Fw: The [allegedly] Vanishing Fitz Alan surname

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Fw: The [allegedly] Vanishing Fitz Alan surname

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 20 nov 2007 22:55:43

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message news:450418b4-e666-43eb-a848-0dc108ced581@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
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.

Hooey - the copy at Parham is contemporary with the original, and portraits of noblemen at that time were usually presented with the subject's name and rank.

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.

More hooey - the quotation is the beginning of the original text of the biography by one of the earl's familiars, not a subsequent addition by another writer.

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!

Ignorant hooey - the relevant word is "cognominatus", surnamed, referring directly to "Heros", i.e. to the subject, the earl himself: "sui generis ab Alani filio cognominatus" means "surnamed due to his own descent from the son of Alan", presumably meaning surnamed Fitzalan from birth (and consequently that any revival of the surname happened before his generation). To suggest that this, in an epitaph prepared by his immediate family, leaves open a possibility that the man actually went by a different surname and this one was reinvented by an in-law from another family in the next generation is just self-interested contrariness.

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.

So why did the earl's son-in-law have an inscription placed on his tomb telling a complete falsehood to posterity? Did Lord Lumley choose to be seen by everyone who knew the man and the circumstances as a lying ignoramus, simply in order to vindicate another from SLC, Utah, four centuries later?

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.


Needless to say, this means that Richardson is still, after 5 years, sitting on his hands waiting for someone else to do his work for him, while shamelesasly trying to goad others into this by preposterous bluster.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»