Talk:Earl of Arundel

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

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)

That would be the normal practice, but heaven knows what was the rule in 1264! —Tamfang 03:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Numbering (again)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)