Dear Vance ~
<snip>
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
Now Richardson is flatly lying - in May 2002 he saw evidence that he again denies having seen, and he saw it again earlier today when the same information was reposted. Although he obviously can't stay on top of his hobby horse when it trips over the truth, he can't get away with ignoring it.