Re: Extra generation in Fitzalan line?

Skip to first unread message

Feb 13, 2006, 10:52:44 PM2/13/06
In a message dated 2/2/06 2:24:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, writes:

<< Contrary to what you have posted, there is no known birthdate for
Eleanor de Arundel (died 1328), wife of Sir Henry de Percy, 1st Lord
Percy. C.P. 10 (1945): 458, footnote k erroneously states that her
parentage is "obscure."

W David Samuelsen wrote:
> I do have a problem with Eleanor being daughter of Richard FitzAlan and
> Alisona de Saluzzo.
> Since Richard has fixed birth date - 3 Feb 1267, I do have problem with
> Eleanor being his daughter if widespread acceptance of her approximate
> birth year being 1283! Richard at age of 16 to be father. >>

But I would like to add in the way of clarification that since her brother
Edmund was born 1 May 1285, Eleanor had to be born either in 1284 percisely or
else 1286/7. The reason being that on 6 Feb 1301 she became a mother herself.

By the way, can someone who has access to CP correct this date as either 6
Feb 1301/2 or 6 Feb 1300/1 ? I'm not sure which is the correct date.
Will Johnson

Chris Phillips

Feb 14, 2006, 3:41:48 AM2/14/06
Will Johnson wrote:
> By the way, can someone who has access to CP correct this date as either 6
> Feb 1301/2 or 6 Feb 1300/1 ? I'm not sure which is the correct date.

CP x 459 note e says of her son Henry:
"His age is given variously in his father's inq. p. m. the likeliest agrees
with the statement that he was b. at Leconfield, 6 Feb. 1300/1 (his proof of
age - Cal. Inq. p. m., vol. vi, no. 435 - in which document there is an
obvious miscalculation of a year)."

Chris Phillips

Robert Forrest

Feb 14, 2006, 5:44:27 PM2/14/06
CP10:458, note k:

Richard, "the King's bachelor," was granted lands in Mar. 1314 for his
sustenance in the King's service, was captured at Bannockburn and d. Nov.
1314, his sister Eleanor being his executrix (Cal. Close Rolls, 1313-18, p.
223; Cal. Fine Rolls, vol. ii, p. 219; Cal. Patent Rolls, 1313-17, pp. 95,
167, 521; Rolls of Parl., vol. i, p. 340; Cal. Inq. Misc., vol. ii, no.
228). The parentage of Richard and Eleanor is obscure. Eleanor is called da.
of the Earl of Arundel in a Percy genealogy in the Whitby Chartulary, p.
692, and the Alnwick Chron., p. 38; and she has been usually affiliated to
Richard, Earl of Arundel, b. 3 Feb. 1266/7, which would make her sister to
Earl Edmund, b. 1 May 1285. As her s. and h. Henry was b. probably at the
end of 1300 or early in 1301, this would be just possible chronologically;
and Arundel was already being used as a family name by the FitzAlans. On the
other hand, Richard and Eleanor are ignored in accounts of that family, and
there is no evidence to connect either of them therewith. Moreover, Richard
seems to have been a man of no importance, who apparently did not hold any
lands, except those given him by the King; and the fact that his sister was
app. his executrix, and that there is no reference to any other relation,
may perhaps suggest that he was not the brother of the Earl of Arundel.
However, there is no evidence to connect Richard and Eleanor with any other
family of Arundel; and Percy's change of arms (ante, p. 457, note "d") may
support the belief that he had married a relation of the Earl of Arundel.
Prima facie it seems unlikely that Henry de Percy would marry into some
obscure family; although he may have been betrothed or married when his
elder brother was still alive.

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages