Talk:Richard Fitzalan, 3rd Earl of Arundel

The Arundel divorce or annulment
The Arundel divorce was unusual because the earl already had an adult male heir who married or was about to marry a well-connected English noblewoman. Unfortunately for the son, his wife's family connections did not compare to that of his stepmother, who was herself a Plantagenet and whose nieces Elizabeth de Burgh (Edmund's own second cousin) and Blanche of Lancaster were married to the king's second and third sons. Furthermore, the second marriage was even more fruitful - three sons and three daughters. In 1376, when Edmund tried to claim his inheritance, he stood against a well-connected half-brother [Richard, 11 Earl of Arundel]], and John of Gaunt, not to mention the king Edward III, who had condoned the divorce in the first place. In the eyes of the law and society, he was illegitimate. His mother had meanwhile retired comfortable to some of her ex-husband's lands until her death (date unknown).

Arundel's convenient divorce (or rather, annulment) and remarriage in 1344 of a wife who had no powerful relations compared to that of his mistress (later his 2nd wife), is contrasted by a similar divorce granted circa 1387 to Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford whose first wife was Philippa de Coucy, Richard II's cousin. However, in the Oxford divorce which was eventually overturned and was extremely unpopular among the English nobility and the wife's powerful maternal uncles, there was no adult male heir to be bastardized, and the second wife did not hail from an English noble family. Nor were there any children to complicate the issue after de Vere's death).

In comparison, the last Warenne earl of Surrey was refused a divorce from his wife (also connected to the English royal family as a granddaughter of Edward I) at the beginning of the 14th century. In the previous century, a powerful earl of Hertford was unable to divorce his first wife (a cousin of Edward I) for almost twenty years, until the king wanted the de Clare lands for his own daughter Joan of Acre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.196.152 (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Alice Sergeaux, daughter of Philippa Arundel
The article states that Alice Sergeaux, wife of (1) Guy de St. Aubyn and (2) the 11th Earl of Oxford, was the sister of Philippa Arundel who married Richard Sergeaux. I think this should say that Alice was actually Philippa's daughter.--Other Choices (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Distinction needs to be made: Not a "tomb" but a "memorial"
The poem refers to the effigy figures as a "tomb", but the effigy figures are a "memorial", not a "tomb". When the article refers specifically to the title of the poem, the word "tomb" must be used; however, the word "memorial" is more accurate when referring specifically to the stone effigies. We cannot even be certain that the stone effigy figures are Richard FitzAlan, 10th Earl of Arundel, and his wife Eleanor of Lancaster.

These pictures are not of a "tomb", but a "memorial". Richard FitzAlan, 10th Earl of Arundel, and his wife Katherine Mortimer were not buried at Chichester Cathedral. They are buried at Lewes Priory. I contacted Chichester Cathedral to clear up the confusion. (I had a source that cited Richard's will, stating burial at L)ewes. Then there are these pictures and Wikipedia articles that show the Chichester effigies as being a "tomb".) Below is the text of the email I received from Canon Dr Anthony Cane, Chancellor, Chichester Cathedral; Sent: 30 July 2014 10:46, via the Chichester Cathedral Education Officer.
 * "The Cathedral was severely damaged during the English Civil War. In the nineteenth century the Cathedral had a number of monuments that had been vandalised or were badly decayed, and not necessarily in their original positions.  In 1843 the Dean and Chapter decided to have the ‘Arundel tomb’ restored.  The mutilated figures had been lying on tables against the north wall of the north aisle for two centuries.  They were then moved to their present position and restored.   This, I suggest, makes it most unlikely that there is any burial material there.  In any case, we do not know for certain who the figures are, as there is no contemporary attribution.   The date and features of the tomb make the attribution plausible, but not certain.
 * Canon Dr Anthony Cane
 * Chancellor, Chichester Cathedral"

--Ninanta (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Paragraphs describing his marriages under "Marriages and Children"
The first paragraph is about his first marriage and ends with the statement "He had a son Edmund (b. 1327) when he was twenty-one (or fourteen) and his wife fifteen; this son was bastardized by the annulment."

The second paragraph is about is second marriage, but at the end suddenly ends with "By his first marriage to Isabel le Despenser (living 1356, and may have died circa 1376-7), which marriage he had annulled December 1344 [1], he had one son:" and from there it procedes to also list his first son and his decendents.

I think the last sentence of the first paragraph and the last sentence of the second paragraph should be combined in to the first paragraph. And then the second paragraph inserted between the two listings of the children.It would save some confusion.

84.131.87.228 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Rho


 * FTFY 86.188.102.39 (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ancestry chart makes no sense
The ancestry chart makes no sense, even allowing for the confusion [see article on the title Earl of Arundel] surrounding the 1289 "second creation" for the existing holder. Three concerns:

The positions 8 and 16 indicate the same man, John the 6th earl, placing him as his own father. Position 8 presumably should be his son, John FitzAlan the 7th Earl, even if that means a red link/no article. I didn't check that yet.

The subject's own father, Edmund the 9th earl, has an article linked further up and the chart should reflect that. For someone better with inserting links than I am, at some point.

Finally, positions 4, 2, and 1 [the subject] are, respectively, the 8th, 9th and 10th earls of the original creation. If the chart is to continue the current practice of switching to the new creation of 1289 for these numbers, they are, again respectively, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, not 2nd, 3rd and 4th as shown here. I suggest, as the practice used in the body of the article, that the chart continue to use the original creation numbers which the earlier earls are given, making positions 4, 2, and 1 the 8th, 9th, and 10th. The article does describe the subject as the 10th earl. Or the chart could use both creations numbers for these earls, as long as correctly indicated- position 4 [8th/1st], position 2 [9th/2nd], position 1 [the subject- 10th/3rd].

I am not good enough yet to do this much surgery- any more skilled editor please do this.

My comments are based largely on the info provided in the article on the title itself. Random noter (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)