Marriage licence for "Henry Matravers Earl of Arundel"

[Gjest]

Amongst the Allegations for Marriages Licences issued from the
Archbishop of Canterbury's Faculty Office at London (Chester &
Armytage, London, 1886) at page 5 we find the following entry:

"6 September 1545:

"Lord Henry Matravers, Earl of Arundell, and Lady Mary Fitzwater,
Countess of Sussex, widow"

Should this be considered as conclusive proof that by 1545, the
FitzAlan family had abandoned their original surname in favour of
'Maltravers'?

More seriously, can anyone hazard a guess why the bride-to-be should
be described as 'Mary Fitzwater', given that she was an Arundell of
Lanherne by birth and the widow of a Radcliffe [see ODNB article for
Henry, 12th Earl of Earl of Arundel]?

MA-R

[Gjest]

On Feb 2, 3:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:

Amongst the Allegations for Marriages Licences issued from the
Archbishop of Canterbury's Faculty Office at London (Chester &
Armytage, London, 1886) at page 5 we find the following entry:

"6 September 1545:

"Lord Henry Matravers, Earl of Arundell, and Lady Mary Fitzwater,
Countess of Sussex, widow"

Should this be considered as conclusive proof that by 1545, the
FitzAlan family had abandoned their original surname in favour of
'Maltravers'?

More seriously, can anyone hazard a guess why the bride-to-be should
be described as 'Mary Fitzwater', given that she was an Arundell of
Lanherne by birth and the widow of a Radcliffe [see ODNB article for
Henry, 12th Earl of Earl of Arundel]?

Aha, a little bird reminds me that Robert Radcliffe, 1st Earl of
Sussex, the first husband of Mary Arundell, was also 7th Baron
Fitzwalter.

Both Robert Radcliffe and Mary Arundell have biographies in the ODNB
too.

MA-R

[Peter Stewart]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:bb3c3c0b-a85c-4abc-ad82-f76f433c3e97@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

Amongst the Allegations for Marriages Licences issued from the
Archbishop of Canterbury's Faculty Office at London (Chester &
Armytage, London, 1886) at page 5 we find the following entry:

"6 September 1545:

"Lord Henry Matravers, Earl of Arundell, and Lady Mary Fitzwater,
Countess of Sussex, widow"

Should this be considered as conclusive proof that by 1545, the
FitzAlan family had abandoned their original surname in favour of
'Maltravers'?

More seriously, can anyone hazard a guess why the bride-to-be should
be described as 'Mary Fitzwater', given that she was an Arundell of
Lanherne by birth and the widow of a Radcliffe [see ODNB article for
Henry, 12th Earl of Earl of Arundel]?

Perhaps because that was the title she had used in her previous marriage - I
haven't checked this or the dates, but as far as I recall Viscount Fitzwater
was the courtesy title of the Radcliffes.

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

On Feb 2, 4:40 pm, "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote:

[email protected]> wrote in message

news:bb3c3c0b-a85c-4abc-ad82-f76f433c3e97@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...





Amongst the Allegations for Marriages Licences issued from the
Archbishop of Canterbury's Faculty Office at London (Chester &
Armytage, London, 1886) at page 5 we find the following entry:

"6 September 1545:

"Lord Henry Matravers, Earl of Arundell, and Lady Mary Fitzwater,
Countess of Sussex, widow"

Should this be considered as conclusive proof that by 1545, the
FitzAlan family had abandoned their original surname in favour of
'Maltravers'?

More seriously, can anyone hazard a guess why the bride-to-be should
be described as 'Mary Fitzwater', given that she was an Arundell of
Lanherne by birth and the widow of a Radcliffe [see ODNB article for
Henry, 12th Earl of Earl of Arundel]?

Perhaps because that was the title she had used in her previous marriage - I
haven't checked this or the dates, but as far as I recall Viscount Fitzwater
was the courtesy title of the Radcliffes.

Peter Stewart

Hole in one, Mr Stewart.

The 1st Earl of Sussex (cr 1529) was also 1st Viscount Fitzwalter (cr
1525), as well as being Baron Fitzwalter by inheritance.

Cheers, Michael