Royal Ancestry by Douglas Richardson has surname (FitzAlan) set as (Arundel). Should WikiTree, for ease of research?

Question

Royal Ancestry by Douglas Richardson Vol. II page 599
Richard (FitzAlan-606) or De (Arundel) and other's ...

RICHARD (FITZ ALAN (or DE ARUNDEL)
[Footnote 25] Earl Richard Fitz Alan (FitzAlan606) above, his father and grandfather all employed the surname Fitz Alan . In the 1270's, Earl Richard's father was styled John "Fitz Alan de Arundel" in several records [see C.P.R. 1272-1281 (1901): 11, 96, 161, 331]. ... 

Following Earl Richard's death in 1302, the family dropped the surname Fitz Alan in favor of de Arundel (or simply Arundel). The last known use of the name Fitz Alan by any member of this family dates c.1312-3, when Earl Richard's son, Edmund, brought a writ as "Edmund Fitz Alan" [see Year Books of Edward III 12 (Rolls Ser. 31b) (1905): 518-521]. Thereafter, all further references to this family employ the surname Arundel to the complete exclusion of the surname Fitz Alan.

Specifically, Earl Richard's son Edmund (died 1326), both of his brothers, two of his sons and all four of his grandsons all employed the Arundel surname. Edmund's sister Alice is likewise styled "de Arundel" in an ancient Segrave Family ped. VCH Surrey 1 (1902): 348, footnote 1 observes that Richard's son and heir, Edmund, is "commonly called Fitz Alan but the real designation of the family was then de Arundel." Nicholas, a well known antiquarian, states: "This family presents a singular instance of adopting the name of their title as the surname of the fmaily, for after the marriage of John Fitz-Alan, Lord of Clun, with Isabel, the sister and co-heir of Hugh D'Albini, Earl of Arundel, all the descendants called themselves Arundel instead of Fitz-Alan" [see Nicolas Testamenta Vetusta 1 (1826): 105]. "J.G.N." in Gentleman's magazine 103 Oxfordshire, etc., .....

Thank you for your help

Comments

I use them both in my tree. ie:  Joan Fitz Alan de Arundel, that way it's covered both ways when I do a search in my tree.  21st GGF - Sir Richard FitzAlan de Arundel, 8th Earl of Arundel 1267-1302.......

Answer 1

This has been a contentious matter on soc.genealogy.medieval with Douglas Richardson and many other members of the group for probably 15 years.  The main idea being the this family has been, known as Fitz Alan for 900 years, historians write of them as the Fitz Alans (I have a book on my desk right now called The Fitzalans, you speak of Richard Fitz Alan, earl of Arundel everyone knows who you are talking about – who is Richardson to overturn 900 years of tradition?  However, Richardson correctly points out that from about 1300 on the family is essentially exclusively called Arundel in primary records, so he feels this is what they should be correctly called.  I think Richardson is slowly winning this battle, but not without a fight.

See threads for example: (there are dozens more, it comes up all the time)

Arundel versus Fitz Alan. 

FitzAlan vs. Arundel 

Arundel versus Fitz Alan: More Evidence 

The Vanishing Fitz Alan surname     

Fitz Alan versus Arundel. 

FitzAlan Shifted To Arundel 

Arundel not Fitz Alan  

If you use EuroAristo guidelines, you should probably go with what these individuals are known to in history – FitzAlan.

If you go with wikitree guidelines you should probably go with what they called themselves and were called by their contemporaries – Arundel.

Personally, and it took me a decade to come around to this, I think Richardson has made a very good case that this family and its branches have been known exclusively as Arundel since 1300, and that is what they should be called.

Comments

Thanks for the links to the discussions on Gen-Medieval they are quite illuminating but I'm not convinced that the FitzAlan family consistently used Arundel or de Arundel instead of FitzAlan,  Others have given examples where the name FitzAlan (or variations) have been used on primary documents.

In the very last link you provide, Douglas Richardson gives the example of Mary or Maria (she is writing in Latin) who signs letters using the surname Arundel, but he also cites an example where she signs as Maria Norffolke. This suggests she was using her title as her surname. rather than any indication that she had adopted the surname Arundel instead of FitzAlan, and I presume Richardson isn't suggesting that the Howard family should be renamed Norfolk based on this example?

In this time period as, I'm sure you know, there can be as many variations on names as there are existing primary documents and some choice has to be made as to what Last Name at Birth (LNAB) is to be used.  In this instance I don't think there is enough evidence to suggest a global change to the FitzAlan family on Wikitree.

---

From Richardson's footnote, it appears that they used FitzAlan as a surname for some centuries and then used de Arundel as a surname.  It would seem to me that we should then expect on WikiTree to see the earlier members of the family with the LNAB of FitzAlan and the later members as Arundel, dropping the de.  We should also expect that early on the family used actual patronymics, so that the first Alan would be Alan FitzJohn, or whatever.  We should also expect there to be a transitional person who really was born into a family that called itself FitzAlan when the individual was born (and that should be the LNAB) but went by de Arundel as an adult and whose children were de Arundel.  Murphy's Law would also suggest that there would be several generations who were born with, and went by, the full "FitzAlan de Arundel".  Oh for a time machine where we could go back and tell these people, "change your naming behavior, you are really causing problems for genealogists 800 years from now."

---

Doug said: I'm not convinced that the FitzAlan family consistently used Arundel or de Arundel instead of FitzAlan,

The last known use of FitzAlan as a name occurred in 1312.  That is 700 years of consistency.  The name Arundel was used by both the senior line and every single cadet branch since.  This also shows that Arundel was a name and not a use of a title as a name (it is not analogous to Howard/Norfolk at all).  Richardson has conclusively shown that the name and not just the title of the family has been Arundel from 1300 on.

Still, I understand the reluctance to change the LNAB to Arundel.  They are still Fitz Alan in my database.  The title of this thread asks should we change the name “for ease of research?”  For research, you will still find this family almost always as FitzAlan.  For example, Crowley in medlands continues to use the name FitzAlan long after it had been dropped in favor of Arundel; Wikipedia continues to use the name FitzAlan when the name should be Arundel; the older versions of Complete Peerage (available online) use Fitz Alan while the newer (not available) use Fitz Alan up to Richard Fitz Alan (d. 1291), call his son Edmund (FitzAlan) the parentheses indicating he did not actually use the name, and then use Arundel thereafter.

Even if the senior line of the Earls of Arundel were to remain FitzAlan, I can’t see any justification for the junior lines to be anything but Arundel.

Answer 2

I agree with Joe. There are a small number of areas where Richardson's position is a bit controversial and this naming question is one of them. Keep in mind also that there is no easy answer on this family anyway.