Douglas Richardson, awaiting answers
From RoyalWeb
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
7.Douglas Richardson (29 October 2007): "My research indicates that the Fitzalan family dropped the surname Fitzalan, in favor of Arundel about 1313. Thereafter all members of the family were known exclusively as Arundel (or de Arundel)." Will Johnson (30 October 2007): "But you didn't mention that among historians, you appear to be singularly alone in this theory. Isn't that a bit odd? | 7.Douglas Richardson (29 October 2007): "My research indicates that the Fitzalan family dropped the surname Fitzalan, in favor of Arundel about 1313. Thereafter all members of the family were known exclusively as Arundel (or de Arundel)." Will Johnson (30 October 2007): "But you didn't mention that among historians, you appear to be singularly alone in this theory. Isn't that a bit odd? | ||
| + | Leo van de Pas (31 October 2007) In teh Complete Peerage Volume I 249, we find Thomas (FitzAlan otherwise Arundell otherwise Mautravers) Earl of Arundel. On page 250 we find the last two Earls of Arundel, both with the name Fitzalan. Also CP XIV does not correct any of the surnames mentioned. | ||
| + | Vance Mead (5 November 2007) The visitations of Kent is on line. On page 217 you can see the pedigree of Browne. It says that Sir Thomas Browne married Ellyn the daughter and co-heir of "Sir Thomas FitzAlan kt". You can also search the PRO catalogue or A2A and find several references to Thomas Fitzalan during the 15th century. | ||
8.Will Johnson points out (1 November 2007) how Douglas Richardson in his Plantagenet Ancestry, Page 302 recorded : | 8.Will Johnson points out (1 November 2007) how Douglas Richardson in his Plantagenet Ancestry, Page 302 recorded : | ||
