Yes, Douglas, I have seen this patronymic change at about the same time in Europe, specifically in France, c 1260-1310, with many notable families who dropped their original patronymic, usually one that denoted that the holder was actually or historically the son of another, to the name of their seigneurial holding. Ironically when the use of multiple surnames became the norm, that is when the power of the nobility was lessened and the holders needed a prop, the original patronymic was re-inserted into the gammut of surnames, thus Mr de Bellenave de Saint Fleuret, became in the latter part of the 16th century, Mr Jehan de Bellenave de Saint Fleuret. The 20th century showed the inverse when the bearers of multiple surnames, usually denoting bourgeois status, dropped their original surname, although it features on the Etat Civil, and adopted their territorial one, to big themselves up - one classic name was that of Dominique de Villepin who is in fact Dominique Galouzeau de Villepin. Errare est humanum! regards, Peter In a message dated 08/05/2016 00:15:05 GMT Daylight Time, gen-medieval@rootsweb.com writes: 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. The last detected use of the name Fitz Alan by any member of this family dates c.1312-3, when Edmund, 9th Earl of Arundel (died 1326), brought a writ as "Edmund Fitz Alan" [see Year Books of Edward III 12 (Rolls Ser. 31b) (1905): 518-521]. Thereafter, for two centuries, all further references in contemporary records to this family employ the surname Arundel to the complete exclusion of the surname Fitz Alan. So exactly when did the change in surnames start to take place? My research indicates that Richard Fitz Alan, 8th Earl of Arundel [died 1302] was created Earl of Arundel in 1289. In 1285, as "Richard le Fiz Aleyn," he was granted a weekly market to be held at his manor of Arundel, Sussex. In 1291-2, as "Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel," he was summoned by two different writs to answer to the king respecting the hundred of Pesseburn and other property in Shropshire. He was summoned to Parliament 24 June 1295 by writ directed Ricardo filio Alani Comiti Arundell'. It seems clear that Richard was known as Richard Fitz Alan. Or was he? Elsewhere I find that Earl Richard was called "Richard de Arundel, Earl of Chichester" in a Common Pleas lawsuit dated 1291 [see Court of Common Pleas, CP40/91, image 40f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no91/aCP40no91fronts/IMG_0040.htm)]. The same year as the above mentioned lawsuit, Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1281-1292 (1893): 421 records that Earl Richard received a grant addressed to him as "Richard de Arundel, Earl of Arundel": "1291. Feb. 12. Grant, during pleasure, to Richard de Arundel, Earl of Arundel, at the instance of queen Eleanor, the king's mother, that, whereas his grandfather John son of Alan obtained license from Henry III. to pay off his debts at the Exchequer at the rate of 100l. a year, he may pay them off at the rate of 50l. a year." END OF QUOTE. With these two records dated 1291, we see the beginning of the eventual name change from Fitz Alan to Arundel. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message