foote ready to enter into Lecall. The rest of all the strength of the countrey heer are likewise ready to fall down upon these parts; soe as we cannot give assistance one to another. Notwithstanding that I hade severall tymes ayded Lisnegarvy, they refussed to goe out with me against these rebells, soe for the present they are pretty and stronge; soe as all of us do severally ly upone our guards expecting the setting of the rebells. In a word, my Lord, our present conditione is as hard as can be well imagined; and the harder that we want armes and ammunitione. By your lordships favor I have had the supply of some gentlemen that I most needs comend to be proper men and good soldiers, which makes me the more grewed that we should want such provisiones as might enable us to performe that service which might be expected from such commanders; for supply wherof, if it please God to send it in tyme, under whom I doe rely upon your lordship; for which ther is no security that your lordship shall be pleased to draw up and send unto me. I must supply my brother with a parte of it; for which I will take his security. My lord, all the supply of armes I have had from the begyneing hes come unto me out of Scotland, by the meahes of a privat freind of myne, whoe is well knowen to your lordship ; from the Lords Justices and State heer I have onely had a matter of 100 musquetts; whereof I hav sent a parte to my brother from His Maiesties store at Carrigfergus. I have been refuissed of a supply of ammunitione ; they wrott unto me that the store house wes ill provyded, and that they hoped I might be supplied from Scotland. I know your lordship now expects to be informed what provisiones is to be had heer for the enter-tayneing of the forces that shall come from that kingdome; my Lord, all I can say to that is, that ther is yet some reasonable store

VISCOUNTS OF GREAT ARDES 149

of comes and other provisione in these comers that the rebells have not yet marched over; but if the army be long acomeing, the shorter the provisiones will be every day. The more ground the rebells gaine upon us the shorter our store must be; and if we shall be cut off before the supplyes come, the less safety will be for ther landing.'

These two letters give a good illustration of the difficulties with which the Scottish population was faced during the first year of the great rebellion. It was certainly a most trying situation also for those men who were directly responsible for the lives and security of British subjects, all the more so because the British authorities gave them very little support. It has been estimated that the rebellion cost the British settlement in Ireland 40,000 lives. Mont­gomery, who was chiefly responsible for the resistance in Ulster, was subject to an almost insufferable strain and his economic position was undermined to such an extent that he soon found himself on the verge of min. He died in the middle of his hard struggle, on 15th November 1642. The cause of his death seems to have been drowsy distemper combined with over-exertion. William Montgomery of Rosemount wrote his biography, but the manuscript is lost. The two letters quoted here give the story of his life. It is a piece of Irish history. We read here about the hard stmggle of the Irish settlers. We also read between the lines about the part played by Montgomery himself, about wise dis­positions and tenacious fighting, but also about the slackness and indifference displayed by the British authorities.

The second Viscount had two sons : Hugh, his successor, and James, bom at Dunskey Castle in 1639, who died, probably without issue, in 1689. There was also a daughter Elizabeth, who married William Montgomery of Rosemount, her cousin.

EARLS OF MOUNTALEXANDER

B L A S O N

Shield: Quartered arms Montgomery-Eglinton within a double tressure flory counterflory an escutcheon argent charged with a sword and a lance saltier-ways.

Crest : An arm in armour embowed the hand holding a sword. Motto : Honneur sans repos.

HUGH, FIRST EARL OF MOUNTALEXANDER (1622-63), was the eldest son of the second Viscount. When the rebellion broke out he was travelling abroad,

but hearing of it he irnmediately returned to Ireland. On his way through England he was received by Charles I, who was much interested in a physical defect of the young man, which William Harvey, the famous discoverer of the circulation of the blood, studied at the request of the King. The case has been described by Harvey as follows (Works, Sydenham Society, pp. 382-4):

' A young nobleman, eldest son of the Viscount Montgomery, when a child, had a severe fall, attended with fracture of the left side. The consequent of this was a suppurating abscess, which went on discharging abundantly for a long time from an immense gap in his side; this I had from himself and other credible persons who were witnesses. Between the 18th and 19th years of age, this young nobleman, having travelled through France and Italy, came to London, having at this time a very large open cavity in his side, through which the lungs, as it was believed, could both be seen and touched. When this circumstance was told as something miraculous to his serene Majesty, King Charles, he straightway sent me to wait on the young man, that I might ascertain the true state of the case. And what did I find ? A young man, well grown, of good complexion and apparently possessed of an excellent constitution, so that I thought the whole story must be a fable. Having saluted him according to custom however, and informed

150

H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S 151

him of the King's express desire that I should wait upon him, he immediately showed me everything, and laid open his left side for my inspection by removing a plate which he wore there by way of defence against accidental blows and other injuries. I found a large open space in the chest, into which I could readily introduce three of my fingers and my thumb; which done I straightway perceived a certain protuberant fleshy part, affected with an alternating and intrusive movement; this part I touched gently Amazed with the novelty of such a state, I examined everything agam and again, and when I had satisfied myself, I saw that it was a case of an old and extensive ulcer, beyond the reach of art but brought by a miracle to a kind of cure, the interior being invested by a membrane, and the edges protected by a tough skin. But the fleshy part (which I, at first sight, took for a mass of granula­tions, and others had always regarded as a portion of the lung) from its pulsating motions, and the rhythm they observed with the pulse—when the fingers of one of my hands were applied to it, those of the other to the artery of the wrist—as well as from their discordance with the respiratory movements, I saw was no portion of the lung I was handling, but the apex of the heart! covered over with a layer of fungous flesh by way of external defence, as commonly happens in old foul ulcers. The servant of this young man was in the habit daily of cleansing the cavity from its accumu­lated sordes by means of injections of tepid water; after which the plate was applied, and with this in its place, the young man felt adequate to any exercise or expedition, and in short, he led a pleasant life in perfect safety. Instead of a verbal answer therefore, I carried the young man himself to the King, that His Majesty might, with his own eyes, behold this wonderful case; that in a man alive and well, he might, without detriment to the individual, observe the movement of the heart, and with his proper hand even touch the ventricals as they contracted. And his most excellent Majesty, as well as myself, acknowledged that the heart was without the sense of touch; for the youth never knew when we touched his

1 52 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

heart, except by the sight or the sensation he had through the external integuments. We also particularly observed the move­ments of the heart viz. that in the diastole it was retracted and withdrawn; whilst in the systole it emerged protruded; and the systole of the heart took place at the moment the diastole or pulse in the wrist was perceived; to conclude, the heart struck the walls of the chest, and became prominent at the time it bounded upwards and underwent contraction on itself.'

To Harvey this afforded a new and conclusive proof that his theory of the circulation of the blood was correct.

Having examined this interesting case, the King told Mont­gomery that he wished he could read the thoughts and hearts of the nobility ás plainly as he had perceived to-day the movements of his heart. Montgomery, who was not yet nineteen years old, replied: T assure your Majesty before God here present and this company, it shall never entertain any thought against your concerns, but be always full of dutiful affection and steadfast resolution to serve your Majesty' (As quoted by William Montgomery of Rosemount). Charles I took a fancy to the outspoken and musical young man, who remained at court for some days before returning to his father in Ireland. During these days Montgomery became a great admirer of this monarch. The bonds of friendship with the royal family he then formed lasted throughout his life.

On his return to Ireland Montgomery immediately joined the forces under the command of his father, on whose death a few months later he succeeded not only as Viscount of Great Ardes but also as colonel in command of his regiment; he was then only twenty years old. When a council of war was formed in 1645 Montgomery was elected its president with James Hamilton, Viscount Claneboy, as deputy. Commander-in-Chief of the British forces in Ulster was General Robert Monro, whom Mont­gomery's mother had taken for her second husband. Monro, well known from the Thirty Years War, represented Cromwell and

E A R L S O F M O U N T A L E X A N D E R 153

Parliament and consequently had more or less strained relations with the Royalists who were compelled to serve under him. Montgomery's position was particularly difficult. It was bad enough for a staunch Royalist and Anglican to serve under a Covenanter, but when the latter also was his stepfather the situation might easily have become intolerable. Luckily, however, Mont­gomery and Monro seem to have been the best of friends. '

Montgomery commanded the British cavalry in the sanguinary battle of Benburb in 1646, when the Irish under Owen O'Neill, a nephew of the Earl of Tyrone, won a brilliant victory over the British forces, which were much superior in numbers. The British commander, Monro, fled head over heels from the battle­field. In a letter to Parliament he gave as a reason of his defeat by the Irish that the Lisnegarvy Horse, commanded by Lord Claneboy, had deserted. Montgomery, who had fought bravely, was imprisoned and thrown into the castle of Cloghwater, in the county of Cavan, a big tower rising almost straight out of the lake. In these dismal surroundings Montgomery spent two whole years.

When the news of Montgomery's imprisonment reached the King he immediately interceded to obtain his release. For this purpose he wrote no less than three letters to O'Neill. O'Neill's answers were polite, but he declined to accede to the royal request. ' I moste humbly beseech your Majesty,' he wrote, 'to accept of these my reasons as my apology and excuse for not complying with your Majesty's pleasure herein for the present; for I do and will ever profess to be one of your Majesty's most loyal and obedient subjects, and will in testimony thereof, be ready on all occasions to observe your commands. But, dread sovereign, be pleased to understand that the Lord Viscount Montgomery of Ardes, hath sided these two years past and more with the parliament rebels of England, in open hostility against your Majesty, and especially against this nation of Ireland, and therein hath been more eager and active than any of his party, he being Commander-in-Chief

154 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS of all the horse of his party in the province of Ulster' (Carte

MSS.). Montgomery was released in February 1648, being exchanged

for the Earl of Westmeath, who had been captured by the British forces. On his return he was given a tremendous reception by Monro and the British troops. Montgomery had spent his two years of imprisonment by reading up military subjects. On 14th May 1649 Charles II appointed him Commander-in-Chief of all the Royalist forces in Ulster, with authority to appoint suitable and dismiss unsuitable officers. He was to protect all Royalists m Ireland with all his power and carry out his campaign according to the directions given by the Marquess of Ormond.

When the forces of Cromwell had defeated the Royalists in Ireland in the autumn of 1649 Montgomery was brought to justice, banished the country and ordered to go to Holland. After two years' exile he was allowed to return to Ireland. There he was carefully watched and moved from place to place; he was also imprisoned from time to time.

In December 1648 Montgomery married Mary, daughter of Henry, Viscount Moore, and after his return from Holland he was allowed to stay for some time with his father-in-law; during this time his wife died. Montgomery secretly worked for the Restora­tion, and after the accession of Charles II in 1660 he was made a Privy Councillor. The following year he was created Earl of Mountalexander, the name of his Ulster residence, called after his mother's father, William Alexander, Earl of Stirling.

Hugh Montgomery, first Earl of Mountalexander, died in 1663, probably as a result of his old injury. William Montgomery of Rosemount writes: 'His liver was large and strong and sent more blood to the heart than it could vent, for his heart was wissened and shrivelled to less than it should be.'

By his wife Mary Moore the first Earl had two sons, Hugh and Henry, who, one after the other, became Earls of Mount­alexander.

EARLS OF MOUNTALEXANDER 155

H U G H , SECOND EARL OF MOUNTALEXANDER (1663-1716) was born 24th February 1650 and was thus only thirteen years of age when his father died. William Montgomery of Rosemount, who was his guardian, managed to obtain the King's permission tor the return to the second Earl of all estates of which his father had been deprived during the Rebellion, or else that he should have adequate compensation for the loss thereof.

When the second Earl of Mountalexander came of age his economic position, therefore, was extremely good, but it soon declined owing to the extravagance of his wife, Lady Catherine Dillon, daughter of the Earl of Roscommon. After her death he married Elinor Berkeley, daughter of Lord Fitzharding, but this marriage proved equally expensive and he contracted new debts. In order to pay them he was eventually compelled to sell the baronies of Newtown and Comber. Of all his big domains he retained only the castle and park of Mountalexander.

On the other hand, the second Earl was a man of great ability, who played an important part in public life. He was Lord Justice' of Ireland three times and a member of the Privy Council. At one time he was Commander-in-Chief in Ulster and also Master of Ordnance. He was a good speaker and was often heard in the House of Lords.

Montgomery was a highly cultivated man, intelligent and musical. He played the violin, the flute and the cornet and was a good actor, appearing both in the family circle and in public. Moreover, he was a master of horsemanship, fencing and dancing. He died in 1716; his only son had predeceased him and he was succeeded by his brother Henry.

HENRY, THIRD EARL OF MOUNTALEXANDER (1716-31)

was born at Mellifont in 1656. In 1672 he married Mary Saint Lawrence, eldest daughter of William, twenty-fourth Baron Howth.

i 5 6 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

He played no important part in public life and died in 1731. He had two sons, Hugh and Thomas, who became fourth and fifth Earls respectively.

H U G H , FOURTH EARL

died without issue in 1744.

THOMAS, FIFTH EARL

died without issue on 7 th April 1757, when this line of the family

became extinct. The Lairds of Braidstone, however, had younger sons from

whom vigorous branches of the family descend, to the study of which the next chapters are devoted.

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F B L E S S I N G B O U R N E

B L A S O N

Shield: Quartered arms Montgomery-Eglinton. Crest: Out of a cap of maintenance an arm in armour erect the hand

grasping a sword. Motto : Honneur sans repos.

WI L L I A M M O N T G O M E R Y of Rosemount wrote about Hugh Montgomery of Derrybrosk (M.M.S. 389): ' Hugh, the father of this Nicholas, was in esteem with

our two first Viscounts, as being come of Braidstane, and his coat Armoriall is the same with the beareing of the old lairds of Braid­stane with a distinction of a Cadet, but the kindred I know not, the coat is the same with Bishop George, said Thomas Montgomery and Gransheoghs.'

Hugh Montgomery of Derrybrosk was the son of James Mont­gomery mentioned for the first time in the Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, 1567. James was the second son of Adam John, fourth Laird of Braidstone.

The colonization of Ulster began in 1606, and Hugh Mont­gomery was one of the first Viscount's associates in this work. He was the owner of a ship, probably his father's pirate ship (vide p. 138), and brought over goods, chiefly corn, from Scotland to Derry and other ports in Ulster. In recognition of his services, possibly also for payment in cash, he received an estate called Derrybrosk, in Irish Doire-Brosgaidh, containing about 360 acres. Here he bred excellent horses and cattle, and William of Rosemount tells us that he used to make presents to the two Viscounts of fine colts and fillies. When Sir James Montgomery courted his second lady he stayed several nights at Derrybrosk. Bishop George Montgomery made Hugh receiver of his rent in a part of Clogher diocese.

Hugh of Derrybrosk had a son Nicholas (1615-1700), who was 157

i 5 8 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

M . A . at the University of Glasgow and served as a lieutenant in the regiment of Sir James Montgomery during the revolution of 1641. He had three sons: Hugh of Denygonnelly; Robert, who carried one of the banners at the funeral of the first Viscount in 1636; and the Reverend Andrew Montgomery, M A . , Vicar of Carrickmacross and Magheracloone. The latter was married and had several children; his branch of the family probably emigrated to America. In his notes to the Montgomery Manuscripts (p. 388) George Hil l mentions that among the church plate belonging to Carrickmacross there is a small silver cup, in which the coat of arms of Andrew Montgomery has been engraved. He gives the following blazon: 'Montgomery impailing three unicorns' heads, a mullet for difference.' The mullet is a cadency mark of a third son, and three unicorns' heads is the arms of the Scottish family Ker, probably the name of Nicholas Montgomery's wife.

Hugh, the eldest son of Nicholas, was a Captain of Horse when the Fermanagh men defended their town and county against the Irish in 1689. According to Hil l he signed the Declaration issued by the council of war on 13th April of that year requiring all who were able and willing to fight for their 'country and religion to assemble at Clady-Ford, Lifford and Long Cassiway, bringing a week's provisions themselves, and as much forage as they can for horses.' After the war he became Justice of Peace and marcied Catherine Dunbar, the 'beautiful grand-daughter and heiress to Sir John Dunbar, and his estate, whereof Derrygonnelly is the chief mansion place.' The mother of Catherine Dunbar was the daughter of Lars Grubbe, the distinguished Swedish diplomatist and warrior, who was killed in the second battle of Breitenfeld, 1642.

William of Rosemount tells us that during a visit to Derry­gonnelly he saw a sword with the following inscription : ' Robertus Bruschius Scotorum Rex 1310' on one side, 'Pro Christo et Patria Ker ' on the other. (Hill gives D:er instead of Ker, which must be due to a mis-reading. The inscription was not very clear.

MONTGOMERYS OF BLESSINGBOURNE 159

The motto is that of Ker.) This sword had apparently been given by Robert Bruce to an ancestor of the Kers, and it seems likely that Hugh Montgomery had inherited the weapon through his mother. It was two-edged, of excellent metal, and William thought that no smith in Ireland could forge such a good blade.

William stayed three nights at Derrygonnelly in the year 1696. He describes the place as 'a pleasant seat, a river running by it, within half a musket shot, and thereon a corn and a tuck mill, in which one may walk dry in slippers, a pretty garden and a planta­tion of fruit trees, thereto also a pretty little chapell opposite to the house-door, about nine score yards from it built and endowed by Sir John Dunbar aforesaid, for a deacon to read prayers, homilies, or preach in, when the weather is bad.'

Hugh's eldest son Nicholas married the heiress of Castle Archdale in the county of Fermanagh. He assumed the family name of Archdale for himself and his descendants, and incorporated a considerable portion of the Derrygonnelly estate with the domains of Castle Archdale. His younger brother Hugh received the manor-house of Derrygonnelly, where he continued to live, and the Drumcrow estate. The third brother, Richard, got the Monea estate, also situated in the county of Fermanagh.

Hugh of Derrygonnelly married Elizabeth Armar, and with her got the Blessingbourne estate, formerly called Tichborne. Their son Hugh (1739-97) moved to Castle Hume. He married Mary, daughter of Archibald, first Viscount Gosford, and had two sons, Hugh (1779-1838) and Archibald, who died without issue.

The former settled at Blessingbourne, where his descendants now reside. He was captain in the 18th Light Dragoons and lieutenant-colonel in the Fermanagh Militia. From his marriage with Maria Dolores Plink of Malaga he had an only son, Hugh.

This second Hugh of Blessingbourne married in 1843 Maria Philipine, daughter of the great educationalist Philip Emanuel von Fellenberg of Hofwyl in Switzerland, sometime Landamann of the

i6o HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS Kanton Bern. Hugh died the following year, but left a son also called Hugh.

Hugh de Fellenberg Montgomery, third of Blessingbourne, was Justice of Peace and High Sheriff in the counties of Fermanagh and Tyrone and later became Deputy Lieutenant of Tyrone. He was well known all over Ireland for his sound judgment and sense of justice and became a member of the Privy Council. In 1870 he married Mary, daughter of Hon. the Rev. John Charles Maude, and had by her, amongst others, the following sons: Hugh, Maj or-General, owner of Blessingbourne; Sir Archibald Mont-gomery-Massingberd, Field-Marshal and sometime Chief of the Imperial General Staff; and Sir Hubert, Minister at The Hague.

Hugh Montgomery was born at Blessingbourne on 5th Decem­ber 1870; he was educated at Eton and the Royal Academy of Woolwich, where he became a lecturer. He served with distinction in the South African War and the First World War, and advanced to major-general. In 1925 he retired and settled at Blessingbourne. He took a leading part in the formation of the Irish Association, & society whose aim is to promote co-operation and goodwill between all sections of the Irish community. He has taken a great interest in the Boy Scout movement and been County Commissioner of Boy Scouts for over twenty years. In 1894 he married Mary Langton and had by her three sons and three daughters. Of his sons, the eldest, Hugh, is in the Diplomatic Service; the second, Peter, Captain and A.D.C. to the Viceroy of India; the third, John, in the Civil Service in Palestine.

Sir Hubert Montgomery was born at Blessingbourne on 24th August 1876. In 1900 he entered the Foreign Office; in the years 1904-7 he was private secretary to successive Under-Secre­taries of State for Foreign Affairs, and in 1907 Précis Writer to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In 1913 he became Marshal of Ceremonies, which title in 1920 was changed to Vice-Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps. In 1933 he was appointed Minister at The Hague, at which post he remained until 1938. He married

MONTGOMERYS OF BLESSINGBOURNE i6 i

Grace Victoria, daughter of the Hon. Hungerford Boddam, and had by her two sons.

FIELD-MARSHAL SIR ARCHIBALD MONTGOMERY-MASSINGBERD

There are two Field-Marshals Montgomery—the elder, Sir Archibald Montgomery-Massingberd, and the younger, Bernard, first Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, who belongs to another branch of the family. They both served with the Fourth Army during the decisive battles of Amiens and Saint-Quentin in 1918 and took part in the storming of the Hindenburg line. The elder was then Chief of Staff to the Fourth Army, the younger a General Staff Officer of the 47th Division. Both have in turn reached the highest military post in the Empire—Chief of the Imperial General Staff.

There is a certain resemblance between these two great warriors. They are both clean-living men with a strong sense of duty, and there is no wonder that they place the morale of the troops above every other consideration. Archibald begins his remarkable Story of the Fourth Army with a lesson on the importance of morale ; and when addressing the journalists assembled in his tent at Alamein, Bernard declared emphatically: 'The great thing is morale.' It is certainly no mere coincidence that the organizer of the first great victory over the Germans in 1918 and the hero of Alamein hold the same views on this vital point.

Archibald Montgomery was born at Blessingbourne on 6th December 1871 and was educated at Charterhouse and at the Royal Military Academy of Woolwich, and joined his first battery at Bombay in 1892. The South African War broke out in October 1898, and in the following month Montgomery, who was then a subaltern in an ammunition column, left Chatham for the seat of war. He was present at the battle of Magersfontein on 12th December and saw some fighting at Paardeberg, Driefontein and Bloemfontein.

L

i62 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

From November 1900 until the same time the following year Montgomery belonged to a column chasing the Boer General De Wet through the Orange Free State. About these events Mont­gomery writes in his memoirs (MS.): 'There were few places in the Orange Free State that we did not visit, with occasional in­cursions into Cape Colony and along the Basuto border. We trekked in all some 4000 miles and fired over 6000 rounds of Pom-Pom ammunition. I was attached to various units at different times, including the 9th Lancers, 16th Lancers, North Irish Horse and Dublin Yeomanry, Sussex M.I . , Grenadier Guards, Strath-cona's Horse and Cape Mounted Rifles. We had plenty of excite­ment and adventures, as one never knew where and when one would run into a Commando of Boers, sometimes a good deal more numerous than we expected. Much of the trekking was in pursuit of De Wet, whom we found to be a very elusive customer and who always seemed to manage to find a loophole of escape however many columns combined to surround him.'

In October 1901 Montgomery was wounded in the leg during a sharp engagement with a Commando of Boers and was afterwards transferred to a hospital at Springfontein. He later moved to Cape Town, where he was offered a Staff appointment. During his stay there his wife joined liim. They were often invited by the Rudyard Kiplings to their house at Woolsack, a delightful place built for them by Cecil Rhodes. This acquaintance developed into great friendship, and when later in life both families settled down in England they often paid visits to each other. During the South African War Montgomery was mentioned in despatches and received the Queen's medal, four clasps, and the King's medal, two clasps.

In 1905 he passed into the Staff College, which he joined the following year. There he worked hard but kept fit by drag-hunting. He was 1st Whip of the Staff College Drag and made many friends in other branches of the army. In 1907 he was appointed Staff Captain to the Inspector-General of Artillery, with whom he

MONTGOMERYS OF BLESSINGBOURNE 163 travelled on his tours of inspection to all parts of the country In the autumn of ! 9o8 he was transferred to the Aldershot Command and after three years as General Staff Officer he was appointed Instructor at the Staff Colleges of Quetta in India, and Camberley Here he completed and deepened his military knowledge ' I have no doubt,' he writes, 'that the best way of learning is to teach, and especially to try and teach men who are all out to learn and inclined to be critical ! ' During his two and a half years at this post he had the opportunity of playing a great deal of polo under ideal condi-

M 0 1 1 8^ ? e 2 1 1 ( 1 h l S W Í f e W e r e ° f t e n t h e ^ c s t s o f t h e i r ol<* friend, the Maharajah of Bikanir, with whom they had stayed for three months in the spring of 1898.

At the outbreak of the First World War Montgomery was in England and immediately joined the 4 th Division Headquarters at Woolwich. He was then a major and temporary lieutenant-colonel. The Division crossed on 21st August and had its first encounter with the Germans a few days afterwards at Le Cateau. The Division kept ground all day, but casualties were heavy, and at nightfall order of retreat was given. Then followed the battles of the Marne and of the Aisne, and the 4 th Division fought a severe action at Météren. The first battle of Ypres began on 29th October ; although the 4 th Division was not engaged in the principal battle' which was fought farther north, the Germans made several deter­mined attacks against it. They were all repulsed with heavy losses to the enemy. In April and May the following year the Germans carried out their big offensive, supported by gas-bombing on a large scale. The British casualties were tremendously heavy, and the 4 th Division alone lost 11,000 officers and men killed' and wounded.

On 18th August Montgomery was appointed Brigadier-General on the Staff of the IV Army Corps, commanded by Sir Henry Rawlinson, on the eve of a most unfortunate offensive, which started on 25th September. The British troops were compelled to time the attack after the French, who had better artillery support

i 6 4 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS and consequently could move forward at almost any time whereas the British advance ought to have taken place m the half-light ot the early morning. Even more damaging was the decision of bir John French to hold back the reserves until he was sure that the initial attacks were successful. This was done contrary to the advice of Sir Douglas Haig, who wanted to hold the reserves ready to pass through the divisions carrying out the initial attack as soon as the first objectives were reached. Developments proved that French was wrong and Haig was right. The attack was successful but the operations could not be followed up with sufficient energy without the support of reserves. When these arrived late in the afternoon the Germans had received reinforcements and inflicted heavy casualties on the advancing British troops, and the offensive eventually died down.

On ist March 1916 the Fourth Army was formed under the command of Sir Henry Rawlinson, and Montgomery became the Chief of the General Staff of that army. At the same time he was promoted to temporary major-general, having thus risen from major to major-general in less than two years. Montgomery planned the operations which led to the capture of Longueval Ridge on 14th July and of Guillemot, Ginchy, Delville Wood and High Wood two months later. In these last battles tanks were used for the first time. Montgomery writes about his experiment: 'The crews were of course quite strange to the tanks under battle conditions and the tanks in many cases showed mechanical defects, which probably only employment in actual battle would have disclosed. Much has been written about the premature use of tanks on this occasion and the consequent disappointment at their only partial success. Personally, I have always been convinced that trial in battle was the only way to discover and correct the very considerable weaknesses, both in the construction of the tanks themselves and in the training of the officers and men of the crews.' (MS.)

On 16th April the French attacked the Germans at Chemin des

MONTGOMERYS OF BLESSINGBOURNE 165

Dames, but were defeated. After this battle, which cost the French 120,000 men, their morale was seriously shaken. Montgomery writes about the situation: 'The spirit of mutiny, encouraged by some traitorous French politicians and German money, soon spread throughout the Army. By June there was hardly a loyal formation between the Germans and Paris. Pétain himself put the number of disaffected at 80 per cent. The gravity of the situation with which Sir Douglas was faced cannot be exaggerated. At all costs the Germans must be prevented from attacking the French ' (MS.)

In March 1918 Montgomery was sent to Versailles as Chief Staff Officer, but he did not like the atmosphere in those luxurious quarters: 'Politics and intrigue formed too great a part in our work there to my taste.' On the 28th he went with Sir Douglas Haig to the Doullens Conference, where Foch was appointed Generalissimo of the Allied Armies. Montgomery's relation of the part played by Pétain at this conference is interesting: 'Pétain, as soon as he opened his mouth, showed himself to be a defeatist and an anglophobe. He said some very nasty things about the 5th Army, comparing it with the Italians at Caporetto. What he said was much resented by the British representatives, and Sir Henry Wilson did not mince his words in refuting what Pétain had said. He was followed by Foch, who spoke even more strongly. Never have I heard a senior officer told off as Foch told off Pétain ! It was an eye-opener to me then as regards Pétain, but what has happened in the Second World War has shown that Pétain's attitude at Doullens was a true indication of his defeatism and anglophobism which have never changed. He was then prepared, as he was in 1940, to leave us in the lurch.' (MS.)

By the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918 Germany had rid herself of her formidable foe in the east and was then in a position to throw the whole weight of her military force against the Allied armies in the west, and the lining up of Germany's eastern armies behind the western front was felt by many as

i66 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS

a deadly threat. If the Germans broke through, anything might

happen. . On 21 st March Ludendorff hurled sixty-four divisions against

the British Third and Fifth Armies, which totalled only about half that number. The British troops were badly mauled, but after reinforcements had arrived the offensive was eventually checked by a successful counter-attack in the Amiens sector. Ludendorff launched another big attack against the French on 27th May m the hope of reaching Paris, but although the initial results obtained were favourable enough for the Germans, they were m the end brought to a standstill by the firm resistance of the French under the command of Mangin and Gouraud.

By the end of June the Germans began to show signs of exhaus­tion, and the troops brought over from the eastern front were no longer reliable. The German air force was hopelessly outnumbered and its movements were hampered by shortage of oil. Moreover, the morale of the people at home was rapidly sinking owing to disappoint­ments and lack of food. It was obvious to the Allied Command that the moment had come for a decisive stroke, and Marshal Foch decided to open the game by an attack in the Amiens sector, held by the British Fourth Army. Rawlinson and Montgomery had been loading up for the offensive in good time, and on 17th July their plan was submitted to the British Commander-in-Chief. A few days later it was approved by Foch, with some modifications.

The object of the offensive was to cut through the German front east of Amiens in the line Albert-Villiers-Bretonneux-Moreuil and to advance as far as the 'physical powers of endurance of horse and man ' permitted in order to—

(1) render Amiens safe once and for all, thereby securing the junction between the British and French armies ;

(2) block the communications of the German armies facing the French First and Third Armies, throwing the German defence into confusion and thereby facilitating a general advance.

MONTGOMERYS OF BLESSINGBOURNE 167

According to the original plan, the British should take over from the French First Army as far south as Moreuil. This was deemed necessary in order to give sufficient space for the actions of the mechanized force and for the accumulated mass of artillery The French were not to advance until the Germans had been overrun and badly shaken. The British generals considered that the greatest possible results would be obtained if the French First Army were held back to the psychological moment, and that it would be easier to keep the plans secret, to co-ordinate the various units and to synchronize the artillery barrages with the movements of the troops, if they belonged to one nation only.

But Marshal Foch thought otherwise and decided that the French First Army under Debeney should move on with the British, and to make things easier, the French general was placed under British orders. Developments proved that Foch was at any rate partly mistaken. It was impossible to group the British troops within the limited space allotted to them, and on the night of 31st July they took over four miles of Debeney's line, according to the original plan. Moreover, the French First Army, when the battle started, was held back for forty minutes after 'zero.' This was necessary owing to the fact that the French were not preceded by armour and consequently could not advance until after sufficient artillery preparation.

It was a matter of national prestige to the French to take part in this momentous action from the very beginning. As it was, things worked out very well indeed, partly because the British generals stuck to their original plan of extending the front of the Fourth Army, being forced by circumstances to do so. But there is no doubt that even greater results might have been obtained if the French had been held back to the psychological moment. There is every reason to think that, if the plan of the British generals had been adopted in its entirety, the whole German Army facing the French First Army would have been unable to escape disaster.

168 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

On 8th August the British Fourth Army consisted of fourteen infantry divisions (four home divisions, five Australian, four Canadian and one American) and three cavalry divisions. This army had at its disposal no less than 2000 guns and 456 tanks spread over a front of only 16 miles. It was the strongest and best equipped army the world had ever known, supported by an almost unlimited number of aircraft.

For success in a battle of this kind surprise was a matter of extreme importance. Montgomery has particularly stressed this point in his memoirs. 'No inkling,' he writes, 'reached the Germans of what was coming. Neither Lloyd George, the C.I.G.S., nor the War Cabinet knew of the attack beforehand. Experience had shown that they were not capable of keeping a secret, and that if confided to them it was all over London m a few days. Every possible device was employed to keep the preparations secret and these were completely successful.'

Despite the fact that during several raids of the British lines they had taken a considerable number of prisoners, the Germans knew nothing about the preparation of the big offensive. This proves that the prisoners had kept their precious secret very well, and also the lack of German reconnoitring at that time. Very few German aeroplanes appeared over the British lines, and they always flew at a great height for fear of being attacked by superior forces. The Fourth Army had complete command of the air.

The offensive was launched on 8th August. Montgomery gives the following vivid description of what happened during the early hours of that day (Fourth Army, pp. 31, 32):

'Punctually at 4.20 a.m., with the first gleam of dawn of a typical August day, the storm broke, and the British Army, which only a few months before was in danger of defeat, had begun its march to the Rhine. The first to start were the tanks, which, leaving their position of assembly, about 1000 yards behind the infantry "starting line," some minutes before "zero," had to time

MONTGOMERYS OF BLESSINGBOURNE 169

their advance so as to arrive close up to the artillery barrage at the moment it fell. At "zero" our artillery opened, and the creeping barrage fell 200 yards in front of the infantry "starting line," and was then lifted according to the prearranged time-table. For some days previously the sound-ranging sections and flash-spotting observation posts, sited well forward, had been engaged in locating the enemy's battery areas in conjunction with the Royal Air Force. Consequently, the moment the assault began, the enemy's batteries, especially those in the valley south of Demuin, around Wiencourt-l'Equipée and in the Cerisy-Gailly-Warfusée-Abancourt valley, were deluged by a hurricane bombardment and neutralized to such an extent that the hostile artillery retaliation was almost negligible. That the fire of the heavy artillery was most effective was also proved by the number of dead horses found lying in and about the enemy's battery positions. There was a thick mist in the early morning which did not clear completely until nearly io o'clock. Although this assisted us very materially by concealing from the enemy the launching of the attack, it made it difficult for the infantry and tanks to maintain direction. Moreover, communica­tions were rendered difficult both for the enemy and ourselves, and visual signalling was impossible. For the same reason the work of the contact aeroplanes co-operating with the infantry was at first much restricted owing to the poor visibility, and early news of the attack was slow in coming through. South of the Somme the enemy was taken completely by surprise, and all opposition was quickly swept aside by the impetuosity of the Canadian and Australian advance. By 6.20 a.m. the first objective on the greater part of the Canadian and Australian Corps fronts had been reached, and, after the pause of two hours arranged to allow the troops destined for the next advance time to get into position, the assaulting waves again went forward. Nothing could stop the infantry and tanks, and the cavalry, eagerly grasping the longed-for opportunity, went through. From that moment the issue of the day was never in doubt; thousands of prisoners and hundreds of guns were

170 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

captured. The disorganization and rout of the enemy was com­plete, and it was only distance and fatigue which caused a halt on the final objective given to our troops for the day. North of the Somme our advance was not so rapid. The enemy clung tenaciously to the woods and gullies and gave ground only after determined fighting.'

The whole mass of tanks did not operate together. Four battalions of heavy tanks were allotted to the Canadian Corps, four to the Australian, one to the III Corps and one was held in reserve. The tanks preceded the infantry and many of them carried machine-gun and Lewis-gun detachments, which disembarked at important tactical points far in front of the infantry, to hold them until it arrived. Casualties were small compared to what they had been in previous battles. This was due, not only to the strong support of the artillery, but also to the fact that the tanks effectively paved the way for the infantry. Moreover, their appearance in such great numbers exercised a depressing influence on the Germans, many battalions losing their nerve at the sight of these monsters emerging out of the mist quite close to them. The armoured cars, which followed the roads, also did excellent work, surprising marching troops, headquarters and staffs, and blocking enemy transports.

It was clear not only to the British generals but also to the Germans that the Allies had won the battle already by the first onslaught. In his War Memoirs (II, 679 et seq., quoted by Mont­gomery) Ludendorff fully recognized this fact. Thus he writes :

' 8th August was the blackest day of the German Army in the history of the War. . . . Early on 8th August in a dense fog, that had been rendered still thicker by artificial means, the British, mainly with Australian and Canadian divisions, and French, attacked between Albert and Moreuil with strong squadrons of tanks, but for the rest, in no great superiority. They broke between the Somme and the Luce streams deep into our front. The divisions in line at that point allowed themselves to be completely overwhelmed.

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F B L E S S I N G B O U R N E 171

Divisional staffs were surprised in their headquarters by enemy tanks. . . . Six or seven divisions, that were quite fairly to be described as effective, had been completely battered. . . . The wastage of the Second Army had been very great. Heavy toll had also been taken of its reserves, when these were thrown in. In the case of some divisions the infantry had had to go into the line straight out of their motor lorries, while their artillery was lined up elsewhere. Units were badly mixed up. It was to be foreseen that a further number of divisions had become necessary to rein­force the Second Army, even if the enemy should not attack again, a prospect upon which we could not count with any assurance. Owing, in addition, to the deficit created by the number of prisoners taken from us, our losses had reached such proportions that the Supreme Command was once more faced with the necessity of having to disband a further series of divisions in order to furnish draffs. Our reserves were dirninishing. As against all this there had been an uncommonly slight expenditure of strength on the part of the enemy. The relative man-power had shifted appreci­ably further to our disadvantage. . . . We had absolutely to be prepared for a continuation of the enemy's attacks. He had been

allowed to score too cheaply 8th August marked the decline of our fighting power and, the man-power situation being what it was, it robbed me of the hope of discovering some strategic ex­pedient that might once more stabilize the position in our favour. . . . The War would have to be ended.'

Here we have, in an almost pathetic account of events, the words of the German Commander-in-Chief on the western front to the effect that the Fourth Army on 8th August dealt the blow which eventually brought victory to the Allied arms. Foch immedi­ately saw his chance and ordered a general offensive along the whole front. The Allied Armies exercised a terrific pressure in all sectors of the front and made it impossible for the German Commander to withdraw troops from any point of the line in order

172 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS

to throw them into battle in another. On 29th September he asked the German Government to open negotiations for an armistice, and by n th November the German Supreme Command was ready to sign the Armistice Agreement.

After the brilliant success of the operations during the last 100 days of the First World War Montgomery was predestined for high command, and in 1933 he reached the top of the scale, being then appointed Chief of the Imperial General Staff.

After the Armistice the Fourth Army moved on to Namur. During the following winter Montgomery gave several lectures to Dominion officers on the battle of Waterloo and studied this great battle on the very spot where it was fought.

The Fourth Army was broken up in April, and Montgomery was then appointed Chief of the General Staff of the Army of the Rhine, with Headquarters at the Dom Hotel in Cologne. Immedi­ately before the conclusion of peace at Versailles there were some critical days. Montgomery writes about this: 'We had an alarm in June, when the Germans looked like giving trouble and we and the Americans had all our plans ready for a further advance into Germany. The Germans, however, thought better of it and complied with all our demands. Except for this the summer passed uneventfully, and we spent a very pleasant summer in the Rhine-land. I was able to see a great deal of the charming country on both banks of the Rhine and in the Ardennes and Luxembourg. The Germans gave us no trouble, but personally I saw very little of them.'

In 1920 Montgomery became Deputy Chief of the General Staff in India, where he remained until February 1922. During this time he had to deal with such burning questions as the indian-ization of the Indian Army, the reduction of the British forces and the frontier policy. Montgomery was a strong supporter of the 'forward policy,' which involved a control of the frontier tribes and the gradual advance of the Indian frontier towards Afghanistan as opportunity offered. On his return to England he impressed his views on the India Council, and as a result of his efforts a

MONTGOMERYS OF BLESSINGBOURNE 173

despatch went out to the Viceroy directing him to continue the building of roads and to carry out the ' forward policy ' for pacifying the trans-border tribes.

During his stay in India Montgomery had some very good shooting—black buck, Chinkara, tiger and bison. The game report for a two days' shoot at Bikanir was 6060 sandgrouse, and at Bhurtpore the party shot 4000 duck in a day.

In March 1922 Montgomery took over command of the 53 rd Welsh Division, with headquarters at Shrewsbury, and in June 1923 he got command of the 1st Division at Aldershot. He took over the Southern Command in 1928 and was promoted to General in 1930. Both Lord Wavell, late Viceroy of India, and Lord Alanbrooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff during the Second World War, served under him at Salisbury. In March 1931 Montgomery became Adjutant-General to the Forces and A.D.C.-General to the King. In February 1933 he succeeded Sir George Milne as Chief of the Imperial General Staff and was promoted to Field-Marshal in 1935.

The man responsible for maintaining the efficiency and striking power of the Imperial Forces had not an altogether pleasant task in the period 1933-36, when the Army expenses had been cut down to a minimum and there had been practically no re-equipment for ten years. This was all the more serious as the clouds of war thickened and a conflagration seemed possible at any time. When Montgomery took over,his predecessor in office, together with Earl Beatty and Lord Trenchard, had just made the gravity of the situation clear to the Cabinet, but it took another two years and the Abyssinian crisis to evoke measures which were at all adequate to meet the situation.

However, Montgomery made the best of a bad job. 'In my three years as C.I.G.S.,' he writes, T did manage to get something done, but by no means all I wanted to. The Tank Brigade was in being; the 25-pdr. Gun-Howitzer had passed all its trials and has since proved to be the best gun in Europe; the Bren Gun had at last been decided on after many years of trial against other auto-

174 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS matics and was being issued to the troops at a rapid rate; the greater part of the artillery and all the cavalry and infantry transport were mechanized; we had a very satisfactory 2-inch anti-tank gun. There was also a very good three-man light tank, actually in use, but the tank situation was still most unsatisfactory.'

When the Italian crisis broke out Montgomery had to inform the Government that there were only 5000 anti-aircraft shells in Great Britain and they could only be produced at the rate of 20,000 per month. There were no anti-aircraft guns left in Gibraltar, since those belonging there had been sent to Malta, Alexandria and Suez. Finally, there were no gunners available for anti-aircraft work. These were cool facts which no doubt influenced the decision of the British Government not to support Abyssinia and the League of Nations. One cannot help thinking that if Britain after the First World War had spent a little more on armaments, this expenditure would have paid very high dividends.

In looking for the cause of the Second World War Montgomery goes still further back. 'Personally,' he writes, ' I date the original cause of all our disasters, or even of the outbreak of war itself, to the failure of the American Government to join us in a guarantee of the French frontiers in 1922. The French knew the immense numerical superiority that the Germans were building up. They felt that their Allies of the 1914-18 War had deserted them and left them to face the German revenge practically unaided, and the effect of this was shattering the Nation's morale' (MS.). During his term as Chief of the Imperial General Staff Montgomery kept well in touch with the French Higher Command. He inspected the Maginot line in the company of General Gamelin in 1935, and General Weygand was his guest in England.

In 1936 he retired and settled at Gunby Hall in Lincolnshire. As owner of that place he had in 1926 assumed the name of Montgomery-Massingberd. He is L L . D . of Queen's University, Belfast, and Vice-Lieutenant of Lincolnshire. During the Second World War he organised the Home Guard of that county.1

1 This article was written before the death of the Field-Marshal on 13th October 1947.

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F G R E Y A B B E Y

B L A S O N

Shield: Quarterly Montgomery-Eglinton all within a bordure or charged with double tressure flory counterflory gules on a surcoat a sword and sceptre saltier-ways proper.

Crest: Out of a cap of maintenance an arm in armour erect grasping a sword. o r &

Motto : Honneur sans repos.

THIS branch of the family is descended from John Mont­gomery of Granskeogh, who accompanied the first Viscount to Ulster and took part in the Plantation.

According to William Montgomery of Rosemount, Adam of Braidstone was grandfather to them both. William does not seem to know the name of John's father, but Scottish genealogists are of the opinion that John was the son of Captain Robert, third son of Adam John, fourth Laird of Braidstone.

John Montgomery of Granskeogh was thus first cousin both of Lord Montgomery and of Hugh Montgomery of Derrybrosk, who was the son of James, fourth son of the above Laird. He received an estate in the parish of Donaghadee called Granskeogh (Danish for spruce-forest).

One night his house was attacked by Irish wood-kerns; they penetrated into the hall and a hard struggle began between a dozen intruders armed with half-pikes and the two Scotsmen, John and his son Hugh, fighting in their shirts with swords. But the odds were too great; John was killed and Hugh, badly mutilated, was left for dead in the hall. After this the robbers searched the house ; they found Mrs. Montgomery (her maiden name was Stewart), whom they murdered together with the servants. Later Hugh recovered consciousness and managed to crawl out of the house He was found among the shrubs the following day by some neigh­bours. After careful attention by a surgeon his health was eventu­ally restored. He became an M.P. for Newtownards and lived

175

i 7 6 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

to a great age. He married Anne, daughter of Robert Montgomery of Hessilheid (Reg. Mag. Sig., 1634), and had by her a son, Hugh Montgomery of Maghera, who was a major in the army.

Major Hugh Montgomery had a son William, who added greatly to his estates and rented large farms, amongst others Maghera in the diocese of Deny. He was a well-known and experienced horse-breeder and a member of the Corporation of Horse-breeders. On 4th July 1717 he bought the Rosemount estate from James Montgomery, a son of William the historian, for £6200, a very big sum in those days. This estate included Greyabbey, and his grandson, William Montgomery, M.P. for Hillsborough, was designated 'of Greyabbey.'

Among the more distinguished members of this branch of the family may be mentioned William Montgomery of Greyabbey and his son Hugh. They were both High Sheriffs and Deputy Lieu­tenants for the county of Down. Hugh had a son Robert Arthur who was a major-general.

MONTGOMERYS OF BLACKHOUSE AND CREBOY

FRASER follows Paterson in making John Montgomery of Flatt and Blackhouse the second son of Adam John, fourth Laird of Braidstone. John Montgomery of Flatt married

Margaret Fraser, Dame of Giffen, and their son Patrick became the owner of the whole superiority of Skelmorly-Cunningham after her mother's death. Adam, fifth Laird of Braidstone, and his brother Captain Robert Montgomery witnessed a deed of transfer by Margaret Fraser in 1572 signed at Irvine and Thirdpart. From this we may conclude that these two gentlemen were related to John of Flatt, but they were not his brothers. John had a brother whose name was Mathew (Reg. Mag. Sig., 1571). In all probability he was the grandson of John Montgomery, tenant in Flatt 1497-1507 (Exch. Rolls Scotland), possibly a brother of Robert, third Laird of Braidstone.

Patrick married Christian Shaw, sister of Lady Montgomery of Great Ardes. He accompanied Sir Hugh Montgomery to Ulster and was one of his principal assistants. William Montgomery of Rosemount speaks of him as brother-in-law of the first Viscount, but never calls him his cousin. Patrick acquired the estates of Creboy (Craigbowie or Craigbuye), Ballyhanode and Ballygorte-ville. He left three sons: Hugh, John, and a son whose name is unknown.

Patrick of Blackhouse succeeded his father in 1602. He died in 1629 and was succeeded by his eldest son, Hugh, who died the following year without issue. John succeeded his brother in 1631 and was killed in the battle of Dunbar on 3rd September 1650 (Services of Heirs, X , 314, G 171).

John's son Patrick was served heir to his father in 1657 (Ibid., X X I V , 156). He sold Blackhouse in 1663. William Montgomery of Rosemount calls him Long Patt. His son John Montgomery of Creboy is said to have sold that estate in 1716, but he was still in Ireland in November the following year.

i 7 8 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

Patrick Montgomery of Blackhouse seems to have had another son, James Montgomery of Perston and Thirdpart, who was Commissioner of Supply for Ayr in 1702 and 1703 (Acts of Pari. Scotland, 22 a, X , 142 B). He had three sons: James of Perston, younger, merchant in Glasgow, whose son Patrick was also mer­chant in that town; Adam; and Robert, ancestor of the Mont­gomerys of Trinidad, Montreal and Santa Cruz.

Alexander, 2nd Laird of Braidstone

John in Flatt, 1497-1507

a son

John of Flatt = Margaret Fraser Mathew

Patrick of Blackhouse Margaret

Hugh of Blackhouse ds.p. 1630

Lieutenant-Colonel John Montgomery of Creboy, d. 1650

Patrick of Blackhouse and Creboy

John of Creboy James, elder, of Perston

James, younger, of Perston

Adam Robert

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F H E S S I L H E I D

B L A S O N

Shield: Gules three fleurs-de-lis or in chiefs and three annulets or stoned azure in base over them two lances saltier-ways all within a double tressure flory counterflory.

HU G H , first Laird of Hessilheid , was third son of Alexander, Master of Montgomery, and grandson of Alexander, first Lord Montgomery. He married Janet, daughter

of Maxwell of Pollock. During nine generations Hessilheid Castle descended from father to son. This castle is described by Pont (Cuninghame Topographized, about 1610) as 'a strong old building, environed with large ditches, seated on a loche, veil planted and commodiously beautified.' It was incorporated with the barony of Giffen in 1680.

The second Laird was Sir John Montgomery designated of Corscraig. He was killed in the battle of Flodden in 1513.

The third Laird, Hugh Montgomery of Hessilheid, married a daughter of Houston and had by her two sons, John and Robert, elder of Hatoun, ancestor of the Montgomerys of Killee. He died in 1566.

John, fourth Laird of Hessilheid, married Margaret, daughter of John Fraser of Knok. He is generally called fourth Laird as he died after his father, but his son Hugh was served heir to the third Laird (Glasgow Test., II, 58). The younger sons of John were: Alexander the poet, ancestor of the Montgomerys of Beaulieu; Robert, Archbishop of Glasgow1; and Hezekiel of

1 He married Beatrice Jameson and had by her the following descendants :

John of Sevenakers Robert, Elisabeth minister of m. James Stewarton Montgomery,

Alexander of Sevenakers

Neil in Greenfuit, d. 1623 minister of Dunlop

Hugh Alexander Neil James Henry 179

i8o HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

Weitlands. John had two daughters: Margaret, who married Adam, fifth Laird of Braidstone, and another who married Sir William Mure of Rowallan.

Hugh, fifth Laird of Hessilheid, married a daughter of Robert, fourth Lord Boyd, a sister-in-law of Hugh, fourth Earl of Eglinton.

Robert, sixth Laird of Hessilheid, was retoured heir to his father in 1602. He died on 28th October 1623. His sons were: Robert, who succeeded him; James Montgomery of Rousky, Lieutenant-Colonel in Sweden; and Hugh of Silverwood (Reg. Mag. Sig., 1559-1604).

Robert, seventh Laird of Hessilheid, died in 1648. He was father of Robert, eighth and last Laird.

The Lairds of Hessilheid appear to have played an important part in the administration of Ayrshire, but the cadets of this family and their descendants have made this house even more famous.

The Hessilheid branch has also had connection with Sweden, for James Montgomery of Rousky, brother of the seventh Laird of Hessilheid, was Lieutenant-Colonel in the service of Gustavus Adolphus. On 10th May 1626 he conveyed his property in Ireland to Malcolm Hamilton, Lord Archbishop of Cashel, who transferred it to his eldest son Archibald. After he had sold Rousky, James Montgomery went abroad and joined the forces of Gustavus Adolphus in 1630. So did James Hamilton, brother of Archibald. In 1632 James Hamilton, then lieutenant-colonel, later Lord Glenawly, and James Montgomery, then captain, travelled on the same passport (Axel Oxenstiernas Brev och Concept, February 1632, Riksarkivet, Stockholm).

James Montgomery was eventually promoted to lieutenant-colonel but was killed in a duel before 27th August 1634 by Quarter­master-General Bouillon (Monro His Expedition zoith the Worthy Scots Regiment, London, 1637, II, 99, 123).

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F M O V I L L E

B L A S O N

of Field-Marshal Viscount Montgomery of Alamein.

Shield: Azure two lions passant guardant between three fleurs-de-lis two in chief and one in base and two trefoils in fesse all or.

Crest: On a wreath of the colours issuant from a crescent argent an arm in armour embowed the hand grasping a broken tilting spear in bend sinister the head pendent proper.

Supporters : On the dexter side a knight in chain armour and surcoat resting his exterior hand on his sword and on the sinister side a modern soldier in field uniform all proper.

Motto: Gardez bien.

TH E descent of the Montgomerys of Moville from the main line in Scotland is not known with certainty. How­ever, we have considered the matter very carefully and

come to the conclusion that they must belong to the house of Hessilheid and to that particular branch which came from Hatoun in the northern parts of Scotland. It is known that Mr. Alexander Montgomery, a grandson of the fourth Laird of Hessilheid, settled near Derry in the county of Donegal at the time of the first Viscount Montgomery and that the Montgomerys of Moville, in the same county, have lived there for nearly two centuries.

Since it proved impossible to identify the Moville branch with either the descendants of the first Viscount or his relations on his father's side, it seemed natural to look for it among his relations on his mother's side, i.e. the Montgomerys of Hessilheid. It could not be found among the descendants of the above-mentioned Mr. Alexander, but Mr . James Montgomery, who became a curate of Greyabbey, seems to be the ancestor of that branch. His brother and one of his sons were called Samuel, a name which is characteristic of the Moville branch and is very rare among the other branches of the family in Ireland. There is one Samuel in

181

i82 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

the family of Greyabbey, but he is called after his mother's father,

Samuel Hil l . Mr . James Montgomery, curate of Greyabbey, was the son

of another James, who was a minister in Scotland. This last-mentioned James was one of 'the nine bold brothers of Hatoun' and the son of Robert (Edinburgh Test., 14.2.1591), second laird of that castle, the first laird (Reg. Mag. Sig.) being a younger brother of the fourth Laird of Hessilheid. Thus Mr . James, the most probable ancestor of the Montgomerys of Moville, was related both to the first Viscount through his mother and to Mr . Alexander, ancestor of the Montgomerys of Beaulieu and of Convoy House.

Mr . James Montgomery came to Ireland as chaplain to the first Viscount and married Elisabeth Lindsay of the Dunrod family, the daughter of Lady Montgomery's sister. In this way his wife and the second Viscount were cousins. According to William of Rosemount he brought with him 300 pounds sterling, a fortune in those days. He was at one time curate of Greyabbey but was expelled from this post by the Covenanters in 1643. The brother of the second Viscount, Sir James Montgomery, who commanded a regiment of his own, made him chaplain to this regiment. With a Bible in one hand and a sword in the other he took an active part in the Irish war and distinguished himself in the battles of Dundrum, Ballydughan and Lecahill.

His brother Samuel was at one time major in a Scottish regi­ment but afterwards became eldest captain in Sir James's regiment. He died unmarried at Portaferry.

Mr . James had a son, Hugh of Ballymagown, who managed the affairs of the first and second Viscounts, being seneschal of all their courts. He was honest in business and a very capable man. For the sake of distinction, and perhaps also because he was closely related to the Viscount, he was called My Lord's Hugh.

His eldest son, the Reverend Hans Montgomery, had no sons. His second son, Hugh, is the ancestor of the Montgomerys of Killee, of which one branch settled in South Africa. The Reverend

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F M O V I L L E 183

William Montgomery of Ballyeaston, who kept that portion of the Montgomery Manuscripts which was concerned with the Mont­gomerys of Ballymagown, was probably the grandson of his third son, Hamilton. Hugh's youngest son, Samuel, became a merchant and seems to have served as a soldier, since he had the title of captain. Samuel Montgomery, a wine merchant in Londonderrv who built New Park, Moville, in 1774, was possibly a descendant of this merchant Samuel, and thus also of Hugh of Ballymagown The little town of Moville is situated on the north-western shores of Lough Foyle, a fjord of the Atlantic which now separates North Ireland from the Free State territory, to which belongs the whole county of Donegal, including Moville and New Park.

Samuel Montgomery, who built that place, is said to be the son of David Montgomery of Killaghtee by Mary, daughter of Michael Law. David seems to have been the son of John Mont­gomery of Killaghtee, who flourished in 1722. Catherine Mont­gomery held the lands of Killaghtee in 1701 (A. I. Young, Three Hundred Years in Innishozoen, p. 32).

John Montgomery of Killaghtee was possibly the son of Samuel Montgomery and the grandson of Hugh Montgomery of Bally­magown. Samuel's sister Catherine married Captain Bernard Brett (Hanna, Account of the Parishes of Killough and Bright, Downpatrick Recorder). It seems reasonable to assume that this Catherine was identical with Catherine Montgomery of Killaghtee, and that John Montgomery succeeded his aunt in these lands.

Samuel Montgomery, first of New Park and Chamberlain of Londonderry, had a son, also called Samuel, who was Curate of Derry and Rector of Lower Moville. His second son, Robert, became a famous administrator in India.

ROBERT MONTGOMERY

Robert Montgomery was born at New Park in 1809. His father was no Presbyterian—far from it, since his ancestors had fought

184 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

for the Church of England—but as a Scotsman by descent he was certainly a serious and honest Christian, opposed to every sort of theatrical display in a holy temple. There was no luxury in his home and the boys were brought up in a simple, almost indigent, fashion. The Reverend James Knox, also a Scotsman by descent, was the headmaster of Foyle College, a good preparatory school, where Robert received his first education. Another boy at this school was Henry Montgomery Lawrence, the nephew of the headmaster. He made a great friend of Robert, although three years his senior. They afterwards went to different public schools, but met again one day as administrators in India. For his secondary education Robert was sent to Wraxall, a public school in North Wiltshire, and at the age of eighteen he entered the Bengal Civil Service.

For several years he served in the North-West Frontier Provinces, and in 1838 he was transferred to Allahabad, where he got an appointment as magistrate and collector. In 1849 Sir Henry Montgomery Lawrence became resident at Lahore, and on his recommendation Robert was appointed Commissioner of Lahore division. For a long time the two school-friends from Foyle together ran one of the most important districts in India, often under very trying conditions.

At the outbreak of the Indian Mutiny in 1857 Lawrence was away in Oudh in command of all the troops of that district. He was seriously wounded during a fight with the rebels at Mutchee Bawn on 1st July and died from his wounds on the following day. Montgomery was chief civil officer at Lahore and acting Governor of the Punjab. According to secret information he knew that the native troops at Lahore had decided to rise as soon as the mutiny broke out at Delhi. On 13th May he got telegraphic news that the mutineers had stormed and captured Delhi on the previous day. The situation at Lahore was getting serious and demanded prompt action. There were three native regiments of infantry and one of cavalry against only five companies of a British regiment

MONTGOMERYS OF M O V I L L E 185

and two batteries of artillery. In the case of a struggle, the native troops were thus much superior in numbers. After consulting the other officials Montgomery decided to disarm the native troops before they had time to act. To this end, and in order to remove suspicion, he allowed the ball fixed for that night to take place. A general parade of native troops was held on the following morning, closely guarded by the British troops ready for battle. Under this threat the sepoys obeyed orders and piled their arms. The native troops in forts and other places were also disarmed.

By these prudent measures Montgomery saved not only the British garrison, including wives and children, but the whole of the Punjab, that newly conquered and most important district of India. Not only this; he very largely contributed to the success of the subsequent campaign. In fact, the reconquest of India was started and organized from the Punjab. Without this stronghold m British hands the ultimate result of the campaign would have been doubtful.

In recognition of his services Montgomery received the K .C .B . and later on the G.C.S.I. He was appointed Chief Commissioner of Oudh, and in 1868 he became a member of the Council of the Secretary of State for India.

This resourceful man, capable of cool decision and prompt action in an emergency, was good and kind-hearted to such an extent that he earned the nickname of India's Mr . Pickwick. He died in London in 1887, the same year as his grandson Bernard was born, and his coffin was transferred to the family vault at Londonderry.

186 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

BERNARD, FIRST VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF A L A M E I N

' There is grave danger in dwelling on the greatness of the past, unless we are prepared to learn from past mistakes'

LORD MONTGOMERY at Athens, 1946.

During three long years Britain had fought for her life. In that time she had lost many battles and been driven out of many positions. Thousands of her best soldiers had lost their lives in this biggest of all contests, and many more were lingering in German and Japanese prison-camps.

Then, all of a sudden, the whole outlook changed. Britain had won a battle, a decisive victory after days of hard and desperate fighting. 'The bright gleam of victory has at last caught the helmets of our soldiers, warmed and cheered all our hearts' were the words of Winston Churchill when announcing the victory of El Alamein.

This battle marked the beginning of a long series of great victories which finally led to the complete collapse of the enemy. El Alamein, therefore, will be remembered as one of the great battles, and the victorious General, Bernard Montgomery, will go down in history.

His father was the Right Reverend Henry Hutchinson Mont­gomery, and his grandfather was Sir Robert. Bernard was only two years old when the family left for Tasmania, where his father had been appointed Bishop. His military taste seems to have developed at an early date, for one day when the little boy was watching Australian troops embarking on their ships for overseas service he made the following characteristic remark: ' I am going to be a soldier, and if I am a good soldier perhaps one day I ' l l have an army of my own.'

After eight years in Tasmania the father returned to England with his family and became Prebendary of Wenlocksbarn. He himself had been educated at Harrow and Trinity College, Cam-

MONTGOMERYS OF MOVILLE 187 bridge, but he had five sons and could not afford to send them to expensive public schools. Bernard was sent to King's School Canterbury, and later to St. Paul's School in the City of London! He was never very brilliant at school, except at Scripture, but he was a fast and determined three-quarter back at rugby and developed into quite a good cricketer. His school was one with traditions: John Milton the poet, Samuel Pepys the diarist, and John, first Duke of Marlborough, the hero of Blenheim and Malplaquet, were once upon a time boys at St. Paul's School. But these great men were the sons of comparatively poor fathers, who could not afford to send their boys to more expensive schools. To-day, too, the boys of this school come chiefly from such families, and there is no doubt that this fact has helped to shape the character of Bernard Montgomery, while the knowledge he acquired of them stood him in good stead later on in life. He had also the great advantage of spending his summer holidays at New Park, the delightful place in the county of Donegal built by Samuel Montgomery.

After he had left school he entered the Military College at Sandhurst. In all his work there he was determined and energetic, passed his examinations with distinction and got a commission as second lieutenant in the Warwickshire Regiment in 1908. With this regiment he served first in India and later in France during the First World War. After a few months' war service he was made a captain and later on gained the D.S.O. and the Croix de Guerre, and was mentioned in despatches six times. One night he crawled out in front of the German trenches and fetched back his severely wounded colonel. At another time he himself had been so badly wounded that he was taken for dead. Just as they were about to fill in the grave a doctor passed and noticed a slight movement of the body. That saved his life; his wiry constitution pulled him through, but his health was ruined for a long time afterwards. In order to recover physical strength he had to be abstemious in every way—which, however, did not cause this Spartan any trouble or regrets.

188 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS

After the Armistice he served on the Rhine with the Army of Occupation. In 1931 he was given the command of the first battalion of his old regiment. Three years later he was promoted to colonel and became Instructor at the Staff College at Quetta m India, where he remained until 1937. That year he got the command of a brigade in England, and in 1938 he became a maior-general.

On the outbreak of the Second World War Montgomery commanded the 3rd Division, with which he went to France. During the evacuation of Dunkirk his men gave a very fine display of discipline under extremely trying conditions. In January 1941 Montgomery's home at Portsmouth was bombed by the Germans and completely destroyed. He was then in command of the V Army Corps. The same year he was transferred to the XI I Corps.

In August 1942 the War Cabinet decided that General Gott should replace Auchinleck as Commander-in-Chief of the Desert Army and that Montgomery should command the First Army, which was held in readiness for the invasion of North Africa. These plans were suddenly changed. The aeroplane which was taking Gott to his base of operations had been shot down by the Germans and the General was killed. On 7th August the Cabinet decided that Montgomery should take his place. Sir Harold Alexander, the new Commander of the Middle East, was his new Chief.

After their victories at Knightsbridge and Tobruk in June 1942, the Axis forces reached Mersa Matruh on the threshold of Egypt. Their lines of communication were then extended to breaking-point, whereas Auchinleck was much nearer his base and could easily replenish his supplies of food, fresh water, oil, armour and am­munition. The vicinity of the airfields in Egypt was another great advantage. This turned the scale in favour of the British forces.

On 10th August Churchill arrived in Cairo, to plan the pending

MONTGOMERYS OF MOVILLE 189

offensive with the new commanders. Montgomery was at his post on the 13th and took over on the 15th. Four days later Churchill paid him a visit at his headquarters at Burg El Arab and stayed overnight.

Ships which had travelled all the way round the Cape arrived with Sherman tanks and anti-tank guns, and fresh aircraft landed in a steady stream. The troops were instructed and trained in the use of the new weapons and were hardened by physical training. Time was definitely working in favour of Britain.

Once he realized this fact, Rommel decided to strike. On 30th August he attacked the British lines with 600 tanks, broke through the southern section at Ruweisat Ridge and threatened to roll up the whole front. Although he had only just taken over his new command, Montgomery was well prepared for the onslaught. His anti-tank guns and other artillery were ready in their positions, and as soon as the German tanks were near enough, they opened a devastating fire against them. As a result of the British artillery concentration and of subsequent counter-attacks, 300 German tanks were either destroyed or captured. Rommel returned to his base with his badly damaged units. For the first time during the war he had met his equal, a dangerous opponent indeed. He immediately began to fortify his lines and to assemble reinforce­ments, waiting for the British to attack.

Rommel based his left flank on the salt-marshes along the coast, and his right on the impassable Qattara Depression in the south. There were no permanent fortifications except dug-outs for machine guns and anti-tank guns, but the whole six-mile front was larded with mines. The position of the Axis army was un­doubtedly strong, and after reinforcements had arrived Rommel was prepared to make a deadly counter-attack, if a British attack broke down. Most of the German infantry was concentrated in the northern sector of the front, which was the stronger. There were two German divisions, the 164th and the 90th Light, in this sector, with the Italian Trieste Division between them. In the

190 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

south there were some German regiments intermingled with three Italian divisions. The centre, held by the Bologna Division, was the weakest part of Rommel's battle-line. Whether his intention was to tempt his opponent to go for the centre, where he might easily be overwhelmed by the four tank divisions held in readiness farther back, evenly divided between north and south, or to make a counter-thrust along the main road to Egypt after the first British attack, we do not know. In any case, both armies kept their strongest forces near the sea and other lines of communication with the double object of protecting these lines and facilitating the arrival of reinforcements.

Montgomery realized that the winning stroke must be aimed at the strongest point of the enemy line. A move in any other direction was fraught with grave risks, since Rommel might then drive home a heavy punch into the flanks of the attacking units. Besides, to leave the gate to Egypt open would be a fatal mistake. Some military writers have conveyed the impression that Mont­gomery completely avoided the centre. That is not the case. Once he had engaged the enemy in the north, he did not hesitate to use the chance presented by Rommel's weak centre. In the course of the battle this part of the front was raided by the South Africans.

The British offensive was prepared by a terrific bombing from the air of the enemy's lines of communication, airfields, shipping and ports of embarkation and disembarkation. This bombing went on incessantly during a whole fortnight before Montgomery launched his attack. This, if anything, should have warned Rommel that something very big was going to happen. But when the British made their first assault the enemy forces seem to have been taken completely by surprise, so much so that their Com­mander-in-Chief was away after a visit to Germany. The mere fact that he left the front at all, seems to prove that he felt far too secure of his position. He did not arrive until the third day of the battle, and not in time to repair the damage suffered by his deputy

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F M O V I L L E 191

commander, General Stumme, who had in the meantime thrown away all his chances by a series of maladroit dispositions.

On the morning of 23rd October 1942 Montgomery received the war correspondents in his tent. One of them has drawn the following picture of the British General, who was then little known to the public: ' A small slim man with a sharp, thin face and a little grey moustache and bright, quick-moving eyes. He had the common touch as none of his predecessors had had. He was a man of exuberant, clear-sighted energy, and he was very categorical in his decisions. Never was anybody less devoted to half-measures.' According to another correspondent, he balanced a fly-swatter on his forefinger all the time he was talking and seemed absolutely unaffected by the big events which were imminent.

The reports of this meeting vary slightly, but the gist of General Montgomery's speech on this occasion was as follows :

' Gentlemen, I have called you here to-day to inform you that the campaign will start to-night. We have looked for some time for holes in the enemy's lines and we shall now proceed to the offensive. At moon-rise will be fought a terrific battle—terrific. My object is to beat Rommel and to remove the Germans from North Africa. This may take some time, but that is what we are going to do.

T think this battle may well be the turning-point of the war. It has always been my policy that we shall not have any more failures. The great thing is morale. Other things being equal, the side which has superior morale will win. If you look down history and search for the causes of failure I would say that basically they can be traced to faulty command and bad staff-work. The soldiery —use this good old-fashioned word—will never let you down.

'To-day every officer and man knows what is wanted. I have addressed all officers down to the level of Lieutenant-Colonels. They know all about this battle, and they have passed it on to the men.

192 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS

'You can move wherever you like during the battle. When I have got something new to tell you, I shall send for you.'

The British troops were grouped in the following order. On the extreme right was the 9th Australian Division with the 1st South African on its left and the 2nd New Zealand in reserve. The Italian division in the centre was faced by the 4th Indian. The southern section was held by the 50th Division, including French and Greek troops, and the 44th, which had already been withdrawn during the initial stages of the battle, as a tactical reserve together with the 51st Highland Division. The armoured divisions were held back behind the front, the 1st and 10th in the north and the 7th in the south.

The moon rose at 5.15 p.m., and there was bright moonlight over the desert at 9.30, the moment when Montgomery opened the battle by an artillery concentration from his 800 twenty-five-pounder field-guns. It has been estimated that there was one such gun to every 23 yards of the whole front. A deafening roar rolled across the desert, and the exploding shells spread death and terror in the enemy lines. Many Italians had already gone to sleep and had to fight in their pyjamas. The Royal Air Force and the U.S. Air Force showered their bombs over the enemy's headquarters, airfields, troop-concentrations, stores, depots and lines of com­munication. The sudden tornado threw the whole enemy camp into disorder, and the German Air Force was beaten on the ground before the battle began. Had the Germans been ready, had they been as sober and watchful as Montgomery and his men, the issue might have been different, for the German troops were brave, experienced and well equipped. But their morale was undoubtedly inferior to that of the British.

At 10 p.m. the British infantry advanced under the protection of an artillery barrage, followed by anti-tank guns and preceded by sappers who walked slowly on with their mine-detectors removing the deadly little devicements hidden in the dust. The cleared path

MONTGOMERYS OF MOVILLE 193

was marked with a white tape, so that the men could march forward without the risk of treading on the mines. Suddenly the enemy artillery opened fire. Men were killed, guns and tanks were wrecked, petrol-tanks caught fire, and a choking smoke from the exploding shells covered the field; at some places it was so thick that men were suffocated and lost consciousness.

But the British troops advanced all night like ghosts in the moonlight. Here and there they met with resistance and had to fight their way forward, sometimes at close quarters and with the bayonet. A mass of enemy tanks appeared, shooting wildly about them. They got a hot reception; the British anti-tank gun of the new model was an excellent weapon, and at Kidney Ridge, held by the Rifle Brigade, the shooting was so perfect that thirty-seven enemy tanks were knocked out within thirty-six hours.

General Stumme did not know what it was all about. Infantry advancing along the whole front with the tanks behind them. That was all wrong, contrary to the most elementary teachings of modern strategy! But Montgomery knew the reason. Auchinleck's defeat at Knightsbridge had taught him a lesson. He did not like to risk his valuable tanks before there was a passage for them.

The artillery advanced behind the infantry and gradually reduced the strength of Rommel's armour. Montgomery kept his own armour well in hand, to be used with its full force at the decisive moment of the battle.

Montgomery also advanced in the south, but this attack was a mere diversion, intended to mislead the enemy as to his intentions. In face of this threat, Stumme did not dare to remove his armoured divisions from the southern sector. They were kept out of action during the first two days of the battle, a mistake which Rommel immediately corrected on his arrival. Stumme had been killed during an air raid the day before, and von Thoma had taken over the command. A few days later he was taken prisoner, a circum­stance which probably saved him from execution on Hitler's orders.

The Germans and also the Italians fought bravely during the N

194 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

opening stages of the battle. Many counter-attacks were launched, which caused the British heavy losses, but the Axis forces were not properly co-ordinated and were directed more or less at random. The battle was prolonged owing to the fact that Montgomery failed to spot the battery positions of the enemy and to crush all artillery resistance from the very beginning.

The bitter struggle went on for eleven days before Montgomery gave orders to General Lumsden to deal the finishing stroke with his armoured divisions. The enemy was unaware of this trump-card. Lumsden drove up to the front during the night but left the camp so cleverly camouflaged with dummy tanks that German airmen reported his army to be still in the Nile Delta. The 51st Highland Division and the New Zealanders forced a passage through the German lines, contesting the ground with German armoured divisions and the famous 90th. The South Africans raided the line held by the Bologna Division, and the whole line was cut in two. Lumsden's armour streamed through the gap. The Italians to the left were cut off and taken prisoners, while Lumsden, with his fresh armour, engaged Rommel's tired and badly damaged tank force. It was an unequal contest, and the German Com­mander soon realized that he was beaten. He ordered a retreat to save what he could. Montgomery followed the good old rule of pressing on in pursuit of the beaten enemy, but failed to crush him there and then.

The battle of El Alamein cost the Axis forces 73,000 prisoners and casualties, including 8000 Germans. Over 1000 guns and 500 tanks were smashed or captured.

After that Montgomery won many battles and took millions of prisoners, but nevertheless E l Alamein is his greatest victory, for this battle marked the turn of the tide in Britain's favour.

The enemy was allowed to escape. Rommel was beaten, but his sappers and rear-guards often caused trouble to the pursuers. The enormous extension of the lines of communication increased the difficulties of the British, and support from the air became less

MONTGOMERYS OF MOVILLE 195 efficient as they moved away from the airfields in Egypt. Rommel's forces, on the other hand, came gradually nearer to their own air­fields at Tunis and Bizerta. But Montgomery pressed on slowly and with great tenacity. Mersa Matruh, Sidi Barrani, Bardia, Tobruk, Derna, Benghazi, E l Agheila, Misurata and Horns were taken in succession, and on 23rd January 1943, exactly three months after the offensive had started, Montgomery entered Tripoli.

Meanwhile the First Army and the Americans were closing in upon the Germans from the opposite side, and it soon became evident that it was only a question of time before they were annihil­ated and chased out of Africa. But the German was a hard fighter and the Americans were made to suffer heavily, especially their tank divisions, before the game was up.

The Axis held a strong position in the Mareth line, which had to be forced by Montgomery before the final goal could be reached. Owing to serious illness, Rommel had to hand over his command at Mareth to the Italian General Messe. Von Arnim commanded the troops facing the British First Army and the Americans.

The battle of Mareth was opened by a minor operation during the night of 16th March, when the Guards Brigade captured Horseshoe Hil l , an important strategic point. The enemy, how­ever, made fierce counter-attacks and the brigade had to be with­drawn. Four nights later the 50th Division, with engineers and gunners, attempted to open a passage for the tanks, but this attack too was beaten off. In the meantime Montgomery had sent General Freyberg with the New Zealanders and a brigade of tanks round the enemy's right flank into rough country, only approach­able with great difficulty. But when the frontal attack had been repelled, Messe sent his tanks to smash this detachment as soon as it should come down on the plain. Whether Montgomery was informed of or anticipated this move on the part of his opponent we do not know, but as the frontal attack had broken down he immediately despatched the Indian Division and a tank division in support of Freyberg's detachment. These two divisions had to

i 9 6 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS

make a short cut through an even more difficult country, but managed to reach Freyberg before he met the enemy. Messe had not counted on such a development. Outflanked by a strong force, he found his position untenable and ordered a retreat. At Wadi Akarit he tried again to hold his own but had to yield.

By British, American and French troops the Axis forces were now pressed into as tight a corner as the British at Dunkirk. But there was a great difference. No victorious fleet waited m the harbour to take them across to safety. On 12th May 250,000 men surrendered, and more than half of them were Germans.

The African campaign had cost the Axis 950,000 men in killed and prisoners, 6200 guns, 2550 tanks and 8000 aircraft. Con­sidering that this result was obtained by only two British armies, an American Army Corps seconded by tank divisions and some French troops, it was undoubtedly a very great achievement. Generals Eisenhower and Alexander, who led the operations, are the first to be honoured for this great victory. On the other hand, Montgomery and his army had been faced with the most difficult task and had borne the heavy brunt of the fighting all through the campaign.

Two months after the great victory in Africa the conquest of Sicily began, and six weeks later the whole of that island was held by the Allies. Altogether 40,000 Germans escaped to Italy, but an Italian army of 130,000 surrendered and 30,000 Germans were killed in battle. During these operations Montgomery had under his orders not only the Eighth Army but also the Canadian Corps. These troops did some hard fighting against the Germans at Castagirone, Lentine and Catania before the campaign was brought to a successful end.

Mussolini's government was overthrown on 25th July, and on 3rd September the Allies secretly signed the armistice with Badoglio. The same day two of Montgomery's divisions landed at Calabria. The army pushed on, captured Taranto on the 9th, Brindisi on the i ith and Bari on the 20th. In the meantime the U.S. Fifth Army,

MONTGOMERYS OF MOVILLE 197

including a British corps, had landed at Salerno, where they met strong resistance and were nearly thrown into the sea by the Germans under the command of General Hube. Montgomery, who at once realized the danger of their position, raced forward with his veteran troops, covering 200 miles in 13 days in spite of German attempts to stop him. When he established connection with the Fifth Army, the German commander could no longer hold his ground but gave orders to retreat.

Then followed a period of very hard fighting, for the Germans were gradually reinforced and had plenty of tanks and artillery. The nature of the country, rivers, cliffs and deep ravines, in certain parts also irrigation canals, hampered the movements of the British armies and favoured the defence. The battle of Volturno, fought by the Fifth Army, was a very costly affair. Montgomery advanced with his army farther inland and crossed the Sangro. In the course of these operations, however, he was called upon to fulfil an even bigger task, for the War Cabinet had chosen him as Commander-in-Chief of the British and Allied Armies for the invasion of France. He left Italy on 31st December and stayed overnight with Churchill at Marrakesh in Morocco.

The choice of Montgomery was certainly very popular. Amongst Englishmen there had, in fact, developed a sort of religious belief that he was unbeatable. After his new appointment, Montgomery made a tour of England, visiting every camp under his command and talking to the men in order to explain the task before them and to inspire them with confidence. The invasion was planned in minute detail, and the best brains of the Empire were placed at the disposal of the Commander-in-Chief for the preparation of its technical execution, especially the problems of transport, landing and petrol supply.

Montgomery had exactly five months in which to prepare this gigantic scheme, and all the time he worked in close co-operation with General Eisenhower, the American Commander-in-Chief and leader of all the Allied forces in the West. From the moment

198 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

the Allied armies landed in France until 31st August Montgomery was their over-all land force Commander.

The game was opened on the night of 5th June 1944 with intense bombing of the heavy German batteries along the coast of Nor­mandy. Over 5000 tons of bombs were dropped in the night, and the following day American airmen completed the destruction of these batteries by dropping another 20,000 tons.

On 6th June the first troops landed near Bayeux, and withm twenty-four hours 250,000 men had got ashore and captured a beach-head twenty miles long. By the middle of June it had been widened to 60 miles and had a depth of 15 miles. Farther inland an airborne division was dropped, with which contact was made a few days later. The seaborne army had been taken across the Channel by a fleet of 4000 ships, the airborne division by 1000 aeroplanes, and the invading forces were supported by more than 11,000 aircraft. Montgomery directed the operations on the spot from his headquarters in Normandy, and six days after they had begun, Churchill and Eisenhower paid him a visit at Creully.

Both British and American troops pushed forward and rem-forcements arrived in a steady stream. The Allied forces in France swelled from army corps to armies and from armies to groups of armies. Montgomery commanded the Twenty-First Army Group and General Bradley the U.S. Twelfth Army Group. On 15th August American, British and French troops landed on the Riviera, between St. Raphael and Hyères.

The Germans could not long withstand the pressure of the Allied Armies, which were superior in numbers, equipment and morale. After a few months' hard fighting France was delivered from the deadly grip of her enemies. At the big battles round Caen, in July, Montgomery suffered heavy casualties, but after reinforcements had arrived his armies eventually advanced. On 5th November he forced a passage over the river in the face of some of von Rundstedt's best troops, thereby protecting the

MONTGOMERYS OF MOVILLE 199

important harbour of Antwerp and compelling the Germans to withdraw some of their most destructive robot batteries. The advance continued, and every day the Allied armies pressed harder upon their once formidable enemy, who was heavily handicapped owing to the fact that he had practically no support from the air. Montgomery was promoted to the rank of Field-Marshal.

On 16th December, when the fog lay thick over the London area and hampered the movements of the' Air Force, the Germans under von Rundstedt suddenly started an offensive against the Americans in the Ardennes between Monschau and Trier, breaking through their lines south of Malmédy. The position of the Americans was indeed critical, and for a moment it looked as if von Rundstedt had succeeded in bis endeavour to separate the British and American armies and make his way to Antwerp.

When agitated press correspondents from all the world rushed to Montgomery's headquarters to ask his opinion, he made the laconic answer, 'The situation is getting interesting,' and he certainly showed his interest in an efficient way. Reinforcements were immediately sent to the Americans from his own army, and he was given the command of the major part of the U.S. First and Ninth Armies. His counter-attack was successful and the German offensive was turned into a costly and dangerous retreat. On 1st February the situation had so much improved that Mont­gomery could hand back to General Bradley the command of the U.S. First Army. It should be noted that during this struggle the Allied troops received invaluable assistance from the new Fido batteries, which dispersed the fog over the airfields in England and thus enabled the Air Force to support the troops in the usual way. Montgomery has paid special tribute to the staunch fighting qualities the American soldier displayed on this occasion.

The final and conclusive thrust against Germany was launched on 24th March, when Montgomery's army group crossed the Rhine on a front of 25 miles on either side of Wesel and in the direction of Munster. In his message to the troops, Montgomery

200 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

said that they were now going into the ring for the last round. The enemy had lost the Rhineland, and with it the flower of four armies—the Fifteenth and Seventeenth, one parachute and one mechanized army. He had lost 150,000 prisoners and suffered 250,000 casualties since 8th February. The enemy had been driven into a corner from which he could not escape. It would be interesting to see how long he could last. In any case his ultimate defeat was a certainty. The Twenty-First Army was now about to cross the Rhine. The enemy believed that he was safe behind this big river. Every one realized that it was a big obstacle, but they were soon going to show the enemy that he was far from safe behind it. The big Allied war-machine would deal with the problem in a way which could not be misunderstood. Once they had crossed the Rhine, they would sweep across the fields of North Germany and drive the enemy from one refuge to another. The quicker and the more energetic their action was, the sooner the war would be over, so that they could all return to their work. ' Let us cross the Rhine, and I wish you all good sport on the other side. O Lord of hosts, give us the victory in this last enterprise as You have done before in all battles since we landed in Nor­mandy.'

This was a message the men understood, and they set to work with grim determination. Since the enemy could not be taken by surprise, nothing in the preparations could be left to chance. This time, too, ah immense mass of aircraft was summoned up, both for bombing the enemy lines and for the transport of troops, the new transport plane, which carries 36 men, being used for the first time. The Navy was called upon to supply special craft for the transport across the river and trained crews for the boats. New and ingenious methods of bridging were also used. The enterprise started, as usual, with a terrific artillery concentration, and the troops crossed the river under the protection of this barrage, while parachute troops were landed behind the enemy lines.

MONTGOMERYS OF MOVILLE 201

The 51st Highland Division, famous from El Alamein, crossed the river first and landed at Rees soon after 10 p.m. Next came the 1st Commando Brigade close to the town of Wesel, firmly held by German troops. Another Scottish division, the 15th, forced a passage at Xanten. They all belonged to General Dempsey's British Second Army. Montgomery had also under his command the U.S. Ninth Army, led by General Simpson. It crossed the Rhine during the night and established a bridgehead on the opposite shore. The Prime Minister himself was present during the operations, and only 48 hours after they began Churchill visited the Allied bridgehead, which had then a front of 30 miles. Both Montgomery and Sir Alan Brooke accompanied the Premier on this tour.

The whole front was now in motion. To the right of Mont­gomery's group was Bradley's group, and General Hodges, who commanded the First Army under this group, advanced from the bridgehead at Remagen. Patton, who belonged to the same group, also got his army across and made a dash into the open country on the other side. The French troops under de Tassigny penetrated into Baden.

On the 29th the Air Force reported that Montgomery's tanks were fanning out in all directions, with the Germans in a state of collapse, and on 2nd April they were already 100 miles east of the Rhine, moving in the direction of Hamburg and Bremen. The left wing of this group swept across Holland, cutting off the Germans in those parts. On 18th April the German forces in the Ruhr district surrendered. In all, twenty-one divisions were completely destroyed and over 400,000 prisoners taken during these operations. Bremen fell on the 26th, and by 4th May Montgomery had manoeuvred the German forces in the north into such a position that more than a million men had to surrender. After this there was practically no more ordered resistance, and the German forces in Denmark and Norway also laid down their arms.

On 12th May Montgomery paid a short visit to Denmark at the

202 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

invitation of the Danish King. He was received by the King and his people as their saviour. Two days later he was back in London and was cheered outside Whitehall by an enthusiastic crowd. He was now appointed Commander-in-Chief of the British Forces of Occupation and a member of the Allied Control Commission in Germany. In recognition of his services in the common cause, he has received the highest orders of Denmark, Holland and France.

Like all men in leading positions, Montgomery has been severely criticized, and there is no doubt that on some occasions he has made mistakes, even grave ones.

Montgomery's military operations have been examined in three American books:

General Eisenhower, Commander-in-Chief, Eisenhower's Own Story of the War, New York, 1946.

Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Ingersoll, American observer, some­time attached to Montgomery's staff, Top Secret, New York, 1946.

Captain Harry C. Butcher, attached to Eisenhower's staff, My Three Years with Eisenhower, New York, 1946.

Eisenhower's relation is all through correct and tactful. Re­ferring to the battle of Caen, Montgomery's handling of the tactical situation is even called ' masterly.' There is not a word of complaint against his subordinate commander to be found in the book. To find criticism we must look for passages where there is no praise bestowed upon him. Ingersoll and Butcher, on the other hand, put no restraint on their accounts. Their books offer entertaining reading, but, as commentaries to the official reports, must be used with careful scepticism. The authors are misinformed about the general plan of operations and their criticism badly overshoots the mark.

In his brilliant biography, Montgomery, London, 1946, Alan Moorehead defends Montgomery against his American critics.

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F M O V I L L E 203

But if they are biased this may be said with equal reason about Moorehead. He does not admit that Montgomery made any mistakes during his great campaigns. Moreover, he is much too hard m his judgment of Auchinleck, who brought Rommel's big offensive to a standstill and who has a considerable share in Montgomery's victory at Ruweisat Ridge as organizer of the defence long before Montgomery's arrival. Moorehead also gives Montgomery all the credit for raising a panzer army in the desert This was primarily the result of the combined efforts of Churchill Roosevelt, Auchinleck and Alexander.

Among Irishmen Montgomery is not exactly popular, since he did a very thorough job in his expedition to Ireland in 1920. Moorehead makes the following reference to these events:

"Montgomery, with his protestant Irish background, did not have his loyalties divided; he went most willingly and technically into the fight and continued it until all the leading rebels were killed or caught; and Lloyd George having got his truce with­drew the British troops."

In Operation Victory Major-General Sir Francis De Guingand Montgomery's Chief-of-Staff from Alamein to the final surrender m Germany, has given a well-balanced and impartial account of the great drama, in which he himself played a prominent part.

Based on first-hand information, the book is an extremely valu­able contribution to the history of Montgomery's campaigns. But De Guingand's defence of the operations in the Bocage country, where Montgomery lost the major part of his armour, is not con­vincing. ' I don't see what Ingersoll expected us to do,' he writes. 'We were committed to this sector and we would just have to fight our way out.' It should be noted that Ingersoll is very explicit on this point. How to deal with the Bocage country was to him essentially an infantry problem, and the best remedy for the hedge­rows was artillery concentration. There was also the tank-dozer.

De Guingand sides with Eisenhower against Montgomery's plan to finish off the war in 1944 by one single thrust across the

2o 4 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

Rhine north of the Ruhr into the heart of Germany. The moral effect of such a bold stroke, if successful, would have been great, but for various reasons De Guingand thinks that the plan would have been fraught with too grave danger.

On the whole, De Guingand is mild in his judgment of Mont­gomery's weaknesses and a great admirer of his strong points. But an observant reader will find sharp criticism in veiled allusions. Comparing the different qualities of Alexander and Montgomery he writes about the former: 'He was self-effacing and always generous in allowing his subordinates their full measure of reward and praise,' implying, without saying so, that Montgomery lacked these qualities.

In the concluding pages he sums up the characteristics of a great general. 'He should not be pompous' are the last words of that summary, and indeed of the whole book.

The chief point raised against Montgomery by his American critics refers to his handling of the tactical situation at Caen and Falaise. We shall admit that on these occasions the British armour suffered heavily owing to the fact that Montgomery had dis­regarded the importance of the enemy's artillery, especially the mass of 88-millimetre guns, but apart from this the execution of his plan of operation was fundamentally sound.

The following plan was presented to the General Officers under his command on 7th April 1944:

'The intention is to assault, simultaneously, beaches on the Normandy coast immediately North of the Carentan estuary and between the Carentan estuary and the River Orne, with the object of securing, as a base for further operations, a lodgement area: which is to include airfield sites and the port of Cherbourg. The left or Eastern flank of the lodgement area is to include the road centre of Caen. Once ashore and firmly extablished, my plan is to threaten to break out on the Eastern flank—that is in the Caen sector; by this threat to draw the main enemy reserves into that

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F M O V I L L E 205

sector, to fight them there and keep them there, using the British and Canadian armies for the purpose. Having got the main reserves committed on the Eastern flank, my plan is to make the breakout on the Western flank, using for this task the American armies under General Bradley, and pivoting on Caen; this attack is to be delivered Southwards down to the Loire and then to proceed Eastwards in a wide sweep up to the Seine about Paris. This will cut off all the enemy forces South of the Seine, over which river the bridges are to be destroyed by air action.'

In his version of the plan of operations Eisenhower does not mention the object of drawing the main enemy reserves into the Caen sector, nor does he refer to the intention of making the right wing pivot on Caen. Instead, he makes the surprising statement that all the ports of Brittany down to Nantes should be captured as essential supply bases before the American army moved on in the general direction of Paris.

The operations developed exactly according to the plan given out by Montgomery. By his threat to Caen he drew the main German forces towards his own Army Group, which, as a conse­quence, saw some very hard fighting. After the breakout the U.S. Army Group began to swing east on 5th August, leaving the VIII Corps to cope with the situation on the Brittany peninsula. On the 7th the Germans launched their counter-stroke in the direction of Mortain with strong armoured forces. Their object was to cut off Patton's army on the extreme right from the main body.

For a moment the situation looked critical, and a false move by the Commander-in-Chief would have had the most disastrous consequences. But Montgomery at once saw his chance. Pressing on with his own forces from the north he ordered the U.S. X V Corps to turn north from Le Mans, and Bradley to fence off the German attack at Mortain. The Americans held their ground magnificently and the whole of Rommel's Seventeenth Army,

2o6 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

including a mass of tanks, was caught in a pocket. Most of these forces were afterwards destroyed or captured. This decisive victory had as immediate result the liberation of France.

The American critics are wrong in stating that Bradley followed his own plans, supposed to be better than Montgomery's. Eisen­hower makes it quite clear that the U.S. X V Corps turned north on the receipt of Montgomery's order, and that Bradley, after a conference at his headquarters on ioth August, decided to support Montgomery in closing the Mortain-Falaise pocket.

On the other hand, it cannot be denied that on some occasions Montgomery exposed his troops and armour to unnecessary risks by underestimating the importance of the enemy's artillery. At the battle of Alamein Montgomery ought to have spotted the enemy's battery positions better than he did and neutralized the German and Italian artillery before his infantry advanced. As it was, the enemy's artillery had time to cause considerable damage to British troops and armour.

At the battles of Caen Montgomery made the same mistake. He ran his armour in successive waves dead on to the depressed barrels of the German Flak artillery hidden behind the hedgerows. This was first of all a case of bad reconnoitring for which the Commander-in-Chief was responsible. After a few days of battle the major portion of his armour lay crumpled up before the hedgerows. In one day alone over 150 tanks were reported out of action in three armoured divisions. This recklessness cost Mont­gomery his reputation among the Americans.

The severe reverse at Arnhem on 17th September 1944, when a British airborne division was dropped in the middle of a German armoured corps and almost completely destroyed, was also a case of bad reconnoitring. General Eisenhower refers to this incident in the following passage: 'By 23rd September the position of the (British) i Airborne Division (dropped farthest North in the Arnhem area) had become so precarious that the Second Army gave 30 Corps permission to withdraw the division if the situation

MONTGOMERYS OF M O V I L L E 207

did not improve. . . . This was effected that night Casualties had been heavy, the division losing in killed, wounded and missing some 7000 men.'

In his reflections on the battle of Arnhem (Normandy to the Baltic, 1947, p. 148) Montgomery writes: 'We had undertaken a difficult operation, attended by considerable risks. It was justified because, had good weather obtained, there was no doubt that we should have attained full success.' On these points opinions might differ.

Montgomery has a strong sense of duty and demands much both of himself and of his men. He is an indomitable and pro­ficient soldier who inspired his men and the whole British nation with confidence at a critical time. Owing to the wide scope of modern warfare Montgomery's actions cover more ground than those of any other man dealt with in this book. But we must not conclude therefore that he is greater than they. Each man must be judged by the measures of his own time. Backed by the entire might of the Anglo-Saxon nations, Montgomery was one of the dominating personalities of the Second World War. His simple life and common touch appealed to the public fancy. Apart from the reverse at Arnhem he has never lost a battle. Alamein, Mareth, Castagirone, Lentine, Catania, Calabria, Taranto, Brindisi, Bari| Sangro, Caen, Falaise, the Maas, the Ardennes and the Rhine is certainly a remarkable record.

In the New Year's List 1946 Montgomery was raised to the peerage as Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, and later in the same year he became a Knight of the Garter. On 26th June he succeeded Lord Alanbrooke as Chief of the Imperial General Staff.

He is a widower and has one son, David.

Lord Montgomery's elder brother, Harold, is also a man of distinction. He was Chief Native Commissioner of Kenya Colony, 1934-37-

MONTGOMERYS OF BEAULIEU

B L A S O N

Shield : Montgomery-Eglinton all within a bordure of the second charged with a double tressure of the third.

Crest: An arm in armour embowed the hand grasping a broken spear head drooping all proper.

Motto : Patriae infelici fidelis.

A L E X A N D E R M O N T G O M E R Y , one of Scotland's / \ greatest poets, was born about 1546. Some of his bio-

/ \ ^ graphers have given 1556 as the year of his birth. This must be a mistake, for the Bannatyne Manuscript, written in 1568, contains some of his earlier poems, which could hardly have been written by a boy of twelve.

Alexander was the son of John Montgomery, fourth Laird of Hessilheid, and his mother was Margaret, daughter of John Fraser of Knok. Some of Alexander's biographers state that his mother was the daughter of Houston of Houston, the wife of the third Laird, but William Montgomery of Rosemount definitely states that Alexander was 'mother brother to our 6th Laird.' Thus he must have been son of the fourth Laird.

According to Pont (Cuninghame Topographized) and others, Alexander was born at Hessilheid Castle. There is no evidence, however, to prove this statement, and Montgomery tells us in his poem Navigatioun T am ane Germane borne.' This is by no means impossible, since at that time many Scotsmen served in foreign countries. It has been brought up as an argument against a literal interpretation of Montgomery's words that they are succeeded by the following passage :

' Thogt I have been in many countrey strange, Thrug all Europe, Afrik, and Asia, And thrugh the neu fund out America.'

This may be an exaggeration, but there is no reason to doubt 208

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F B E A U L I E U 209 that Montgomery took part in the expedition to Constantinople which he describes in the same poem, and during this voyage visited many ports in Asia Minor, Africa and Europe. The Laird of Braidstone-his brother-in-law-and the Laird of Skelmorly had their own ships, with which they alternately traded and pnvateered. It seems quite likely that Alexander took part in some of these family trips. It is also possible that he undertook journeys m the service of the Regent.

Alexander is supposed to have spent his childhood at Hessilheid Castle. According to Sir Patrick Hume (The Fiyting), he was sent to Argyllshire to be educated. Whether he went to school or received private tuition is not known. In any case, his classical education must have been excellent and thorough judging by the perfect way m which he handled the metrical art of poetry and by the knowledge of classical history and mythology so often displayed in his compositions. But he never fell for the temptation of over­loading his songs with Latin and other foreign expressions. His style was rich and fluent, yet he kept the Scottish language pure and his writings are therefore an invaluable source for students of philology.

Montgomery resided forsorne time at Compston Castle, situated in pretty country near the junction of the Dee and the Tarif, and it is generally assumed that his most brilliant poem, The Cherry and the Sloe, was written during the time he resided at that place.

It is clear, however, that the whole work was not written in a sequence, for the first part is concerned with love and nature, whereas the second part is a piece of moral philosophy. In both cases the slae bush in the valley represents evil, whereas the cherry tree full of ripe fruit standing on a high rock signifies the power of good. The query in the first part of the poem is whether it is worth every effort to win the woman one loves—the cherry—or whether one should be content with an object of lust—the slae in the valley. Hope, Courage and Will urge the poet—smitten by Cupid's shaft —to seek the higher aim, whereas Dread, Danger and Despair try

2IO H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

to dissuade him from such a perilous venture. The faculties Experience, Reason, Wit and Skill argue for and against with many quips and versified proverbs. In the end Reason wins the debate and the poet climbs the rock and plucks the ripe cherry. In the second part of the poem the cherry represents Virtue, and the result of the struggle is the same—the poet tastes the fruit:

' For even as we came to the tree, Quhilk, as ye heard me tell, Could not be clum, their suddenlie The fruit for rypeness fell. Quhilk haisting and taisting, I find myself relievd Of cairs all and sairs all That mynd and body grievd.'

The whole poem is characterized by grace, beauty and an extraordinary felicity of expression. The introductory verses give a vivid picture of the wild life in his grounds in the early morning :

' I saw the hurcheoun and the hair, Quha fed amangis the flowris fair,

Wer happing to and fro : I saw the cunning and the cat, Quhais with dew was wat,

With mony beistis mo. The hart, the hynd, the dae, the rae,

The fomart, and the foxe War skowping all fra brae to brae;

Amang the water broxe; Sum feiding, sum dreiding In cais of sudden snairis; With skipping and tripping They hantit all in pairis.'

In 1577 Montgomery was in the service of the Regent, Morton, and occupied some position which gave him the title of Captain. On the accession of James VI he passed over to his service and

MONTGOMERYS OF BEAULIEU 2 1 1

became Poet Laureate at his court. He seems to have been a great favourite with the King, who included many of Montgomery's poems m his Revelis of Scottùh Poésie published in 1582. The same year Montgomery was awarded a pension of 500 Marks. After this he seems to have fallen into disgrace, probably because of the part taken by the Earl of Eglinton in the Raid of Ruthven. In 1586 he got the King's permission to travel abroad. In his farewell poem to the King he wrote:

' Sen wryt, nor wax, nor word is not a word : I must perforce ga seik my fathers suord.'

This statement seems to indicate that his father was a warrior. He probably accompanied Jacques de Montgomery, Seigneur de Lorges, to France in 1546, and perhaps he is identical with that John Montgomery who appears in the muster rolls of the Men-at-Arms in 1550 and 1554. He died before 1556 and may have been killed in the war against the Emperor.

Alexander went to Holland and was appointed captain of a company of infantry on 24th July 1586 (Algemeen Rijksarkiv, Raad van State, no. 1524). His brother-in-law, Adam Montgomery, fifth Laird of Braidstone, was a captain in Colonel Balfour's regi­ment in the Dutch service. In 1588 Alexander was put in prison by an order of the Council of the States, probably owing to arrears of pay. At the same time his Scottish pension was withheld. Alexander wrote from his prison a mournful complaint against the unkindness of his companions :

' No wonder thoght I waill and weip, That womplit am in woes;

I sigh, I sobbe, vhen I suld sleep ; My spreit can not repose.

My person is in prisone pynit, And my companions so unkind, Melancholie mischievis my mind,

That I cannot rejose.'

212 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

Montgomery was eventually released and returned to Scotland, where he started a lawsuit for the recovery of his pension. It was renewed by a writ of privy seal in March 1589. In some of his poems Montgomery was very bitter against the legal authorities. This evoked the following declaration by Lord Hades, one of the advocates of Edinburgh : ' The poem only tends to evince how poor how very poor, genius appears, when its compositions are debased by the meanest prejudices of the meanest vulgar,' a very hard judgment which does not speak highly for the integrity of the man who said it.

Alexander Montgomery was never happy. Al l his lite he had to struggle against money difficulties and bad health. In one of his poems he wrote the following striking passage which clearly shows that he was far from satisfied with his fate :

' Quhy wes my mother blyth when I wes borne, Quhy heght the weirds my weilfare to advance, Quhy wes my birth on Eister day at morne,

Quhy did Apollo then appeir to dance, Quhy gave he me good morrow with a glance,

Quhy leugh he in his golden chair and lap, Since then the hevins are hinderers of my hap.'

That he felt i l l and very sad at times appears from one of his

sonnets : ' This is no lyfe that I leid up-a-land,

On raw red herring reisted in the reik, Syn I am subject som tyme to be seik, And daily deing of my auld deceis, Ait bread, ill aill, and all things are an eik, This barme and blaidry buists up all my bees.'

There is no doubt that some of his writings, especially the sonnets, were influenced by the Italian school. In one of them he likens his own miserable fate to that of the great classical poets, the only consolation in his distress.

MONTGOMERYS OF BEAULIEU 213 ' If lose of guids, if gritest grudge or grief, If poverty, imprisonment or pane, If for guid-will ingratitude agane, If languising in languor but relief, If det, if dolour, and to become deif, If traveil tint, and labour lost in vain, Do properly to poets appertane,— Of all that craft my chance is to be chief; With August, Virgill waunted his reward, And Ovid's lote as Iukless as the lave, Quhill Homer lived, his hap was very hard, Yit, when he died, sevin cities for him strave, Thoght I am not lyk one of them in arte, I pingle them perfytle in that parte.'

It is interesting to compare this sonnet with Kipling's I f The greatest of all Scottish poets, Robert Burns, was much in­fluenced by Montgomery and even adopted his style and ex­pressions.

One of Alexander's sisters was the mother of Sir William Mure, also a great poet, who recognized the debt he owed to his uncle' in these words :

' Matchless Montgomery, in his native tongue, In former times to that great sire hath sung; And often ravished his harmonious ear, With strains fit only for a prince to hear. My muse which nought doth challenge worthy fame, Save from Montgomery she her birth doth claim— Although his Phoenix ashes hath set forth Pan for Apollo, if compared in worth— Pretendeth title to supply his place, By right hereditar to serve they grace.'

Montgomery's great love was apparently Margaret Douglas daughter of Sir William Douglas of Drumlanrig. But she preferred Robert Montgomery of Skelmorly, whom she married.

2 i 4 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

While Alexander was still kept in suspense by this lady he

wrote : ' For murning I may be they mirthles match :

As thou art banished, so am I exyld; As thou art trumped, so am I begyld Thou art unweirdit, I a woful wretch;

Thou art ashamed to shau they secret smart; My ladyis bagie beirs my bluidy heart.'

In the last line he alludes to the heart in the Douglas arms. He was also a great admirer of Lady Margaret Montgomery,

elder daughter of Hugh, third Earl of Eglinton, to whom he wrote poems both before and after her marriage to Lord Seton. The following verse was probably meant for her and written when he plied his suit:

' My lady has ane hairt of stone so hard, On me to rew scho hes no regard, But bustously I am debard

Ay by, And every man gettis sum reward

Bot I.'

After her marriage to Seton he wrote :

' O happy bounds, vher dayly yit scho dwells, Vhich Inde and Egypts happynes excells ! O happy bed vharin sho sail be laid ! O happy babe in belly sho sail breid !

Bot happyer he that hes that hap indeid, To mak both wyfe and mother of that maid.'

A duel in ink between Montgomery and another servant of the court, Sir Patrick Hume of Polwarth, created some sensation, but the work they produced in common under the title of The Flyting contains little of value—since the whole object with this poem is to throw as much dirt as possible on the opponent. For coarse invective, rudeness and vulgarity Sir Patrick certainly wins the day.

MONTGOMERYS OF BEAULIEU 215 Montgomery wrote several devotional poems of great beauty

and also a few epitaphs, which prove that he had other strings to

his lute than those on which he generally played. Here is one :

' Good Robert Scot, sen thou art gone to God, Cheif of our souerane College Justice Clerks,

Vho, vhill thou livd, for honestie wes od, As wryt beirs witnes of they worthy werks:

So faithfull, formall, and so frank and frie Sall nevir use that office eftir thee.'

A more striking passage and a better testimonial to posterity is hard to find. Montgomery's poetry was loved by the Scottish people, and before Burns he was the most read poet in Scotland fcven to-day his own people enjoy the reading of his graceful and pregnant poems.

The year of his death is not known with certainty, but the edition of The Cherry and the Slae printed by Andro Hart in 1615 contains the information that it was revised by the author shortly before his death.

Alexander was married, but the name of his wife is not known According to Paterson he had a son, also named Alexander, ancestor of the Montgomerys of Beaulieu, and a daughter Margaret

Alexander, younger, was prebendary of Doe in the county of Donegal. During the Great Rebellion he got a commission and served as an officer with great distinction all through that hard campaign. He died in 1658. His epitaph, written by Alexander McCausland, contains the following couplets:

' Fitt to convince, or hew an Agag down, Feirce in his arms, and priestlike in his gown, These characters were due as all may see To our Divin and brave Montgomery.'

Montgomery was married to Margaret, daughter of Sir Albert Cunningham, and had by her a son John, who was a major in the

2 i 6 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

army. He died in x6 7 9 , leaving three sons, all fession: John of Castle Oghrey; Alexander, colonel; and Robert, an officer in the 3rd Regiment. ,

The eldest son, John, designated of Cragan (or Croghan), had three sons: John Alexander, ancestor of the Montgomerys of

th Montgomerys of Beaulieu and the Montgomery-Moores; and Robert! ancestor of the Montgomerys of Bessmount.

MAJOR-GENERAL RICHARD MONTGOMERY

Richard Montgomery was third son of Thomas Montgomery M.P . for Lifford, a grandson of Alexander Montgomery of Ballyleck and descendant in the eighth generation of Alexander the poet He was born at Swords in the county of Dublin on 2nd December 1776. After going to school at St. Andrews he studied at Tnnity College, Dublin, and was graduated there at the age of eighteen. Although sufficiently intelligent for a learned profession he pre­ferred the life of a soldier, and after some militarygraining he got a commission in the 17th Regiment of infantry, which soon after­wards sailed for North America.

Montgomery was present with his regiment at the siege ot Louisburg. On several occasions he distinguished himself for bravery, and superior officers expressed their admiration of his knowledge and good judgment in military matters. In 1702 he was promoted to captain and took part in the expeditions to Martinique and Havana. During these operations m a very trying climate, struggling against enemies and tropical disease he shared the hardships of his men in a most heroic manner. After nine years' service as captain he returned to Ireland. For some mys­terious reason his promotion in the army was stopped, and in 1773 he made up his mind to emigrate.

During his short stay in Ireland he had made the acquaintance ot several liberal leaders and was very much impressed with their new

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F B E A U L I E U 217

ideas. They had found a fertile soil in the American colonies, where Montgomery soon made many friends among people who shared his views. He purchased a farm at King's Bridge near New York and a bigger place on the banks of the Hudson. Soon after his arrival in America he married the daughter of Robert Livingstone, an influential judge. The marriage was a happy one but for the fact that there were no children. Montgomery mostly lived with his wife on her estate, Grassmere near Rembeck.

When the War of Independence broke out in 1775 Montgomery had to make his choice between his old country and his new. It was no easy matter for a late officer in the British army to side with the enemies of Britain. However, he took this course, consoling his conscience with the argument 'that the will of an oppressed people, compelled to choose between liberty and slavery, must be respected.' The injustice done to him by his superior officers in the British Army whereby his career was stopped may also have influenced his decision.

Montgomery was nominated to represent Duchess County in the first New York provincial convention and accepted the appointment. Not long afterwards he was appointed Brigadier-General and got the command of the 1st Division in the expeditionary force raised by Congress for the purpose of conquering Canada. During the initial stages of the ensuing campaign the Americans were success­ful. Montgomery seized the important strategic point Isle-aux-Noix and reduced the fortresses of Chambly and St. John. On 12th November the town of Montreal surrendered, and with it fell into the hands of the conqueror enormous booty comprising stores of food, arms and ammunition together with eleven fully armed and equipped ships.

The rejoicing and pride in America over the achievements of the young army were indescribable, and in a few months Mont­gomery had become a national hero. He himself had apprehensions and warned his friends at home against too great an optimism. There were serious difficulties ahead, and before Quebec had fallen

2i8 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

there was no time for rejoicing. The American troops, which had been largely recruited from the rabble, were ill disciplined, and Montgomery complained in a letter to his father-in-law, 'Here is every man a general, and not one of them a soldier.' In spite of all this the operations had so far been successful and the forces of Montgomery and Arnold met according to the agreed plan before

the walls of Quebec. . The two generals invested the town, but ere the siege had

reached the decisive stage the British Commander, General Carleton, was called upon to surrender. His reply was to fire upon the flag of truce and return it. On New Year's Eve, Montgomery gave the order for a final assault. The American troops advanced in a blinding snowstorm and took the first barricade without difficulty. Montgomery led the attack in person with his two A.D.C.s and was slightly ahead of his troops. In a little house overlooking the second barricade two British guns were hidden, and as the assailants appeared they fired upon them point blank at a distance of only thirty yards. Montgomery fell mortally wounded and his men turned tail, leaving their general in the hands of the British. Carleton, who saw his chance, made a sally from the town, capturing 400 Americans, or nearly half the besieging force. The result of this campaign was that not only Quebec but the whole of Canada remained in British hands.

Montgomery, who was terribly mauled, died soon after his capture. Although he had fought against his own country, the British gave him a great funeral with military honours. When his death was announced in America many people cried as if they had lost their dearest friend, and in the British Parliament Edmund Burke praised the skill and bravery of the American Commander, who had once been a British officer.

By order of Congress and with permission from the British authorities the remains of Montgomery were transferred to St. Paul's Church, New York, forty years after his death. A marble

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F B E A U L I E U 219

monument which had previously been raised in front of the church bears the following inscription :

' This monument was erected by order of Congress 25th Jan. 1776 to transmit to posterity a grateful remembrance of the patriotism, conduct, enterprise and perseverance of Major-General Richard Montgomery, who after a series of successes, amidst the most discouraging difficulties, fell in the attack of Quebec, 31st Dec. 1775,

aged 38 years.' General Richard Montgomery had two uncles: John, from

whom are descended the Montgomerys of Beaulieu; and Robert, the ancestor of the Montgomerys of Convoy House. Both these' estates are situated in Ireland.

JAMES MONTGOMERY, THE POET

was the son of John Montgomery, a Moravian (Herrnhuter) minister, born at Ballykennedy, County Antrim, in 1733. John's grandfather is said to have been the owner of an estate in Ireland and was probably the son of Robert, younger son of Major John Montgomery of Castle Oghrey by his first wife, Catherine Auchin­leck. Curiously enough, James would thus be a direct descendant of Alexander Montgomery the Poet, since John of Castle Oghrey was Alexander's great-grandson.

James was born in Scotland, more precisely at Irvine in Ayr­shire, on 4th November 1771. Four years later his father returned with his family to Ireland, and at the age of six James was sent to the Moravian school at Fulneck in Yorkshire. He was only twelve when his parents went to Barbados as missionaries, and he soon lost them altogether, for his mother died in 1790 and the following year his father was carried off by yellow fever.

Montgomery was destined to become a minister of the sect, and consequently received a very careful education, including Latin, Greek, German, English literature, history, geography and music. His poetical vein was early developed and he wrote his first little book of poetry before he was ten years old. But 'unsuitable'

220 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

literature was strictly sorted out by the masters at Fulneck, and Montgomery's genius had to feed on very scanty food. Blair and Blackmore were permitted, but even Milton, Thomson and Young were censored before they were put into the boys' hands. At the age of fifteen Montgomery completed his first great poem, Alfred. His mind and style were essentially classic—Homer and Milton were his great models. But now and then he also trod forbidden paths, as when he read some stray poems of Robert Burns in newspapers he happened to get hold of. This stirred in him other feelings, and there is no doubt that Burns's unattainable mastery impressed Montgomery, although it would be wrong to say that it helped to shape his Muse. For this it was far too independent and original. But Montgomery was all his life an admirer of Scotland's great son. He only deplored that such greatness was coupled with serious moral defects.

Montgomery's poem Robert Burns is one of the best he has written. It begins:

'What bird, in beauty, flight, or song, Can with the Bard compare, Who sang as sweet, and soar'd as strong, As ever child of air ?

His plume, his note, his form, could Burns For whim or pleasure change; He was not one, but all by turns, With transmigration strange.

The Swan in majesty and grace, Contemplative and still ; But roused—no Falcon, in the chase, Could like his satire kill.

Oh ! had he never stoop'd to shame, Nor lent a charm to vice, How had devotion loved to name That Bird of Paradise ! '

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F B E A U L I E U 221

Montgomery, who was brought up from childhood to be a God-fearing, God-loving man, was shocked to hear of the life led by Burns and of the way in which he died. But his mind was far too generous to let this influence his judgment of Burns as a poet. His admiration was deep and sincere.

'Peace to the Dead!—In Scotia's choir Of Minstrels great and small, He sprang from his spontaneous fire, The Phœnix of them all.'

After ten years of studies at Fulneck, Montgomery longed for his freedom and ran away from school with only three and sixpence m his pocket and a packet of his own poetry. Life was not kind to him during his first period of freedom, but after many adventures he eventually found himself a clerk and book-keeper at the Sheffield Register, at that time the only newspaper in Sheffield. Besides his routine work he found the opportunity of developing his literary talents by contributions to that paper. His writings were appreci­ated by the public. At the age of only twenty-three he became the working editor of the Register and soon afterwards its owner. He was imprisoned twice, in 1795 and 1796, at York Castle, the first time for printing a ballad in commemoration of the fall of the Bastille, the second time for having criticized the magistrate in dispersing a riotous assemblage. The real reason why he was imprisoned, however, was political. The Register, the name of which was changed to the Iris in 1794, had a very big circulation, and Montgomery's articles in favour of parliamentary reform had greatly annoyed the Government. For this reason he had to be chastened and the charges brought against him were only nominal.

In 1798 Montgomery published The Whisperer under the pseudonym of Gabriel Silvertongue. He was not, however, pleased with his own epos and afterwards destroyed all the copies he found in the market. One of his greatest poems, The Wanderer in Switzerland, was published in 1806. It proved a success. The

222 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

Edinburgh Review, it is true, described the author as 'a musical and melancholy fine gentleman, on the lower slopes of Parnassus, very weakly, very finical, and very affected,' but Wordsworth wrote that he felt lively interest in his destiny as a poet, and Lord Byron declared in a footnote to English Bards and Scotch Revtewers Xhrt The Wanderer in Switzerland was worth a thousand lyrical ballads Since it caught the public ear, it also brought the author a good

income. . . c

The Wanderer in Switzerland is based on the heroic struggle ot the Swiss nation against the French revolutionaries in 1798. We shall only quote a few passages in which Montgomery describes the attack of the guerilla bands from Unterwalden:

'Unterwalden thus expired; But at her expiring flame, With fraternal feeling fired, Lo ! a band of Switzers came.

From the steps beyond the lake, Like a winter's weight of snow, When the huge lavanges break, Devastating all below.

Down they rushed with headlong might, Swifter than the panting wind; All before them fear and flight; Death and silence all behind.

How the forest of the foe Bowed before their thunder strokes, When they lay the cedars low, When they overwhelmed the oaks !

Thus they hew'd their dreadful way; Till by numbers forced to yield. Terrible in death they lay, The avengers of the field.'

MONTGOMERYS OF BEAULIEU 223

In The West Indies, published in 1809, Montgomery appealed to the public for the abolition of the slave trade. He writes :

' Let nobler bards in loftier numbers tell How Cortez conquered, Montezuma fell; How fierce Pizzaro's ruffian arm o'erthrew The sun's resplendent empire in Peru; How, like a prophet, old Las Casas stood, And raised his voice against a sea of blood, Whose chilling waves recoil'd while he foretold His country's ruin by avenging gold.

But themes like these would ask an angel-lyre, Languages of light and sentiment of fire; Give me to sing, in melancholy strains, Of Charib martyrdoms and Negro chains; One race by tyrants rooted from the earth, One doom'd to slavery by the taint of birth.'

The poem ends with a touching picture of Britannia saving Africa from the slavery.

' She started from her trance !—and round the shore, Beheld her supplicating sons once more Pleading the suit so long, so vainly tried, Renew'd, resisted, promised, pledged, denied— The Negro's claim to all his Maker gave, And all the tyrants ravished from the slave. Her yielding heart confessed the righteous claim, Sorrow had soften'd it, and love o'ercame; Shame flush'd her noble cheek, her bosom burn'd; To helpless, hopeless Africa she turn'd; She saw her sister in the mourner's face, And rushed with tears into her dark embrace : " A l l hail !" exclaimed the empress of the sea— "Thy chains are broken—Africa, be free!" '

In 1812 Montgomery completed his big poem, The World Before the Flood. It is an ambitious work dealing with the people

2 2 4 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

and the world between the fall of man and the Deluge. It certainly fits better into seventeenth-century literature than it does with Burns, Byron and Coleridge. The Pelican Island and a poem on Greenland, based on the experiences of the Moravian mission to that part of the world, were his last more pretentious poetical efforts.

Montgomery wrote over a hundred hymns, some of great beauty and sincerity. They are still in use. In the years 1830-31 he lectured on Poetry at the Royal Institute. He also wrote the biographies of Dante, Ariosto and Tasso for the Cabinet Encyclo­paedia. As a critic he was always fair in his judgment. 4 A more thoroughly impartial critic never wrote,' says J. A . Hamilton in the Dictionary of National Biography. On the recommendation of Sir Robert Peel he was awarded a state pension in 1835.

That Montgomery was not immune to the charm of the opposite sex we know by his writings, but he never married. Whether he remained true to his first love or simply preferred the life of a bachelor we do not know. At any rate, his poem Hannah seems to suggest that his love affair turned out a bitter disappointment.

' At fond sixteen my roving heart Was pierced by Love's delightful dart : Keen transport throbb'd through every vein,— I never felt so sweet a pain !

Where circling woods embower'd the glade, I met the dear romantic maid : I stole her hand—it shrunk—but no, I would not let my captive go.

With all the fervency of youth, While passion told the tale of truth, I mark'd my Hannah's downcast eye— 'Twas kind, but beautifully shy.'

Then he tells how the angel of affliction rose and caused him

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F B E A U L I E U 225

much pain. In the end he decided to make Hannah his wife, but what happened ?

' I saw the village steeple rise— M y soul sprang, sparkling, in my eyes : The rural bells rang sweet and clear— M y fond heart listen'd in mine ear.

I reach'd the hamlet—all way gay; I love a rustic holyday; I met a wedding—stepp'd aside; It pass'd—my Hannah was the bride.

There is a grief that cannot feel; It leaves a wound that will not heal; — M y heart grew cold—it felt not then : When shall it cease to feel again?'

In the preface to his edition of Montgomery's poems Robert Willmott gives the following account of his character. He was a true poet, a kind friend, an honest patriot, and a sincere Christian Persecuted by the Aristocrats and abandoned by the Jacobins, he dared to be impartial in praise and blame. He was respected by all parties. With all his fancy he was a practical man, and success­fully put off the poet to become the chairman of a gas company.

Montgomery devoted much of his time to charity and, broad-minded as he was, co-operated with Christians of different creeds and sects. He died on 30th April 1854 and had a public funeral. A monument was erected over his grave in the Sheffield cemetery.

p

B A R O N E T S M O N T G O M E R Y O F S K E L M O R L Y

B L A S O N

Shield : Montgomery-Eglinton over all a two-handed sword in pale proper. Crest: A heart surmounted of an eye proper. Motto : Tout bien ou rien.

TH E first Laird of Skelmorly was George Montgomery, third son of Alexander, first Lord Montgomery. He lived in the middle of the fifteenth century, and the last Laird

of Skelmorly died in the middle of the eighteenth century. George had two sons: John, who became second Laird, and

Robert. John had a son Cuthbert, third Laird. His son George, the

fourth Laird, married Lady Catherine Montgomery, daughter of the first Earl of Eglinton. Their eldest son, Thomas, was 'vexit with franessy and nocht perfyte in his wittis.' He was nevertheless infefted as heir to his father in the lands of Skelmorly in 1562, his younger brother, Robert, being appointed his tutor. Robert succeeded to the estate as sixth Laird after his brother's death in 1566.

The Lairds of Skelmorly were deeply involved in the sanguinary feuds of Scotland and defended with never-failing courage the Earls of Eglinton in their struggle against the other great families, such as Cunningham and Maxwell. In March 1582 the rumour spread that Robert Montgomery, sixth Laird of Skelmorly, had killed Alexander Cunningham, son of the Earl of Glencairn, and in January 1583 Patrick Maxwell of Stainly was killed in a rencontre with Robert and his sons. But in April Patrick Maxwell of Newark found an opportunity of revenge. He killed not only Robert but his eldest son, William.

His second son, Robert, in this way became seventh Laird of Skelmorly. Determined to avenge the death of both his father and his brother, he hid in a turret in Newark Castle. His hiding-

226

HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS 227 place, however, was discovered. Maxwell went up to the turret and called out to Montgomery: 'Robin, come down to me, who have done you so good a turn as to make you young Laird and old Laird of Skelmorly in one day.' This good-humoured remark met with response, and the two Lairds are said to have been great friends from that night.

Three years later the young Earl of Eglinton was wavlaid and murdered by the Cunninghams. Robert Montgomery of Skelmorly then found himself called upon to open a veritable war of exter­mination against the enemies of the family. He is said to have 'set no bounds to his feudal wrath, but indulged in it with such eagerness as to occasion very much bloodshed of his enemies.' Since the Scottish feuds of those days were a more or less recog­nized feature of the moral code, these actions did not lose him his prestige. On the contrary, his reputation for courage was enormously enhanced. Although declared a rebel both in 1602 and 1607, he was knighted by James VI and made a Baronet by Charles I in 1628.

Sir Robert married Margaret, daughter of Sir William Douglas of Drumlanrig, worsting the other suitor, Alexander Montgomery the poet. In his old age Sir Robert was seized with remorse and turned very pious. He died in 1651 at the age of eighty-seven.

He was succeeded by his son Robert, who became eighth Laird and second Baronet. His great-grandson Hugh, fifth Baronet, was Rector of Glasgow College. On his death in 1735 the direct male line of the Montgomerys of Skelmorly became extinct. The Skelmorly estate was inherited by Lilias, daughter of the fourth Baronet, who married Alexander Montgomerie of Coilsfield, great-grandson of Alexander Seton, sixth Earl of Eglinton. Hugh, son of Alexander and Lilias, became twelfth Earl of Eglinton in 1796, the domains of Eglinton and Skelmorly being then once more united.

MONTGOMERYS OF GIFFEN

TH E first laird of Giffen was Robert, second son of John de Montgomery, Knight, Lord of Ardrossan and Giffen. ^ > £ r ' .

The second Laird was John de Montgomery of Giffen, Seigneur d'Azay, third son of Alexander, first Lord Montgomery. His son, Sir William Montgomery, third Laird of Giffen, is mentioned in a bond by David Liddayle dated 3rd November 1465. From an instrument of revocation by Jonet Houston, his widow, we know that he died before 10th March 1471.

From the same document we know that he was succeeded by his eldest son, Robert (Rot. Scacc. Reg. Scot., 1479), fourth Laird of Giffen. He married Margaret Blayr and had by her four sons: Alexander, fifth Laird; John; Constantin and Thomas. In a procuratory for receiving certain lands dated 7 t h September 1484 Hugh, Lord Montgomery, calls John Montgomery of Giffen (of the house of Giffen) 'my beluffit cusing.' John was the son of his second cousin.

Alexander Montgomery, younger, of Giffen, and his wife Jonet de Dunlop are mentioned in a charter by Hugh, Lord Montgomery, 29th August 1483. A dispute between him and his mother was settled by a decree arbitral on 22nd November 1501, and four days later he was served heir to his father in the lands of Giffen.

Patrick Montgomery of Giffen and his son Robert Montgomery of Giffen, sixth and seventh Lairds, are mentioned in a confirma­tion by James V of a gift of Hugh, Earl of Eglinton, to his daughters, of various wards, dated 22nd October 1515. According to this arrangement, his daughter Isobel was to marry Robert Montgomery of Giffen. According to Fraser this marriage never took place, smce Lady Isobel married John Mure of Caldwell. It seems probable, however, that this was her second marriage, for Hugh, third Earl of Eglinton, calls Hugh Montgomery of Giffen, Robert's grandson, ' our weilbelouit cousin ' (Bond of Maintenance, 10th October 1572).

228

H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S 229 Patrick, eighth Laird of Giffen, is mentioned in an act of

revocation by Hugh, third Earl of Eglinton, dated 30th September 1561, and also m the Military Report of Scotland 1563-66 [Archaeo­logical Collections of Ayr, IV, 24). Hugh Montgomery of Giffen was the ninth Laird. Hugh, tenth Laird, and also his sons Daniel and Hezekiel, are mentioned in a commission by James VI to Neil Montgomery of Lainshaw, dated 6th October 1590. The lands of Eglinton passed to Robert, Master of Eglinton, brother of Hugh fourth Earl of Eglinton. '

M O N T G O M E R Y S OF G I F F E N AND

BARONETS G R A H A M - M O N T G O M E R Y OF STANHOPE

Alexander, first Lord Montgomery Robert, first Laird

John, third son, second Laird of Giffen, Seigneur d'Azay-le-Rideau, Constable of Scots Army in France,

m. Marie d'Aussigny, d. 1445

Sir William, third Laird of Giffen, m. Jonet Houston, d. b. 10.1.14.71

I Robert, fourth Laird of Giffen, m.

Margaret Blayr

of Giffen

Alexander, fifth Laird John Constantin Thomas

Patrick, sixth Laird Adam

Robert, seventh Laird Tro'ilus

Adam of Macbiehill

Robert of Macbiehill Mathew Margaret Agnes, m. George Mont­ai S N O V e ° ™ ^ f ° " " h s ° n of the d. 8th Nov. 1603 fifth L a i r d o f S k e I m o r l y

I I I John Jonet Margaret

William James (Stanhope Pedigree)

BARONETS GRAHAM-MONTGOMERY OF STANHOPE

B L A S O N

Shield- Quarterly first and fourth counterquartered Montgomery-Eglinton over all dividing the quarters a cross waved of the second charged with a star betwixt four crescents of the first second and third argent a heart crowned proper on a chief sable three escallops or all within a bordure ermine for Graham.

Crest : For Montgomery a female figure representing hope for Graham an escallop or.

Motto: For Montgomery 'garde bien' for Graham 'spero meliora.'

THIS branch of the family is descended from Adam, younger son of Alexander, fifth Laird of Giffen. His son Troilus had a son Adam of Macbiehill, merchant-burgess

of Edinburgh (Skelmorly Writs). He left the sons Robert of Macbiehill and Mathew, and the daughters Margaret and Agnes, the latter married to George Montgomery, fourth son of the fifth Laird of Skelmorly.

Robert of Macbiehill, who died on 8th November 1603, was married to Marion Holmes and had by her a son John and two daughters, Jonet and Margaret (Edinburgh Test., 26th April 1605). John had two sons William and James. In 1704 William Montgomery of Macbiehill, by an Act of Parliament, got permission to 'manufacture lame, porcelain and earthenware' (Acts of Pari. C. 12 XI) . In 1712 he bought Goldcoat in the county of Peebles, and called this estate after his ancestral home in Ayrshire except that the name was spelt Magbiehill.

The first Montgomery of Magbiehill had a son William, whose son William was member of the Irish Parliament and was created a Baronet in 1774. Sir William had a younger

230

HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS 231 brother, Sir James, who became Lord Advocate of Scotland in 1766. He is the ancestor of the Baronets Graham-Montgomery of Stanhope in Scotland. His grandson, the third Baronet was Lieutenant-General and Lord Lieutenant of Kinross. The present holder of the title is Sir Henry Purvis-Russell-MontRomerv of Stanhope. J

COMTES AND MARQUIS DE MONTGOMERY DE LORGES

B L A S O N S

Gabriel, Comte de Montgomery, 1573 (Public Record Office, State Papers, vol. 70).

Isabelle de la Touche, Com­tesse de Montgomery (Ibid., vol. 78).

Jean, Comte de Montgomery, 1640.

Nicholas, Comte de Mont­gomery, 1720.

Shield: quartered in each field three escallops.

Shield: Party per pale sinister two fields in each three escallops dexter a lion rampant.

Shield: quartered first and fourth gules three escallops or second and third azure three fleurs-de-lis or.

Shield : azure a lion rampant or lampassé argent.

TH E earliest known record as to the origin of this family is found in the Military Report of Scotland 1563-66 (Archaeological Collections of Ayr, IV, 24). With reference

to the Larde of Geven (Patrick Montgomery of Giffen, a lineal descendant of Sir William Montgomery of Giffen, vide p. 228) the report makes the following statement: 'of this house came Lorge in France.' Thus we know by documentary evidence that the Montgomerys of Lorges belonged to the Giffen branch of the Scottish family.

The ancestor of this branch was Sir John de Montgomery ot Giffen, third son of Alexander, first Lord Montgomery (vide note, p. 108). In France he seems sometimes to have been called Jean' de Lorges, for a gentleman of this description was among 'the Lords, Chiefs and Captains of the Scots nation' who accom­panied Charles VII on his march to Reims in July 1429 (Bibl. Nat., fond français, 7858, fol. 39, and Sorbonne, 1105, fol. 33). Godefroy has also made a note of George (should probably be John)

232

GABRIEL DE MONTGOMERY KILLS HENRY II AT THE JOUST IN I5S9 Contemporary engraving

MONTGOMERYS OF LORGES 233

Montgomery, Seigneur de Lorges in 1444 (Fond Godefroy, 526, fol. 26). It seems more likely that this title originally referred to the Scottish lands of Larges, in the barony of Giffen, as suggested by William Montgomery of Rosemount, than to Lorges-en-Beauce, which was held by other families as late as 1506. On 12th April 1469 the lands of Lorges in the county of Blois were repurchased 'en pleine délivrance' by Anthoine Berles (Bibl. Nat., nouv. acq. françaises, 3643, no. 908). In 1506 these lands were held by Jean Odes 'because of his wife Marie la Jaye' (Déclaration des vassaux de Blois, Bibi. Nat., fond français, 16183, fol. 185). Various pedigrees have tried to couple both René and Robert de Mont­gomery by marriage to an heiress in the Odes or Lodes family, but there is no evidence that such a marriage ever took place. It should be noticed also that the lands of Lorges-en-Beauce were not turned into a châtellenie until 1547 when Jacques de Mont­gomery obtained this favour (Archives de Loiret, Série A, 1763). How these lands came into his possession is not known, but it seems reasonable to assume that they were granted him by the King in recognition of his services with the object of finding a French substitute for his originally Scottish title.

In 1437 Sir John de Montgomery fought with Alan Stuart, Lord Darnley, on the French side at Montereau (Cabinet des titres, 684). His sister Margaret married Darnley's son and heir, Sir John Stuart. In 1442 Montgomery and his wife Marie d'Aussigny, sister of Thibaud d'Aussigny, Bishop of Orleans, obtained permission to fortify the land and town of Azay-le-Rideau. He was made Master of the Horse and Captain of the Scots Guards. In 1444 he succeeded Lord Darnley as Constable of the Scottish army in France (Trésor des Chartes, J.J. 179, fol. 176). When the French under the Dauphin defeated the Imperialists at Saint-Jacques near Bâle Montgomery was in command of the Scottish troops. He was said to be one of the greatest generals not only of the Scots but of the whole French army. Sir John, who was killed at the battle of Ebermunster in

234 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS

1445 (Mathieu d'Escouchy, I, 24 and Tuetey, Les Ecorcheurs, I, 317), left two sons: Sir William Montgomery of Giffen, who succeeded him in his Scottish lands, and René, Seigneur de Lorges.

On 3rd April 1464 René de Montgomery was called cup-bearer (échanson) to Mademoiselle d'Orléans, and on n th December he held the same post at the court of the Duke of Orleans (Bibl. Nat., Pièces originales, 2021, nos. 42, 43). In 1466 he was 'escuier tranchant' to Mademoiselle (Maulde la Clavière, Histoire de Louis X I I , Paris, 1889, I, 353). On 31st August he received 80L. 4s. 2d. from the Duchess of Orleans in order to supply her wedding dress (Bibl. Nat., fond français, 3643). René appears in the muster roll of the Men-at-Arms in 1469 and is mentioned for the last time in the court roll of the Duke of Orleans in i486 (Bibl. Nat., Pièces originales, 2162, no. 853).

Thibaud d'Aussigny, Bishop of Orleans, calls him his nephew (letter from the keeper of the records of Loiret to Commandant Collière). In various pedigrees René has been styled Seigneur de Lorges. He left two sons: Georges and Robert.

Georges de Montgomery, Seigneur de Lorges, accompanied Charles VIII to Naples in 1495 (Bibl. Nat., fond Godefroy, 526, fol. 26). He had two sons, François and Jacques, Seigneur de Lorges, of whom presently.

In 1474 Robert de Montgomery joined the company of a hundred guardsmen formed by Louis X I (Bibl. Nat., fond français, 7998 and Clairambault, 817, fol. 127). In July 1479 he received a grant of land and the lordship of Pontailler ' in recognition of the good and agreeable services rendered to his Majesty by the said de Montgomery' (Archives Saône-et-Loire, Série F , 575, fol. 223). He was knighted before 1495 and appointed Captain of the Castle of Talant (Archives de la Côte d'Or, Série B, 4530). In 1498 he appears for the last time in the muster roll of the Men-at-Arms. Through his marriage to Huguette de Courcelles, daughter of Philip de Courcelles, bailly of Dijon, he became Seigneur de Lantenay (Ibid., B, 1825). This act was confirmed by Louis X I

MONTGOMERYS OF LORGES 235

(Bibl. Nat., fond français, 5093, fol. 196). Thus his marriage must have taken place before 1483, the year of the king's death.

By his wife Huguette de Courcelles Robert had two sons: Louis de Montgomery, Seigneur de Pontailler, and Guillaume de Montgomery, Seigneur de Lantenay, married to Colette Rolin, daughter of Nicholas Rolin, Chancellor of Burgundy.

Louis joined the Men-at-Arms in 1507 and served for many years in the company of Robert Stuart, Count d'Aubigny. In 1545 he took part in the French expedition to Scodand as lieutenant to his cousin Jacques de Montgomery, Seigneur de Lorges. On his return journey from Scotland in January 1546 'with a number of archers and men-at-arms' he died at Vere in the Low Countries (Archives Saône-et-Loire, Série F, 687). Louis de Montgomery was seigneur of Pontailler, Charnay, Bragny, Pâques, Perrigny-sur-Lognon and Lantenay. He bought Charnay from François de Rupt and the purchase money was 11,000 livres (Ibid., F, 575, fol. 214).

Louis married first Anthoinette de Rabutin (Roger de Rabutin, Histoire Généalogique de la Maison de Rabutin, ed. Baune, 1866), and secondly Michelle de Maillot. By his second wife he had a son Philibert, Seigneur de Charnay, who seems to have died without issue, as he was succeeded by his sister Guillemette on 2nd March 1559 (Archives de la Côte d'Or, fond Peincedé, vol. 19).

JACQUES DE MONTGOMERY, SEIGNEUR DE LORGES François, eldest son of Georges de Montgomery, Seigneur de

Lorges, was killed in Frioul during the Venetian campaign in 1509. Brantôme makes the following reference to this incident: 'There was previously a very brave and gallant lieutenant who was Captain de Lorges, elder brother of that brave we have seen since who has long commanded many troops of foot and for his merits been made Captain of the Scots Guards of the King. That elder Lorges, lieutenant to the said Bonnet, died at the conquest of Frioul'

236 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS (Œuvres Complètes, Paris, 1864-82, V , 312). This statement makes it quite clear that Jacques took over command after his brother s death. Du Bellay, therefore, must be wrong in stating that François raised troops in 1521 (Mémoires, Paris, 1908, I, 124), a mistake corrected by the editors, V . L . Bourilly and F. Vindry.

From the history of Bayart we know that the elder Lorges was killed during the assault on Trévize : ' In the approaches was killed a gallant gentleman, the Seigneur de Lorges, lieutenant to Captain Bonnet who had a thousand foot; in his place was appointed his young brother, who has afterwards done fine things' (Histoire du Gentil Seigneur de Bayart, Paris, 1878, ed. Roman, p. 249). Thus we know that Jacques was young in 1509, probably about twenty.

In the Italian campaign 1515-16 he won his spurs. When François I crossed the Alps in August 1515 Montgomery com­manded French infantry in the vanguard under Charles de Bourbon, Constable of France. He played a prominent part in the battle of Marignano, 13th-14th September 1515, and 'maintained the reputation of the French arms ' (Daniel, Histoire de France, I, 31).

François I reintroduced the classic combats of wild animals (venationes) and had a special court where lions and tigers were baited. Brantôme (Œuvres Completes) tells us the following story from one of these events :

' I have heard a story from the ancient court, about a lady who was there, the mistress of the late Monsieur de Lorges, that fine man, in his younger days one of the bravest and most well known captains of infantry of his time. One day King François I had arranged a combat between lions at his court. The lady, having heard so much about the courage of her lover, dropped one of her gloves between the lions, which were then in a state of great fury, and asked Monsieur de Lorges to go and fetch it, if he loved her as much as he had declared. Not in the least perturbed, cap in one hand and sword in the other, he descended into the arena and advanced with complete assurance towards the lions to recover the glove. Fortune was kind to him, for, keeping his countenance

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F L O R G E S 237

and displaying great confidence when pointing his sword at the lions, they did not dare attack him. Having picked up the glove he returned to give it to his mistress, greatly admired by her and all the people present. But, so one says, Monsieur de Lorges left her, filled as he was with indignation at the way in which she had amused herself at the expense of him and of his valour. Others say that he displayed his resentment by throwing the glove into her face. He had much rather been ordered to attack a battalion of infantry a hundred times, which was a reasonable task, than to fight against beasts, a combat that was in no way glorious.'

Schiller has recounted the same story in his poem, 'The Glove,' and Leigh Hunt gives the following version in English:

T H E G L O V E A N D T H E L I O N S

King Francis was a hearty king, and loved a royal sport, And one day as his lions fought, sat looking on the court; The nobles filled the benches, and the ladies in their pride, And 'mongst them sat the Count de Lorge, with one for whom he sighed : And truly 'twas a gallant thing to see that crowning show, Valour and love, and a king above, and the royal beasts below.

Ramped and roared the lions, with horrid laughing jaws ; They bit, they glared, gave blows like beams, a wind went with their paws; With wallowing might and stifled roar they rolled on one another, T i l l all the pit with sand and mane was in a thunderous smother; The bloody foam above the bars came whisking through the air; Said Francis then, 'Faith, gentlemen, we're better here than there.'

De Lorge's love o'erheard the King, a beauteous lively dame With smiling lips and sharp bright eyes, which always seemed the same; She thought, the Count my lover is brave as brave can be; He surely would do wondrous things to show his love of me; King, ladies, lovers, all look on ; the occasion is divine ; I ' l l drop my glove, to prove his love; great glory will be mine.

238 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

She dropped her glove to prove his love, then looked at him and smiled; He bowed, and in a moment leaped among the lions wild: The leap was quick, return was quick, he has regained his place, Then threw the glove, but not with love, right in the lady's face 'By God!' said Francis, 'rightly done!' and he rose from where he sat: 'No love,' quoth he, 'but vanity, sets love a task like that.'

In January 1521 François I held his court at Romorantin, where the Epiphany was celebrated by a great festival. The Comte de Saint-Pol, the King's cousin, also gave a party in his house, and among his guests was Jacques de Montgomery. The last dish of the enormous dinner was the traditional pudding containing a horse-bean, and according to an old custom the one who got the bean on his plate should be greeted as King by all the rest of the company. It so happened that the host himself got the bean and was greeted accordingly. The matter was slightly delicate since the Count was heir to the throne, and the news of this incident soon reached the King, who decided to 'test his kmg agamst that of Saint-Pol.' The merry company was drawn together m order to storm the house of the avowed rival. The whole thing, of course, was intended as a joke, but when the two parties met they were both in highly elevated spirits and a real battle ensued. To begin with snowballs were used as munition, but heavier weapons were soon'brought forward. The defenders, who had not access to the snow, seized what objects they found in the hall. Suddenly a scream was heard, followed by a general uproar. The Kmg had been hit on the head by a torch thrown with violence from one of the windows and fell unconscious to the ground. For several days the King hovered between life and death, but he eventually pulled through. A deep scar in the chin, however, disfigured him for life. François I was a chivalrous king and forbade all investigation as to who had thrown the dangerous implement. This would otherwise have cost Montgomery dear, for rumour pointed to him as the culprit. He did not even fall into disgrace, and after that moment the monarch had no more loyal

MONTGOMERYS OF LORGES 239

friend in France than the young nobleman who had well-nigh killed him. 6

The same year the war broke out between France and the Habsburg monarchy. The Emperor Charles V laid siege to the town of Mézières, which was squeezed in an iron blockade. The French garrison was commanded by the great Bayart, and Mont­gomery was entrusted with the difficult task of relieving the town.

To everybody's surprise, Montgomery managed to cut his way through the imperial lines and complete his task. On this occasion the descendant of the hero of Otterburn fought a single combat with one of the most renowned knights of the imperial army—and won it. After these achievements he was rapidly promoted. During the campaign against England the following year he com­manded a corps of 6000 men, seized the castle of Contes, and manoeuvred the superior English forces into such a corner that they had to evacuate the country.

During the Italian campaign that followed he fought under Bayart. When this great warrior fell in the bloody battle of Biagrasso, Montgomery took over and rescued the shattered French army, after forcing the passage of the river Sesia. He was also present at the disastrous battle of Pavia, where François I suffered a heavy defeat, and like his monarch he fell into the hands of the enemy. Three years later, however, Montgomery restored the honour of the French arms by recapturing Pavia, and with his own hands he planted the French standard on the top of the citadel.

For a period of ten years after these events we have found no record of Montgomery in France. It seems probable that he spent most of this time in Scotland. At any rate, one knows that James V wrote a letter to the Duke of Albany in April 1534 asking him to persuade Montgomery to come to Scotland (State Papers Relating to Scotland, Vol. IV.).

At the outbreak of war with the Emperor in 1542 France raised seven legions of 6000 men each. The two legions from Normandy

24o HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

and Picardy were placed under Montgomery's command. For his services during this and the previous campaign he was decorated with the Grand Cross and Chain of the Order of Samt Michel. In 1543 he was reinstated in the feudal rights of his ancestors as Count de Montgomery, François d'Orléans and the Prmcess Marguerite d'Angoulême ceding their rights; and the same year he succeeded Robert Stuart, Count d'Aubigny, in the command of the Scots Guards.

In 1544 the war with the Emperor took ever greater proportions. The imperial forces marched towards Paris along the valley of the Marne, and town after town fell into their hands. Thus they occupied in rapid succession Saint-Dizier, Châlons, Eperney and Château-Thierry, and the watch-fires of the imperial army could be seen from the suburbs of Paris. At this critical moment Mont­gomery was made Commander-in-Chief of the French army. With a striking force of barely 16,000 men (12,000 foot and 4000 horse) he closed with the much superior enemy. From Lagny he pene­trated into Meaux and reached the junction of the rivers Marne and Morin. Here the French were attacked by the advance guard of the imperial army under Ferrante de Gonzaga. It was a terrific onslaught by some of the best troops in the world, but the French held their ground magnificently and the enemy was beaten off with the loss of two thousand killed and some five hundred prisoners. Fearing an even greater disaster, the Emperor withdrew his forces and resumed the interrupted negotiations. Peace was eventually concluded between François I and Charles V at Crespy on the general basis of a status quo. France had been saved.

Henry VIII of England, who had been the Emperor's ally during the war, refused, however, to accept the terms of the treaty and continued the war against Scotland, which had been on the side of France. English troops penetrated from Calais into Artois and Picardy. In this situation the King of France decided to force England to peace by a diversion. With this object in view he

MONTGOMERYS OF LORGES 241

sent an army of 5000 men to Scotland under Montgomery's com­mand. Balfour wrongly states that they were commanded by Georges Montgomery of Larges, whom he mistook for Jacques de Montgomery, Seigneur de Lorges (Annals, I, 284). Strangely enough, Sir William Fraser did not notice the mistake (Memorials r> *55)-

Montgomery's task was both military and diplomatic. In the first instance he had to give the Scots sufficient support to force a decision eventually leading to the conclusion of peace. The object of his diplomatic action was to support the Queen Dowager, Marie de Lorraine, against the powerful Earl of Lennox and to investigate the causes of dissension between him and Cardinal Beaton, primate of the Church of Scodand and the most reliable supporter of French interests.

Montgomery's expeditionary force embarked at Brest on 20th May and arrived at Dumbarton on 6th June. On his arrival at Edinburgh a few days later Montgomery invested the Earls of Arran, Angus, Huntly and Argyle with the Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Michel and made the Queen Dowager a present of large quantities of the most exquisite wines.

After a few weeks of negotiations he managed to unite the different factions in a common policy, and at a meeting at Stirling it was decided to raise an army of 15,000 men. The united forces were placed under the command of Montgomery and George Hume, Warden of the Marches.

With these forces Montgomery broke through the English fortifications at Birgham, laid siege to Wark Castle, and invaded the north of England. In order to prepare the English for peace the invaded country was largely devastated.

During the winter Montgomery withdrew his troops from England and made Stirling Castle his headquarters. To settle the dispute between Lennox and Beaton, between Scottish Pro­testants and Franco-Scottish Catholics, proved difficult. In the interest of peace Montgomery found it necessary to support the

Q

2 4 2 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

Protestants against the Catholics and wrote a report to François which was quite favourable to Lennox. This document is a re­markable testimony to Montgomery's good judgment

Some of the French troops returned to France by Holland, and Montgomery arrived at Dieppe on 13th February in the company of the French Ambassador.

During his stay in Scotland Jacques de Montgomery got acquainted with the discords between various members of the family. Sir Neil Montgomery of Lainshaw, third son of the ftrst Earl of Eglinton, had been appointed guardian to the third Earl during his minority. He seems to have taken this opportunity to strengthen his own position and that of his friends at the expense of the young Earl, and relations between him and the Dowager Countess were strained to such a point that disastrous consequences might be feared. Montgomery wrote to the Queen Dowager asking her to intervene (Balcarres Papers, III, 57)- But it was too late; Sir Neil was murdered by Robert, Lord Boyd, and some of his confederates. The Dowager Countess of Eglinton was suspected of complicity but was acquitted by the court.

François I died in March 1547. On 30th April Montgomery wrote from Saint-Cloud to the Queen Dowager of Scotland to tell her that he guarded the late king, whose funeral should take place in May. Contrary to many other servants of François, he held a very favourable opinion of Henry II. Thus he writes in a letter dated Saint-Germain-en-Laye 4th June :

' He will do everything in his power to assist you, and I can assure you that he is very favourably disposed towards the Queen, your daughter, and the whole Scottish nation. You must know that he is one of the best of princes, whose desire and intention are to treat his people according to the will of God and reasonable principles.' (Ibid., I l l , 60.)

But Montgomery mourned his late master deeply and withdrew from most of his public duties. He remained in command of

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F L O R G E S 243

Gabrid* G U a r d S ^ I 5 5 7 ' W h e n h e W a S s u c c e e d e d °y his son

t i ^ V ^ ™ 0 f t h e S p a n i s h W a r i n '557 Montgomery again took the field The Commander-in-Chief was Admiral Col iSy. The battle of Saint-Quentin against the very much stronger Spanish army resulted in a terrible defeat for the French and Cohgny was captured. Montgomery, however, assembled the beaten army m a fortified camp at Noyon and offered energetic resistance to the enemy assaults. The favourable terms of the treaty of Chateau-Cambrésis, 1559, are partly explained by Mont­gomery s determined action, since it showed the Spanish com­mander that further advance into France was fraught with danger

This was the second time that Jacques, Comte de Montgomery and Seigneur de Lorges, had saved his country. Unfortunately the last years of his life were marred by the tragedy of his son Gabriel, who became the involuntary cause of the death of Henry II.

In 1560 the French forces in Scotland were commanded by two Montgomerys. Robert de Montgomery, brother of the second Earl of Eglmton, held Dunbar, and Jacques, Comte de Montgomery defended Leith. J '

On 6th April English troops under Lord Grey attacked the French at Leith but were beaten off after a hard struggle. Sir Ralph Sadler refers to this event in a letter to the Duke of Norfolk dated 19th April: 'Though it was thought that the loss was on the English side, they have certain intelligence that they had almost eighty slain and two hundred hurt, and that a man of good reputa­tion amongst them was so hurt that he died on Wednesday, for whom much moan is made, but who it is they keep secret' (Cal. of State Papers Relating to Scotland, ad arm.).

The following day Lord Grey wrote to Norfolk to tell him that de Lorges was slain and Captain Lagarde sore wounded (Ibid.).

The fact that the great Lorges found a hero's death in Scotland has not previously been known to French historians.

244 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

The Comte de Montgomery was married three times. His first wife was Claude de la Boessière, Dame de Ducey. He had by her two sons : Gabriel, of whom presently, and François, écuyer de Cormainville, married to Marie de Cormeilles. His second wife, Suzanne de Sully, bore him two sons : St. Jean, who accom­panied his father to Scotland in the position of page, and Jacques, Seigneur de Courbouson. By his wife Emée de Guerchy the latter had two sons: Louis and Jacques (Bibl. Nat., Cabinet des titres, 20229, p. 1651).

His third wife, Charlotte de Maillé, widow of François de la Touche, Seigneur des Roches Tranchlion, had a daughter by her first marriage, Isabeau de la Touche, who married Gabriel. Father and son were married to mother and daughter before the Court of Chinon by the same contract, dated 12th January 1550. Jacques is styled Comte de Montgomery and Gabriel is described as his eldest son, Seigneur de Bourbarré.

GABRIEL, COMTE DE MONTGOMERY was born about 1530, probably in Scotland. In 1549 he appears for the first time in the muster rolls of the Scots Guards. He was captain of this famous corps between 1557 and 1559, when his father resumed command.

The last three days of Tune 1559 saw great festivals in Paris. Not only was the peace of Château-Cambrésis celebrated but also two important weddings intimately connected with this peace— the marriage of Philip II of Spain to Princess Elizabeth, daughter of Henry II of France, and the marriage of Philibert, Duke of Savoy, the hero of Saint-Quentin, to Princess Marguerite, sister of King Henry. On this occasion, besides ceremonies, theatrical plays, masked balls and costume balls, a tourney was arranged on a large scale, where gallant knights from all corners of Europe broke their lances. The streets leading to the arena were decorated with flags and garlands in the French and Spanish colours. In

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F L O R G E S 2 4 5

b X t n P t h C e S h U g e a r C h e S W e r e e r e C t e d ' ™ d ^ avenues between the arena and the stables were adorned with sculpture by die great Renaissance masters. The sky was cloudless and the heat almost overwhelming. The ladies' silk dresses reflected ev ry co our of the rainbow, and the male spectators in red, blue a S

b r " a n d ! ^ ^ o cture Th ? t 0 t h e S P I e n d o u r of the picture. The most imposing sight, however, was the proud equipages moving in the arena. The snorting, well-groomed stallions m gaudy trappings were handled with great s k / b y then steel-clad riders, whose burnished armour flashed in the sun The

1-hot " h ™ ^ ^ ^ ****** n 0 t S C ° r c h e d i n t h e i r

t , T

r

h e ^ and the Duke of Guise were masters at this game, and the Captain of the Scots Guards, Count Gabriel de Montgomery who during the first two days of the tourney had thrown mostTf his opponents by good riding and skilful handling of his lance was also among the favourites. His skill was glorified in the following contemporary poem:

' Adroit de corps et membre, Bien jouer je savois De lance et de long bois, Piques et hallebardes, Aux joutes et tournois.'

Diane de Poitiers, the mistress of Henry II, was twenty years his senior Ambitious and a fanatical Catholic, she turned Henry into one of the most reliable instruments of the Catholic reaction in France Gabriel de Montgomery, whom she had in vain tried to entangle in her net, was odious to her, as well for this reason as because of his bravery in opposing the persecution of heretics It was probably at her instigation that the King had sent Montgomery to suppress the heresy at Saint-Lô, an exceptionally disagreeable task to this gentleman. And now, in the middle of the tourney the

2 4 6 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

King, urged no doubt by his jealousy as well as by his mistress, sum­moned Montgomery, and gave him the order to march with his corps to the country of Caux to annihilate the heresy at that place Everybody who was convicted of heresy or openly professed Protestant doctrines should be burnt at the stake by slow fire (petit feu) after his tongue had been torn out. Those who were only suspected should have their eyes put out. Having given this formidable order in person, the King returned to his place as if nothing had happened.

The Duke of Savoy had lent the King his magnificent mount and the latter had won every bout. Montgomery had been equally successful and the final contest was fought between him and the King. Tension now reached its climax. After the order he had just received, Montgomery was not inclined to give the Kmg a favour. On the contrary, he did his utmost to unseat his royal antagonist. In this, however, he failed, for the King knew the game well and remained in the saddle. But the violence of the third encounter shook him slightly and he nearly lost his stirrups. He considered himself worsted, but the Connétable de Mont­morency and Marshal de Tavannes assured him that the victory was his. Montgomery himself expressed the same opinion. Catherine de Médicis, the Queen, sent him her congratulations, asking him not to ride again that day. What message Diane de Poitiers sent on this occasion is not known, but one knows that the King bore her colours. Contrary to the rules of the game, and against the advice of his friends, he decided to run a fourth round against Montgomery.

There was something mysterious and fateful in the air. Many of the spectators had no doubt read the prophecy of Nostradamus contained in one of his Centuries:

' Le lion jeune le vieux surmontera En champ bellique en singulier duel; Dans cage d'or les yeux lui crèvera; Deux plaies une, puis mourir, mort cruelle.'

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F L O R G E S 247 The Grand Equerry de Boisy, who should have strapped on the

£ i n n S . h , e l m e t > w a s n o t Present, and another court official, de Vieilleville, was entrusted with this task, of which he had little experience. His hands shook violendy and it seems likely that he forgot to fasten one of the clasps of the visor. He earnestly besought the King to abandon his intention, telling him that he had for several nights had premonitions of terrible disaster. But the King's decision was unshakable. When the two rivals rode up to their places there were no cheerful horn-blasts, as there should have been; all seemed to be paralysed for fear of what was going to happen. 6

The encounter took place with tremendous violence. Mont­gomery sat as rooted to the saddle, but the King fell back into the arms of his seconds. His visor was half open ; the point of Mont­gomery's broken spear had penetrated the gap and struck his head. Severely wounded, he was carried away to his tent.

In the hands of his physician the King soon recovered con­sciousness, but it was clear that the case was a grave one. Suddenly a tall gentleman of exceptionally distinguished appearance made his way through the crowd and fell on his knees by the side of the King. It was Montgomery, the involuntary cause of this disaster. In his despair he prayed the King to have his hand and head cut off, but to the man lying at the threshold of death there was no more rivalry. In a weak voice, but clear enough to be heard by those present, the King answered: 'Do not worry, for you need no pardon. You have only obeyed the order of your King and have acted as a good cavalier and a brave man-at-arms.' Ten days later the King was dead.

His words had been heard and not even Montgomery's worst adversaries dared lay hands upon him. But socially he was a dead man. The ambitious Queen Dowager and Diane de Poitiers placed him at the head of their black lists. Their supporters amongst the Catholic nobility only waited for the moment when they could undo this hated man, whom they did not hesitate to brand as a

248 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS reeicide The Privy Council decided to deprive him of his com­mand of the Scots Guards and to banish him from the court. Wherever he moved he was made the object of foul and malicious slander. For this reason, and perhaps also because his life was m danger, he left the country. For some time he travelled m the north of Italy and eventually settled at Venice.

At this time Montgomery certainly felt his misfortune deeply, but the feeling must have been mingled with relief at being freed from the formidable order given him by the King on the fatal day. It was better to be the involuntary cause of the King s death than to massacre people whose only crime was that they wished to read the Bible in their own simple and straightforward way. He already felt drawn to these decent and honest citizens, and the thought ot persecuting them was not only repulsive, but it gradually fed within him a desire to protect them in their distress. To stand up against the powerful Catholic Church, against the Queen Dowager and most of the leading men of the country, required courage, but this was not a faculty of which Montgomery stood m need, rie returned to France and engaged himself with life and spirit m the struggle which he considered just and glorious.

With the massacres at Vassy in March 1562 the cup ran over. A number of Huguenots had assembled at a licensed meeting-place in that village when François, Duke of Guise, appeared at the head of a body of soldiers. They immediately charged the unarmed assembly, killing sixty people. After this incident other and even more serious acts of aggression took place all over the country. In this situation the Huguenots were compelled to take up arms in order to defend their faith, lives and property.

Montgomery appointed a Reformist minister as his chaplain at Ducey and sided openly with the Huguenots. They were very proud of their new ally. 'Among other victories and triumphs of Christ in these parts,' says Delavigne in a letter to Calvin, is Monseigneur the Comte Montgomery, who has recently become one of us ' (Opera Calvini, X I X , 47). Louis de Bourbon, Prmce of

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F L O R G E S 249

Condé, grandfather of the hero of Rocroy and Dunkerque, was the recognized leader of the Huguenots, with Admiral Coligny as his next in command. Montgomery was now called to Orleans, the headquarters of the Duke.

He was prompt in obeying this order, and did not come alone. Together with his friends in the Norman nobility he had raised an armed force, with which he arrived at Orleans. The Duke was surprised and pleased, and decided immediately to try his new troops. Montgomery was ordered to seize the town of Bourges, situated some seventy miles south of Orleans. At 5 a.m. the' following day he reached the town, which opened its gates at the first asking. Then followed a triumphal march through the Reformist stronghold which had so long been oppressed by the Catholics. The royal garrison and the Catholic priests headed by the Archbishop took refuge in the big tower, but when Montgomery brought forward the heavy guns of the town ordnance and made preparations for assault they surrendered on the condition of a free passage for themselves and their arms and equipment

The scene that followed was not exactly edifying. In their religious rage the crowd pulled out from churches and private houses images, statues, sculptures, shrines and reliquaries—play­things of the devil—smashing them to pieces against the pavement. Montgomery has been much criticized for not interfering to prevent the destruction of these valuable works of art. But he was probably powerless; even if personally he had wanted to intervene against the fanatics and avert devastation, he could hardly have done so without disuniting the Protestant front, and this at the very moment when unity was most urgently needed.

On his return from Bourges, Montgomery was entrusted with the task of raising troops in Normandy and organizing the Pro­testant campaign from there. It was no easy task without money, but Montgomery carried on his campaign with never-failing energy both in the diplomatic and military fields. Only small subsidies were received from Protestant England, since Queen Elizabeth

25o HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

did not like to offend the feelings of the powerful Catholics in France But communication with Montgomery was kept up by friendly correspondence, since there was always the chance of the Huguenots coming out on top. In that case France would be an invaluable ally in England's struggle against the Habsburg empire.

Montgomery's position, however, was growing serious. 1 hree Catholic armies, the first commanded by Martignon, the second by Martigues and the third by Bouillon, were marching up from different sides in order to catch him in a trap. The Queen Dowager wrote to the Duke of Etampes, governor of Brittany, that the capture of Montgomery would be a greater pleasure to her than he could imagine (La Ferrière, Lettres de Catherine de Médias, I 375) But all their efforts were in vain. Through better re­connoitring and greater speed Montgomery's forces evaded the enemy. He seized Bayeux and advanced to Rouen, where he prepared to give the Catholics a warm reception.

After the junction of the Royalist forces the commanders decided to seize Rouen. The governor of that town, de Morvilhers, was a Protestant, but he was considered easy to deal with and was almost certain to open the gates to the King's forces. On their arrival, however, they were disagreeably surprised to find that Morvilliers had left and the town was held by Montgomery. This meant a long and hard struggle. The Royalists were far superior in number: they had 6000 foot and 2000 horse, including 5 cornets under the Rhine-Graf Johan Philip. In addition they had 60 heavy guns. Montgomery's force numbered only 2000 foot.

On 29th September the Royalist commander sent a herald to the 'chief of the rebels' with a summons in the King's name to surrender. Al l who laid down their arms would get full pardon for their crimes. Montgomery's answer to this request is typical of his attitude :

'We know what to think of such suggestions. They do not emanate from His Majesty, but from those mischief-makers who keep him in servitude. The future will show which of us will need

MONTGOMERYS OF LORGES 251

pardon. I keep this town of Rouen for the King on the order of Monseigneur, the Prince of Condé, who has undertaken to uphold the authority of the state. For the sake of your life, herald, you and your sort are not, from this moment, to approach within the range of a gun.' (Documents quoted by L . Marlet, Le Comte de Montgomery, Paris, 1890, p. 34.)

Early in October a convoy arrived from Havre with guns and ammunition for Montgomery. The Countess arrived on board the same ship. Thanks to this reinforcement the citizens could largely be armed, and they afterwards cheerfully took part in the defence of their town. There also arrived a troop of 60 Scottish horse which had cut its way through the enemy lines without losing a single man (Letter from Killigrew to Cecil, 1st October 1562).

For several days every assault was beaten off with great loss to the assailants, and it seems unlikely that the Royalist forces could have reduced the town had not the stronghold of Sainte-Catherine fallen by treachery. A captured captain disclosed to the enemy that the defenders of this place, after repelling several assaults, con­sidered themselves so safe that the watch was at certain times of the day reduced in order to give the soldiers an opportunity for recreation and entertainment in the town.

The enemy's attack was planned according to the captain's indications. The young King, the Queen Dowager, the King of Navarre and the Duke of Guise were all present to watch the spectacle. The defenders were taken by surprise and the assault succeeded completely. After the loss of this valuable position, Montgomery knew that it was only a question of time before the town fell into the hands of the enemy. He sent some officers to negotiate the terms of truce, but they were received with haughti­ness and informed that the only terms to be accepted were un­conditional surrender.

This answer gave the defenders new courage. They decided to carry on the struggle to the utmost of their power. The Royalists

252 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

immediately renewed their attacks and shot parts of the town walls to pieces with their heavy artillery. On the 14th they sounded a general assault and a terrible fight ensued. That day the Royalists lost 800 men, the defenders 400 to 500. The attack was renewed early the following morning. The Catholic legions streamed through the gaps in the walls and over the battered bastions, but they met with heavy opposition and could nowhere penetrate into the town. Every time Gabriel seemed to be on the spot where the danger was gravest; handling his long rapier with incredible skill he stood there, the mark of all the best swordsmen of France, but none could bring him down, nor even touch him. Everyone who came within his reach had to pay the penalty of his insolence. Not even bullets stirred this namesake of the archangel. That day cost the Catholics 1500 men, the defenders hardly a quarter of that number. Among the killed on the Catholic side was Anton, King of Navarre, who had previously been a Reformist but turned renegade.

Fearing that she might lose as many of her brave soldiers again, the Queen Dowager offered terms of surrender, but Montgomery refused to accept them. The besieging force then prepared their next assault with every technical expedient. By concentrated gun­fire large breaches were made in the town walls, and even mines were used to open the way for the troops. The assault began on the 26th, and this time no courage or skill could save the defenders. The massed troops penetrated into the town, and the brave garrison was practically trampled down.

Instantly Montgomery realized that the game was up. To return through a mob of enemies to his wife was impossible. He could only leave her to the mercy of God. Followed by a small force he made a dash for the river. At times they had to fight their way step by step, but finally, at 3 p.m., they reached the Seine.

Alongside the embankment they found a galley with its ' chiourme ' corded to the seats. Montgomery and some of his men rushed on board and ordered full speed ahead. Others boarded

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F L O R G E S 253

a transport vessel that had arrived with reinforcements. Aided by the stream the two ships shot forward at a good pace, but their flight was soon discovered and the enemy started in pursuit. This was easy enough because the river below Rouen flows in big bends, and the pursuers were thus able to overtake the ships from the banks and place them under fire. But the fugitives had to face an even greater danger, for at Caudebec the Seine was cut in two by a solid stockade. The Royalists felt certain of catching them in this trap, but Montgomery had foreseen the obstacle and made his plans accordingly. As the ships approached it all the passengers were ordered to the stern, and with the bow in the air the galley leapt the stockade at full speed and slid down on the other side. The transport ship, which made the same manoeuvre, also came clear. In high spirits the fugitives continued their journey to Le Havre and liberty, while the Royalists stood disconcerted on the shore and fired their arms in sheer desperation. Once again Montgomery had got out of the net laid by his enemies ; Catherine de Médicis was raging.

On 13th November Montgomery arrived in London and was immediately received by Queen Elizabeth, who was still doubtful whether she ought to support the Huguenots. She gave Mont­gomery a very friendly reception, but her influential minister, the Earl of Warwick, who feared that the French Count might become a rival for the Queen's favour, was acid and overbearing. Mont­gomery returned to Le Havre three days later, and at the beginning of December he occupied Dieppe with a small force. While he was there news reached him that the Prince of Condé had suffered a severe defeat from the Royalists at Dreux and had himself been captured. On the Royalist side Marshal Saint-André had been killed, and the following year Condé was exchanged for the Connétable de Montmorency, who had fallen into the hands of the Huguenots.

During the ensuing campaign Admiral Coligny, with Mont­gomery as his lieutenant, concentrated all the Huguenot forces in

254 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

Normandy. Martignon took refuge at Cherbourg, and the Marquis d'Elbceuf, brother of the Duke of Guise*who had been assassinated at Orleans, surrendered. In this predicament the Queen and Council, fearing that the country would bleed to death if the civil war continued much longer, entered into negotiations with the Huguenots. The peace, signed at Amboise on 19th March 1563, guaranteed the Huguenots a certain limited freedom of religion.

What this peace was worth appears from the fact that the Queen in August ordered Martignon to place Montgomery under arrest and to keep him at such a place that he could safely be made responsible for his actions. Fortunately Montgomery was not at Ducey, the castle he had inherited from his mother, when Mar­tignon arrived with his troops to carry out this order. About the same time the family of Guise opened proceedings against Admiral Coligny for complicity in the murder of the Duke of Guise. This shameless and completely unfounded accusation enraged the Huguenots so much that, for the time being, the Queen dared not accomplish her designs on Montgomery. That she feared him appears from a letter to Martignon dated 7th January 1565 in which, on behalf of the King, she anxiously enquired the Where­abouts of the Count Montgomery.

The Dutch War of Independence broke out in the summer of 1566 with the rebellion of the water-gueux. Philip II of Spain sent the Duke of Alba to quell this rebellion, and he established a reign of terror in the Netherlands which raised a storm of indignation among Protestants of all countries. Montgomery made prepara­tions to give the Protestants in Flanders active support. At this juncture, however, the situation in France took such a serious turn that he could not leave the country. The authorities every day committed fresh acts of aggression against the Protestant popula­tion, and feelings were getting so inflamed that a fresh outbreak of civil war was inevitable. The Government had engaged mer­cenary troops from Germany and Switzerland, while the Huguenots raised their army in Normandy and in the districts round Orleans.

MONTGOMERYS OF LORGES 255

The Prince of Condé commanded the Reformist army and Mont­gomery was chief of his advance guard. In the second Huguenot war only minor battles were fought, and peace was concluded at Longjumeau on 23rd March 1568.

The conditions of this peace were never respected by the Catholics, and the third Huguenot war was practically a continua­tion of the second. On 15th and 16th November 1568 Condé and Montgomery defeated the Catholic army under the Duke of Anjou at Sanxai. The Royalist forces were numerically stronger—11,000 to 8500—and after heavy casualties the first day they withdrew from the field of battle. The following morning Montgomery took up the pursuit, seized the enemy's baggage train of 160 wagons loaded with all kinds of necessaries, and captured a number of prisoners. The Royalist artillery went into position to protect the advance towards Poitiers, where the Duke's scattered forces had assembled, but Montgomery attacked, riding straight at the muzzles of the guns, seized them and crushed the enemy's rearguard, taking over 700 prisoners. His own losses on this occasion were very small.

In March the following year the Huguenots suffered a severe reverse at Jarnac. The Royalist forces were nominally commanded by the Duke of Anjou, but operations were led by Marshal de Tavannes, an experienced and skilful general. The Catholic forces numbered 26,000 men, the Huguenots barely 15,000. The latter were commanded by Condé, who had by him both Coligny and Montgomery. When Coligny realized that the battle was lost he gave orders to retreat to save as many of his forces as possible, but the bold Condé tried at the last minute to turn the scales by riding violently to the attack with only a few hundred men. Montgomery at once saw the dangerous position of his commander and hastened to his rescue with 300 horse. But even this effort proved in vain, for against him he had the Duke's own lancers, the Montpensier horse and the cavalry of the Rhine-Graf, in all 4800 men. The Prince of Condé was wounded in this skirmish and taken prisoner

256 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

together with Robert Stuart. Condé was afterwards murdered by some of his adversaries. Thanks to Coligny's order of retreat, the losses of the Huguenots were comparatively small. The rumour was spread among the Catholics that Montgomery had been killed, since his horse had been seen without a rider. But the rumour was false; the future leader of the French Huguenots was still alive.

Montgomery succeeded in assembling most of his scattered troops in the little town of Cognac the night after the battle. The other Huguenot commanders, Coligny, d'Andelot and La Roche­foucauld, also arrived there during the night. A council of war was held in which it was decided to avoid battle and fall back upon Saintes. A garrison was left at Cognac, and when the Duke of Anjou tried to seize the town his forces were beaten back with heavy loss. He then turned to Angoulême, but there, too, his attempts were frustrated, for Montgomery had already occupied the place with 900 horse and made the town practically impregnable. From a tactical point of view these advantages more than out­weighed the defeat of Jarnac, and on 20th June Montgomery started an offensive in quite a new direction.

Hearing of the Royalist victory of Jarnac, Philip II despatched a Spanish army to the south of France with the avowed object of supporting the Catholics but also with the intention of capturing the main roads, into France and keeping them, in case of a new war with that country. The ancient kingdom of Navarre extended on both sides of the Pyrenees, but Ferdinand the Catholic of Spain had conquered the southern portion of that Kingdom, which had ever since belonged to Spain. The northern or French portion had by marriage passed into the hands of the Bourbons. The widow of King Anton of Navarre was a Reformist, and it was her son Henry who later ascended the throne of France. Catherine de Médicis and the Guises had decided to seize the country of the Reformist Queen, and it was promptly occupied by French forces in conjunction with the Spanish. Under the leadership of Henry

MONTGOMERYS OF LORGES 257

of Navailles a reign of terror was now established which could compete with that of Alba in Flanders, and many of the best men in the country lost their lives.

To assist the Protestant population of Navarre in its distress, to clear out the Spaniards from the country and to ensure that the young King of Navarre took possession of the throne, was what Montgomery had most at heart. But he did not reveal his plans to anybody. Officially he moved with his troops to Castres in order to consolidate the Reformist forces in that part of the country. There he was well received, and before long he found himself at the head of an army of 6000 men, with which he crossed Ariège and penetrated into Navarre.

General Monluc, who commanded the French forces in the south, was informed of this move by the following report from one of his subordinate officers : ' Sir, I wish to inform you that Count Montgomery has crossed Ariège. In this part of the country there is nobody who can prevent his further penetration past the Garonne. . . . Never in my life have I been so baffled.' Monluc himself was not a little surprised and disconcerted by this rapid move.

Montgomery crossed the Garonne early in August and began his conquest of the kingdom of Navarre. After the stronghold of Orthez had fallen, town after town surrendered. Most of them opened their gates to the Protestant deliverers of their own accord, and Montgomery was soon master of the situation throughout the country. On 22nd August a Reformist thanksgiving service was held at Pau. From that day Henry of Bourbon was again King of Navarre, and remained so until the day when, as King of France, he incorporated the country with his French Kingdom.

Some of those who had committed cruelties against the popula­tion were sentenced to death, but for the rest an edict of amnesty was passed. Henry of Navailles saved his life by flight.

Coligny's plan was to assemble the Reformist forces from all parts of the country so as to force a decisive battle. Leaving some

R

258 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS

garrisons in Navarre, Montgomery marched back the same way he had come and in December joined the forces of the Admiral at headquarters, where he got a tremendous reception. Al l knew that he had saved Navarre for the cause, and that by this he had very much strengthened the position of the Queen at the peace conference then in progress. But when she insisted on full freedom of religion and equal rights to appointment as government officials for all French subjects independent of creed the King said flatly no, and hostilities were immediately reopened.

In rapid succession Coligny occupied Narbonne, Montpellier and Nîmes, advancing with his main body through the Rhone valley. During a skirmish near Bourg-Saint-Andéol Montgomery was severely wounded and a second rumour spread among the enemy that he had been killed, but he was again on horseback when the army marched through Roanne on 13th June 1570.

The Huguenot army totalled only 6000 men, whereas the King put in the field 15,000, including 5000 horse. The Royal army was under the command of Marshal de Cossé. The two armies met at Arnay-le-Duc on 26th June. The battle was a draw, but owing to the numerical preponderance of the Royalists it was a great moral success for the Huguenots. Montgomery was the hero of the day and the Reformist historian dAubigné has given a description of his feats (Histoire universelle, 1st part, I, ch. xxu).

The result of this battle was that the King immediately opened negotiations with the Huguenots. Peace was concluded on 8th August at Saint-Germain-en-Laye. The terms were favourable to the Reformists. They were granted full freedom of religion, access to all government offices and the right to keep the strong­holds of Montauban, La Rochelle, Cognac and La Charité for a period of two years. This success the Huguenots celebrated by a great festival, at which Jeanne dAlbret, Queen of Navarre, was present. On this occasion she paid a special tribute to Montgomery, who had rescued her country from the Catholic terror. As a token of her gratitude she made Montgomery the present of the castle

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F L O R G E S 259

of Genis in Périgord. As she was well informed of the evil designs of Catherine de Médicis she also handed over to Montgomery a letter of safe conduct signed by herself, her son Henry, future King of France, and Henry of Bourbon, Prince of Condé, Duke of Enghien.

On 19th May 1571 the wedding was celebrated of Gawyn, son of Vice-Admiral Sir Arthur Champernowne, to Roberte, daughter of the Comte de Montgomery and Isabeau de la Touche. Queen Elizabeth was present, and from the report of the French Am­bassador, M . de la Mothe-Fénelon, we know that the Queen had a long conversation with Montgomery {Correspondance Diplomatique de La Mothe, II, 322). But what was said is not known. In all probability the serious situation in the Netherlands was discussed, possibly also a united French and English action to drive the Spaniards out of Flanders, a question in which the Queen and the English Government took great interest. In the event of a war with Spain, however, it was most important that France should present a united front against the enemy. The English policy was essentially material, not religious, and the Queen consequently attached more weight to upholding good relations with the King of France than to supporting the Huguenots in all their vicissitudes, however much she sympathized with them in their struggle.

England's fight with the Habsburg monarchy for mastery of the seas had begun, and this struggle continued parallel with the wars of religion all through the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries until England had won it. In this Coligny and Montgomery, William of Orange, Louis of Nassau and Gustavus Adolphus were the principal pawns. They were all champions of liberty and of the Protestant faith, while England pursued a political course. It was, in fact, the weakening of the Continental Powers in Europe by religious warfare that made the rise and development of the British Empire possible.

The first blow was struck when Louis of Nassau, younger brother of William of Orange, surprised and occupied Mons in

26o HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS

May 1572. This was done with the knowledge and consent of Queen Elizabeth and Charles IX of France. Strong Spanish forces, however, were immediately despatched by the Duke of Alba to recover this loss; and considering himself too weak to hold it, Louis turned to France for assistance. At the head of the mission sent to Charles I X was M . Genlis, who was to be chief of the expeditionary force raised in France.

The French Huguenots had the opportunity for which they had waited so long. Now or never the hated Spaniards would be driven out of Flanders. Catherine de Médicis refused to grant Louis' request, but the King overruled her and determined to allow French troops to be raised to support the Flemish people in their war of independence. This decision was taken after a long conference with Admiral Coligny and the English Ambassador, Sir Francis Walsingham. King Henry of Navarre, Prince Henry of Condé and the Comte de Montgomery took part in the parade held in Paris in July when the people were called to arms against Spain. The noble Queen of Navarre was dead; she died suddenly on 9th June, and among Reformists it was generally thought that she had been killed by poison.

By the wish of Louis of Nassau the expeditionary force was placed under the command of M . Genlis. The Spaniards feared that Montgomery would be chosen for this task, in which case the fate of the expedition would certainly have been different. As it was, the French force was caught napping by the Spaniards at Quiévrain and utterly routed. This disaster cost the Huguenots dear. At the same moment the balance of power in France was reversed: the Queen and the Guises resumed control. Admiral Coligny had hopes that the King could still be persuaded to declare war' on Spain, but he was mistaken. Instead, at the instigation of the Guises and the Spaniards, a ruthless war of extermination broke out against the Huguenots of France. It opened with the murder of the Admiral himself.

One day in August, Coligny met outside the Louvre the hero

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F L O R G E S 261

of Jarnac, Marshal de Tavannes. The Admiral could not resist the temptation of throwing a sneer at him: 'Anyone who wants to avoid a war with Spain is no good Frenchman and has a red cross in his belly'—an allusion to the Spanish flag. A few days later, when the Admiral returned from a meeting of the Council, he was shot in the street through both arms. The wounds were painful but not deadly. During his convalescence the Admiral received many visits from the King and Queen, Henry of Navarre, Henry of Condé, Marshal de Tavannes and Mont­gomery, whose offer to stay with him and guard his life was declined. The King expressed great regret for what had happened, and promised to punish the guilty if they could be found. But Catherine de Médicis and the Guises were delighted. At last they had in their grasp one of their most dangerous enemies. This opportunity should not be lost; he must be put out of the way.

The King was approached with this object in view, but he at first refused to allow any aggression against the wounded Admiral. The Queen pointed out to him that Coligny was for the moment the most dangerous man in the country, who would sooner or later cause misery to the whole royal house of France. The Huguenots were only waiting for the opportunity of revenge and they were plotting against the life of the King himself. Before such argu­ments the King finally gave way. 'Do what you want,' he said, 'but then kill all the Huguenots in France so that there is no witness to this awful action.' Everything was well planned. In the name of the King the old hero was murdered in his bed on the night of the 24th August, St. Bartholomew's Eve, and the general massacre began. Henry of Navarre and Henry of Condé saved their lives by abjuring their faith, but members of their staffs and suites were dragged into the streets and killed on the spot. Every vile passion was let loose that night in Paris. Whether the victims were killed in their beds, dragged into the streets and cut to pieces or thrown into the Seine, it was always ' in the name of the

2Ó2 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

King.' In Paris the terror continued for three days, in the country

for several weeks. v

The only bright spot in all this misery was Montgomery. He saved himself as by a miracle. In the middle of the night a Hugue­not, drenched to the skin, called at his house. He had been thrown into the Seine. ' For God's sake, master,' he said, ' get out of here, for all Huguenots are being murdered.' Montgomery jumped out of bed, seized his arms and hastened downstairs to call his friends. The little troop safely reached the stables and mounted. They at least had the chance of selling their lives dearly. To remain in the seething witches' cauldron would have meant certain death. Montgomery rode through the western gates of the city and headed for Ducey as fast as the horses could run.

Only a few moments later another and much bigger troop passed through the same gates, the pursuers commanded by the Dukes of Guise and Aumale, and the Duke of Angoulême, the King's natural brother. They had just butchered the Admiral and dishonoured his dead body. Their order was now to capture Montgomery alive, for the Queen wanted him to die before her eyes. They were all well mounted and the hunt was up indeed, for every mile the distance between the pursued and the pursuers was reduced. But the nearer Guise came to the object of the chase the more he began to feel the risk of the enterprise on which he had embarked. It was no ordinary pigeon he had in front of him, but the bravest and most daring man in France, who knew well enough how to lay an ambush and make a desperate attack. As they approached Montfort-l'Amaury, where the country was particularly well suited for a surprise attack, he lost courage and turned tail. With baffled rage he commanded 'right about face' and the troop turned and trotted back to Paris with its errand unaccomplished. Montgomery's life was saved, simply by his reputation.

The King, who feared Montgomery more than anyone else, flew into a passion. He sat down and wrote the following letter

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F L O R G E S 263

to the Governor of Normandy, M . Martignon, not mentioning a word of the terrible happenings in Paris :

' It has come to my knowledge that Seigneur de Montgomery has withdrawn to his estates in Normandy, and I fear that he is stirring up my subjects there to revolt and assembling those who belong to his religion. Spare no pains to capture the Count, so that his Majesty can live in peace, and see to it that your orders are strictly carried out.'

But this time, too, Montgomery evaded his pursuers. It was reported to the King that he had been seen in different parts of the country; one man had even talked to him. Others said he was in England. In fact, Montgomery had, after fetching his family from Ducey, gone to Jersey, which was even at that time British territory. As soon as his new abode was known by the King, the French Ambassador was instructed to apply for his extradition.

M . de la Mothe-Fénelon had a long discussion with Queen Elizabeth on the subject. Her position at this time was somewhat delicate. There were negotiations in progress regarding a marriage between her and the Duke of Alençon, brother of the King of France. Moreover, the imprisonment in England of Mary Queen of Scots, who had after all been Queen of France, might easily have led to complications. It was therefore important for Queen Elizabeth not to strain her relations with France by an act which might be considered unfriendly. On the other hand, she would not hurt her own fellow-believers in France by handing over their foremost champion to certain death.

The Queen solved this difficult problem in a most diplomatic manner. She said she very much doubted both the statements that Montgomery was in Jersey and that he had proceeded from there to London and was living with Sir Arthur Champernowne. She had given the Governor of Jersey strict orders not to admit any foreigners to the island. If, on the contrary, it should be found that Montgomery was in London and plotted against the King of

2 6 4 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS

France she would, even if he had a thousand lives, see to it that not one was left. After a moment's hesitation she continued: « But my conscience assuredly does not permit me to hand him over to France, where he would be put to death, simply because he is a Protestant' (Despatch from La Mothe, 2nd October 1572,

Ibid., V, 155). , , , Catherine de Médicis had thought that the massacres would

crush all opposition among the Huguenots, but she soon found that, on the contrary, their power of resistance was fostered by persecu­tion They had in their hands the stronghold of La Rochelle, where a garrison of 3000 fully armed and equipped soldiers was kept ready to take up the fight for the oppressed fellow-believers in other parts of the country. A garrison was also kept at Mont-auban and risings took place at Nîmes and in Picardy. After the death of Admiral Coligny, Montgomery was leader of all the Huguenots, and the French Ambassador in London did his utmost to frustrate Montgomery's plans for organizing and co-ordinating the Huguenot forces with English support. The Royalist forces laid siege to La Rochelle, and Montgomery's first object was to

relieve that town. Charles IX wrote a personal letter to Montgomery (on 19th

February 1573) in which he promised to safeguard all his rights in France and also the rights of all other loyal subjects. But Montgomery well knew what such a pledge was worth, since the country was governed, not by the King, but by Catherine de Médicis, the Guises and their Spanish friends, his most bitter

enemies. On 21 st February the French Ambassador reported that Mont­

gomery had been granted the right to raise troops in London, and that the City of London had placed at his disposal a credit of 300,000 écus. He also expressed the fear that Montgomery might not be satisfied merely by relieving La Rochelle but that he would also attack other places along the coast of Normandy and charge the King's galleys with his ships.

MONTGOMERYS OF LORGES 265

Montgomery made careful preparations for his expedition and all attempts of the French Ambassador to stop it failed. But an unfortunate incident delayed it. Queen Elizabeth had promised to be the godmother of a daughter born to Charles IX of France, and the Earl of Worcester was sent to Paris to represent her at the christening of the Princess. On his return crossing his ship was intercepted by Dutch pirates. The Earl had with him several precious dresses, presents from the King to Queen Elizabeth, some of which were stolen by the pirates. The Queen, who was very fond of new dresses and looking forward to her presents, was overcome by rage at the news of what had happened, and when it was discovered that some of the pirates were Reformist water-gueux she immediately sent for Montgomery. Before the Privy Council she blamed him in abusive language for the crime com­mitted by the pirates and as a punishment forbade his expedition to sail. Montgomery, who had kept silent all through her outburst, then replied: 'By what right do you keep me captive?' The Queen dismissed him in a fury.

But her pride had to give way in the end. From all quarters she was told of the bad impression made by her behaviour, and the case was not improved by the fact that the Count was completely innocent of the charge she laid against him. The most influential Anglican Bishops approached her on the subject, telling her that she had wronged not only her people and the Crown but also her own faith. It was an offence against God to prevent Montgomery from going to the assistance of his oppressed fellow Christians in his own country. Eventually the Queen gave her permission for the expedition to sail.

Montgomery set sail on 19th April 1573. His flotilla consisted of some forty minor vessels of war, thirteen transport ships, his own ship Primrose of 350 tons and a ship of 250 tons commanded by his son-in-law Sir Gawyn Champernowne. Including sailors, he had some 2000 men on board.

As the ships approached the French coast near La Rochelle the

266 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

enemy batteries opened fire and compelled Montgomery to keep his distance, but at nightfall he sailed into land and at an agreed sign a representative from the besieged town came on board, bringing with him a letter from the Mayor and Corporation. Since the food-supply in the town was very limited it was agreed that Montgomery's force should not disembark, but some experienced officers were left to organize the defence. The town was also supplied with ammunition and food.

The following morning Montgomery sailed north and occupied after a hot contest Belle-Ile off the coast of Brittany. This island became his base for operations against the enemy's navigation and trade. The night after the occupation two vessels carrying pro­visions for the surrendered garrison were captured. Since Mont­gomery had also taken the island of Yeu he began a privateering war which made the enemy suffer. In self-defence the King had to fit out his fleet to drive Montgomery away from the islands he had occupied. By the end of May Montgomery found his position untenable and returned with his ships to British waters.

The King of France opened a fresh diplomatic offensive in London with the object of obtaining the extradition of Count Montgomery ' in order to give him the punishment he deserved.' He also blamed Queen Elizabeth for treating the Countess with far too much kindness. The Queen pointed out to La Mothe that Montgomery sailed on his own ships with his own crew and that she had nothing to do with his expedition. Besides, Montgomery had bitterly complained to members of the court of the manner in which he had been treated. She promised to see to it that Mont­gomery did not undertake anything that might harm the interests of the King of France. He had acted contrary to her advice, and as she valued the friendship of the King so much, she would not admit Montgomery to court. 'But,' she said, ' I refuse to become the executioner of those of my own religion.' As for the Countess, she could not shut her door to the wife of the foremost among the

MONTGOMERYS OF LORGES 267

refugees from the other side of the Channel. (Despatch of La Mothe, 3rd June.)

Queen Elizabeth had decided to support William of Orange against the Spaniards, and on his return to British waters Gabriel sent his son Jacques, Seigneur de Lorges, with a message to the Queen that he was prepared to let his forces join the common cause. The expedition, which sailed for Flanders in June, was placed under the command of Lord Cathcart, and under him Lorges commanded the forces raised by his father {vide p. 275).

The fourth Huguenot war was ended by the peace of Boulogne on 24th June, by which the Huguenots were guaranteed freedom of religion and safety for life and property. When the French Ambassador read the treaty to Queen Elizabeth she asked if Montgomery also were included in the terms. La Mothe answered evasively : ' If his Majesty does not consider that he has conspired against him more than the others, I do not think he will exclude him' (Despatch, 12th June).

In December 1573 Montgomery paid a visit to La Mothe to ask if the granted amnesty extended to him; the Ambassador promised to make enquiries. After a meeting of his Privy Council on 20th January 1574, the King decided that Montgomery should be guaranteed safety to his person and the right to enjoy the income of his estates on condition that he did not return to France. His wife and his daughter-in-law should be allowed to return to France and settle at Ducey; their passports were transmitted by the Ambassador.

These measures seem to have been taken merely to lull Mont­gomery into security, for at the same time as the King sent his letter to La Mothe, a French nobleman, with more than one crime on his hands, and four other ruffians were sent across the Channel with instructions 'to destroy him by arms or poison.' The attempt, however, was discovered by the English secret service and frus­trated. On n th October Montgomery wrote to Cecil: 'There you see how much confidence one can place in these people.'

268 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

On n th March 1574 Montgomery made his descent upon France, but not at La Rochelle as he had planned. François de la Noue, who commanded the garrison at that place, refused to admit the Huguenot leader. The Reformists in Languedoc had sent a messenger to Montgomery asking him to go to them first, but as he wanted to keep communications with England open he decided to begin his operations in Normandy and disembarked at Lingre-ville near Coutance. At that time there was growing opposition in large parts of the country to the influence exercised at court by the Italian families of Retz, Birago and Nevers (Gonzaga). The news of Montgomery's arrival in Normandy spread like wildfire, and volunteers arrived from all corners to serve under the banner of the Huguenot leader. In a short time Montgomery had got together a little army, which after .twelve days' operations had occupied several strong places, including Saint-Lô, Pont-Douve and Car­entan, and was advancing towards Cherbourg.

The King had arrested his brother the Duke of Alençon and the King of Navarre, who had both joined the opposition against the Italian intrigue-mongers. Now he was encumbered with still another enemy, the one whom he feared most of all, and who had already made successful progress. He found it best to send a deputation to Montgomery, headed by Turenne and Quitry, asking him to lay down arms. The King's only wish, they said, was 'that those nobles who belonged to the religion should live in full liberty.'

Montgomery's answer was to refuse; he had returned to his country, he said, to re-establish justice, piety and the authority of the state. As for the right to live in peace, definite guarantees were required. The gentlemen 'of quality' His Majesty had sent were suspected individuals. Besides, no answer could be given before he had discussed the matter with the other members of his organ­ization, both at home and abroad.

On the receipt of this disrespectful reply the King was. seized with rage. He immediately ordered the raising of big armies, three of which were directed towards Normandy in order to quell 'the

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F L O R G E S 269

rebellion started by Montgomery.' At the same time he made a fresh demarche through La Mothe in London, to make certain that the Queen should not give Montgomery any support. By his perpetual nagging the French Ambassador had made her loathe the sound of Montgomery's name. No one, except possibly Mary Queen of Scots, had ever caused her so much discomfort and anxiety. In the Privy Council she declared that when Montgomery was allowed to go to Jersey she had strictly forbidden him to injure the King of France in any way whatsoever or even to cause sus­picion of doing so. By swooping on Normandy sword in hand he had made a deadly affront to her honour. Any Englishman who did not kill him at sight would be held a criminal. In other words, Montgomery was no longer persona grata with the Queen, and it was clear that, if anything happened to him, she would not lift a finger to save his life. There is no doubt that this fact was known both by the King of France and by his mother, Catherine de Médicis.

At the news of strong Royalist forces advancing towards Normandy Montgomery withdrew from Valognes and fell back on the line Vire-Saint-Lô. As his forces were much inferior in numbers to those of the enemy he had to obtain reinforcements. With a troop of 150 horse he cut his way through the enemy lines and began to raise troops in Brittany and Anjou. He had made an agreement with the commander at La Rochelle so that co­operation with the garrison of that place could be resumed. His plan was first to beat Martignon, who was besieging Saint-Lô, and afterwards with united forces to march into Languedoc and defeat the Dauphin.

But fate willed otherwise. On 7th May, while assembling his forces, Montgomery passed through Domfront with a troop of only forty men. His intention was to remain there for the day so as to rest the horses after a strenuous ride. He was delayed, however, owing to a serious quarrel among some of his men, and when two days later he left the castle he was met by the enemy's fire.

270 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

Martignon, being informed that Montgomery had escaped through his lines, had immediately raised the siege of Saint-Lô and hastened after him with his whole army, numbering over 10,000 men. Thanks to Montgomery's delay at Domfront he had overtaken him and had time to surround the casde on all sides. His army got reinforcements and soon reckoned 15,000 men. The King, the Queen and the Guises shouted with joy at the news that Mont­gomery had finally been trapped. But many more Frenchmen felt deeply the temporary loss of their beloved chief and were prepared to sacrifice their own lives to save him. Among these were Agrippe, Seigneur d'Aubigné, a young nobleman from Beam, and Fer-vacques, who had recently been imprisoned with the King of Navarre andwas now second in command to Martignon. D'Aubigné managed to get into contact with Montgomery through a personal friend among the officers at Domfront and offered to conduct him safely to Alençon by the assistance of Fervacques. That town was held by the Reformists. Montgomery well knew that discovery would cost the two officers their lives. With regard to them and also to his own garrison he declined the help offered by d'Aubigné, and the young Béarnese returned desolated. In this connection it may be mentioned that d'Aubigné became the great historian of Protestant France, whose works in 1620 were publicly burnt by the executioner, at the order of Parliament. Speaking of his attempt to save Montgomery's life he exclaims : ' It was otherwise written in the stars.'

The fight for Domfront began, 40 men to 15,000. The enemy's heavy artillery soon shot the outworks to pieces and Montgomery and his men had to withdraw to the ancient keep once raised by the Princes of Bellême. The guns were now directed against this stronghold, and after four hours of incessant bombardment the main curtain fell and Martignon's troops penetrated into the castie. In the first wave of assailants there were 1000 men, including 100 of the King's lifeguard of noblemen, once commanded by Jacques de Montgomery. They got a hot reception. Montgomery fought

MONTGOMERYS OF LORGES 271

himself in the first line, bare-headed, in a silver-embroidered red doublet, swinging a huge battle-axe. The enemy tried in vain to get through. They were hurled back with gashed foreheads. In the first assault the Royalist forces lost 200 men, 10 of whom were captains, while the defenders only lost 12. Montgomery himself was wounded; a stone splinter dislodged from the wall by a gunshot struck him in the face and tore open his left arm, but though wounded and bleeding he continued this titanic contest for five hours as if nothing had happened. During the night his men were allowed to sleep while he kept watch on the battlements.

At daybreak the artillery fire was renewed and went on all day. After his heavy losses the previous day Martignon did not try another assault but sent the Baron de Vassé, a relation of Mont­gomery, to negotiate the terms of surrender. Surely there were many in the Royal army who thought that such a heroic defence merited recognition even by enemies. The terms offered by Vassé were declined. But he returned a second time, offering other terms : in the name of the King, honourable surrender and safety in life and limb. The besieged force had by this time been reduced to 15, and the stores of ammunition, water and food were finished. Montgomery therefore accepted the King's terms.

On 30th May the news of the surrender at Domfront reached Paris. That day the King, who had been ill for some time, lay unconscious between life and death, and in the night his poor life ended. He was never allowed to hear the glad news, but to the Queen it came as healing balm. At last she would be in a position to wreak her vengeance on the man who had killed her husband, who had caused her son constant anxiety and had been the object of wild ramblings during his last illness.

Legally Montgomery's life was protected. When the Queen ordered Parliament at Rouen to open proceedings against him the president Bauquemare answered that the King's letter of pardon had just been registered and that he was therefore prevented from taking action against the Count. The Queen, however, was Regent,

2 7 2 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S

since Henry III had not yet returned from Poland. On receipt of Bauquemare's answer she could therefore give Martignon the order to transfer Montgomery to Paris. Martignon had treated Montgomery with due respect but was now compelled to send him closely guarded to the capital. He was locked up m the round tower of the Palais de Justice. Parliament in Pans made no difficulties about legal proceedings, which were immediately opened.

On 26th June Parliament gave its judgment. Montgomery was sentenced to death by decapitation for lese-majesty ; his body to be broken upon the wheel and his limbs hung up outside the gates of Paris, his head to be stuck on a pole at the place of execution, all his property to be confiscated and his children deprived of their hereditary titles.

Before this sentence was executed Montgomery should be subjected to torture and made to confess everything he knew about the 'conspiracy' of Admiral Coligny, about the actions of the Duke of Alençon, about his own intrigues in England and about the reason why he flew the English flag when relieving La Rochelle.

In order to extort confession and information all the most cruel means of torture invented in those days were applied to Mont­gomery, but without the least result. Not by a word did he betray his friends or his faith. And when, more dead than alive, he was pushed out of the chamber of torture by his tormentors his only words were: 'Badly have you kept the promise given me.'

In vain the Archbishop of Narbonne tried to make him abjure his faith. In vain did a friar use all his power of persuasion to make him forswear his errors when he had already ascended the scaffold. ' It was one of your brethren,' he answered, 'who for the first time lent me a Bible, and it was there I found the only true religion, the faith for which I have since lived and for which I shall, by the help of God, die to-day.'

The execution took place at the Place de Grève in the centre of Paris. Catherine de Médicis had placed herself in a window of

M O N T G O M E R Y S O F L O R G E S 273

the Hôtel de Ville to watch this most agreeable spectacle to her. The whole square was crowded by curious spectators, most of them probably Catholics and hostile to the leader of the Huguenots, who in their opinion was now going to suffer the punishment he deserved.

After Montgomery had dismissed the monk he made a short speech to the crowd:

'It is not possible,' he said, 'that in so great an assembly there are not some good people. I wish these to remember, that the charges brought against me are not those for which I have been sentenced to death. Among you there is probably none who has not heard that I was the accidental cause of the misfortune suffered by King Henry. This was why I left France and took the oppor­tunity of breathing once more the air of the country where I was bom. But all this I did without betraying my King. From this place I wish to exonerate the imprisoned marshals (Cossé and Montmorency) from the charges against them. I wish to declare, as I stand here on the way to Eternal Truth, that we had no connection with them when we took up arms. Tmsting that you will respect the wish of a man about to die, I ask you two things. One is that you tell my children, who have been deprived of their privileges, that I consent to this judgment, if they are not them­selves, through their own virtue, capable of rising again to nobility. My other and more important request is that when people wish to know the reason why Montgomery was beheaded, you do not tell them of his wars or his armies or what others have said were the motives for his imprisonment. This was vain gossip; let me rather make company in life and death with those simple people, old, young, and poor little women, who have on this spot endured the pain of swords and flames.' (Version given by the Florentine Ambassador, Alamanni, in his despatch 2nd July.)

After this Montgomery read in a clear voice the Reformed Confession and made a fervent prayer, which filled many eyes with

s

2 7 4 H I S T O R Y O F T H E M O N T G O M E R Y S tears and made even Catholics ashamed of the crime bemg committed by their superiors. Montgomery ^ J " ^ ~ tioner not to blindfold him, fell on his knees and received

^ ^ T h T d ^ B u t his memory lives, an example for all a g e S of Christian chivalry. The champion and martyr of their loved by the Protestants of France, as his enemies and tormentors are counted among the worst villains of their country.

By his wife, Isabeau de la Touche, Montgomery had four sons

and three daughters. The sons were :

( I ) Jacques, Comte de Montgomery, Captain of the Scots Guards and of the Men-at-Arms.

(a) Gilles, Seigneur de Ducey, a member of the suite of King Henry of Navarre at Saint-Jean-dAngely in 1588. He was killed at the siege of Dole in Brittany on n t h June 1590 and died without issue.

(i) Gabriel, who inherited the titles of his brother in 1609 and bought the Montgomery estates from the Marquis de Duras, who had married a daughter of Jacques.

(4) Gédéon.

The daughters were :

(1) Charlotte, who married first Christophe de Châteaubriand, Seigneur de Beaufort, and secondly David de la Touche, Seigneur de la Ravadière.

(2) Roberte, who married Sir Gawyn Champernowne of Udinton Castle in Cornwall on 19th May 1571.

(3) Claude, who married Jean de Refuge, Baron de Galardon and Comte de Coesmes.

MONTGOMERYS OF LORGES

JACQUES, COMTE DE MONTGOMERY eldest son of Gabriel de Montgomery and Isabeau de la Touche, was born about 1554. At the age of nineteen he took part in his father's expedition to the coast of Normandy and distinguished himself during the conquest of Belle-Ile.

On his return from this expedition he was sent by his father as special emissary to Queen Elizabeth to offer assistance to the Prince of Orange, whom the English Government had promised to support. Jacques, who was then Seigneur de Lorges, was nevertheless given a cold reception, since the Queen strongly disapproved of his father's actions. She instructed his brother-in-law, Sir Gawyn Champernowne, to follow him wherever he went, and he was forbidden to appear at court till further notice. After spending some time at Udinton Castle he sailed with his troops to Flanders and joined the Prince of Orange at Ley den.

William of Orange was defeated by the Spaniards in the first round but carried on the struggle after reinforcements had arrived from Scotland under the command of Robert de Montgomery, third son of John, Lord Montgomery. Lorges joined his father and went with him on his last and fatal expedition to France in the spring of 1574.

On his way to Domfront Gabriel left Jacques at Carentan in charge of 120 horse. This saved the life of the latter, who after many adventures managed to escape to England. He soon after­wards returned to France and joined the forces of Henry, Prince of Condé, who appointed him governor of Rhé and later of Brouage. It is said that Jacques was haughty and violent and led a most immoral life, and that these defects brought about his dismissal from his post as governor in 1577.

In 1581 Montgomery accompanied the Duke of Anjou to Flanders. Four years later he was made governor of Castres. During the campaign in 1581 he distinguished himself on several occasions and in 1585 he saved the life of the Prince of Condé,

276 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS conveying him in a small vessel from the port of Cancale to England. In 1589 he captured the strong fortress of Mont Saint-Michel by a ruse, but it was soon afterwards recaptured by the enemy. In the following year he seized the town of Viviers.

Jacques de Montgomery died in 1609. He was married three times His first wife was Peronelle de Campagne la Suze. He secondly married Aldonce de Berné de Carmaing. By these marriages he had three daughters :

(1) Marguerite, who married Jacques de Durfort, Marquis de Duras. Their son, Guy-Aldonce de Durfort, Marquis de Duras and Seigneur de Lorges, married Elizabeth de la Tour, daughter of the Duke of Bouillon and sister of Turenne. They had three sons: (1) Jacques-Henri, Duke of Duras and Marshal of France ; (2) Guy-Aldonce, Duke of Quintin and Marshal of France—his son Guy-Nicolas was Duke of Lorges; (3) Louis, K . G . , Marquis de Blanquefort, Earl of Feversham, British Ambassador and Lieutenant-General of the Forces.

(2) Marie, who married Philibert, Seigneur de Pompadour.

(3) Magdeleine.

GABRIEL II, COMTE DE MONTGOMERY, AND HIS DESCENDANTS

Gabriel was the third son of the Huguenot leader. In 1585 he fought with Condé against the Duke of Mercœur, leader of the Catholic League, and was present at the siege of Brouage. In 1586 he took part in the conquest of Soubise and fought in the battle of Coutras in 1587. The following year he defended Tours against Mayenne. He is supposed to have been the Montgomery who saved the life of Henry IV at the battle of Aumale in 1592. In 1621 he sold the castle of Pontorson to Louis XII I . He was Maréchal de Camp and commanded the Men-at-Arms. Mont-

MONTGOMERYS OF LORGES 277

gomery died in 1635. By his wife Suzanne de Bouquetot he had four sons and four daughters ; the sons were :

(1) Gabriel III, who succeeded his father as Comte de Mont­gomery. He married Aimée de Chasteney de Lanty and had by her a son François, Comte de Montgomery. François married first Charlotte de Morel and had by her a daughter Thérèse who became the wife of Claude de Dreux, Marquis de Nancré, and secondly Marie-Louise de Gresson. He had by her two sons, Nicolas who died without issue in 1721 and Jacques, Marquis de Montgomery, who had two daughters. The elder, Marie-Anne-Rose, married Louis-François, Marquis de Thiboutot.

(2) Louis, Comte de Montgomery, Seigneur de Ducey. In 1631 he offered Gustavus Adolphus 6000 men to be placed under the command of his brother Jean (Riks-arkivet, Stockholm, Handlingar och brev rörande tyska krtget, 1631, no. 26). He married Marguerite Dumas de Montmartin and had by her a son Louis, Marquis de Montgomery, who died without issue, and a daughter Susanne, who married Henri de Gouion, Marquis de Moussaye.

(3) Jean de Montgomery, Comte de Chanteloup, married Elizabeth de Montboucher. Their son Louis was thrown into the Bastille for refusing to abjure his Protestant faith and was tortured to death.

(4) Jacques, Baron d'Escouché, was Maréchal de Camp. His son Jean, Marquis de Montgomery, was Maréchal de Camp and Inspector-General of the French Cavalry. He died without issue in 1731, when the male line of the Montgomerys de Lorges became extinct.

MONTGOMERYS OF SCOTSTOUN

B L A S O N

Shield : Montgomery-Eglinton by way of surtout an escutcheon charged with a hart's head cabossed.

THE Montgomerys of Scotstoun are said to be descended from Alexander Montgomery of Bonnington, second son of Sir John Montgomery and Elizabeth Eglinton (Nisbet,

System of Heraldry, Edinburgh, 1722, p. 385). The first Mont­gomery of Scotstoun on record is Robert, who was an arbiter between the Abbot of Paisley and the town of Renfrew in 1488 (Cartulary of Paisley ad arm).

Robert's son, Rankin Montgomery of Scotstoun, married Catherine, daughter of Alan Steward of Craighall or Craig, which estate passed over to the Montgomerys of Scotstoun. Their son, David of Scotstoun, sat on assizes in 1532 (Reg. Mag. Sig.).

David's son Henry married Eupheme Maxwell, daughter of the Laird of Tynwald, on 9th October 1522 (Marriage contract printed by Fraser, II, 94). In 1544 he witnessed an agree­ment by Hugh, first Earl of Eglinton, to receive the teinds of certain lands (Ibid., 130). Henry had two sons : John, his successor, of whom presently, and Bartholomew or Bartill, who had two sons : David in Easter Scotstoun and John, a mariner. David was murdered in 1596 together with two little children by Robert Semple and William Montgomery. He married Janet Erskine and had by her four boys who survived their father: David, Henry, James and John, who died in 1614 (Hamilton and Campsie Test., 1619).

John Montgomery of Scotstoun, the son of Henry, witnessed an assignation by Robert, Master of Eglinton, in 1589 (Fraser, II, 229). He and his daughter-in-law, Eupheme Montgomery, com­plained to the Council against the murderers of David in 1596 (Reg. Priv. Council). He had two legitimate sons : John and Robert

278

HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS 279

of Craig, who died in 1623. He had also a bastard son John (Glasgow Test., 16th Feb. 1624). In 1609 John Montgomery of Scotstoun was at the horn for not paying Robert Montgomery and his son Robert 747 merks (Reg. Priv. Council). This was probably the second John of Scotstoun. His son John sold the estate to the Stuart family during the reign of James VI . John's son William bought an estate in Kintyre and settled there. His son John had three sons: William, James, a sea captain, and John, Minister of the Gospel at Stewartoun (Nisbet, Ibid., p. 385). It seems probable that John Montgomery, elder, merchant and bailie in Campbeltown (the principal town of Kintyre), was a brother of the elder William.

MONTGOMERY-CEDERHIELMS, YOUNGER

HOUSE OF SWEDEN

B L A S O N

Shield: Montgomery-Eglinton the order of fleurs-de-lis and annulets reversed to one and two all within a double tressure flory counter-

Crest: Out of a coronet of a Swedish noble an arm in armour

HIS branch of the family, the younger house of Sweden, is descended from John Montgomery, elder, merchant and

J L bailie in Campbeltown. The pedigree prepared by Sir William Fraser (family archive) is partly wrong. Thus Fraser has identified John Montgomery, elder, of Campbeltown, who died in February 1708 (Argyll Test., 8th June 1743) with John Mont­gomery of Creboy, who was one of the trustees for the sale of the Rosemount estate on 23rd November 1717 (Montgomery Manu­scripts, ed. Hi l l , p. 420).

In a letter to Robert Montgomery-Cederhielm dated 7th November 1879 Fraser writes about John Montgomery, elder, of Campbeltown, that he 'is said to be the son of Patrick Mont­gomery of Blackhouse.' Since John Montgomery of Creboy was his legitimate son and this gentleman lived at least nine years after the death of John in Campbeltown, and thus could not have been identical with him, Fraser's statement may indicate that the latter John was a natural son of Patrick, with the same name as his half-brother, a common practice in Scotland in those days. It seems far more probable, however, that John, elder, in Campbeltown was the son of John Montgomery, last Laird of Scotstoun, whose descendants settled in Kintyre.

John Montgomery, elder, in Campbeltown had a daughter, Anne, married to William Weir, merchant in Greenock. She was

flory.

Mantle : proper the hand grasping a spear or. Gules doubling sable fringe or.

280

HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS 281

executor-dative as nearest of kin when her father died in 1708, but John Montgomery in Stockholm in 1733 is described as 'eldest son of deceased John Montgomery, younger in Campbeltown,' which seems to suggest that John Montgomery, elder, was his grandfather. John Montgomery in Stockholm had a brother James, who was shipmaster in Glasgow in 1733 (Argyll Sasines, VII, 42 & 44).

In 1721 James Montgomery, son of John Montgomery, bailie in Campbeltown, assigned a bond to James Montgomery of Perston, merchant in Glasgow (Part. Sas. Argyle, 1752, VIII, fol. 314). The former James was also a merchant in Glasgow. In 1696 and 1700 he petitioned for the erection of a manufactory in that town (Acts of Pari. Scotland, C 33, X , 66, 209a).

JOHN MONTGOMERY

was designated merchant in Glasgow in 1720 but emigrated to Sweden soon afterwards. On 20th May 1736 he married Anna, daughter of Robert Campbell, a Scotsman who had settled in Sweden and had become a government official. A few days later he was created a noble of Sweden. As appears from his Charter of Nobility he was an experienced and clever business man and Squire. Thus the King gives him the following testimonial:

' Amongst those who have exerted themselves in order to make their way to their own honour and also to the gracious remembrance of their superiors, we reckon with good reason our faithful and well-beloved subject the squire John Montgomery. For although, according to the testimonials produced, he belongs to an ancient noble family in Scotland, of which several members both there and in France have risen to the order of Counts and otherwise held official posts, some members of the same family having also served the Swedish Crown and thereby always given proofs of valour and honourable behaviour, he has shewn that this was not for him sufficient nor could be placed to his credit, unless he after

282 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS their example had also tried to lead a commendable and honest life of which he in time might expect some profit and reward. He has'therefore, after studies during his youth, with all diligence tried to gain a good knowledge and information about various lawful, useful and honest trades. He has, since he arrived m Sweden sixteen years ago, given convincing proofs of good judgment and prudence in handling matters relating to commerce or trading, whereby he has not only succeeded in making a considerable private fortune in this country but has by his efforts brought about a considerable increase in the capital and revenue of the state.

Montgomery was the owner of the estates and industries of Lànna, in Sweden, and of Fiskars and Antnås, in Finland. During the period 1740-50 there was a boom in the iron industry, especially in Sweden, which country produced 40 per cent, of the world's pio-iron. In the next decade a serious depression set in owing to°the discovery of large mine-fields in England and Germany, which considerably reduced the demand for Swedish iron. As a result many Swedish mines had to close down and their owners were badly hit. Among them was Montgomery, who lost the greater part of his fortune. When he died in 1764 his only landed property was Kumla in Södertörn. He was buried at St. Mary's church in Stockholm.

John had by his wife, Anna Campbell, a son Robert, who at one time was in French service. He later returned to Sweden and was promoted to colonel. He was one of the conspirators of Anjala and was banished the country for some time, during which he visited his relations in Scotland. Archibald, eleventh Earl of Eglinton, presented him with a portrait of himself, which now hangs at Segersjö. This estate is by entail inherited by the head of the family. Every holder assumes the name of Montgomery-Cederhielm. Robert's son Josias was also a colonel. His son Robert was for many years a member of the Swedish Senate and

M O N T G O M E R Y - C E D E R H I E L M S 283

Chairman of the County Council of Orebro Ian. His eldest son, Hugh, was at one time Attaché to the Swedish Legation in Rome, and was a poet. He met with a tragic death, falling from the rock of Tiberius at Capri. Segersjö was inherited by the second son, Robert, Chamberlain and Chairman of many local institu­tions in his county. The present holder is Robert's eldest son, Lieutenant-Colonel John Montgomery-Cederhielm. Among the better known members of the family may be mentioned the two assistant Under-Secretaries of State, Josias and William Mont­gomery, both Chamberlains, and the professor of economics, Arthur Montgomery (vide Vem ar Vent and Nordisk Familjebok).

I N D E X

Aachen, 31 Abercromby, Patrick, 104 Abyssinian crisis, 174 Acton Burnell , estate of, 90 A d a m , 12 A d a m of Bremen, x i i i , 25, 31 Ad i l s , Y l v i n g K i n g , 22 Aethelstan. See Guthorm Aët ius , Roman general, 10, 18 Agincourt , battle of, 93, 94 Aig ro ld , Norman chieftain, 40 A i m e r i , 50 Aisne, battle of, 163 Alamanni , Florentine Ambassador, 273 Alamein , battle of, 188-95 Alamein, 1st Viscount of. See M o n t ­

gomery, Bernard A l a n , Count of Brittany, 38 A l a n , Duke of Brittany, 42 Alan F i tz Flaald, 102, 103 A l a n F i tz Walter, 103, 104 Alan Ha i fa . See Ruweisat Ridge Alanbrooke, 1st Viscount, F ie ld-Marshal ,

173, 201, 207 Alans, 10 A l b a , Duke of, 123, 254 Albany, John, Duke of, n o , 239 Alençon, 76, 77 Alençon , castle of, 60, 77 Alençon, Counts of, 78-80 Alençon, Duke of, 263, 268, 272 Alexander I I , Pope, 48, 61 Alexander, Haro ld , 1st Viscount, F i e ld -

Marshal , 188, 196, 203, 204 A l f the O l d , Y l v i n g K i n g , 19-22 A l f r e d the Great, K i n g of England, 14,

15, 16, 22, 67 Allahabad, 184 A l m e i n , 89 Almenèches , 59, 71, 7 2

Alpine race, 2 Amboise, treaty of, 254 Amiens, battle of, 161, 166-72 Amio t , burgher of Alençon , 76 Ammianus Marcell inus, x i i i Amoine , x i i i A m u n d . See A n u n d Andelot , François Coligny d \ 256 Anderson, John, xv, 102, 106, 108 Anderson, W i l l i a m , xv

284

Andersson, A . O. , xiv Angilbert , son-in-law of Charlemagne,

59 Angoulême, Wulg r in , Comte d \ 81 Angoulême, D u c d ' , 262 Angus, Archibald Douglas, 6th Ear l of,

n o , 241 Angus, Gilbert de Umfrav i l l e , Ear l ot,

107 Angus, W i l l i a m , n t h Ear l of, 115 A n j o u , E ly , Comte d ' , 80 An jou , Foulques le Rechm, Comte d ,

47, 77 „ ,, An jou , Geoffrey Mar te l , Comte d , 45 A n j o u , Marguerite d ' , 97, 98 Annulo , Danish K i n g , 25 Anscheti l , 38 Anselm, Archbishop, 67 Ansgar, 26 Ant ioch, battle of, 67 Antoine, K i n g of Navarre, 251, 252 A n u n d , Upsale, 26 A n u n d , Vö l fung K i n g , 19, 21 Ardennes, battle of, 199 Ardrossan, lordship of, 106 Argobast, General, 16 Argyle , Co l in , 1st Ea r l of, n o , 241 Ariovist , Suevic chieftain, 6, 7, 10 Arlette, mother of W i l l i a m the C o n ­

queror, 42, 43 Arnay- le -Duc , battle of, 258 Arnhem, battle of, 206, 207 A r n i m , General von, 195, 196 Arnu l f of Flanders, 38-41 Arques, Guil laume de Talous, Comte d ,

45 Arran , James, 1st Ea r l of, n o , 113, 241 Axran, James, 2nd Ear l of, 121 Arunde l Castle, 55 Arundel, 1st, 2nd and 3rd Earls o f . See

Montgomery Arunde l , Richard F i t z A l a n , Ear l of, 89 Asa-cult, 7, 8 Asbiorn , V i k i n g chief, 53, 54 Asgard, 8, 10 Asser, 14 Astley, Sir John, 95 At land, 5, 6 Atterbom, Per Daniel , 5 At t i l a , K i n g of Huns , 10, 17

INDEX Aubigné, Agrippa d', 258, 270 Aubigny, Robert Stuart, Comte d', 235,

240

Auchinleck, Sir Alexander, Field-Mar­shal, 188, 203

Aud the Deep-minded, 24 Auge, forest of, 46 Augsburg, 10 Aumale, battle of, 276 Aumale, Claude de Lorraine, Due d', 262 Aunay, Gontier d', 73 Aurignac race, 2 Aussigny, Thibaud d', Bishop of Orleans,

233. 234 Aveline, sister of Duchess Gunnor, 32 Azay-le-Rideau, 233

Badoglio, Marshal, 196 Balder, 14-16 Baldwin Castle, 54 Balfour of Burghley, John, Lord, 115 Balfour, Colonel, 139 Balfour, Sir James, i n , 241 Barclay, Major, 146 Barnard, F. P., 95 Bamous de Glos, 43 Barons fossiers, 92 Batavians, 16, 17 Bauquemare, President of Parliament of

Rouen, 271 Bayart, Pierre Terrail, Seigneur de, 239 Bayeux, 73 Beaton, David, Cardinal, 241 Beatty, 1st Earl, Admiral of the Fleet, 173 Beaumont, Roger de, Regent of Nor­

mandy, 32, 51 Bedford, Duke of, 94 Beldaeg, 15 Belgians, origin of, 6 Bellay, Martin du, 236 Bellême, state of, 16 Bellême, Guillaume Talvas, Prince of,

46. See also Montgomery Belleval, de, 93 Belle-Ile, conquest of, 266 Benoit, 44 Beowulf, 7, 12, 20 Berenger, Count of Brittany, 38 Berkeley, Elinor, 15s Berles, Anthoine, 233 Bernard the Dane, Regent of Normandy,

31. 32, 35-41 Bernard of Senlis, 37

285 Bernay, 46 Bertha, daughter of Charlemagne, 59 Béthune, Léon, Comte de, 133 Bhurtpore, game report, 173 Biagrasso, battle of, 239 Bigot, Roger, 63 Bikanir, Maharajah of, 163 Bikanir, game report, 173 Binning, Thomas, Lord, 118 Biorn Jarnsithe, King of Denmark, 24,

26, 28, 32 Birago, family of, 268 Blackhouse, estate of, 177 Blare, Major, 147 Bloemfontein, battle of, 161 Bluntshale, manor of, 93 Bo, son of Woden, 15, 16 Bocage country, 203, 204 Boddam, Hon. Hungerford, 161 Boisy, Claude GoufRer, Seigneur de, 247 Boitron, Corbet de, 53 Bojorix, Cimbric chieftain, 3 Bonneville, 75 Bonnivet, Louis Gouffier, Seigneur de,

235 Borghild, Princess, 20 Borgny, Princess, 19 Boroughbridge, battle of, 88, 93 Bothwell, James Hepburn, Earl of, 112 Bothwell, William Murray, Baron, 104 Boudin, Amédée, xv, 94 Bouillon, Guillaume Robert, Duc de, 250,

276 Bouillon, Quartermaster-General, 180 Bourbon, Charles de, Constable of

France, 236 Bourbon, Jean, Duc de, 93 Bourbon, Henri, Duc d Enghien, 259,

261 Bourbon, Louis, Prince de Condé, 248,

249, 251, 253, 25s, 256 Bourg-Saint-Andéol, battle of, 258 Boyd, Robert, 2nd Lord, 242 Boyd, Robert, 4th Lord, 113 Boyd, Robert, of Bedinheath, 113 Boyd, Sir Thomas, of Kilmarnock, 108 Bradley, O. N . , General, 198, 199, 205,

206 Braidstone, Thomas de, 88 Brantômes, Pierre de Bourdelles, 234-6 Bredefeld, manor of, 88 Breitenfeld, battle of, 123 Brest-Litovsk, treaty of, 165

286 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS

Breteuil, William of, 45 Brett, Bernard, Captain, 183 Brond, Saxon King, 15 Bronze Age, 2 Brötanund, King of Upsala, 21 Brouage, siege of, 276 Buccleuch, Laird of, 112 Buckingham, Gautier Giffard, Earl of, 68 Bugge, A . , Professor, 2 Burenskiöld, General, 125 Burghley, William Cecil, Lord, 121, 251,

267 Burke, Edmund, 218 Burns, Robert, 213, 220 Burton, Sir Thomas, 93 Butcher, C , Captain, 202 Byron, George Noel Gordon, Lord, 222

Cadogan, Hon. Charles, 127 Caen, 73 ; battle of, 198, 199, 201-6 Caesar, xiii , 6, 7, 10 Calais, siege of, 84, 90 Caledonians, 2 Calvin, Jean, 248 Camden, William, 83, 93 Campbell, Robert, 281 Canute the Great, 24, 27, 33, 48 Caracalla, Roman Emperor, 5 Cardiff, 68 Carew Castle, 83 Carew, family of, 83, 85, 86 Carew, Sir Nicholas de, 86 Carew, Sir Peter de, 83 Carew, Sir Richard de, 86 Carleton, Guy, Lord Dorchester, 218 Carloman of France, 41 Cassilis, Gilbert Kennedy, 2nd Earl of,

137 Castle Archdale, 159 Catalaunian fields, barde of, 10, 18 Cathcart, Lord, 122, 267 Catherine de Médicis, Queen of France,

246-73 Catstane, 15 Ceaulin, Saxon King, 15 Cecil. See Lord Burghley Celts, 1-6 Cerdic, Saxon King, 15 Challeton, manor of, 93 Champernowne, Sir Arthur, Vice-Ad­

miral, 259, 263, 275 Champernowne, Gawyn, 259, 263, 274,

275

Chapelle-Haute-Grise, La , 34 Charlemagne, 59 Charles I of Great Britain, 142, 150-3.

227 Charles II of Great Britain, 154 Charles V , Roman Emperor, 239, 240 Charles VI I of France, 232 Charles VII I of France, 234 Charles I X of France, 260-71 Charles Gustavus of Sweden, 120 Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, 96,

°7 Charroux, Castle of, 81 Chartres, Comte de, French Ambassador,

101

Château-Cambrésis, treaty of, 243, 244 Châtellerault, Duc de. See Arran, 1st

Earl of Châtellerault, Emery Vicomte de, 80 Chemin-des-Dames, battle of, 164, 165 Cherleton, John de, 86 Chester, Hugh, Earl of, 69 Chichester, Sir Arthur, 141 Chichester, Arthur, Captain, 144 Child, Charles, Major, 127 Childeric, King of Franks, 16, 19 Chilperic, King of Franks and Danes, 19 Chinon, Court of, 244 Christian X of Denmark, 202 Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston, 186, 188,

189, 197, 198, 201, 203 Cimbri, tribe in Jutland, 2, 3, 6 Claneboy, James Hamilton, 1st Viscount,

146, 152, 153 Clavière, Maulde la, 234 Clodio, King of Franks, 16, 17 Clodvig, King of Franks, 14; 19 Clotar, King of Franks, 19 Clows, W. Laird, 89 Cochilaik. See Helge Hundingsbane Coesmes, Jean, Comte de, 274 Coke, Chief Justice, 87 Coligny, Gaspard de, Admiral, 243, 249,

253-62, 272 Cologne, Archbishop of, 89 Colville of Culross, Lord, 115 Commines, Philippe de, 96, 97 Compston Castíe, 209 Conversano, Count of, 72 Cossé, Charles de Brissac de, 258, 273 Courcelles, Philippe, Seigneur de, 234 Courci, Sir John, 100 Coutras, battle of, 276

INDEX 287 Cranston, L o r d , 115 Craon, Jean de, 94 Crawford, Lieutenant-Colonel, 146 Crawford, Ma jo r , 146 Creboy, estate of, 177 Creoda, Saxon K i n g , 15 Crespy-en-Laonnais, treaty of, 240 Creuquer, manor of, 88 Cro-Magnon race, 1-4 Crossly, A r n o l d , 127 Cubley, manor of, 92, 93 Cunninghams, 110, 227 Cunningham, Sir Albert , 215 Cunningham, Alexander, i n Raphoe, 136 Cunningham, Alexander, son of the Ear l

of Glencairn, 226 Cuthwine, Saxon K i n g , 15, 16 Cymric people, 2, 3 Cynr ic , Saxon K i n g , 15

Dac i people, 5 Dag, 12 Dahl in , Olof von, 5 Dalançon, family of, 80 Dalham, manor of, 88 Daniel , Gabriel , 236 Darius Hystaspes, Persian K i n g , 4, 5 Darlecarlia, 4 Darnley, A l a n Stuart, L o r d , 103, 233 Darnley, Henry Stuart, L o r d , i n Darnley, John Stuart, L o r d , 103, 233 Dav id I I , K i n g of Scotland, 88, 104 Debeney, General, 167 D e Guingand, Major-General Sir Fran­

cis, 203, 204 Dehewend, A d a m , 87 Delavigne, M . , 248 De lh i , 184 Dempsey, General Sir Mi le s , 201 Denmark, 1-10 Derby, Robert de Ferrers, 1st Ear l of, 91 Derby, Robert de Ferrers, 6th Ear l of, 91 De Wet, General, 162 Divitiacus, K i n g in Belgium and Bri tain,

6 Dole, siege of, 274 Domald, 12 Domar, 12 Domfront , 45, 69, 73 Donaghadee, 142 Douglas, Archibald , 4th Ear l of, 106 Douglas, James, 2nd Ear l of, 105 Douglas, Wi l l i am , 1st Ear l of, 104, 105

Douglas, Sir Wi l l i am , of Drumlanr ig , 213, 227

Doullens, Conference of, 165 Doune Castle, 112 Driefontein, 161 Drumcrow estate, 159 Drummond, Sir John, of Innerpeffray,

113 Drury , Sir Wi l l i am , 121 Dudo de Saint-Quentin, x i i i , 30, 35-41 Dunbar, fortifications of, 121 ; battle of,

177 Dunbar, Sir John, 158 Durand, Abbot of Troarn, 47 Duras, Guy-Aldonce de Dur fo r t ,Marqu i s

de, 276 Duras, Jacques de Durfor t , D u c de, 276 Duras, Jacques de Durfor t , Marquis de,

276 Dyggve, 2 Dynham, John, L o r d , 98

Eatas. See Geatas Ebermunster, battle of, 233, 234 Edda, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21 Edgar Æthe l ing , K i n g of England, 67 Edi th , Queen of England, 48 Edmonstoun, Sir Archibald , of D u n -

threat, I I I , 122 Edmonstoun, Captain, 122 Edmund, K i n g of Denmark, 26 Edr ic , Saxon Earl , 53, 54 Edward the Confessor, K i n g of England,

48 ,67 Edward I, K i n g of England, 87, 104 Edward I I I , K i n g of England, 84, 89 Edward I V , K i n g of England, 84, 95-7 Edward V , K i n g of England, 84 Edward, The, flagship, 89 Eglinton. See Montgomery, Earls of Eglinton, Alexander Seton, 6th Ear l of,

82, 115-18, 146 Eglinton, Alexander, 12th Ear l of, 227 Eglinton, Sir Hugh , 106 Eglinton Castle, n o Eisenhower, Dwight , General, 196, 202,

206 Eketon (Ecton, Ekton, Ekenton, Eyton),

lordship of, 92, 93 Elbceuf, Marquis d ' , 254 Elesa, Saxon K i n g , 15 Elincourt, Mar ie Louise d ' , 133 Elinor of Castile, Queen of England, 79

288 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

Elinor of Guyenne, Queen of England, 78 Elizabeth, Queen of England, i n , 249 >

250. 253. 259. 263-7, 269 Elizabeth, Queen of Spain, 244 Ella, King of Northumberland, 25, 26 Ellinook, lands of, 85 Elliott, Mr . , 146 Emma, Queen of England, 48 Emund, Scylding King, 27, 29 Eormenric, Saxon King, 15, 16, 20 Eric, Scylding King, 27, 28 Eric the Victorious, King of Sweden, 27,

29 Eric Vveatherhat, King of Sweden, 27, 29 Erskine of Erskine, Sir John, 104 Esloo, treaty of, 31 Essex, John, Earl of, 98 Esthonia, 4 Etampes, Due d', 250 Ethelbert, Saxon King, 48 Etienne de Blois, 76 Eude, Duke of Burgundy, 63, 74, 78 Eude, Earl of Kent, 52, 62, 64, 65 Eugenius, Archbishop of Armagh, 100 Eure, battle of, 72 Eustache de Boulogne, 62, 63 Eutropius, xiii Exmes, Viscounty of, 66, 72, 74

Fadrique, Don, Spanish general, 123 Fairlie, Laird of, 129 Falaise, 42 Falsterbo, manor of, 126 Faramund, King of Franks, 16, 17 Farlington, manor of, 88 Fécamp, castle of, 52 Fellenberg, Philip von„ Landamann, 159,

160 Fenni, 4 Fergant, Alain, 50 Ferrières, Henri de, 91, 92 Fervacques, Seigneur de, 270 Feukbourne, manor of, 94 Feversham, Louis, Earl of, 276 Finland, 4 Fisher-Child, Ralph, 127 Fitela. See Tytla Fitzharding, Lord, 155 Fjolner, 12 Flodden, battle of, 109, 179 Florence of Worcester, xiii Foch, Marshal of France, 165-7 Folkings, 32

Fornsigtuna, 8, 14 . Four de La Londe, Charles, Marquis du,

80,134 François I of France, n o , 236-42 François d'Orléans, 240 Fraser, Master James, 101 Fraser, John, of Knok, 179 Fraser, Sir William, 102, 106, 108, 120,

177, 229, 241, 280 Frederick III, Roman Emperor, 96 Frederick IV of Holstein-Gottorp, 125 Freeman, E . A . , 34, 35. S i . 53 Frej, 12 Fresney-le-Vicomte, siege ot, 50 Freyberg, Lieutenant-General Sir Ber­

nard, 195, 196 Fridfrode, 12 Fridleif, 12 Frode, 12 Frodoard, 40 Froissart, Jean, 89 Fulbert, father-in-law of William the

Conqueror, 42 Fyrby, manor of, 126

Gachard, 123 Galbraith, John, 145 Gamelin, General, 174 Gaul, 6, 10 Gautier, uncle of William the Conqueror,

Geijer, Erik Gustaf, 13, 14 Genis, castle of, 259 Genlis, Seigneur de, 97 Genlis, Seigneur de, 260 Geoffrey, Abbot of Burton, 91 George, The, flagship, 89 Gerald Fitz Walter, 83, 85 Germania, 7 Getae, 5 Getica, 5, 6 Geuvis, Saxon King, 15 Gilbert, son of a bishop, 60 Giroie, Robert, 65 Glacial Age, 1 Glenawly, James Hamilton, Lord, 180 Glencairn, William, 6th Earl of, 113, 226 Gloucester, Robert de Torigny, Earl of,

Godfrid, King m Denmark, 25-30 Godfrid, King of East Anglia, 26, 29

I Godwin, Earl, 48 ! Gonzaga, Ferrante de, 240

INDEX 289 Gordon, Alexander Seton, Lord, 107 Gorm, son of Guthorm, King of East

Anglia, 29 Gorm the Old, King of Denmark, 27,

28 Gormeric, Danish Prince, 26, 28, 30-8 Gosford, Archibald, 1st Viscount, 159 Goths, 1-11 Gotins, 3 Gott, General, 188 Gottland, 4 Gouffern, 46 Gouraud, General, 166 Go wry, William, Earl of, 113 Grassmere estate, 217 Gregory of Tours, xiii, 14, 16, 20 Grentesmesnil, Hugo de, 63, 81 Grentesmesnil, Yves de, 68 Grey, William, Lord, 243 Greyabbey, manor of, 142 ' Greysteel.' See Alexander, 6th Earl

of Eglinton Griffin de Hereward, 86 Grubbe, Lars, General, 158 Guérin le Chauve, 53 Guillaume de Poitiers, 51 Guise, François de Lorraine, Duc de,

250, 254 Guise, Henri de Lorraine, Duc de, 262 Gunnor, Duchess of Normandy, 32, 42,

44 Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden,

259, 277 Guthorm, King of East Anglia, 27, 29, 31 Guttons, 3 Gwenllian, 86 Gytha, mother of King Harold of

England, 53

Haddele, manor of, 96 Hadorph, Johan, s Haig, Douglas, 1st Earl, Field-Marshal,

164, 165 Hailes, Lord, 212 Halfdan, King in Norway, 25 Halfdan Vidserk, King of Northumber­

land, 26 Hamilton, lordship of, 107 Hamilton, Alexander, Captain, 146 Hamilton, J. A. , 224 Hamilton, James. See Lords Glenawly

and Claneboy Hamilton, John, of Hairshaw, 129

Hamilton, Malcolm, Archbishop of Cashel, 180

Hamilton, Robert, 121 Harcourt, Dukes of, x i , 33, 80 Hardesnuth (Hardicanute), King of Eng­

land, 26, 33, 48 Harold, King of England, 48 Harold Biornson, King of Denmark, 26,

28 Harold Bluetooth, King of Denmark,

27, 40 Harold F air hair, King of Norway, 30 Harold Hårdråde, King of Norway, 49 Harold Hylthetan, King of Denmark, 24,

25, 27, 29 Harold, son of Hylthetan, 25, 29 Harold Klak, King of Denmark, 25, 26,

28, 30 Hart, Andro, 215 Harvey, Sir William, 150-2 Hastings, battle of, 49-52 Hastings, Lord, 97 Havarr, 12 Havering, manor of, 96 Heene, chantry of, 88 Heidrec. See Childeric Helge Hundingsbane, 14, 19-22 Helsingborg, battle of, 125 Hengist, Suevic chieftain, 7, 14-16 Henry I of England, 33, 59, 67-77, 85 Henry II of England, 80 Henry III of England, 86, 87 Henry IV of England, 106 Henry V of England, 94 Henry V I of England, 95 Henry VIII of England, 90, 240, 241 Henry I of France, 42, 47, 61 Henry II of France, 242-8 Henry III of France, 269, 272 Henry IV of France, 257, 268, 276 Henry IV, Roman Emperor, 48 Henry, Prince of Scotland, 115 Hepburn, Sir Adam, of Hailes, 108 Herbert of Cherbury, Lord, Ambassador,

82, 83 Herbert, Philip, Earl of Montgomery,

82, 83 Herbert, Richard, 82 Heremotre, 7, 8, 13 Herfast, 42 Herlève. See Arlette Hermes, Heremod, Heremotre, 7, 8 Hessilheid Castle, 208, 209

T

HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS 290

H i l l , Arthur, 144 H i l l , George, 158 Hinton, Harry, 127 Hjalprek, King in Denmark, 20 Hodges, Courtney, General, 201 Home, Earl of, 115 Home, Lord, 137 Homildon Hi l l , battle of, 106 Horic, elder, King of Denmark, 25-9 Horic, younger, King of Denmark, 27, 29 Horsa, Suevic chieftain, 7, 14, 1 0

Houdesdoun, 91 Houston of Houston, 179, 208 Howard, Lord. See Norfolk Howard, Sir John, Admiral of the Fleet,

89 Howell of Ellinook, 85 Hrolf the Ganger. See Rollo Hube, General, 197 Hugh the Prude. See Montgomery, 2nd

Earl of Shrewsbury Hugleik. See Helge Hundingsbane Hugo the Great, Count of Pans, 38-41 Huguenots, 243-76 Hume, George, 4th Lord, 241 Hume, Sir Patrick, of Polwarth, 209, 214 Hundred, 9 Huns, 9, i ° Hunt, Leigh, 237 Huntingdon, David, Earl ot, 102 Huntly, Earl of, 241 Hlmund, Völfung King, 19, 21, 23 Håtuna, manor of, x i , 14, 19. 2i-3> 2 » Hölja, manor of, 126

Iberic race, 2 Indian Mutiny, 184, 185 Indo-European (Caucasian) group ot

races, 2 _ . , Ingersoll, Ralph, Lieutenant-Colonel,

202 Ingiald Illråde, King of Sweden, 21-9 Ingvar, Prince of Esthonia, 21-9 Ingvar Ragnarson, 26, 28, 32, 48 Inland-ice, 1 Innsten, Ylving King, 19 Iran, 2, 8 Irish Association, 160 Irish Rebellion, 144-9, 152-4 Ivar Boneless, King of Northumberland,

25. 26 Ivar Wide-fathom, Scylding King, 24, 25 Ives, Bishop of Chartres, 44

James I of Scotland, 107 James III of Scotland, 109 James IV of Scotland, 109 James V of Scotland, 109, 229 James V I of Scotland (James I of Great

Britain and Ireland), 82,112,116-18, 140, 210 , 2 1 1 , 227

Japhet, 12 Jarnac, battle of, 255, 256 Jeanne d'Albret, Queen of Navarre, 256,

258, 260 Jerusalem, 67 Johan Philip, Rhine-Graf, 250, 255 Johannes of Ellinook, 85 Jordanes, xi i i , 5,6 Julian, Roman Emperor, 10 Jutes, 5 Jutland, 2, 3 Jamtland, 4 Jörmunrek. See Eormennc

Kel tos, 2 Kennedy, Gilbert, Lord, 109 Kennedy, Thomas, 135 Kent, Robert de, 104 Ker, Stephen, of Trearne, 107 Kerr, sword presented to, 158, 159 Killigrew, Rt. Hon. Henry, Ambassador,

122, 251 Kingsford, C . L . , 51, S3 Kipling, Rudyard, 162, 213 Knightsbridge, battle of, 188 Knox, Rev. James, 184

Lacy, Robert de, 68, 72 L a Ferrière, 25 La Fosse-Lavin, 94 Lagarde, Captain, 243 Lahore, 184 La Jaye, Marie, 233 La Marche, Boso, Comte de, 81 La Mothe-Fénelon, de, Ambassador,

2S9-70 La Plesse, 80 La Rochefoucauld, Charles de, 256 La Rochefoucauld, Olivier, Comte de,

133 L a Roche Mabile, Guillaume, Seigneur

de, 80 Lampeter Castle, 87, 88 Lancaster, Thomas, Earl of, 87 Langfedgetal, 21 Langside, battle of, 112

INDEX Larges, Largs, 232, 233 Law, Michael, 183 Lawrence, Sir Henry Montgomery, 184 Le Cateau, battle of, 163 Leinster, Dukes of, 85 Leith, battle of, 243 Lejre, Kings of, xi Lennox, John Stuart, Lord Darnley,

Earl of, 112, 241, 242 Lennox, Mathew Stuart, Lord Darnley,

Duke of, 113, 114 Leslie, Bishop, of Lisbum, 143, 144 Lestrange, John, 55, 86 Liddayle, David, 228 Lillebonne, Conference of, 49 Lilliehöok, Johan, General, 124 Limoges, Guy, Comte de, 81 Lindsay, John, 140 Lindsey, Katherine, 129 Lisieux, 34 Livingstone, Robert, 217 Llampader Castle, 87, 88 Llewellyn, Prince of Wales, 85 Lloyd George of Dwyfor, David, 1st

Earl, 168 Lodes or Odes, family of, 233 Loges, Hugh de, 87 London, Corporation of, 264 Longjumeau, treaty of, 255 Lorges, Duc de, 276 Lorges-en-Beauce, 233 Lothar of France, 41 Lothbroc or Lothroc. See Ragnar

Lodbrok Lothian, Earl of, 115 Louis V I of France, 38-41, 74-7 Louis X I of France, 96, 97, 234, 235 Louis X I I of France, 234 Louis X I I I of France, 276 Louis of Nassau, 259, 260 Louisburg, siege of, 216 Lucas, Sir Thomas, 144, 145 Ludendorff, Field-Marshal, 166, 170, 171 Lumsden, H . , Lieutenant-General, 194 Lydom, Lydham, Ledum, manor of,

86, 87 Lyle, John, Lord, 135 Lyndon, 88 Lyons-Montgomery of Belhavel, 83

McCarten, Irish chieftain, 148 McCaussland, Alexander, 215 Macduff, Duncan, 103

29I

Mackintosh, Shaw, 103 Madeleine, nunnery of, at Quatford, 60 Magdalene, Queen of Scotland, n o Magersfontein, barde of, 161 Magna Teye, manor of, 94 Magnus Barefoot, King of Norway, 69 Maguire, Con, Irish chieftain, 143-5, 148 Maine, Herbert II, Comte de, 47 Malcolm Canmore, King of Scotland,

S3, 67 Malet, Robert, Seigneur de Graville, 80 Man gin, General, 166 Mantes, 62 Mar, John, Earl of, 113 Marchyntane, manor of, 92, 93 Marcomir, Chattish chieftain, 16 Mareth, battle of, 195 Margaret of Anjou, 97, 98 Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy

96 Margaret, sister of Edgar Ætheling, 67 Margaret, Queen of Scotland, 109 Marguerite, Princess of France, 244 Marguerite d'Angoulême, 240 Marguerite, Comtesse d'Anjou, 47 Marguerite, Comtesse de Maine, 47 Marie de Lorraine, Queen of Scodand,

241, 242 Marignano, battle of, 236 Marius, Roman general, 3 Marjory, daughter of Walter the High

Steward, 103 Marlborough, John, 1st Duke of, 187 Marlet, Léon, xv, 251 Marne, battle of, 163 Martignon, Lieutenant-General of Nor­

mandy, 250, 254, 263, 269-72 Martigues, General, 250 Mary Queen of Scots, 103, i n , 112,

263 Mathew d'Escouchy, 234 Mathew of Paris, 27 Mathilde, spouse of Henry I of England

67 Mathilde, spouse of William the Con­

queror, 49 Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, 96 Maude, Hon. John Charles, 160 Maurice Fitz Gerald, 85 Maximilian, Duke of Austria, 98 Maxwell, Patrick, of Newark, 226, 227 Maxwell, Patrick, of Stainly, 226 Maxwell, Robert, of Carlaverock, 107

292 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS

Mayenne, Charles de Lorraine, Duc de, 276

Mayenne, Geoffrey de, 47, 55 Meilifont, manor of, 147, i55 Mentonoon, 3 Mercceur, Duc de, 276 Merovaeus, King of Franks, 16-20 Merovings, 9, 20 Mesle-sur-Sarthe, 34 Messe, General, 195 Mézières, siege of, 239 Michael, Bishop of Ossory, 100 Michel, Francisque, 44 Migne, 44 Miles, Archibald, Captain, 127 Milne, George, Lord, Field-Marshal, 173 Milton, John, 187 Molyneux, Montgomerys of, 83 Monea estate, 159 Monluc, Lieutenant-General of Guyenne,

Monro, Robert, General, 152, 153 Mons Gomerici, 34, 35 Mont Saint-Michel, 276 Mont Saint-Quentin, 161 Montaigu-la-Brisette, 46 Montereau, battle of, 233 Montgomery- Castle in Normandy, 34,

35 ; in Wales, 55, 82 M O N T G O M E R Y —

Gormeric,Danish Prince,26,28,30-8 j Norman Barons :

Guillam (William), 31, 35. 4 i Hugo, 41 Roger I, 41-4. 91

m. Josceline, 42-4. 52 Earls of Arundel and Shrewsbury :

Roger II, 1st Earl, 31, 44-66, 91, 102, 103

m. (1) Mabile, Princesse de Bel­lême, 44-59

(2) AdelaidedePuiset,58,59,60 Hugh, 2nd Earl, 59, 69, 85 Robert, 3rd Earl. See 1st Comte de

Ponthieu et Alençon Comtes de Ponthieu et Alençon :

Robert, Prince de Bellême, 52, 56, 58-60, 62, 64, 67-78

m. Agnes, Comtesse de Ponthieu, 59. 78

Guillaume Talvas, 75-8 m. Princess Hêle of Burgundy, 75,

78

MONTGOMERY—continued Comtes de Ponthieu :

Guy, 1st Comte, 78 m. Beatrix de Saint-Pol, 78

Jean, 2nd Comte, 78, 79 m. Beatrix d'Arqués, 78, 79

Guillaume, 3rd Comte, 79 m. Princess Alix of France, 79

Guy, 4th Comte, 79 dJi.p.

Comtes d'Alençon : Jean, 1st Comte, 78, 80

m. Beatrix d'Anjou, 80 Robert, 2nd Comte, 80

m. Jeanne de la Guerche, 80 Robert, 3rd Comte, 80

Comtes de la Marche : Roger, Earl of Lancaster, 59, 81, 92

m. Almodie, Comtesse de la Marche, 81

Boso, 2nd Comte, 81 ds.p.

Eude, 3rd Comte, 81 ds.p.

Aldebert, 4th Comte, 81 m. (1) Arengarde, 81

(2) Chalons de Pons, 81 Bernard, 5th Comte, 81 Aldebert, 6th Comte, 81

sold his fief to Henry II of England Barons of Eaglesham :

Robert, 1st Baron, 85, 102, 103 m. Marjory, daughter of Walter

the High Steward, 103 Alan, 2nd Baron, 103 Robert, 3rd Baron, 103 ; succeeded

by his brother Sir John, 4th Baron, 103, 104

m. Helen de Kent, 104 Sir Alan, 5th Baron, 104 Robert, 6th Baron, 104 ; succeeded

by his brother Sir John, 7th Baron, 104

m. Margaret Murray, 104 Sir John, 8th Baron, 104

m. Janet Erskine, 104 Sir Alexander, 9th Baron, 104

m. Lady Margaret Douglas, 104 Sir John/ioth Baron, 104-6

m. Elizabeth Eglinton, 106 Sir John, n t h Baron, 106, 107

m. (1) Agnes of the Isles, 107 (2) Margaret Maxwell, 107

INDEX

m .

" 3

MONTGOMERY—continued Lords of Montgomery, Ardrossan and

Giffen : Alexander, ist Lord, 94, 101, 107,

108 m. Margaret Boyd, 108

Alexander, Master of Montgomery, 108

m. Elizabeth Hepburn, 108 Alexander, 2nd Lord, 108, 109

m. Catherine Kennedy, 109 Earls of Eglinton :

Hugh, ist Earl, 101, 109, n o , 228 m. Lady Helen Campbell, n o

John, Lord Montgomery, n o , i n , 115, 120

m. Elizabeth Edmonstoun, 122

Hugh, 2nd Earl, 111 m. Marion Seton, i n , 242

Hugh, 3rd Earl, 111-13, 228 m. (1) Lady Jane Hamilton, _.

(2) Agnes Drummond, 113 Hugh, 4th Earl, 113, 227

m. Egidia Boyd, 113 Hugh, sth Earl, 101, 113, 114, 123

m. Margaret Montgomery, 114 Heads of elder house in Sweden :

Jacob David, 119, 120, 124, 125 OT. Anna Eleonora von Schell, 125

David Christopher, 125 OT. Emerentia Rosenstrale, 125

Carl Gustaf, 125, 126 OT. (1) Catherine Grubbensköld,

126 (2) Anna Victorin, 126

Carl Johan, 126 OT. Ulrika Svedmark, 126

David Robert, 126, 127 OT. Gertrud Liljenstolpe, 126

Carl Hampus, 127 OT. Sophie Dahiquist, 127

Robert, 127 OT. Julie von Axelson, 127

Hugo, 127 OT. Mathilda Claesson, 127

Lairds of Lainshaw : Sir Neil, ist Laird, n o , 130, 242

OT. Margaret Mure, 130 Sir Neil, 2nd Laird, 131

OT. Jane Lyle, 131 Sir Neil, 3rd Laird, 131 Sir Neil, 4th Laird, 131

293 MONTGOMERY—continued

Neil, 5th Laird, 131 John, 6th Laird, 131 David, 7th Laird, 131 James, 8th Laird, 131

OT. Barbara Kennedy, 131 Lairds of Braidstone :

Robert, ist Laird, 108, 138 Alexander, 2nd Laird, 138 Robert, 3rd Laird, 138

OT. Margaret Mure, 138 Adam John, 4th Laird, 138

m. Elizabeth Colquhoun, 138 Adam, 5th Laird, 138, 139, 177, 211

m. Margaret Montgomery, 139 Viscounts of Great Ardes :

Hugh, ist Viscount, 140-3 OT. Elizabeth Shaw, 140

Hugh, 2nd Viscount, 140, 143-9 OT. Jane Alexander, 143

Earls of Mountalexander : Hugh, ist Earl, 150-5

OT. Mary Moore, 154 Hugh, 2nd Earl, 155

OT. (1) Lady Catherine Dillon, 155 (2) Elinor Berkeley, 155

Henry, 3rd Earl, 155, 156 OT. Mary Saint Lawrence, 155

Hugh, 4th Earl, d.s.p., 156 OT. Elinor Barnwell

Thomas, 5th Earl, d.s.p., 156 OT. Mary de la Cherois

Baronets Graham-Montgomery of Stan­hope :

Sir James, ist Baronet, 231 m. Margaret Scott

Sir James, 2nd Baronet, OT. (1) Elizabeth Dunbar

(2) Helen Graham Sir Graham, 3rd Baronet, 231

OT. Alice Hope-Johnstone Sir James, 4th Baronet, d.s.p. ; suc­

ceeded by his brother Sir Basil, 5th Baronet,

OT. Catherine Moncreiffe Sir Thomas, 6th Baronet,

OT. Hon Anna Maria Fullerton-Elphinstone

Sir Henry, 7th Baronet, 231 OT. Cynthia Maconochie Welwood

Baronets Montgomery of the Hal l : Sir Henry, ist Baronet, 136

OT. Sara Grove

HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS 294 M O N T G O M E R Y — c o n t i n u e d

Baronets Montgomery of the Hall—contd. Sir Henry, 2nd Baronet,

m. Leonora Picot Sir Alexander, 3rd Baronet,

m. Caroline Campbell Sir Hugh, 4th Baronet,

Lairds of Hessilheid : Hugh , ist L a i r d , 108, 179

m. Janet Maxwe l l , 179 Sir John, 2nd L a i r d , 179 Hugh , 3rd La i rd , 139, 179. 2 0 8

m. daughter of Houston of Hous­ton, 179, 208

John, 4th L a i r d , 179, 208, 211 m. Margaret Fraser, 179, 208

Hugh , sth L a i r d , 180 OT. daughter of Lord Boyd, 180

Robert, 6th Laird, 180 Robert, 7th Laird, 180 Robert, 8th Laird, 180

Lairds of Skelmorly : George, ist L a i r d , 108, 226

m. Margaret Houston John, 2nd La i rd , 226

m. Mar ion Dawzel Cuthbert, 3rd L a i r d , 226

m. Elizabeth Houston George, 4th L a i r d , 226

m. Lady Catherine Montgomery Thomas, 5th Laird,

d.s.p. Robert, 6th Laird, 226

m. Dorothy Sempill Baronets of Skelmorly :

Sir Robert, ist Baronet, 213, 226, 227

OT. Margaret Douglas, 213, 214, 227

Sir Robert, 2nd Baronet, 227 OT. Lady M a r y Campbell , 227

Sir Robert, 3rd Baronet, OT. Anna Scott

Sir James, 4th Baronet, m. Lady Margaret Johnston

Sir Robert, 5Ü1 Baronet, 230 ; suc­ceeded by his uncle

OT. Frances Stirling Sir Hugh, 6th Baronet, 227

m. Lillias Gemmel Lairds of Giffen :

Sir Robert, ist L a i r d , 228, 229 ; succeeded by his nephew

MONTGOMERY—continued Sir John, 2nd L a i r d , 103, 108, 228,

229 , 232 , 233 OT. Mar ie d'Aussigny, 229, 233

Sir Wi l l i am , 3rd L a i r d , 228, 229,

232. 234 OT. Jonet Houston, 228, 233

Robert, 4th L a i r d , 228, 229 OT. Margaret Blayr, 228

Alexander, 5th L a i r d , 228, 229, 230

m. Jonet de Dunlop , 228 Patrick, 6th L a i r d , 228, 229 Robert, 7th L a i r d , 228, 229 Patrick, 8th L a i r d , 229, 232 H u g h , 9th L a i r d , 229 H u g h , 10th L a i r d , 229

Comtes Montgomery de Lorges : Jacques, is t Comte, 234-44

m. ( i ) Claude de la Boessière,

244 (2) Suzanne de Sul ly , 244 (3) Charlotte de Mail lé , 244

Gabrie l , 2nd Comte, 243-74 m. Isabeau de la Touche, 244, 251,

252, 259, 266, 267, 274 Jacques, 3rd Comte, 123, 267, 275,

276 m. (1) Peronelle de Campagne la

Suze, 276 (2) Aldonce de Berné de Car-

maing, 276 Gabriel , 4th Comte, 276, 277

m. Suzanne de Bouquetot, 277 Gabriel , 5th Comte, 277

m. Aimée de Chastenay de Lanty , 277

François , 6th Comte, 277 OT. (1) Charlotte de M o r e l , 277

(2) Mar ie-Louise de Gresson, 277

Nicholas, 7th Comte, 277 ds.p.

Jacques. See below Marquis Montgomery de Lorges :

Jacques, ist Marquis, 277 Louis, 2nd Marquis, 277 Jean, 3rd Marquis, 277

Seigneurs de Pontailler : Robert, Seigneur de Pontailler, 233-

235

OT. Huguette de Courcelles, 234,

235

INDEX MONTGOMERY—continued

Seigneurs de Pontailler—continued Louis, Seigneur de Pontailler, 235

m. (1) Anthoinette de Rabutin, 235

(2) Michelle de Maillot, 235 Philibert, Seigneur de Charnay, 235

dj.p. Lairds of Scotstoun :

Robert, of Scotstoun (1488), 278 Rankin, of Scotstoun, 278

m. Catherine Steward, 278 David, of Scotstoun, 278 Henry, of Scotstoun, 278

m. Eupheme Maxwell, 278 John, of Scotstoun, 278 John, of Scotstoun, 278 John, of Scotstoun, 278, 279

Heads of younger house in Sweden : John, 281, 282

m. Anna Campbell, 281, 282 Robert, 282

m. (1) Anna Sibylla von Stahl-bourg

(2) Catharina Rudbeck (3) Marta Cederhielm

Josias Montgomery-Cederhielm, 282 m. Mathilda d'Orozco

Robert Montgomery-Cederhielm, 282, 283

m. Cecilia Nordenfeldt Robert Montgomery-Cederhielm,

283 m. Emilie Funck

John Montgomery-Cederhielm, 283 m. Ebba Silfverstolpe

Adam, of Macbiehill, 230 Adam, Sir, of Montgomery Castle, -;s,

85, 86 Adam, of Montgomery Castle, 85, 86 Adam, elder, in Shropshire, 86 Adam, younger, in Shropshire, 87 Adam, son of 5th Laird of Giffen, 230 Agnes. Lady, wife of Thomas Ken­

nedy, 13s Alan, Laird of Stair and Cassillis, 104 Alan Louis, in France, 134 Albert Edward, in Sweden, 127 Alexander, of Ballileck, 216 Alexander, of Bonnington, 106, 278 Alexander, of Coilsfield, 227 Alexander, of the Hall, 136

295 MONTGOMERY—continued

Alexander, Colonel, 216 Alexander, the Poet, 179, 208-16, 219,

227 Alexander, Prebendary of Doe, 215 Alexander, son of ist Earl of Eglinton,

n o Alexander, son of Thomas in Green­

field, 129 Alexander Brooks, 132 Alice, sister of Sir Thomas, 98 Alice, wife of Maurice Fitz Gerald, 85 Amicia, wife of Adam de Montgomerv,

85, 86 Andrew, Vicar of Carrickmacross, 158 Ansfrid, nephew of Earl Roger, 50 Archibald, Master of Eglinton, 111 Archibald, Sir, Field-Marshal, 160-74 Arnulf, Earl of Pembroke, 59, 76, 77,

83-5, 100, 102 Arthur, Laird of Stane, 129 Arthur, Professor of Economics, 283 Bartholomew, 278 Bernard, ist Viscount of Alamein,

Field-Marshal, 161, 185-207 Blanche de Portes, wife of Jules

Alfrède, 134 B. G. , xvi, 127 Carl, Major in Sweden, 127 Carl, B.A. , Cambridge, 127 Catherine Auchinleck, wife of John of

Castle Oghrey, 219 Catherine de Balduine, wife of James,

123 Catherine Dunbar, wife of Hugh of

Derrygonnelly, 158 Catherine, of Killaghtee, 183 Catherine Lindsey, 129 Charlotta, wife of Colonel Fisher-

Child, 127 Christian, wife of Patrick, 177 Claude, Comtesse de Coesmes, 274 Colette Rolin, wife of Guillaume, 235 Constantin, son of 4th Laird of Giffen,

228

David, of Cockilbie, 131 David, of Easter Scotstoun, 278 David, of Killaghtee, 183 David, of Newtoun, 132 David, Swedish diplomatist, xv, 127 David, Hon., son of ist Viscount of

Alamein, 207 David Christopher, 123

296 HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS

MONTGOMERY—continued Diana, wife of Sir Archibald, 174 Edward, Canon, 100 Edward, Swedish Senator, 127 Effie, wife of John Hamilton, 129 Egidia, wife of Shaw Mackintosh, 103 Elizabeth Armar, 159 Elizabeth, Comtesse de Chanteloup,

277 Elizabeth, Lady Say, 94. 95 Elizabeth, daughter of John in Green­

field, 129 Elizabeth, wife of David in Sweden,

127 Elizabeth, wife of William of Rose­

mount, 149 Emée de Guerchy, 244 Emma, Abbess of Almenèches, 59, 71 Eugarthe, 85 Eugenius, son of Adam of Montgomery

Castle, 86 Eupheme, 278 Euphrosyne, Comtesse de la Roche­

foucauld, 133 Everard, son of Earl Roger, 59, 60 Ezekiel, brother of 5th Laird of Hessil­

heid, 179 . .„ François, Ecuyer de Cormainvdle, 244 François, Seigneur de Lorges, 234, 235 Frederick-Fabian, Marshal of Swedish

Court, 127 Fulco, in Huntingdon, 92 Galfrid, in Ireland, 100 George, of Broomlands, 136 George, Bishop of Clogher, 139, 140,

157 George, son of ist Viscount of Great

Ardes, 143 Georges, Seigneur de Lorges, 234 Gerard de la Marche, 81 Gilbert, brother of Earl Roger, 44, 45 Giles, son of Admiral Sir John, 90 Gilles, Seigneur de Ducey, 274 Gosselin, nephew of Earl Roger, 50 Grace Victoria Boddam, wife of Sir

Hubert, 161 Guillaume, Seigneur de la Roche

Mabile, 80 Guillaume, Seigneur de Lantenay, 235 Guillemette, 235 Gustaf-Adolf, Lieutenant-Governor of

Vesterbotten, 127 Hans, 125

MONTGOMERY—continued Harold Robert, brother of ist Vis­

count of Alamein, 207 Héle, wife of Robert Malet, 80 Henrietta, wife of Hon. Charles

Cadogan, 127 Henrik, Victor, Squire in Sweden, 127 Henry Cunningham, Sir, 136 Henry, son of Sir Alan, 5th of Eagle­

sham, 104 Henry Hutchinson, Rt. Rev., 186 Hezekiel, of Weitlands, 179 Howel, 86 Hubert, Sir, Envoy, 160 Hugh, Courtier in Scotland, 103 Hugh, brother of Alexander, ist Lord,

107 Hugh, son of ist Earl of Eglinton, n o Hugh, of Auchinhood, elder, 135 Hugh, of Auchinhood, younger, 135,

136 Hugh, of Ballymagown, 182 Hugh, ist of Blessingbourne, 159 Hugh, 2nd of Blessingbourne, 159 Hugh, 3rd of Blessingbourne, P.C., 160 Hugh, 4th of Blessingbourne, Major-

General, 160 Hugh, of Blessingbourne, younger,

diplomatist, 160 Hugh, of Bowhouse, 136 Hugh, of Castle Archdale, 159 Hugh, of Casde Hume, 159 Hugh, of Derrybrosk, 157 Hugh, of Derrygonnelly, 158 Hugh, of Granskeogh, elder, 175 Hugh, of Granskeogh, younger, 176 Hugh, of Greyabbey, 176 Hugh, Lord of Lyndon, 87 Hugh, of Maghera, 176 Hugh, of Smithtown, 137 Hugh, of Stane, 129 Hugo, brother of Earl Roger, 44 Isobel, wife of John Mure of Caldwell,

229 Jacques, Baron d'Escouché, 119, 277 Jacques, Seigneur de Courbouson,

brother of 2nd Comte, 244 James, brother of ist Earl of Eglinton,

109, 137 James, nephew of 2nd Earl of Eglinton,

i i S , X2I) 123, 124

James, brother of ist Earl of Mount­alexander, 149

INDEX 297 MONTGOMERY—continued

James, son of 4th Laird of Braidstone, 138, 157

James, of Bonnyglen, 136 James, of Brigend, elder, 137 James, of Brigend, younger, 137 James, of Perston, elder, 178, 281 James, of Perston, younger, 178 James, of Rousky, Colonel, 123, 180 James, Sir, of Rosemount, Colonel,

141, 143. 144. 147, 157 James, of Rosemount, 176 James, Curate of Greyabbey, 181, 182 James, Colonel in America, 132 James, merchant in Glasgow, 178 James, Moravian Minister, 219 James, shipmaster in Glasgow, 281 James, the Poet, 219-25 Jane, of Brigend, 137 Jane, wife of Patrick Shaw, 140 Janet Erskine, 278 Jean, Comte de Chanteloup, 277 Jeanne, Queen of Castile, daughter of

3rd Comte de Ponthieu, 79 John, Sir, Admiral of the Fleet, 84-

90 John, Sir, Seigneur d'Ambrières, 84,

93-5 _ John, Sir, of Giffen, Seigneur d'Azay,

94. 232-5 John, nephew of 2nd Earl, 121 John, Lieutenant-Colonel, in Ireland,

177 John, of Blackhouse, 177 John, of Bowhouse, 109 John, of Brigend, 137 John, of Casde Oghrey, 216, 219 John, of Cragan, 216 John, of Creboy, 178, 280 John, of Dreghorn, 129 John, in Flatt, 177, 178 John, of Flatt, 177, 178 John, in Giffen, 228 John, of Granskeogh, 175 John, in Greenfield, 129 John, of Killaghtee, 183 John, Lord of Lyndon, 90 John, of Macbiehill, 230 John, brother of Sir Thomas, 98 John, elder, bailie in Campbeltown,

279, 280

John, younger, bailie in Campbel­town, 280

MONTG OMERY—continued John, Squire and Noble in Sweden,

281 , 282

John, of Segersjö, Lieutenant-Colonel, 283

John, M . D . , brother of ist Viscount of Great Ardes, 139

John, son of Hugh, 4th of Blessing­bourne, 160

John, father of James the Poet, 219 John, son of ist Laird of Lainshaw, 130 John Berrien, Rear-Admiral in

America, 133 John Knox, in America, 132 John Samuel, Colonel, Swedish Life-

Guards, 127 Jonet Mure, 129 Josias, Chamberlain in Sweden, 283 Josias, Colonel, 282 Jules Alfred, in America and France,

134 Lafracoth, Princess, spouse of Arnulf,

85 , 100, 102 Lewis, of Acton Burnell branch, 90 Lilias, daughter of 4th Baronet of

Skelmorly, 226 Louis, Comte de Chanteloup, 277 Louis, Seigneur de Ducey, 277 Louis, head of youngest house in

France, 124 Louise d'Elincourt, 133 Lucie Cairnes, wife of Arthur of Stane,

129

Mabile de Châteauneuf, 59 Mabile, wife of Hugh I de Château-

neuf, 59 Magdelaine, daughter of 3rd Comte de

Lorges, 276 Margaret, Countess of Winton, 82,

" 5 , 214 Margaret, Lady, wife of Hugh of

Stane, 129 Margaret Fraser, Dame, wife of John

of Flatt, 177 Margaret, wife of John, ist Earl of

Lennox, 103, 233 Margaret, daughter of Adam of Mac­

biehill, 230 Margaret, daughter of Robert of

Macbiehill, 230 Margery, wife of Admiral Sir John, 90 Marguerite Dumas, Comtesse de

Montgomery, 277

298 HISTORY OF T H E MONTGOMERYS

MONTGOMERY—continued Marguerite, Marquise de Duras, 276 Maria Dolores Plink, wife of Hugh,

ist of Blessingbourne, 159 Maria von Fellenberg, wife of Hugh,

2nd of Blessingbourne, 159 Marie-Anne-Rose, Marquise de T h i -

boutot, 277 Marie, Comtesse d'Aumale, 79 Marie, Comtesse de Béthune, 133 Marie, wife of Philibert de Pompadour,

276 Marie d'Aussigny, wife of Sir John of

Giffen, 233 Marion, wife of Robert of Macbiehill,

230 Marquise, Comtesse de Limoges, 81 Mary Langton, wife of Hugh, 4th of

Blessingbourne, 160 Mary Maude, wife of Hugh, 3rd of

Blessingbourne, 160 Mathew, brother of John of Flatt,

r77 . _ Mathew, son of Thomas in Green­

field, 129 Mathew, brother of Robert of Macbie­

hill, 230 Mathilde, wife of Robert, Earl of

Morton, 59 Michael, in Ireland, 100 Murthaw, of Thornton and Innerwick,

104 Neil , Sir, of Stair and Cassillis, 104 Neil . See Gilles, Seigneur de Ducey Nicholas, of Derrybrosk, 157, 158 Nicholas, Sir, of Eketon and Marchyn­

tane, 84, 92 Nicholas, of Eketon and Marchyntane,

93 Nicholas, of Sudbury and Marchyn­

tane, 92, 93 Ormyc, Ornic, Orwich. See Gormeric Owen, Commissioner of Array, 87 Patrick, Colonel in France, 139 Patrick, of Blackhouse, 177 Patrick, of Creboy, 177. 178, 280 Patrick, of Giffen, 228 Peter the Clerk, 86 Peter, son of Hugh, 4th of Blessing­

bourne, 160 Philip, the crusader, 34, 59 Philip, of Canok, 87 Philip, in Ireland, 100

MONTGOMERY—continued Philip, of Montgomery Castle, 85, 86 Philippe, son of Guillaume, Comte de

Ponthieu, 79 Ponthia, Comtesse d'Angoulême, 81 Radulfus de Monte Gomerico, 50, 91 Radulfus, elder, in Berkshire, 91 Radulfus, younger, in Berkshire, 91 Ralph, in the battie of Hastings, 50 Ralph, in Ireland, 100 René or Régné, Seigneur de Lorges,

233. 234 , , Richard, American general, 21b-19 Richard, of Monea, 159 Robert, Archbishop of Glasgow, 179 Robert, Bishop of Argyle, n o Robert, brother of Earl Roger, 44 Robert, brother of 2nd Earl of Eglin­

ton, i n , 120-3, 243 Robert, head of elder house in Sweden,

127 Robert, Colonel in Sweden, 282 Robert, Sir, Lieutenant-Governor in

India, 183-5 Robert, President of High Court at

Vasa, 127 Robert, of Bessmount, 216 Robert, of Bonnyglen, 136 Robert, brother of Hugh of Bowhouse,

136 Robert, son of 4th Laird of Braidstone,

177 Robert, son of Nicholas of Derry­

gonnelly, 158 Robert, in Ferneberge, 91 Robert, of Giffen, 228 Robert, of Giffen, Master of Eglinton,

113, 114, 278 . - , , Robert, of Greyabbey, Major-General,

176 Robert, of Hatoun, 181, 182 Robert, of Macbiehill, 230 Robert, wool-merchant, 90, 91 Roberte (Roberde), wife of Gawyn

Champernowne, 274 Roger, in Lancashire, 92 Roger, in Acton Burnell, 90 Roger, Seigneur de Caudemonne, 92 Rose, first wife of Admiral Sir John,

88, 90 Samuel, Curate of Derry, 183 Samuel, Major, 182 Samuel, of New Park, Moville, 183

INDEX MONTGOMERY—continued

Samuel, of Spring Vale, 183 Sibyle, wife of Robert, Earl of Glou­

cester, 59 Sibyle, daughter of Roger, Earl of

Lancaster, 81 Signe, wife of Captain Miles, 127 Stephen, of Acton Burnell, 84, 90 Stephen, of Acton Burnell branch, 90 Susanne, Marquise de Moussay, 277 Sylvester, in Ireland, 100 Thérèse, Marquise de Nancré, 277 Thomas, Lord of Lydom, 86, 87 Thomas, son of Sir John, 6th of

Eaglesham, 104 Thomas, Sir, K . G . , Ambassador, 95-8 Thomas, Rector of Glasgow Univer­

sity, 108 Thomas, in Greenfield, 129 Thomas, M . P . for Lifford, 216 Thomas, brother of 5th Laird of

Giffen, 228 Thomas Harrison, senior, in America,

xv. 133. 137 Thomas Harrison, junior, in America,

133 Troilus, father of Adam of Macbiehill,

230 Walkelin, 92 Walter, of Ferrers, 91 Walter de Montgomery, Earl of Fer­

rers, 91 Walter, elder, Lord of Eketon, 91 Walter, younger, Lord of Eketon, 91 Walter, in Ireland, 100 William. See Guillam William, brother of Earl Roger, 44 William, nephew of Earl Roger, 50 William, son of Robert, ist of Eagle­

sham, 103 William, brother of 3rd Earl of Eglin­

ton, i n William, brother of ist Baronet of

Skelmorly, 226 William, of Brigend, 137 William, Sir, of Eketon, elder, 91, 92 William, Sir, of Eketon, younger, 91,

92 William, of Granskeogh, 176 William, of Greenfield, n o , 129 William, of Greyabbey, 176 William, of Magbiehill, 230 William, of Maghera, 176

299 I MONTGOMERY—continued

William, of Rosemount, 90, 143, 155, 157-9. 175. 177. 233

William Reading, Brigadier-General, in America, 133

William, son of Hugh of Brigend, emigrated to America, 132

William W., of Louisiana, 133 William, Chamberlain in Sweden, 283

Montgomerys of Carboldisham, 83 Montmorency, Anne de, Constable of

France, 246, 253, 273 Montreal, conquest of, 217 Montrose, James, Marquess of, 119, 120,

124 Moorehead, Alan, 202, 203 Moore, Lord, 147 Morale, 161 More, Agnes, 106 Morgan, Sir Thomas, 122 Mortimer, Raoul de, 63 Morton, Robert, Earl of, 62, 63, 74, 210 Morvilliers, M . de, 250 Motey, Renault, Vicomte Du, 41, 42, 46,

60, 67, 71, 72, 76, 89, 134 Moubray, Robert de, 63 Mount Alexander, castle of, 146 Mountjoy, Governor in Ireland, 141 Mountjoy, Lord, 98 Moussaye, Henri de Gouion, Marquis de,

277 Muratori, xiii Mure, Adam, of Caldwell, 138 •Mure, John, of Caldwell, 229 Mure, Quentin, of Skeldoun, 131 Mure, Sir William, of Rowallan, elder,

180

Mure, Sir William, of Rowallan, younger, 213

Murray, James Stuart, Earl of, 112 Murtagh O'Brien, King of Munster, 100,

102 Mussolini, 196 Mutchee Bawn, battle of, 184 Malar, lake of, 8, 21

Nancré, Marquis de, 277 Nassau, Louis, Prince of, 259, 260 Narbonne, Archbishop of, 272 Navailles, Henri de, 256, 257 Nesta, daughter of Rhys, King of South

Wales, 85 Nevers, family of, 268

HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS Newark Castle, 226, 227 Noah, 12 Nordic race, 1-11 Norfolk, John Howard, ist Duke of, 97 Norfolk, Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of,

243 Northumberland, Dukes of, 105 Norway, 4 Nostradamus, 246

Octa, Saxon Kling, 15 Odelerius, 60 Oden. See Woden Odense, 8 Odes or de Lodes, Jean, 233 Oeric, Saxon King, 15 Olof, son of Biorn, Scylding King, 29 Olof, son of Godfrid, Scylding King,

25-29 Olof, son of Sihtric, Scylding King, 29 Olof Scottking, King of Sweden, 24 Olof Tràtàlja, King of Varmland, 22, 24 O'Neil, Owen, 153 O'Neil, Phelim, 143-5, H 8

O'Neil, Turlogh, 148 Ordericus Vitalis, xi i i , 42, 45, 50, 51, 61,

65, 66, 77 Ormic. See Gormeric Ormond, Marquess of, 145, 146, 154 Orosius, xii i , 5 Osbem of Crépon, 42, 43 Ossory, Bishop of, 100 Ostro-Goths, 4, 10 Ottar Wendelkråka, King of Upsala, 19 Otterburn, battle of, 105 Otto, Roman Emperor, 31 Owain, Welsh chieftain, 85 Oxford, Earl of, 98

Paardeberg, battle of, 161 Paisley, monastery of, 103 Palaeolithic Age, 2 Pantoul, William, 53, 71 Paris, siege of, 31 Paterson, James, xv, 177, 215 Patton, G. , General, 201, 205 Pavia, battle of, 239 Pembroke, Earls of, 82, 83. See also

Montgomery, Arnulf Pembroke Castle, 83, 102 Pepys, Samuel, 187 Perche, Rotrou, Comte de, 72, 75 Percy, Sir Henry, 105, 106

Peringskiöld, J., 14 Perth, Earl of, 115 Pétain, Marshal of France, 165 Peter Olai, xiii Pevensey, 49 Philip I of France, 61 Philip II of Spain, 123, 254 Philippa, Queen of England, 88, 90 Picquigny, treaties of, 97 Pinkie, battle of, 135 Plantagenet, Geoffrey, 80 Plantagenet, Henry, 78 Pliny, xiii , 3 Poitiers, Diane de, Duchesse de Valen-

tinois, 245-7 Polnoon Castle, 105 Polybius, 3 Pont, Robert, 208 Pontefract, 106 Ponthieu, Guy, Comte de, 59 Pontorson, castle of, 276 Port Montgomery, 142 Portchester Castle, 93 Primrose, The, flagship, 265 Priscus, 17 Procopius, xiii , 5 Ptolemy, xiii Punjab, 184, 185 Pytheas, of Massilia, xi i i , 3

Quaran, son of Sihtric, Scylding King, 29 Quarrel, Robert, 65 Quebec, assault on, 218 Quintin, Duke of, 276 Quirtoun, of Giffyne, 107

Radbart, King of Esthonia, 24 Ragnar Lodbrok (Lothroc, Raghnall),

Norwegian King, 24-8, 30, 31 Ragnar, Danish chieftain, 25 Ragnar, brother of Horic, 29 Ragnarike, 25, 30 Ragnvald, Earl, 30 Raguier, Jean, 97 Randver, King of Esthonia, 24 Rawlinson, Henry, Lord, Field-Marshal,

163-72 Redwald, Saxon King, 15, 20, 21 Reilly, E . G . S., Reims, 232 René II of Lorraine, 96 Retz, family of, 268

' Rhine, battle of, 199-201

INDEX Rhodes, Cecil, 162 Rhys, King of South Wales, 85 Richard I of Normandy, 30-2, 35, 39-41 Richard II of Normandy, 42, 45 Richard II of England, 106 Richer, 40 Ring, Sigurd, Ylving King, 23-5 Ringerike, 23 Rings ta, 28 Ringstad, 19, 21, 23 Riulf or Hrolf, Norwegian chieftain, 30,

36,38 Rizzio, David, 112 Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury, 48 Robert Bruce, King of Scotland, 104, 159 Robert II of Scotland, 103 Robert III of Scotland, 106 Robert I of Normandy. See Rollo Robert II of Normandy, 42 Robert Courte-Heuse, Duke of Nor­

mandy, 52, 56-8, 62, 64, 65, 67-76 Robert of Caen, 44 Robertson, William, xv Rolin, Nicholas, 235 Rollo, ist Duke of Normandy, 24, 30-3,

38, 40, 62 Rommel, Field-Marshal, 189-96, 205 Romorantin, 238 Roosevelt, F . D. , President, 203 Roric, King of Denmark, 24 Roscommon, Earl of, 155 Rosemount estate, 176 Rothulph, 26 Rottneros, 127 Rudbeck, Olaus, 5, 6 Rundstedt, Field-Marshal von, 198, 199 j Runic letters, 10 Rupt, François de, 235 Ruthven Castle, raid of, 211 Ruweisat Ridge, battle of, 189, 203 Rödungar, 20

Sadler, Ralph, 243 Sagas, i , 4 Saint-André, Jacques d'Albon, Marshal

of France, 253 Saint-Aubin, 94 Saint-Bartholomew's Eve, 261, 262 Saint-Cénery, castle of, 65 Saint-Claire-sur-Epte, treaty of, 41 Saint-Germain-en-Laye, treaty of, 258 Saint-Germain-de-Montgomery, ruins of,

34

3OI

Saint-Jacques, battle of, 233 Saint-Lô, heresy in, 245 Saint-Pol, François, Comte de, 238 Saint-Quentin, battle of, 243 Saint-Saëns, 74 Saint-Sylvin, 46 Sainte-Catherine, 251 Sainte-Foy-de-Montgomery, 34 Sanxai, battle of, 255 Sauchieburn, battle of, 109 Saulcourt, battle of, 31 Savoy, Philibert, Duke of, 244, 246 Saxo Grammaticus, xiii, 16 Say, Sir Geoffrey de, 88 Say, Robert Picot, Seigneur de, 53, 88 Sceldwea or Scealdne, ancestor of the

Scyldings, 13 Schônning, G. , 25 Scotstoun, 106 Scott, Robert, Chief Justice Clerk, 215 Scrob, son of Richard, 54 Scyldings, 12-29 Scythians, 5 Sees, 72 Semnones, 9 Semple, Robert, 278 Senfrie, sister of Duchess Gunnor, 32, 44 Seton, Alexander, 6th Earl of Eglinton,

113, 115-18, 124 Seton, George, Lord, i n Seton, Robert, ist Earl of Winton, 113,

« S . Seton, Sir William, 116 Shaw, Alexander, of Sauchie, 140 Shaw, James, of Greenock, 140 Shaw, Patrick, 140 Shrewsbury, Earls of. See Montgomery Shrewsbury Abbey, 61, 65 Shrewsbury Castle, 55 Sibyle de Conversano, 68 Sigear, Saxon chieftain, 15, 16, 20 Sigfrid, King of Denmark. See Sigurd

Snogeöje Sigge Fridleifsson, 14 Sigmund, King of Franks, 14, 15 Sigtuna, 8, 14, 22 Sigurd Fafnesbane, Volsung King, 16,

19, 21 Sigurd Snogeöje, King of Denmark,

24-6, 30 Sihtric, Scylding King, 29 Sihtric, Viking chief, 28, 31, 40 Simpson, Sir James, 15

HISTORY OF THE MONTGOMERYS 302

Simpson, William, General, 201 Sinn Fein movement, 4 Sjöfare, Suevic King, 19 Skira, Prince of Esthonia, 24 Sköld. See Sceldwea Sköldungar. See Scyldings Sluys, batde of, 89 Snorre Sturleson, xiii, 5, 8, 9, 12 Somerset, Robert, Earl of, 117 Somerton Casde, 92 Soubise, conquest of, 276 Spartianus, 5 Stafford, battle of, 54 Stamford Bridge, battle of, 49 Steward, Alan, of Craighall, 278 Stewart, Lady Gabrielle, 113 Stirling Castle, 241 _ , , Stirling, William Alexander, Earl ot, 143 Stone Age, 4 Strabo, 3 ^- _ , , Strathearn, Malise of Graham, Earl ot,

107 Stretton, manor of, 103 Stuart, Robert. See d'Aubigny Stuart, Robert, 256 Stumme, General, 193 Sueves, 4, 7, 9 Suevia or Suebia, 6 Suevic dynasties, 12-23 Svanhilda, daughter of Sigurd Fafnes­

bane, 16, 20 Svarttorp, manor of, 125 Svegder, 12 _ , Sven Forkbeard, King of Denmark, 24,

Sven Rôde, Saxon chief tam, 19 Sven Ulfson, King of Denmark, 48, 49.

S3 Svessiones, 6 Sviones, 6, 9 Sweden, 1-10; laws of, 8 Save, T. , 126

Tacitus, xiii , 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13 Talant, castle of, 234 Talbot, Lord, 95 Talbot, Sir Gilbert, 98 Talbot, Richard, 100 Tavannes, de, Marshal of France, 246,

261 Teutobuch, Teuton chieftain, 3 Teutons, 2, 3, 6 Theoderic the Great, 10, 11

Thirdpart, 177, 178 Thoma, General von, 193 Thracians, 5, 6 Thuit, castle of, 46 Thurold de Pontaudemer, 32 Tichborne estate, 159 Tinchebray, battle of, 74 Tirache, battle of, 89 Tjodulf of Hvin, 12 Tobruk, 188 Torigny. See Gloucester Torphichen, Lord, 115 Toste, Earl of Northumberland, 48, 49 Touche, David de la, 275 Touche, François de la, Seigneur, 244 Trenchard, ist Viscount, Air-Marshal,

173 Trevize, battle of, 236 Tristerame, Sir Amore, 100 Troarne, foundation charter, 31 ; en­

dowments, 31, 52 Troy, Kings of, 8, 9, 10 Trun, castle of, 46 Tudenham, Sir Thomas, 98 Tunstell, Sir Richard, 98 Turenne, Marshal of France, 276 Turf, history of, 55 Turkey, 8, 9 Tyringhame, Sir Arthur, 144 Tyrrell, William, 98 Tytla, Saxon King, 15, 20 Tytler, 106

Ubbe, Danish chieftain, 26, 27 Uffe, Saxon King, 12, 15, 18-23 Uffingas, 12-29 Ulf. See Uffe Ulster King of Arms, 143 Ulvungar, 12-29

Vaermund, Suevic King, 15, 17. 2° Vaermundings, 20 Vale, son of Woden, 16 Vanland, 12 Varaville, battle of, 41 Varenne, William de, Earl of Surrey, 68 Varenne, Renault de, 73 Vassé, Baron de, 271 Vassy, massacre of, 248 Vaudreuil, casde of, 42 Vegdegg, Vecta or Vitta, son of Woden,

7. 14, 15 Verelius, O., 14

INDEX Vemeuil, battle of, 94 Vexin, county of, 61 Vieilleville, M . de, 246 Vignet, 34 Viking raids, 11 Visbur, 12 Visi-Goths, 10, n Vistula, 5 Vogel, Walter, 22 Volturno, battle of, 197 Vuetgis, Saxon King, 15 Vylfings, 12-29

va, 4 Völf, 12, 13, 20, 21 Völfungen, 12, 13 Völsungen, 12, 13

Wace, Robert, xiii , 36, 49, 50 Walsingham, Sir Francis, 260 Walter Fitz Alan, High Steward, 102, 103 Walter Fitz Otho, 83 War Cabinet, 168 Wareham Castle, 75 Wark Castle, 241 Warner, G . , 91 Warwick, Ambrose, Earl of, 253 Warwick, Gui de Beauchamp, Earl of, 95 Waurin, John de, 94 Wavell, ist Earl, Field-Marshal, 173 Weir, William, 280 Wen lock, 60 Westmeath, Earl of, 154 Wevie, sister of Duchess Gunnor, 44 Weygand, General, 174 Whyte, J . C , ss Widukind, xiii William Cliton, Duke of Normandy, 68,

74

William the Conqueror, 24, 32, 42, 45-62, 68

William Rufus, King of England, 57, 59, 62-64

William d'Eu, 63 William Fitz Osbern, 50, 52 William Longsword, Duke of Normandy,

I . 31. 32, 35-9 : William of Breteuil, 45, 64, 65 [ William of Greyabbey, 176 j William of Jumièges, xiii, 44, 50

William of Malmesbury, xiii , 46, 75 William of Orange, 123, 259, 267 Willmott, Robert, 225 Wilson, Lieutenant-General Sir Henry,

165 Windsor Castle, 83 Winton, 106 Winton, Robert, Lord Seton, Earl of, 113 Woden, Saxon chieftain, 7, 8 ; descend­

ants of, 10-29 Wolston, manor of, 103 Woolsack, manor of, 162 World War, Second, cause of, 174 Wrangel, Johan Mauritz, 124

Ylvings, 12-29, 33 Ynglingasagan, 12, 21 Yngve Frej, 12, 21 York, house of, 95 Young, A . J., 183 Ypres, John French, ist Earl of, Field-

Marshal, 164

Oilime, King, 20 Ornhielm, Clas, 5 Östen, King of Upsala, 22