Talk:Earl of Arundel

message: 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)
replies: text: That would be the normal practice, but heaven knows what was the rule in 1264!  —Tamfang 03:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Numbering of earls 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Numbering (again) 

message: This article gives two different dates for the first creation. Richard75 (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And all the Cracoft Peerage links are dead links. Richard75 (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

text: I've found a source for creation in 1138:  Richard75 (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  1138 or 1143? And 1289 and 1580

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928130150/http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Arundel1139.htm to http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Arundel1139.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823031400/http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Norfolk1483.htm to http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Norfolk1483.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928130150/http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Arundel1139.htm to http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Arundel1139.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928130150/http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Arundel1139.htm to http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Arundel1139.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823031400/http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Norfolk1483.htm to http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Norfolk1483.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823031400/http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Norfolk1483.htm to http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Norfolk1483.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Numbering (yet again)