The truth, like beauty, can be in the eye of the beholder. Dear Newsgroup ~ Over the course of the past several years, I've posted evidence which conclusively shows that the baronial Fitz Alan family dropped the surname, Fitz Alan, in favor of Arundel Douglas Richardson indeed has proposed his believe several times, but conclusively? I don't think so. Just check The Complete Peerage, Burke's Peerage and other works. In the archieves of Gen-Med these discussions can be found. When the male line of the Earls of Arundel became extinct the title and properties went to the Howard family, and they combined the two family names and now are known as Arundel-Howard......? Or are they? It would be so much better for Richardson to let sleeping dogs be. Leo van de Pas Canberra, Australia

Hello: I recently came upon a source suggesting that a georgian queen, xosrovanush b. around 915 was of tabaristan ancestry. the site mentions a post on soc.gen.medieval as the location of this information, but provides nothing further. I am looking for when and by whom that original post was made as well as the title of the thread thank-you

On 9/05/2016 8:10 AM, norenxaq via wrote: > Hello: > > I recently came upon a source suggesting that a georgian queen, xosrovanush b. around 915 was of tabaristan ancestry. the site mentions a post on soc.gen.medieval as the location of this information, but provides nothing further. > > I am looking for when and by whom that original post was made as well as the title of the thread > Probably this one: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2004-08/1091897001 Peter Stewart

On 9/05/2016 7:47 AM, Leo van de Pas via wrote: > The truth, like beauty, can be in the eye of the beholder. > > Dear Newsgroup ~ > > Over the course of the past several years, I've posted evidence which conclusively shows that the baronial Fitz Alan family dropped the surname, Fitz Alan, in favor of Arundel > > Douglas Richardson indeed has proposed his believe several times, but conclusively? I don't think so. Just check The Complete Peerage, Burke's Peerage and other works. > > In the archieves of Gen-Med these discussions can be found. > > When the male line of the Earls of Arundel became extinct the title and properties went to the Howard family, and they combined the two family names and now are known as Arundel-Howard......? Or are they? > > It would be so much better for Richardson to let sleeping dogs be. > To be fair he doesn't pretend that Arundel permanently effaced Fitzalan, only that this happened for a few centuries. His view appears to be that we are bound today to call people by the surname they preferred, even though this may be confusing, while at the same time we are not permitted to use their given names if these happen to coincide with Latin forms, even though this may avoid confusion. The possession of Arundel castle was held to underpin possession of the comital title, so it was a bit more compelling for them to drop an antiquated "Fitz" surname in the early-14th century than for other families who may have been equally embarrassed by theirs. The molehill that Douglas Richardson has busily turned into a mountain of posts was actually kicked over before the Howards inherited the title. Peter Stewart