Wikipedia

Talk:Earl of Arundel

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Aforst1 in topic Numbering (yet again)
Learn more about this page

Untitled

edit

Loren, what's your source for "d'Albini" on the first Earls? Both Complete Peerage and Handbook of British Chronology give "d'Aubigny". john 06:40, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is there a place in England that the title is derived from? RickK 06:47, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Arundel Castle is in Sussex. The early earls were frequently called Earl of Sussex or Earl of Chichester (I think) as well as Earl of Arundel. john 06:55, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I may be mixed up, and I'm not sure of the specific terminology to use to ask the question, but wasn't Charles Howard of Effingham (the guy in charge of defending against the Spanish Armada) lord of Arundel Castle? How does he fit in? Adam Bishop 07:01, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, the Earls of Arundel were attainted between 1589 (I think) and 1603. So perhaps he was given Arundel Castle at that time. john 07:18, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My source for the spelling of the toponymic is the Dictionary of National Biography. (And by the way it looks like the entries for the family were written by J.H. Round.) However fashions for spelling some of the medieval family names have changed over the past century; someone needs to do a survey of more recent books and see if there is any consensus.
As is explained in the Earl article, medieval earls were interchangeably referred to by their county, the county seat, and possibly some other principal place in the county. Thus Arundel=Sussex=Chicester, Shropshire=Shrewsbury, Hampshire=Winchester, etc.
In the year of the Armada (1588) Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel was imprisoned in the Tower of London, though he wasn't attainted til the next year, and his son and heir was 3 years old. I would presume this is why Arundel Castle was in the hands of someone else (e.g. his cousin). Loren Rosen 16:37, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

According to Complete Peerage "d'Albini" is an odd Latinization, or something, of the actual name of the family, which was "d'Aubigny". Here's the full citation (from page 233 of Volume I of the 1910 edition):

1. William d'Aubigny[1] de Albiniaco[2], or in the Anglo-Latin of Dugdale and other writers, de Albini, etc etc
[1] Aubigny is in the arrondisement of Coutances, department of La Manche. It was confiscated in 1204 by Philip Augustus, who made known by his charter that "terra comitis de Harundel" (and that of many others) was "de dominico nostro"...
[2] Of course, no one ever bore such a name as de Albini; the modern surname Daubeney indicated what the name of these Earls was.

I think this is reason enough to change it back to "d'Aubigny." john 06:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with that; I found other sources who also commented that Dugdale had done an idiosyncratic anglization of the medieval Latin. I also found that some historians are using de Albini for the other family from Aubigny (perhaps to help tell them apart) but I don't propose changing our usage yet. I am, however, going to change the references to d'Arundel for two of the Fitzalan earls -- I have no idea where that came from. Loren Rosen 05:37, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Fitzalan comes from ALAIN the first of the line who was a descendant of James - Jesus's brother and that line was in Brittany =a Breton line BUT also over time this line purported to marry into the also line from descendants of Jesus himself and so the line is descended from both brothers -sons of Joseph & Mary. (genealogy pro- Big Willy)

Numbering of earls

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The numbers should be re-ordered. John FitzAlan (born 1223) was the 1st Earl of Arundel of a new creation, and the FitzAlan earls must be numbered starting here. ScottyFLL 02:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

That would be the normal practice, but heaven knows what was the rule in 1264! —Tamfang 03:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
It looks like this re-numbering was done but the titles of the articles for the FitzAlan earls were never changed. Loren Rosen 06:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Regardless of how this is done, we can't just change the list and then leave the page names the same, which creates a long list of redlinks. I've reverted the edit. Lampman (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Numbering (again)

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

My understanding is that there is generally considered to have been a new creation of the earldom in 1289 or 1292, and that, as such, the numbering normally starts over with the earl this list calls the eighth earl. Also, the supposed first two Fitzalan earls do not seem to have been considered earls at all. This is the format followed by, notably, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which calls Philip Howard the thirteenth earl, his grandfather the twelfth earl, and so forth. It calls the first two Fitzalans simply "lords of Arundel." The ODNB article on Richard Fitzalan (1267-1302) says that he began using the title "Earl of Arundel" only in 1292 or thereabouts. At any rate, it seems to me that we ought to renumber and to not count the first two Fitzalans as proper earls. Thoughts? john k (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

If anyone has access to what Complete Peerage says on the matter, that might also be useful, although the ODNB is a much more recent source, and might be considered more reliable on modern usage than a 100 year old book. However, the original DNB, which was published around the same time as CP, was also using the numbering I've indicated, so it is clearly not a new way of doing it. john k (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since not everyone has access to ODNB, is there some source(s) that we can use to standardize this listing, so we don't have red links for the Earls of Arundel?? If all else fails, we can mention the dual numbering so as to not confuse anyone. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I see the problem of the two numbering systems has come up before - I come here because we have duplicate articles, such as Edmund FitzAlan, 9th Earl of Arundel and Edmund FitzAlan, 2nd Earl of Arundel, who are the same person. How can we resolve the issue? One article for each Earl at something like Edmund FitzAlan, 2nd (or 9th) Earl of Arundel? Shall we simply adopt the Complete Peerage's numbering system, and mention the numbering problem in footnotes? - Nunh-huh 10:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
It seems most of these articles already exist under the higher numbering. I've made some redirects from the lower number to the higher number in an attempt to avoid future duplicate articles. - Nunh-huh 10:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

1138 or 1143? And 1289 and 1580

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion

This article gives two different dates for the first creation. Richard75 (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Also, is there a source for the third creation in 1580? The article on the supposed first earl does not suggest that this was a new creation, but the restoration of the second one which had been forfeited. Richard75 (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
And all the Cracoft Peerage links are dead links. Richard75 (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I can't find any evidence that a new title was created in 1580; rather the forfeited title was restored. I've edited the article to reflect this. Also the claim that there was a second creation is dubious and needs to be properly sourced or removed. Richard75 (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've found a source for creation in 1138: [1] Richard75 (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Earl of Arundel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Numbering (yet again)

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The two first Fitzalan 'earls' were not earls at all but lords, of Arundel. The Complete Peerage says that neither was styled 'earl of Arundel' during their lifetimes and two important modern sources on this topic, the ODNB and the Handbook of British Chronology (1996 ed.), confirm this. The ODNB starts the numbering again with Richard Fitzalan, naming him the 1st earl, while the Handbook continues from the Aubigny family and names this same Richard the 6th earl, his son Edmund the 7th, etc. The former style seems to be more prevalent in modern sources, so it should be adopted here – meaning the Fitzalan earls should start from 1 rather than 8. Aforst1 (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earl_of_Arundel&oldid=1257146298"