The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Dear Newsgroup ~
As most people know by now, the baronial family of Fitz Alan changed
their surname from Fitz Alan to Arundel about 1313, and all branches
of the family thereafter were known as Arundel (or de Arundel). The
name change is discussed at some length in my book, Plantagenet
Ancestry (2004).
Yet, when I consult printed sources, I often find that the index
prepared by a modern editor tells me that there is an item on the Fitz
Alan family on a certain page. However, when I look at the entry
itself and if the entry dates after 1313, the name is always Arundel,
not Fitz Alan. Here is a good example:
The index of Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, 5 (1906): 685
states that there is an entry for "Richard Fitz-Alan earl of Arundel"
on page 28. Yet when that page is consulted, it turns out to be a
reference to "John Arundell, knight, son of the earl of Arundell"
dated 1370. The earl is mentioned alright, but there is no Fitz Alan.
For a full transcript of this item and the index page, see the
following weblinks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... rundell%22
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... 1-PA685,M1
I'll be posting other examples of the vanishing Fitz Alan surname as I
find them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
As most people know by now, the baronial family of Fitz Alan changed
their surname from Fitz Alan to Arundel about 1313, and all branches
of the family thereafter were known as Arundel (or de Arundel). The
name change is discussed at some length in my book, Plantagenet
Ancestry (2004).
Yet, when I consult printed sources, I often find that the index
prepared by a modern editor tells me that there is an item on the Fitz
Alan family on a certain page. However, when I look at the entry
itself and if the entry dates after 1313, the name is always Arundel,
not Fitz Alan. Here is a good example:
The index of Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, 5 (1906): 685
states that there is an entry for "Richard Fitz-Alan earl of Arundel"
on page 28. Yet when that page is consulted, it turns out to be a
reference to "John Arundell, knight, son of the earl of Arundell"
dated 1370. The earl is mentioned alright, but there is no Fitz Alan.
For a full transcript of this item and the index page, see the
following weblinks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... rundell%22
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... 1-PA685,M1
I'll be posting other examples of the vanishing Fitz Alan surname as I
find them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Renia
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Arundel was the title, not the surname. Barons often used their titles
as surnames even until comparitively modern times.
Dear Newsgroup ~
As most people know by now, the baronial family of Fitz Alan changed
their surname from Fitz Alan to Arundel about 1313, and all branches
of the family thereafter were known as Arundel (or de Arundel). The
name change is discussed at some length in my book, Plantagenet
Ancestry (2004).
Yet, when I consult printed sources, I often find that the index
prepared by a modern editor tells me that there is an item on the Fitz
Alan family on a certain page. However, when I look at the entry
itself and if the entry dates after 1313, the name is always Arundel,
not Fitz Alan. Here is a good example:
The index of Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, 5 (1906): 685
states that there is an entry for "Richard Fitz-Alan earl of Arundel"
on page 28. Yet when that page is consulted, it turns out to be a
reference to "John Arundell, knight, son of the earl of Arundell"
dated 1370. The earl is mentioned alright, but there is no Fitz Alan.
For a full transcript of this item and the index page, see the
following weblinks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... rundell%22
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... 1-PA685,M1
I'll be posting other examples of the vanishing Fitz Alan surname as I
find them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Arundel was the title, not the surname. Barons often used their titles
as surnames even until comparitively modern times.
-
Gjest
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On Nov 18, 11:37 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
You are being way too modest. I am sure all four groups to which you
posted would be all the happier if you posted every example of every
use of every surname you come across.
Single examples don't prove general rules. A single example posted to
four newsgroups is no better.
taf
I'll be posting other examples of the vanishing Fitz Alan surname as I
find them.
You are being way too modest. I am sure all four groups to which you
posted would be all the happier if you posted every example of every
use of every surname you come across.
Single examples don't prove general rules. A single example posted to
four newsgroups is no better.
taf
-
Vance Mead
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
I'm confused. It's simple enough to go to the PRO catalogue and find
examples of FitzAlans throughout the 15th and 16th centuries. A few
examples below. Or is the PRO wrong while Mr Richardson is right?
Another possibility: since Mr Richardson intends to show examples of
the VANISHING FitzAlan surname, is he going to cite all of the sources
where the surname does not occur? That would be quite and undertaking
- soon he will be posting more often than the paranoid MI5 man.
Tresham, Margaret, late wife of Edmund Lentayle, one of the kinsmen
and heirs of the late [Thomas Fitzalan] Earl of Arundel and Surrey
Counties: Sussex 1 Ric III
Martin COWPER v. John THYNNE, knight.: Farm called Hill Deverell,
demised by William [Fitzalan], late earl of Arundel, to John, brother
of complainant.: WILTS. 1553-1555
Indenture Parties: The Queen; Henry [Fitzalan], Earl of Arundel.
Places or Subjects: Halnaker, Boxgrove, Goodwood. County Sussex;
King's Stanley, Woodchester. County Glos; Henford, Yeovil. County
Soms; Westhope, Wroxeter. County Salop; and Stapleford. County Wilts.
3 Eliz
examples of FitzAlans throughout the 15th and 16th centuries. A few
examples below. Or is the PRO wrong while Mr Richardson is right?
Another possibility: since Mr Richardson intends to show examples of
the VANISHING FitzAlan surname, is he going to cite all of the sources
where the surname does not occur? That would be quite and undertaking
- soon he will be posting more often than the paranoid MI5 man.
Tresham, Margaret, late wife of Edmund Lentayle, one of the kinsmen
and heirs of the late [Thomas Fitzalan] Earl of Arundel and Surrey
Counties: Sussex 1 Ric III
Martin COWPER v. John THYNNE, knight.: Farm called Hill Deverell,
demised by William [Fitzalan], late earl of Arundel, to John, brother
of complainant.: WILTS. 1553-1555
Indenture Parties: The Queen; Henry [Fitzalan], Earl of Arundel.
Places or Subjects: Halnaker, Boxgrove, Goodwood. County Sussex;
King's Stanley, Woodchester. County Glos; Henford, Yeovil. County
Soms; Westhope, Wroxeter. County Salop; and Stapleford. County Wilts.
3 Eliz
You are being way too modest. I am sure all four groups to which you
posted would be all the happier if you posted every example of every
use of every surname you come across.
Single examples don't prove general rules. A single example posted to
four newsgroups is no better.
-
Gjest
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On Nov 19, 7:37 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
in my records Thomas Howard m Mary FitzAlan, dau of Henry FitzAlan
Earl of Arundel in 1556 thus amalgamating the FitzAlan 'surname' with
the Howard 'surname'. FitzAlan-Howard remains as a 'baronial' surname
to this day- Edward FitzAlan-Howard is the current 18th Duke of
Norfolk.
regards
Geoff
Dear Newsgroup ~
As most people know by now, the baronial family of Fitz Alan changed
their surname from Fitz Alan to Arundel about 1313, and all branches
of the family thereafter were known as Arundel (or de Arundel). The
name change is discussed at some length in my book, Plantagenet
Ancestry (2004).
Yet, when I consult printed sources, I often find that the index
prepared by a modern editor tells me that there is an item on the Fitz
Alan family on a certain page. However, when I look at the entry
itself and if the entry dates after 1313, the name is always Arundel,
not Fitz Alan. Here is a good example:
The index of Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, 5 (1906): 685
states that there is an entry for "Richard Fitz-Alan earl of Arundel"
on page 28. Yet when that page is consulted, it turns out to be a
reference to "John Arundell, knight, son of the earl of Arundell"
dated 1370. The earl is mentioned alright, but there is no Fitz Alan.
For a full transcript of this item and the index page, see the
following weblinks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... ttorney+...
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... ttorney+...
I'll be posting other examples of the vanishing Fitz Alan surname as I
find them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
in my records Thomas Howard m Mary FitzAlan, dau of Henry FitzAlan
Earl of Arundel in 1556 thus amalgamating the FitzAlan 'surname' with
the Howard 'surname'. FitzAlan-Howard remains as a 'baronial' surname
to this day- Edward FitzAlan-Howard is the current 18th Duke of
Norfolk.
regards
Geoff
-
Gjest
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On Nov 19, 12:34 pm, gvow...@talktalk.net wrote:
Oh, he was the Earl of Arundel until his father died in 2002. The
family seat is still Arundel Castle.
Geoff
On Nov 19, 7:37 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
As most people know by now, the baronial family of Fitz Alan changed
their surname from Fitz Alan to Arundel about 1313, and all branches
of the family thereafter were known as Arundel (or de Arundel). The
name change is discussed at some length in my book, Plantagenet
Ancestry (2004).
Yet, when I consult printed sources, I often find that the index
prepared by a modern editor tells me that there is an item on the Fitz
Alan family on a certain page. However, when I look at the entry
itself and if the entry dates after 1313, the name is always Arundel,
not Fitz Alan. Here is a good example:
The index of Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, 5 (1906): 685
states that there is an entry for "Richard Fitz-Alan earl of Arundel"
on page 28. Yet when that page is consulted, it turns out to be a
reference to "John Arundell, knight, son of the earl of Arundell"
dated 1370. The earl is mentioned alright, but there is no Fitz Alan.
For a full transcript of this item and the index page, see the
following weblinks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... ttorney+...
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... ttorney+...
I'll be posting other examples of the vanishing Fitz Alan surname as I
find them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
in my records Thomas Howard m Mary FitzAlan, dau of Henry FitzAlan
Earl of Arundel in 1556 thus amalgamating the FitzAlan 'surname' with
the Howard 'surname'. FitzAlan-Howard remains as a 'baronial' surname
to this day- Edward FitzAlan-Howard is the current 18th Duke of
Norfolk.
regards
Geoff- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Oh, he was the Earl of Arundel until his father died in 2002. The
family seat is still Arundel Castle.
Geoff
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On Nov 19, 1:44 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
As most people know by now, the baronial family of Fitz Alan changed
their surname from Fitz Alan to Arundel about 1313, and all branches
of the family thereafter were known as Arundel (or de Arundel). The
name change is discussed at some length in my book, Plantagenet
Ancestry (2004).
Yet, when I consult printed sources, I often find that the index
prepared by a modern editor tells me that there is an item on the Fitz
Alan family on a certain page. However, when I look at the entry
itself and if the entry dates after 1313, the name is always Arundel,
not Fitz Alan. Here is a good example:
The index of Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, 5 (1906): 685
states that there is an entry for "Richard Fitz-Alan earl of Arundel"
on page 28. Yet when that page is consulted, it turns out to be a
reference to "John Arundell, knight, son of the earl of Arundell"
dated 1370. The earl is mentioned alright, but there is no Fitz Alan.
For a full transcript of this item and the index page, see the
following weblinks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... ttorney+...
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... ttorney+...
I'll be posting other examples of the vanishing Fitz Alan surname as I
find them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Arundel was the title, not the surname. Barons often used their titles
as surnames even until comparitively modern times.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On Nov 19, 5:04 am, Vance Mead <vance.m...@mead.inet.fi> wrote:
< I'm confused. It's simple enough to go to the PRO catalogue and find
< examples of FitzAlans throughout the 15th and 16th centuries. A few
< examples below. Or is the PRO wrong while Mr Richardson is right?
Dear Vance ~
Some time ago, I contacted the PRO about this very same thing. Like
you, I found that they listed several items in the online National
Archives catalogue which purported to show that the surname, Fitz
Alan, was used after 1313. At my request, they checked the items in
question. Of those items which were available to them for checking,
they determined that the surname Fitz Alan was NOT used in any
documents dated after 1313, in spite of what the modern catalogue
said. I posted their response, so you should be able to find it in
the newsgroup archives for soc.genealogy.medieval.
In any event, when you encounter any surname or place name set in
brackets in a modern catalogue, you must understand that this is
something a modern editor has added to make the item searchable in the
modern indexes. In most instances, the bracketed information is
helpful. In this case, it is misleading.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< I'm confused. It's simple enough to go to the PRO catalogue and find
< examples of FitzAlans throughout the 15th and 16th centuries. A few
< examples below. Or is the PRO wrong while Mr Richardson is right?
Dear Vance ~
Some time ago, I contacted the PRO about this very same thing. Like
you, I found that they listed several items in the online National
Archives catalogue which purported to show that the surname, Fitz
Alan, was used after 1313. At my request, they checked the items in
question. Of those items which were available to them for checking,
they determined that the surname Fitz Alan was NOT used in any
documents dated after 1313, in spite of what the modern catalogue
said. I posted their response, so you should be able to find it in
the newsgroup archives for soc.genealogy.medieval.
In any event, when you encounter any surname or place name set in
brackets in a modern catalogue, you must understand that this is
something a modern editor has added to make the item searchable in the
modern indexes. In most instances, the bracketed information is
helpful. In this case, it is misleading.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Dear Geoff ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
It has been claimed that the Fitz Alan surname was later revived by
Henry, Earl of Arundel, who died in 1580. However, I've never been
able to document this claim. I've seen a variety of records for this
man, but he seems not to have used a surname at all .... at least in
public records. I'm still looking for evidence.
For what it is worth, some time ago I found a transcript of a letter
written by Earl Henry's daughter, Mary, which she signed as "Mary
Arundel." So, once again, we find the surname Fitz Alan vanishes. I
don't have a citation for this letter, but, as I recall, it was in a
book on the Howard family papers.
If you find any records of Earl Henry in which he uses a surname,
please post them here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Nov 19, 5:34 am, gvow...@talktalk.net wrote:
< in my records Thomas Howard m Mary FitzAlan, dau of Henry FitzAlan
< Earl of Arundel in 1556 thus amalgamating the FitzAlan 'surname'
with
< the Howard 'surname'. FitzAlan-Howard remains as a 'baronial'
surname
< to this day- Edward FitzAlan-Howard is the current 18th Duke of
< Norfolk.
<
< regards
<
< Geoff
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
It has been claimed that the Fitz Alan surname was later revived by
Henry, Earl of Arundel, who died in 1580. However, I've never been
able to document this claim. I've seen a variety of records for this
man, but he seems not to have used a surname at all .... at least in
public records. I'm still looking for evidence.
For what it is worth, some time ago I found a transcript of a letter
written by Earl Henry's daughter, Mary, which she signed as "Mary
Arundel." So, once again, we find the surname Fitz Alan vanishes. I
don't have a citation for this letter, but, as I recall, it was in a
book on the Howard family papers.
If you find any records of Earl Henry in which he uses a surname,
please post them here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Nov 19, 5:34 am, gvow...@talktalk.net wrote:
< in my records Thomas Howard m Mary FitzAlan, dau of Henry FitzAlan
< Earl of Arundel in 1556 thus amalgamating the FitzAlan 'surname'
with
< the Howard 'surname'. FitzAlan-Howard remains as a 'baronial'
surname
< to this day- Edward FitzAlan-Howard is the current 18th Duke of
< Norfolk.
<
< regards
<
< Geoff
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On Nov 19, 3:01 am, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
I plan to post more examples.
DR
Single examples don't prove general rules. A single example posted to
four newsgroups is no better.
taf
I plan to post more examples.
DR
-
Gjest
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On Nov 19, 10:38 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Yes, you already said that. Repeatedly stating your intent to behave
foolishly does not minimize the foolishness. Such persistence is
pointless as it proves absolutely nothing, but you will persist none
the less, hoping perhaps that those who fail to understand that this
emperor has no clothes will be fooled into thinking that there is some
method, when there is nothing but madness. But you plan to post more
examples.
And no matter how many times you post more examples, or state your
intent to post more examples, single examples still won't prove
general rules.
taf
On Nov 19, 3:01 am, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
Single examples don't prove general rules. A single example posted to
four newsgroups is no better.
I plan to post more examples.
Yes, you already said that. Repeatedly stating your intent to behave
foolishly does not minimize the foolishness. Such persistence is
pointless as it proves absolutely nothing, but you will persist none
the less, hoping perhaps that those who fail to understand that this
emperor has no clothes will be fooled into thinking that there is some
method, when there is nothing but madness. But you plan to post more
examples.
And no matter how many times you post more examples, or state your
intent to post more examples, single examples still won't prove
general rules.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On Nov 19, 1:27 pm, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
< Peers and their wives, then as today, refer to themselves and to
other
< peers as [First name] >< [Title], so for instance, Edward, Duke of
< Norfolk, would be Edward Norfolk, Alan, Baron Rugby would be Alan
< Rugby and the Prince of Wales would be Charles Wales.
< There is no mystique in this, it's been done this way for ages.
<
< Richard Lichten
The Fitz Alan family completely dropped the surname Fitz Alan in favor
of Arundel (or de Arundel) after 1313. After 1313 ALL members of the
family (male, female, earl) occur as Arundel (or de Arundel) in the
records. That includes Mary, daughter of Henry, 18th Earl of Arundel,
who signed her letter as "Mary Arundel."
I've read in print that the surname Fitz Alan was revived in the Tudor
period, but I haven't been able to confirm that claim.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< Peers and their wives, then as today, refer to themselves and to
other
< peers as [First name] >< [Title], so for instance, Edward, Duke of
< Norfolk, would be Edward Norfolk, Alan, Baron Rugby would be Alan
< Rugby and the Prince of Wales would be Charles Wales.
< There is no mystique in this, it's been done this way for ages.
<
< Richard Lichten
The Fitz Alan family completely dropped the surname Fitz Alan in favor
of Arundel (or de Arundel) after 1313. After 1313 ALL members of the
family (male, female, earl) occur as Arundel (or de Arundel) in the
records. That includes Mary, daughter of Henry, 18th Earl of Arundel,
who signed her letter as "Mary Arundel."
I've read in print that the surname Fitz Alan was revived in the Tudor
period, but I haven't been able to confirm that claim.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
wjhonson
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On Nov 19, 12:27 pm, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
The problem with this reply is of course, that there were FitzAlan's
with no title. At least for part of their lives. So how were they
called?
Something like Jane Arundel ? Or something like Jane FitzAlan?
That's the question.
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson wrote:
For what it is worth, some time ago I found a transcript of a letter
written by Earl Henry's daughter, Mary, which she signed as "Mary
Arundel."
Peers and their wives, then as today, refer to themselves and to other
peers as [First name] >< [Title], so for instance, Edward, Duke of
Norfolk, would be Edward Norfolk, Alan, Baron Rugby would be Alan
Rugby and the Prince of Wales would be Charles Wales.
There is no mystique in this, it's been done this way for ages.
Richard Lichten
The problem with this reply is of course, that there were FitzAlan's
with no title. At least for part of their lives. So how were they
called?
Something like Jane Arundel ? Or something like Jane FitzAlan?
That's the question.
Will Johnson
-
Turenne
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Will Johnson wrote:
Using my example above; Alan Rugby was born Alan Maffey, Edward
Norfolk's son was born Henry Maltravers, is now Henry Arundel and one
day will be Henry Norfolk. Their name changes as their circumstances
change i.e. death, an elevation to a peerage or a higher peerage with
a different territorial designation and marriage.
Some peers confusingly chose to retain their courtesy title though
they had a right to a higher title. Viscount Castlereagh, Foreign
Secretary at the beginning of the 19th century died the 2nd Marquess
of Londonderry (he only held the title for a year), though he is
always referred to as Viscount Castlereagh.
Richard L
The problem with this reply is of course, that there were FitzAlan's
with no title. At least for part of their lives. So how were they
called?
Using my example above; Alan Rugby was born Alan Maffey, Edward
Norfolk's son was born Henry Maltravers, is now Henry Arundel and one
day will be Henry Norfolk. Their name changes as their circumstances
change i.e. death, an elevation to a peerage or a higher peerage with
a different territorial designation and marriage.
Some peers confusingly chose to retain their courtesy title though
they had a right to a higher title. Viscount Castlereagh, Foreign
Secretary at the beginning of the 19th century died the 2nd Marquess
of Londonderry (he only held the title for a year), though he is
always referred to as Viscount Castlereagh.
Richard L
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On Nov 19, 2:22 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
You've quoted me correctly, Will. Thank you. That's exactly my
point.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Saying is and isn't doesn't help anything. We have to cite our
sources for the statements. It's well known that many many secondary
sources use FitzAlan. DR's point is that the underlying PRIMARY
sources do not.
You've quoted me correctly, Will. Thank you. That's exactly my
point.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Dear Newsgroup ~
Eearlier today I posted an entry in the published Ancient Deeds which
refers to a letter of attorney issued in 1370 by "John Arundell,
knight, son of the earl of Arundell." [Reference: Desc. Cat. of
Ancient Deeds, 5 (1906): 28].
In Volume 4 of the same series, Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient
Deeds, there is another reference to the same individual, there called
John de Arundell. It is found in a counterpart indenture being the
defeasance of a bond dated 21 March 1377 by Adam de Houghton, bishop
of St. Davids, and others to Richard, earl of Arundel and Surrey, and
John de Arundell his brother [Reference: Desc. Cat. of Ancient Deeds 4
(1902): 395, A. 9132].
For those interested in viewing the actual transcript, they may do so
at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=h-IrAA ... 2-PA395,M1
For instances of John de Arundel's older brother, Richard, Earl of
Arundel (executed 1397), also using the surname, Arundel, see Lewis,
Pedes Finium; or, Fines relating to the County of Surrey (Surrey Arch.
Soc. Extra Volume 1) (1894): 222; Arch. Cambrensis, 6th Ser. 7(1)
(1907): 1-34; Cal. Pat. Rolls 1374-1377 (1916): 25, 28, 51, 107, 243;
Salzman, Feet of Fines Rel. Sussex 3 (Sussex Rec. Soc. 23) (1916):
164, 174-182; Cal. Fine Rolls, 1368-1377 (1924): 286, 339;
Genealogist, n.s. 16 (1899): 162].
I believe that's a total of fourteen examples of these people using
the surname Arundel in contemporary records. A pattern is forming.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Eearlier today I posted an entry in the published Ancient Deeds which
refers to a letter of attorney issued in 1370 by "John Arundell,
knight, son of the earl of Arundell." [Reference: Desc. Cat. of
Ancient Deeds, 5 (1906): 28].
In Volume 4 of the same series, Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient
Deeds, there is another reference to the same individual, there called
John de Arundell. It is found in a counterpart indenture being the
defeasance of a bond dated 21 March 1377 by Adam de Houghton, bishop
of St. Davids, and others to Richard, earl of Arundel and Surrey, and
John de Arundell his brother [Reference: Desc. Cat. of Ancient Deeds 4
(1902): 395, A. 9132].
For those interested in viewing the actual transcript, they may do so
at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=h-IrAA ... 2-PA395,M1
For instances of John de Arundel's older brother, Richard, Earl of
Arundel (executed 1397), also using the surname, Arundel, see Lewis,
Pedes Finium; or, Fines relating to the County of Surrey (Surrey Arch.
Soc. Extra Volume 1) (1894): 222; Arch. Cambrensis, 6th Ser. 7(1)
(1907): 1-34; Cal. Pat. Rolls 1374-1377 (1916): 25, 28, 51, 107, 243;
Salzman, Feet of Fines Rel. Sussex 3 (Sussex Rec. Soc. 23) (1916):
164, 174-182; Cal. Fine Rolls, 1368-1377 (1924): 286, 339;
Genealogist, n.s. 16 (1899): 162].
I believe that's a total of fourteen examples of these people using
the surname Arundel in contemporary records. A pattern is forming.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Turenne
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Will Johnson wrote:
Sorry Will, I must learn not to teach my grandmother how to suck
eggs!
Richard
The concept is not new to me Richard, I'm well aware of it.
Sorry Will, I must learn not to teach my grandmother how to suck
eggs!
Richard
-
John Briggs
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Renia wrote:
That's because he's technically Prince Harry of Wales ("de Wales" for
Douglas, as we must call him...)
--
John Briggs
Turenne wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
For what it is worth, some time ago I found a transcript of a letter
written by Earl Henry's daughter, Mary, which she signed as "Mary
Arundel."
Peers and their wives, then as today, refer to themselves and to
other peers as [First name] >< [Title], so for instance, Edward,
Duke of Norfolk, would be Edward Norfolk, Alan, Baron Rugby would be
Alan Rugby and the Prince of Wales would be Charles Wales.
There is no mystique in this, it's been done this way for ages.
Indeed. We often see Prince Harry in his army gear with "Wales"
written all over his headgear.
That's because he's technically Prince Harry of Wales ("de Wales" for
Douglas, as we must call him...)
--
John Briggs
-
John Briggs
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
wjhonson wrote:
Something like Jane de Arundel? (But that would give 'Douglas' kittens...)
--
John Briggs
On Nov 19, 12:27 pm, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
For what it is worth, some time ago I found a transcript of a letter
written by Earl Henry's daughter, Mary, which she signed as "Mary
Arundel."
Peers and their wives, then as today, refer to themselves and to
other peers as [First name] >< [Title], so for instance, Edward,
Duke of Norfolk, would be Edward Norfolk, Alan, Baron Rugby would be
Alan Rugby and the Prince of Wales would be Charles Wales.
There is no mystique in this, it's been done this way for ages.
The problem with this reply is of course, that there were FitzAlan's
with no title. At least for part of their lives. So how were they
called?
Something like Jane Arundel ? Or something like Jane FitzAlan?
That's the question.
Something like Jane de Arundel? (But that would give 'Douglas' kittens...)
--
John Briggs
-
John Briggs
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
wjhonson wrote:
Call him Douglas - DR sounds pejorative
--
John Briggs
On Nov 19, 1:04 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 19, 1:27 pm, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net> wrote:
Peers and their wives, then as today, refer to themselves and to
other
peers as [First name] >< [Title], so for instance, Edward, Duke
of < Norfolk, would be Edward Norfolk, Alan, Baron Rugby would be
Alan < Rugby and the Prince of Wales would be Charles Wales.
There is no mystique in this, it's been done this way for ages.
Richard Lichten
The Fitz Alan family completely dropped the surname Fitz Alan in
favor of Arundel (or de Arundel) after 1313. After 1313 ALL
members of the family (male, female, earl) occur as Arundel (or de
Arundel) in the records. That includes Mary, daughter of Henry,
18th Earl of Arundel, who signed her letter as "Mary Arundel."
Arundel is and was their estate in Sussex. At that time, it wasn't
being used as a patronymic.
Saying is and isn't doesn't help anything. We have to cite our
sources for the statements. It's well known that many many secondary
sources use FitzAlan. DR's point is that the underlying PRIMARY
sources do not. So hopefully we can get beyond citing these secondary
works, as we all know they do. Citing them won't address anything at
this point.
Call him Douglas - DR sounds pejorative
--
John Briggs
-
John Briggs
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Renia wrote:
No, the "not necessarily" referred to "Arundel" - "de Arundel" could be a
title, a surname, or an estate designation.
--
John Briggs
John Briggs wrote:
Renia wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
As most people know by now, the baronial family of Fitz Alan
changed their surname from Fitz Alan to Arundel about 1313, and
all branches of the family thereafter were known as Arundel (or de
Arundel). The name change is discussed at some length in my book,
Plantagenet Ancestry (2004).
Yet, when I consult printed sources, I often find that the index
prepared by a modern editor tells me that there is an item on the
Fitz Alan family on a certain page. However, when I look at the
entry itself and if the entry dates after 1313, the name is always
Arundel, not Fitz Alan. Here is a good example:
The index of Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, 5 (1906): 685
states that there is an entry for "Richard Fitz-Alan earl of
Arundel" on page 28. Yet when that page is consulted, it turns
out to be a reference to "John Arundell, knight, son of the earl
of Arundell" dated 1370. The earl is mentioned alright, but there
is no Fitz Alan. For a full transcript of this item and the index
page, see the following weblinks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... rundell%22
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... 1-PA685,M1
I'll be posting other examples of the vanishing Fitz Alan surname
as I find them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Arundel was the title, not the surname. Barons often used their
titles as surnames even until comparitively modern times.
Not necessarily - but expect Richardson to tie himself in a bigger
knot than usual over the "de".
Well, my great aunt did. (I said often, not always.)
No, the "not necessarily" referred to "Arundel" - "de Arundel" could be a
title, a surname, or an estate designation.
--
John Briggs
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On Nov 19, 4:36 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
< Something like Jane de Arundel? (But that would give 'Douglas'
kittens...)
< --
< John Briggs
You're being silly, John.
DR
< Something like Jane de Arundel? (But that would give 'Douglas'
kittens...)
< --
< John Briggs
You're being silly, John.
DR
-
Renia
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
John Briggs wrote:
I know. That's why I added him in.
Renia wrote:
Turenne wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
For what it is worth, some time ago I found a transcript of a letter
written by Earl Henry's daughter, Mary, which she signed as "Mary
Arundel."
Peers and their wives, then as today, refer to themselves and to
other peers as [First name] >< [Title], so for instance, Edward,
Duke of Norfolk, would be Edward Norfolk, Alan, Baron Rugby would be
Alan Rugby and the Prince of Wales would be Charles Wales.
There is no mystique in this, it's been done this way for ages.
Indeed. We often see Prince Harry in his army gear with "Wales"
written all over his headgear.
That's because he's technically Prince Harry of Wales ("de Wales" for
Douglas, as we must call him...)
I know. That's why I added him in.
-
John Briggs
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
gvowles@talktalk.net wrote:
They spell it "Fitzalan" these days.
--
John Briggs
On Nov 19, 7:37 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
As most people know by now, the baronial family of Fitz Alan changed
their surname from Fitz Alan to Arundel about 1313, and all branches
of the family thereafter were known as Arundel (or de Arundel). The
name change is discussed at some length in my book, Plantagenet
Ancestry (2004).
Yet, when I consult printed sources, I often find that the index
prepared by a modern editor tells me that there is an item on the
Fitz Alan family on a certain page. However, when I look at the
entry itself and if the entry dates after 1313, the name is always
Arundel, not Fitz Alan. Here is a good example:
The index of Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, 5 (1906): 685
states that there is an entry for "Richard Fitz-Alan earl of Arundel"
on page 28. Yet when that page is consulted, it turns out to be a
reference to "John Arundell, knight, son of the earl of Arundell"
dated 1370. The earl is mentioned alright, but there is no Fitz
Alan.
For a full transcript of this item and the index page, see the
following weblinks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... ttorney+...
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... ttorney+...
I'll be posting other examples of the vanishing Fitz Alan surname as
I find them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
in my records Thomas Howard m Mary FitzAlan, dau of Henry FitzAlan
Earl of Arundel in 1556 thus amalgamating the FitzAlan 'surname' with
the Howard 'surname'. FitzAlan-Howard remains as a 'baronial' surname
to this day- Edward FitzAlan-Howard is the current 18th Duke of
Norfolk.
They spell it "Fitzalan" these days.
--
John Briggs
-
John Briggs
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Perhaps so...
--
John Briggs
On Nov 19, 4:36 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Something like Jane de Arundel? (But that would give 'Douglas'
kittens...)
You're being silly, John.
Perhaps so...
--
John Briggs
-
Don Aitken
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:57:06 GMT, "John Briggs"
<john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:
The name FitzAlan-Howard was indeed invented in the mid-19th century.
I don't have an exact date, but it was first adopted by the 14th Duke
of Norfolk and his siblings. The date of the royal licence is probably
googlable.
A constant problem with genealogical source material, printed as well
as online, is the attribution of imaginary hyphenated surnames to
those living in periods when such things were unknown.
I think, although I am open to correction on this, that the first
aristocratic user of the hyphen was the 3rd Earl Temple, when he took
the name Nugent-Temple-Grenville (which his son notoriously improved
to Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville). At first the hyphen was
only used where the name consisted of *more* than two parts; double
surnames continued to be written without it, as they had always been.
The Howards, however, were simply Howards; I can't find a single
example before the 14th Duke of any of them using "FitzAlan" as part
of the name, although the Stafford line used the double surname
"Stafford Howard".
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
<john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:
gvowles@talktalk.net wrote:
On Nov 19, 7:37 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
As most people know by now, the baronial family of Fitz Alan changed
their surname from Fitz Alan to Arundel about 1313, and all branches
of the family thereafter were known as Arundel (or de Arundel). The
name change is discussed at some length in my book, Plantagenet
Ancestry (2004).
Yet, when I consult printed sources, I often find that the index
prepared by a modern editor tells me that there is an item on the
Fitz Alan family on a certain page. However, when I look at the
entry itself and if the entry dates after 1313, the name is always
Arundel, not Fitz Alan. Here is a good example:
The index of Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, 5 (1906): 685
states that there is an entry for "Richard Fitz-Alan earl of Arundel"
on page 28. Yet when that page is consulted, it turns out to be a
reference to "John Arundell, knight, son of the earl of Arundell"
dated 1370. The earl is mentioned alright, but there is no Fitz
Alan.
For a full transcript of this item and the index page, see the
following weblinks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... ttorney+...
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... ttorney+...
I'll be posting other examples of the vanishing Fitz Alan surname as
I find them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
in my records Thomas Howard m Mary FitzAlan, dau of Henry FitzAlan
Earl of Arundel in 1556 thus amalgamating the FitzAlan 'surname' with
the Howard 'surname'. FitzAlan-Howard remains as a 'baronial' surname
to this day- Edward FitzAlan-Howard is the current 18th Duke of
Norfolk.
That's probably comparatively recent, as hyphens don't come in much before
the 19th century (cf Spencer Churchill).
The name FitzAlan-Howard was indeed invented in the mid-19th century.
I don't have an exact date, but it was first adopted by the 14th Duke
of Norfolk and his siblings. The date of the royal licence is probably
googlable.
A constant problem with genealogical source material, printed as well
as online, is the attribution of imaginary hyphenated surnames to
those living in periods when such things were unknown.
I think, although I am open to correction on this, that the first
aristocratic user of the hyphen was the 3rd Earl Temple, when he took
the name Nugent-Temple-Grenville (which his son notoriously improved
to Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville). At first the hyphen was
only used where the name consisted of *more* than two parts; double
surnames continued to be written without it, as they had always been.
The Howards, however, were simply Howards; I can't find a single
example before the 14th Duke of any of them using "FitzAlan" as part
of the name, although the Stafford line used the double surname
"Stafford Howard".
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
-
John Briggs
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Don Aitken wrote:
No, he was Marquess of Buckingham when he did that. He had just in herited
the Nugent earldom (he had added the "Temple" when he inherited the Temple
earldom.)
Adding the "Brydges-Chandos" could well have been instrumental in gaining
him the Dukedom of Buckingham and Chandos.
It may have come from Scotland: I blame the Sholto-Douglases
As I say elsethread, I think it was "Fitzalan-Howard".
--
John Briggs
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:57:06 GMT, "John Briggs"
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:
gvowles@talktalk.net wrote:
On Nov 19, 7:37 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com
wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
As most people know by now, the baronial family of Fitz Alan
changed their surname from Fitz Alan to Arundel about 1313, and
all branches of the family thereafter were known as Arundel (or de
Arundel). The name change is discussed at some length in my book,
Plantagenet Ancestry (2004).
Yet, when I consult printed sources, I often find that the index
prepared by a modern editor tells me that there is an item on the
Fitz Alan family on a certain page. However, when I look at the
entry itself and if the entry dates after 1313, the name is always
Arundel, not Fitz Alan. Here is a good example:
The index of Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, 5 (1906): 685
states that there is an entry for "Richard Fitz-Alan earl of
Arundel" on page 28. Yet when that page is consulted, it turns
out to be a reference to "John Arundell, knight, son of the earl
of Arundell" dated 1370. The earl is mentioned alright, but there
is no Fitz Alan.
For a full transcript of this item and the index page, see the
following weblinks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... ttorney+...
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... ttorney+...
I'll be posting other examples of the vanishing Fitz Alan surname
as I find them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
in my records Thomas Howard m Mary FitzAlan, dau of Henry FitzAlan
Earl of Arundel in 1556 thus amalgamating the FitzAlan 'surname'
with the Howard 'surname'. FitzAlan-Howard remains as a 'baronial'
surname to this day- Edward FitzAlan-Howard is the current 18th
Duke of Norfolk.
That's probably comparatively recent, as hyphens don't come in much
before the 19th century (cf Spencer Churchill).
The name FitzAlan-Howard was indeed invented in the mid-19th century.
I don't have an exact date, but it was first adopted by the 14th Duke
of Norfolk and his siblings. The date of the royal licence is probably
googlable.
A constant problem with genealogical source material, printed as well
as online, is the attribution of imaginary hyphenated surnames to
those living in periods when such things were unknown.
I think, although I am open to correction on this, that the first
aristocratic user of the hyphen was the 3rd Earl Temple, when he took
the name Nugent-Temple-Grenville
No, he was Marquess of Buckingham when he did that. He had just in herited
the Nugent earldom (he had added the "Temple" when he inherited the Temple
earldom.)
(which his son notoriously improved to
Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville).
Adding the "Brydges-Chandos" could well have been instrumental in gaining
him the Dukedom of Buckingham and Chandos.
At first the hyphen was
only used where the name consisted of *more* than two parts; double
surnames continued to be written without it, as they had always been.
It may have come from Scotland: I blame the Sholto-Douglases
The Howards, however, were simply Howards; I can't find a single
example before the 14th Duke of any of them using "FitzAlan" as part
of the name, although the Stafford line used the double surname
"Stafford Howard".
As I say elsethread, I think it was "Fitzalan-Howard".
--
John Briggs
-
Alan Grey
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
For what it's worth, the Year Books of Edward III, Year XX (Pike,
L.O., ed., London, 1908, pp.180-87), report on a case that Richard,
Earl of Arundel, brought against the Abbess of Shaftesbury regarding a
presentation to the church of Keevil, co. Wilts. The extract from
[Placita de Banco, Easter, 20 Edw III, Ro 63d] states:
"Et postmodum, vacante ecclesia praedicti Johannis de Kent, praedictus
Ricardus fitz Aleyn Comes Arundelliae, filius et heres praedicti
Johannis fitz Aleyn …"
Clearly at that time (1346) the "family" was still using, or at least
known by, the surname Fitz Alan.
Regards
Alan R Grey
L.O., ed., London, 1908, pp.180-87), report on a case that Richard,
Earl of Arundel, brought against the Abbess of Shaftesbury regarding a
presentation to the church of Keevil, co. Wilts. The extract from
[Placita de Banco, Easter, 20 Edw III, Ro 63d] states:
"Et postmodum, vacante ecclesia praedicti Johannis de Kent, praedictus
Ricardus fitz Aleyn Comes Arundelliae, filius et heres praedicti
Johannis fitz Aleyn …"
Clearly at that time (1346) the "family" was still using, or at least
known by, the surname Fitz Alan.
Regards
Alan R Grey
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Dear Alan ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
The lawsuit which you have cited is clearly dated 1346. However, the
person to whom it refers, namely "Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel,
son and heir of John Fitz Alan," can only have Richard Fitz Alan, Earl
of Arundel, who died died in 1302. This man usually appears in
records as Richard Fitz Alan. But on one occasion In 1291 I note that
he received a grant addressed to him as "Richard de Arundel, Earl of
Arundel" [Reference: C.P. 1 (1910): 241]. Thus, I refer to him as
Richard Fitz Alan (or de Arundel) in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry
(2004).
Actually the change in names from Fitz Alan to Arundel started as
early as the 1270's, when Richard Fitz Alan's father was styled "John
Fitz Alan de Arundel" in several records [Reference: Cal. Patent
Rolls, 1272-1281 (1901): 11, 96, 161, 331]. The last appearance that
I've found of the surname Fitrz Alan is a record dated 1313.
Thereafter all references to this family (eitrher male or female, or
titled earl) strictly employ the Arundel surname.
Your observation that "the "family was still using, or at least known
by, the surname Fitz Alan" in 1346 is not reflected by contemporary
records. The reference to a deceased ancestor who used the surname
Fitz Alan is, however, indicated by the 1346 lawsuit that you have
cited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Nov 19, 7:09 pm, "Alan Grey" <arvikagre...@gmail.com> wrote:
< For what it's worth, the Year Books of Edward III, Year XX (Pike,
< L.O., ed., London, 1908, pp.180-87), report on a case that Richard,
< Earl of Arundel, brought against the Abbess of Shaftesbury regarding
a
< presentation to the church of Keevil, co. Wilts. The extract from
< [Placita de Banco, Easter, 20 Edw III, Ro 63d] states:
<
< "Et postmodum, vacante ecclesia praedicti Johannis de Kent,
praedictus
< Ricardus fitz Aleyn Comes Arundelliae, filius et heres praedicti
< Johannis fitz Aleyn ..."
<
< Clearly at that time (1346) the "family" was still using, or at
least
< known by, the surname Fitz Alan.
<
< Regards
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
The lawsuit which you have cited is clearly dated 1346. However, the
person to whom it refers, namely "Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel,
son and heir of John Fitz Alan," can only have Richard Fitz Alan, Earl
of Arundel, who died died in 1302. This man usually appears in
records as Richard Fitz Alan. But on one occasion In 1291 I note that
he received a grant addressed to him as "Richard de Arundel, Earl of
Arundel" [Reference: C.P. 1 (1910): 241]. Thus, I refer to him as
Richard Fitz Alan (or de Arundel) in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry
(2004).
Actually the change in names from Fitz Alan to Arundel started as
early as the 1270's, when Richard Fitz Alan's father was styled "John
Fitz Alan de Arundel" in several records [Reference: Cal. Patent
Rolls, 1272-1281 (1901): 11, 96, 161, 331]. The last appearance that
I've found of the surname Fitrz Alan is a record dated 1313.
Thereafter all references to this family (eitrher male or female, or
titled earl) strictly employ the Arundel surname.
Your observation that "the "family was still using, or at least known
by, the surname Fitz Alan" in 1346 is not reflected by contemporary
records. The reference to a deceased ancestor who used the surname
Fitz Alan is, however, indicated by the 1346 lawsuit that you have
cited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Nov 19, 7:09 pm, "Alan Grey" <arvikagre...@gmail.com> wrote:
< For what it's worth, the Year Books of Edward III, Year XX (Pike,
< L.O., ed., London, 1908, pp.180-87), report on a case that Richard,
< Earl of Arundel, brought against the Abbess of Shaftesbury regarding
a
< presentation to the church of Keevil, co. Wilts. The extract from
< [Placita de Banco, Easter, 20 Edw III, Ro 63d] states:
<
< "Et postmodum, vacante ecclesia praedicti Johannis de Kent,
praedictus
< Ricardus fitz Aleyn Comes Arundelliae, filius et heres praedicti
< Johannis fitz Aleyn ..."
<
< Clearly at that time (1346) the "family" was still using, or at
least
< known by, the surname Fitz Alan.
<
< Regards
Alan R Grey
-
Renia
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Douglas Richardson wrote:
In this context "de Arundel" is not his surname, but his place of abode
or estate.
Dear Alan ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
The lawsuit which you have cited is clearly dated 1346. However, the
person to whom it refers, namely "Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel,
son and heir of John Fitz Alan," can only have Richard Fitz Alan, Earl
of Arundel, who died died in 1302. This man usually appears in
records as Richard Fitz Alan. But on one occasion In 1291 I note that
he received a grant addressed to him as "Richard de Arundel, Earl of
Arundel" [Reference: C.P. 1 (1910): 241]. Thus, I refer to him as
Richard Fitz Alan (or de Arundel) in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry
(2004).
Actually the change in names from Fitz Alan to Arundel started as
early as the 1270's, when Richard Fitz Alan's father was styled "John
Fitz Alan de Arundel" in several records
In this context "de Arundel" is not his surname, but his place of abode
or estate.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On Nov 20, 1:17 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
< In this context "de Arundel" is not his surname, but his place of
abode
< or estate.
In this case "de Arundel" was doubtless used as a modifier to indicate
which John Fitz Alan was intended, that is, John Fitz Alan of Arundel
as opposed to other men then living named John Fitz Alan. Later the
modifier became the surname, and Fitz Alan was dropped.
My research indicates that the family of the early Earls of Hereford
dropped the surname "de Gloucester" in favor of "de Hereford." So
there is certainly a precedent for a name change.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< In this context "de Arundel" is not his surname, but his place of
abode
< or estate.
In this case "de Arundel" was doubtless used as a modifier to indicate
which John Fitz Alan was intended, that is, John Fitz Alan of Arundel
as opposed to other men then living named John Fitz Alan. Later the
modifier became the surname, and Fitz Alan was dropped.
My research indicates that the family of the early Earls of Hereford
dropped the surname "de Gloucester" in favor of "de Hereford." So
there is certainly a precedent for a name change.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Vance Mead
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Clearly Mr Richardson has an unenviable task. He has claimed that ALL
members of the FitzAlan family changed their name to Arundel and
thereafter NONE of them were known by the name of FitzAlan. He must
therefore prove a negative - and explain away the numerous examples
already presented here of people who were known as FitzAlan in the
15th and 16th centuries and down to the present day. There have
already been several citations - from the PRO catalogue, A2A, Year
Books, and heralds' visitations. Here is another. This is from the
Calendar of Patent Rolls, which can be searched and viewed online.
There were others at the same location.
25--30 HENRY VI. [page 593]
CITY OF OXFORD.
Westminster,16 October,1449. 28 Henry VI, p. 1, m. 2ld.
Gilbert Kymer, chancellor of the University, William Yelverton,
Richard Byngham, John Fitz Aleyn, mayor, William Marmyon, Robert
Walford, Thomas Wichyg, Richard Spragat and Robert atte Wode.
members of the FitzAlan family changed their name to Arundel and
thereafter NONE of them were known by the name of FitzAlan. He must
therefore prove a negative - and explain away the numerous examples
already presented here of people who were known as FitzAlan in the
15th and 16th centuries and down to the present day. There have
already been several citations - from the PRO catalogue, A2A, Year
Books, and heralds' visitations. Here is another. This is from the
Calendar of Patent Rolls, which can be searched and viewed online.
There were others at the same location.
25--30 HENRY VI. [page 593]
CITY OF OXFORD.
Westminster,16 October,1449. 28 Henry VI, p. 1, m. 2ld.
Gilbert Kymer, chancellor of the University, William Yelverton,
Richard Byngham, John Fitz Aleyn, mayor, William Marmyon, Robert
Walford, Thomas Wichyg, Richard Spragat and Robert atte Wode.
For what it's worth, the Year Books of Edward III, Year XX (Pike,
L.O., ed., London, 1908, pp.180-87), report on a case that Richard,
Earl of Arundel, brought against the Abbess of Shaftesbury regarding a
presentation to the church of Keevil, co. Wilts. The extract from
[Placita de Banco, Easter, 20 Edw III, Ro 63d] states:
"Et postmodum, vacante ecclesia praedicti Johannis de Kent, praedictus
Ricardus fitz Aleyn Comes Arundelliae, filius et heres praedicti
Johannis fitz Aleyn ..."
-
Renia
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Quite. That is my point. The "de Arundel" was a modifier at that time,
not the surname.
On Nov 20, 1:17 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
In this context "de Arundel" is not his surname, but his place of
abode
or estate.
In this case "de Arundel" was doubtless used as a modifier to indicate
which John Fitz Alan was intended, that is, John Fitz Alan of Arundel
as opposed to other men then living named John Fitz Alan. Later the
modifier became the surname, and Fitz Alan was dropped.
Quite. That is my point. The "de Arundel" was a modifier at that time,
not the surname.
-
Vance Mead
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Here is a link to a short biography of John FitzAleyn/FitzAlan.
http://www.headington.org.uk/oxon/mayor ... 0_1451.htm
A flat marble stone was laid over his tomb with his effigy in brass,
as shown in the print (drawn by H. Burgess and engraved by T. Fisher
in the nineteenth century). The text reads:
Hic jacet Johannes Fitzaleyn, qui obijt xxii die
Novembris Ao*D[omi]ni*mo*cccc*lii: cujs a[n]i[m]e p[ro]pitietur Deus
There is a pictureof the brass on the siite.
http://www.headington.org.uk/oxon/mayor ... 0_1451.htm
A flat marble stone was laid over his tomb with his effigy in brass,
as shown in the print (drawn by H. Burgess and engraved by T. Fisher
in the nineteenth century). The text reads:
Hic jacet Johannes Fitzaleyn, qui obijt xxii die
Novembris Ao*D[omi]ni*mo*cccc*lii: cujs a[n]i[m]e p[ro]pitietur Deus
There is a pictureof the brass on the siite.
25--30 HENRY VI. [page 593]
CITY OF OXFORD.
Westminster,16 October,1449. 28 Henry VI, p. 1, m. 2ld.
Gilbert Kymer, chancellor of the University, William Yelverton,
Richard Byngham, John Fitz Aleyn, mayor, William Marmyon, Robert
Walford, Thomas Wichyg, Richard Spragat and Robert atte Wode.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Dear Vance ~
The man in the record you have posted was not even a member of the
Earls of Arundel family. Please try to be more careful.
As far as it goes, in spite of what you have said, I know of no
instances in the A2A Catalogue, the National Archives catalogue, the
Patent Rolls, the Close Rolls, the Fine Rolls, the Year Books, etc.
which indicate that the family of the Earls of Arundel used the
surname, Fitz Alan, after 1313. If you seriously know of any such
instances, by all means, please post them. Just be careful that you
have the right family.
As for the visitation records which you cited earlier, they were
created long after all these people lived and died. The visitations
would not be considered contemporary, or even near contemporary to the
time period we are discussing. To document what name these people
used, you need to use contemporary records. Fortunately for you, the
Arundel family appears in many contemporary medieval records.
As you know, the Patent Rolls are now online and fully searchable. If
the family of the Earls of Arundel used the surname, Fitz Alan, after
1313 as you claim, it should be easy for you to prove that fact using
the online Patent Rollls. And, the Patent Rolls would be considered
contemporary evidence.
One other thing: Be sure if you cite either the A2A or the National
Archives catalogues, that you check the original document first, as
these "records" are modern edited transcripts of the originals in
Latin and French, and do not necessarily read the same way as the
original records do. I've already explained that the Public Record
Office wrote me that they had not been able to find a single instance
of the surname Fitz Alan among the entries for the family of the Earls
of Arundel in their catalogue which they had been able to check.
These would be for entries before 1500. I posted the letter I
received from the PRO on the newsgroup. Have you searched the
archives for it yet?
Lastly, it has been alleged in print that the Fitz Alan surname was
revived in the Tudor time period. So far, I haven't seen any evidence
that any of the Earls of Arundel all the way down to the last male
Arundel who died in 1580 used the surname, Fitz Alan, after 1313.
Will Johnson posted a record today which suggests that Sir Philip
Howard, who was the grandson of the last Arundel earl, used the name
Fitzalan in 1582. This could well be true. I've written to the
record office in question to confirm the accuracy of the online
transcript. If correct, it would be evidence that the Howard family
had revived the surname, Fitz Alan. It obviously would not be
evidence that the Arundel family did so.
In the end, we may find that it was the Howard family that revived the
Fitz Alan surname, not the Arundel family at all.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Nov 20, 1:37 am, Vance Mead <vance.m...@mead.inet.fi> wrote:
< Clearly Mr Richardson has an unenviable task. He has claimed that
ALL
< members of the FitzAlan family changed their name to Arundel and
< thereafter NONE of them were known by the name of FitzAlan. He must
< therefore prove a negative - and explain away the numerous examples
< already presented here of people who were known as FitzAlan in the
< 15th and 16th centuries and down to the present day. There have
< already been several citations - from the PRO catalogue, A2A, Year
< Books, and heralds' visitations. Here is another. This is from the
< Calendar of Patent Rolls, which can be searched and viewed online.
< There were others at the same location.
<
< 25--30 HENRY VI. [page 593]
The man in the record you have posted was not even a member of the
Earls of Arundel family. Please try to be more careful.
As far as it goes, in spite of what you have said, I know of no
instances in the A2A Catalogue, the National Archives catalogue, the
Patent Rolls, the Close Rolls, the Fine Rolls, the Year Books, etc.
which indicate that the family of the Earls of Arundel used the
surname, Fitz Alan, after 1313. If you seriously know of any such
instances, by all means, please post them. Just be careful that you
have the right family.
As for the visitation records which you cited earlier, they were
created long after all these people lived and died. The visitations
would not be considered contemporary, or even near contemporary to the
time period we are discussing. To document what name these people
used, you need to use contemporary records. Fortunately for you, the
Arundel family appears in many contemporary medieval records.
As you know, the Patent Rolls are now online and fully searchable. If
the family of the Earls of Arundel used the surname, Fitz Alan, after
1313 as you claim, it should be easy for you to prove that fact using
the online Patent Rollls. And, the Patent Rolls would be considered
contemporary evidence.
One other thing: Be sure if you cite either the A2A or the National
Archives catalogues, that you check the original document first, as
these "records" are modern edited transcripts of the originals in
Latin and French, and do not necessarily read the same way as the
original records do. I've already explained that the Public Record
Office wrote me that they had not been able to find a single instance
of the surname Fitz Alan among the entries for the family of the Earls
of Arundel in their catalogue which they had been able to check.
These would be for entries before 1500. I posted the letter I
received from the PRO on the newsgroup. Have you searched the
archives for it yet?
Lastly, it has been alleged in print that the Fitz Alan surname was
revived in the Tudor time period. So far, I haven't seen any evidence
that any of the Earls of Arundel all the way down to the last male
Arundel who died in 1580 used the surname, Fitz Alan, after 1313.
Will Johnson posted a record today which suggests that Sir Philip
Howard, who was the grandson of the last Arundel earl, used the name
Fitzalan in 1582. This could well be true. I've written to the
record office in question to confirm the accuracy of the online
transcript. If correct, it would be evidence that the Howard family
had revived the surname, Fitz Alan. It obviously would not be
evidence that the Arundel family did so.
In the end, we may find that it was the Howard family that revived the
Fitz Alan surname, not the Arundel family at all.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Nov 20, 1:37 am, Vance Mead <vance.m...@mead.inet.fi> wrote:
< Clearly Mr Richardson has an unenviable task. He has claimed that
ALL
< members of the FitzAlan family changed their name to Arundel and
< thereafter NONE of them were known by the name of FitzAlan. He must
< therefore prove a negative - and explain away the numerous examples
< already presented here of people who were known as FitzAlan in the
< 15th and 16th centuries and down to the present day. There have
< already been several citations - from the PRO catalogue, A2A, Year
< Books, and heralds' visitations. Here is another. This is from the
< Calendar of Patent Rolls, which can be searched and viewed online.
< There were others at the same location.
<
< 25--30 HENRY VI. [page 593]
CITY OF OXFORD.
Westminster,16 October,1449. 28 Henry VI, p. 1, m. 2ld.
Gilbert Kymer, chancellor of the University, William Yelverton,
Richard Byngham, John Fitz Aleyn, mayor, William Marmyon, Robert
Walford, Thomas Wichyg, Richard Spragat and Robert atte Wode.
-
Vance Mead
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Douglas
In your original post, you said that "all branches of the family
thereafter were known as Arundel." I took this to mean both the
immediate families of the Earls as well as more distant relatives. A
century later they could be quite distant cousins.
Vance
In your original post, you said that "all branches of the family
thereafter were known as Arundel." I took this to mean both the
immediate families of the Earls as well as more distant relatives. A
century later they could be quite distant cousins.
Vance
The man in the record you have posted was not even a member of the
Earls of Arundel family. Please try to be more careful.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On Nov 20, 3:25 am, Vance Mead <vance.m...@mead.inet.fi> wrote:
Any given person surnamed Fitz Alan in the 1400's in England is not
necessarily a "distant relative" to the family of the Earls of
Arundel. Fitz Alan was a patronymic.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas
In your original post, you said that "all branches of the family
thereafter were known as Arundel." I took this to mean both the
immediate families of the Earls as well as more distant relatives. A
century later they could be quite distant cousins.
Vance
Any given person surnamed Fitz Alan in the 1400's in England is not
necessarily a "distant relative" to the family of the Earls of
Arundel. Fitz Alan was a patronymic.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Vance Mead
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Your reasoning is circular. First you declare that all of the
Fitzalans changed their name to Arundel in 1313. Then, when presented
with a Fitzalan after that, you declare that they aren't the same
Fitzalans - because those Fitzalans changed their name, of course.
I have looked at the previous posts on this subject. You have been
riding this hobby horse for five or six years, and the only evidence
you have ever presented is "my research indicates...", followed by
assertions repeated ad infititum. I give up. Believe whatever you
like. This is an enormous waste of time.
Fitzalans changed their name to Arundel in 1313. Then, when presented
with a Fitzalan after that, you declare that they aren't the same
Fitzalans - because those Fitzalans changed their name, of course.
I have looked at the previous posts on this subject. You have been
riding this hobby horse for five or six years, and the only evidence
you have ever presented is "my research indicates...", followed by
assertions repeated ad infititum. I give up. Believe whatever you
like. This is an enormous waste of time.
Any given person surnamed Fitz Alan in the 1400's in England is not
necessarily a "distant relative" to the family of the Earls of
Arundel. Fitz Alan was a patronymic.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On Nov 20, 9:04 am, Vance Mead <vance.m...@mead.inet.fi> wrote:
For the third and final time: As far as I know, John Fitz Alan, Mayor
of Oxford, who died in 1452, was not a member of the family of the
Earls of Arundel.
DR
Your reasoning is circular. First you declare that all of the
Fitzalans changed their name to Arundel in 1313. Then, when presented
with a Fitzalan after that, you declare that they aren't the same
Fitzalans - because those Fitzalans changed their name, of course.
For the third and final time: As far as I know, John Fitz Alan, Mayor
of Oxford, who died in 1452, was not a member of the family of the
Earls of Arundel.
DR
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Dear Newsgroup ~
An enthusiastic poster has regurgitated several previous items posted
to the newsgroup back in 2002 which imply that Henry, 18th Earl of
Arundel, revived the Fitz Alan surname in the late 1500's. While the
18th Earl may have revived the Fitz Alan surname, as the poster knows
quite well (and has known since these items first appeared), not one
of the records he cites was issued by the Earl himself. Rather, all
of these items would be termed "anecdoctal evidence." For example,
we don't know when the inscription on the painting of the Earl's son
was prepared. Nor do we know who prepared the title of the biography
of the Earl or when. These items could well date many years after the
fact! This issue has been conveniently sidestepped by the poster.
Even the Earl's own monumental inscription does not prove the Earl
used the Fitz Alan surname as claimed by our poster. Rather, just the
opposite! The word used is "generis" which refers to the Earl's
ancestors named Fitz Alan. Had the Earl himself been a Fitz Alan,
there would be no need to tell the reader of his monument that he was
a member of the Fitz Alan family. It would be obvious by his surname!
As far as I can tell, the 18th Earl was known simply as Henry, Earl of
Arundel. Usually earls whose surnames were the same as their title
did not use a surname when employing their title. Hence it is likely
that the 18th Earl's surname and title were both Arundel. That's an
inference, well and good, but probably not far from the truth.
Needless to say, it is conclusive contemporary evidence that we are
after. That means records issued by the 18th Earl himself in his own
lifetime, or a contemporary record of him found in the crown records.
My guess at this point is that the Fitz Alan surname was revived
alright, not by the Earl, but by the Earl's grandson and heir, Sir
Philip Howard.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
An enthusiastic poster has regurgitated several previous items posted
to the newsgroup back in 2002 which imply that Henry, 18th Earl of
Arundel, revived the Fitz Alan surname in the late 1500's. While the
18th Earl may have revived the Fitz Alan surname, as the poster knows
quite well (and has known since these items first appeared), not one
of the records he cites was issued by the Earl himself. Rather, all
of these items would be termed "anecdoctal evidence." For example,
we don't know when the inscription on the painting of the Earl's son
was prepared. Nor do we know who prepared the title of the biography
of the Earl or when. These items could well date many years after the
fact! This issue has been conveniently sidestepped by the poster.
Even the Earl's own monumental inscription does not prove the Earl
used the Fitz Alan surname as claimed by our poster. Rather, just the
opposite! The word used is "generis" which refers to the Earl's
ancestors named Fitz Alan. Had the Earl himself been a Fitz Alan,
there would be no need to tell the reader of his monument that he was
a member of the Fitz Alan family. It would be obvious by his surname!
As far as I can tell, the 18th Earl was known simply as Henry, Earl of
Arundel. Usually earls whose surnames were the same as their title
did not use a surname when employing their title. Hence it is likely
that the 18th Earl's surname and title were both Arundel. That's an
inference, well and good, but probably not far from the truth.
Needless to say, it is conclusive contemporary evidence that we are
after. That means records issued by the 18th Earl himself in his own
lifetime, or a contemporary record of him found in the crown records.
My guess at this point is that the Fitz Alan surname was revived
alright, not by the Earl, but by the Earl's grandson and heir, Sir
Philip Howard.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Dear Newsgroup ~
Walter de Gray Birch, the noted antiquarian, published a valuable set
of volumes entitled Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum. All of
these volumes were recently reprinted as part of the Elibron Classics
series. They can also be found online at Google Books.
In Volume 2, page 431, of Mr. Birch's volumes, sub Arundel, we are
told under an entry for Alianora de Arundel that we will find a seal
for her under the name, Alianora de Fitz Alan [sic] elsewhere in the
same volume. See the weblink below for page 431:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JhMaAA ... z1Hob5uHyM
Yet, when we go to the pages 795-796 for Fitz Alan, Mr. Birch has
listed no less than four seals for "Alianora Mautravers," "widow of
John Fitz-Alan of Arundel, Knt." Yet when we look at the surviving
legends of three of the seals, we find that they clearly bear the name
de Arundel, not Fitz Alan. In fact, two of the seals bear the full
name, "Alianore de Arundel." Once again Fitz Alan vanishes.
See the weblinks below for these pages:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JhMaAA ... #PPA795,M1
http://books.google.com/books?id=JhMaAA ... #PPA796,M1
Mr. Birch likewise gives the seals of several other members of the
family of the Earls of Arundel all in the post 1313 period under both
Arundel and Fitz Alan. None of these seals bear the name Fitz Alan.
Once again Fitz Alan vanishes.
So what happened? Mr. Birch has been caught in a common error.
Because he thought the family of the Earls of Arundel in the post 1313
period bore the name, Fitz Alan, he placed most of their seals under
Fitz Alan, even though the seal evidence showed the family did not
bear this name.
This, by the way, is how errors in modern literature and genealogical
databases get perpetuated. People copy the same error over and over
again from secondary sources and GEDCOMS and never bother to check the
original documents. In this case, Mr. Birch had the original seals as
evidence right in front of him and still didn't get it right. All
fairness to Mr. Birch, though, it's easy to make such a mistake.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
P.S. I should point out that Eleanor Mautravers' husband was actually
known as Sir John de Arundel, Knight. He was never known as "John
Fitz-Alan," even though Mr. Birch tells us that such an individual
existed. This past week I posted two contemporary documents relating
to Eleanor's husband from Catalogue of Ancient Deeds. Eleanor's
husband is called "John Arundell, knight" in one, and "John de
Arundell" in the other. No Fitz Alan. These items are both
available through Google Books.
Walter de Gray Birch, the noted antiquarian, published a valuable set
of volumes entitled Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum. All of
these volumes were recently reprinted as part of the Elibron Classics
series. They can also be found online at Google Books.
In Volume 2, page 431, of Mr. Birch's volumes, sub Arundel, we are
told under an entry for Alianora de Arundel that we will find a seal
for her under the name, Alianora de Fitz Alan [sic] elsewhere in the
same volume. See the weblink below for page 431:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JhMaAA ... z1Hob5uHyM
Yet, when we go to the pages 795-796 for Fitz Alan, Mr. Birch has
listed no less than four seals for "Alianora Mautravers," "widow of
John Fitz-Alan of Arundel, Knt." Yet when we look at the surviving
legends of three of the seals, we find that they clearly bear the name
de Arundel, not Fitz Alan. In fact, two of the seals bear the full
name, "Alianore de Arundel." Once again Fitz Alan vanishes.
See the weblinks below for these pages:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JhMaAA ... #PPA795,M1
http://books.google.com/books?id=JhMaAA ... #PPA796,M1
Mr. Birch likewise gives the seals of several other members of the
family of the Earls of Arundel all in the post 1313 period under both
Arundel and Fitz Alan. None of these seals bear the name Fitz Alan.
Once again Fitz Alan vanishes.
So what happened? Mr. Birch has been caught in a common error.
Because he thought the family of the Earls of Arundel in the post 1313
period bore the name, Fitz Alan, he placed most of their seals under
Fitz Alan, even though the seal evidence showed the family did not
bear this name.
This, by the way, is how errors in modern literature and genealogical
databases get perpetuated. People copy the same error over and over
again from secondary sources and GEDCOMS and never bother to check the
original documents. In this case, Mr. Birch had the original seals as
evidence right in front of him and still didn't get it right. All
fairness to Mr. Birch, though, it's easy to make such a mistake.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
P.S. I should point out that Eleanor Mautravers' husband was actually
known as Sir John de Arundel, Knight. He was never known as "John
Fitz-Alan," even though Mr. Birch tells us that such an individual
existed. This past week I posted two contemporary documents relating
to Eleanor's husband from Catalogue of Ancient Deeds. Eleanor's
husband is called "John Arundell, knight" in one, and "John de
Arundell" in the other. No Fitz Alan. These items are both
available through Google Books.
-
John Brandon
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
Doug, Doug, Doug ...
Can we give this a break for awhile, please? We all know how you get
"bees in your bonnet" from time to time over the "proper and correct
spellings" of medieval names, etc., but there's no need to continue to
insist on something you can never truly prove. You may have shown
there was a slight trend toward replacing the name FitzAllan with
Arundel, but that's all.
On another topic ... were you ever able to get a copy of that
_Blackmansbury_ article on the Knevitt/ Knyvett family showing a
daughter of Charles K. married to Richard Fitzwilliam of Ringsted
(behind Margaret [Estouteville] Shepard)?
Can we give this a break for awhile, please? We all know how you get
"bees in your bonnet" from time to time over the "proper and correct
spellings" of medieval names, etc., but there's no need to continue to
insist on something you can never truly prove. You may have shown
there was a slight trend toward replacing the name FitzAllan with
Arundel, but that's all.
On another topic ... were you ever able to get a copy of that
_Blackmansbury_ article on the Knevitt/ Knyvett family showing a
daughter of Charles K. married to Richard Fitzwilliam of Ringsted
(behind Margaret [Estouteville] Shepard)?
Dear Newsgroup ~
Walter de Gray Birch, the noted antiquarian, published a valuable set
of volumes entitled Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum. All of
these volumes were recently reprinted as part of the Elibron Classics
series. They can also be found online at Google Books.
In Volume 2, page 431, of Mr. Birch's volumes, sub Arundel, we are
told under an entry for Alianora de Arundel that we will find a seal
for her under the name, Alianora de Fitz Alan [sic] elsewhere in the
same volume. See the weblink below for page 431:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JhMaAA ... 431&dq=b...
Yet, when we go to the pages 795-796 for Fitz Alan, Mr. Birch has
listed no less than four seals for "Alianora Mautravers," "widow of
John Fitz-Alan of Arundel, Knt." Yet when we look at the surviving
legends of three of the seals, we find that they clearly bear the name
de Arundel, not Fitz Alan. In fact, two of the seals bear the full
name, "Alianore de Arundel." Once again Fitz Alan vanishes.
See the weblinks below for these pages:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JhMaAA ... 431&dq=b...
Mr. Birch likewise gives the seals of several other members of the
family of the Earls of Arundel all in the post 1313 period under both
Arundel and Fitz Alan. None of these seals bear the name Fitz Alan.
Once again Fitz Alan vanishes.
So what happened? Mr. Birch has been caught in a common error.
Because he thought the family of the Earls of Arundel in the post 1313
period bore the name, Fitz Alan, he placed most of their seals under
Fitz Alan, even though the seal evidence showed the family did not
bear this name.
This, by the way, is how errors in modern literature and genealogical
databases get perpetuated. People copy the same error over and over
again from secondary sources and GEDCOMS and never bother to check the
original documents. In this case, Mr. Birch had the original seals as
evidence right in front of him and still didn't get it right. All
fairness to Mr. Birch, though, it's easy to make such a mistake.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
P.S. I should point out that Eleanor Mautravers' husband was actually
known as Sir John de Arundel, Knight. He was never known as "John
Fitz-Alan," even though Mr. Birch tells us that such an individual
existed. This past week I posted two contemporary documents relating
to Eleanor's husband from Catalogue of Ancient Deeds. Eleanor's
husband is called "John Arundell, knight" in one, and "John de
Arundell" in the other. No Fitz Alan. These items are both
available through Google Books.
-
Leticia Cluff
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:05:10 -0800 (PST), Douglas Richardson
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Good points, Douglas
This shows that modern writers, editors, and indexers add the Fitzalan
name even when it is not actually used in the primary source.
But let us go back to the close associate, probably a chaplain, of
Henry, fourteenth Earl of Arundel, who wrote a biography of the earl
in 1580, the year of his death. The biography was written for the
benefit of the Earl's two daughters and heiresses. The biographer
surely would not have given the earl the surname "Fitzallen" if it had
not been used and accepted by the earl himself and other members of
the family.
Would you accept this as evidence that the family used the surname
Fitzalan in the time of the fourteenth earl?
Tish
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
Walter de Gray Birch, the noted antiquarian, published a valuable set
of volumes entitled Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum. All of
these volumes were recently reprinted as part of the Elibron Classics
series. They can also be found online at Google Books.
In Volume 2, page 431, of Mr. Birch's volumes, sub Arundel, we are
told under an entry for Alianora de Arundel that we will find a seal
for her under the name, Alianora de Fitz Alan [sic] elsewhere in the
same volume. See the weblink below for page 431:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JhMaAA ... z1Hob5uHyM
Yet, when we go to the pages 795-796 for Fitz Alan, Mr. Birch has
listed no less than four seals for "Alianora Mautravers," "widow of
John Fitz-Alan of Arundel, Knt." Yet when we look at the surviving
legends of three of the seals, we find that they clearly bear the name
de Arundel, not Fitz Alan. In fact, two of the seals bear the full
name, "Alianore de Arundel." Once again Fitz Alan vanishes.
See the weblinks below for these pages:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JhMaAA ... #PPA795,M1
http://books.google.com/books?id=JhMaAA ... #PPA796,M1
Mr. Birch likewise gives the seals of several other members of the
family of the Earls of Arundel all in the post 1313 period under both
Arundel and Fitz Alan. None of these seals bear the name Fitz Alan.
Once again Fitz Alan vanishes.
So what happened? Mr. Birch has been caught in a common error.
Because he thought the family of the Earls of Arundel in the post 1313
period bore the name, Fitz Alan, he placed most of their seals under
Fitz Alan, even though the seal evidence showed the family did not
bear this name.
This, by the way, is how errors in modern literature and genealogical
databases get perpetuated. People copy the same error over and over
again from secondary sources and GEDCOMS and never bother to check the
original documents. In this case, Mr. Birch had the original seals as
evidence right in front of him and still didn't get it right. All
fairness to Mr. Birch, though, it's easy to make such a mistake.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
P.S. I should point out that Eleanor Mautravers' husband was actually
known as Sir John de Arundel, Knight. He was never known as "John
Fitz-Alan," even though Mr. Birch tells us that such an individual
existed. This past week I posted two contemporary documents relating
to Eleanor's husband from Catalogue of Ancient Deeds. Eleanor's
husband is called "John Arundell, knight" in one, and "John de
Arundell" in the other. No Fitz Alan. These items are both
available through Google Books.
Good points, Douglas
This shows that modern writers, editors, and indexers add the Fitzalan
name even when it is not actually used in the primary source.
But let us go back to the close associate, probably a chaplain, of
Henry, fourteenth Earl of Arundel, who wrote a biography of the earl
in 1580, the year of his death. The biography was written for the
benefit of the Earl's two daughters and heiresses. The biographer
surely would not have given the earl the surname "Fitzallen" if it had
not been used and accepted by the earl himself and other members of
the family.
Would you accept this as evidence that the family used the surname
Fitzalan in the time of the fourteenth earl?
Tish
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On Nov 21, 9:24 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
< Can we give this a break for awhile, please? We all know how you
get
< "bees in your bonnet" from time to time over the "proper and correct
< spellings" of medieval names, etc., but there's no need to continue
to
< insist on something you can never truly prove.
You have your wish. I'm done with it.
DR
Doug, Doug, Doug ...
< Can we give this a break for awhile, please? We all know how you
get
< "bees in your bonnet" from time to time over the "proper and correct
< spellings" of medieval names, etc., but there's no need to continue
to
< insist on something you can never truly prove.
You have your wish. I'm done with it.
DR
-
Shinjinee
Re: The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname
On Nov 19, 5:39 pm, gvow...@talktalk.net wrote:
He was styled the Earl of Arundel in 2002, but his father was the
actual Earl of Arundel. (English peerage law, such as it is, does not
allow the title to be ceded to eldest sons, except by Writ of
Acceleration which I believe is now not an option).
Right now, the 18th Earl's son Henry is styled Earl of Arundel &
Surrey, but it is his father who is now the Earl of Arundel & Surrey.
Sorry for nitpicking, but I wanted to correct that.
(removed all but two groups)
Shinjinee
On Nov 19, 12:34 pm, gvow...@talktalk.net wrote:
On Nov 19, 7:37 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
As most people know by now, the baronial family of Fitz Alan changed
their surname from Fitz Alan to Arundel about 1313, and all branches
of the family thereafter were known as Arundel (or de Arundel). The
name change is discussed at some length in my book, Plantagenet
Ancestry (2004).
Yet, when I consult printed sources, I often find that the index
prepared by a modern editor tells me that there is an item on the Fitz
Alan family on a certain page. However, when I look at the entry
itself and if the entry dates after 1313, the name is always Arundel,
not Fitz Alan. Here is a good example:
The index of Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, 5 (1906): 685
states that there is an entry for "Richard Fitz-Alan earl of Arundel"
on page 28. Yet when that page is consulted, it turns out to be a
reference to "John Arundell, knight, son of the earl of Arundell"
dated 1370. The earl is mentioned alright, but there is no Fitz Alan.
For a full transcript of this item and the index page, see the
following weblinks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... ttorney+...
http://books.google.com/books?id=biAsAA ... ttorney+...
I'll be posting other examples of the vanishing Fitz Alan surname as I
find them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
in my records Thomas Howard m Mary FitzAlan, dau of Henry FitzAlan
Earl of Arundel in 1556 thus amalgamating the FitzAlan 'surname' with
the Howard 'surname'. FitzAlan-Howard remains as a 'baronial' surname
to this day- Edward FitzAlan-Howard is the current 18th Duke of
Norfolk.
[snipped]
Geoff- Hide quoted text -
Oh, he was the Earl of Arundel until his father died in 2002. The
family seat is still Arundel Castle.
Geoff
He was styled the Earl of Arundel in 2002, but his father was the
actual Earl of Arundel. (English peerage law, such as it is, does not
allow the title to be ceded to eldest sons, except by Writ of
Acceleration which I believe is now not an option).
Right now, the 18th Earl's son Henry is styled Earl of Arundel &
Surrey, but it is his father who is now the Earl of Arundel & Surrey.
Sorry for nitpicking, but I wanted to correct that.
(removed all but two groups)
Shinjinee