User talk:2601:681:4A00:BEF0:A9AA:87E2:5D27:D887

There are problems with this page in saying that this person was called Matthew Arundell-Howard. There is NO evidence that he ever used such a name. This whole theory was the product of genealogists who were also conspiracy theorists in the early 1900s. They were trying to make Matthew Arundell's grandson Matthew Arundell baptized 19 June 1609 at St. Andrew's, Holborn, Middlesex, England (son of Thomas Arundell), identical to Matthew Howard of Virginia and Maryland, so that they could "connect" to Royalty. The theory was popularized by Harry Wright Newman (footnote 4) in his First Edition (1934) of Anne Arundel Gentry. You can see a link to that record here: https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE1978771 The article starts on page 237 (image 251 of 681).

In the Howard section of the book Newman states: "Matthew Arundel,  of  Wardour,  the  son  and  heir  of  Sir  Thomas  and Margaret  (Howard)  Arundel, felt  the  disgrace  of  his father's beheadment and  the  confiscation of his  ancestral  estate and,  as tradition  and  facts prove, lived  on  the  Continent  and assumed the  maiden name of  his mother--Howard."

Note that Newman lists that Matthew allegedly went by Howard, not Arundell-Howard. This person is NEVER referred to as Matthew Arundell-Howard. What IS referred to is Arundell-Howard is this whole theory, that Matthew Howard of Virginia and Maryland is the same person as Matthew Arundel born in 1609.

Newman was forced to resign in 1950 as a Fellow of the American Society of Genealogists (which is limited to 50 living members) when it was found he was creating fraudulent pedigrees for clients. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/OKx7fZmyrdY

Newman later retracted the whole "theory" he popularized in his above 1934 Edition, in Volume 2, of his 2nd Edition of Anne Arundel Gentry. (Harry Wright Newman, "Anne Arundel Gentry", 2nd Edition, Volume II (Annapolis, Maryland: H. W. Newman, 1972). On page 226 regarding Mathew Howard of Virginia and Maryland he states: "In 1925 when research was being conducted on the Howards, I lent an ear to the story that he was Matthew Howard whose legal name was Arundel, but changed it to Howard for political reasons. Furthermore, he was descended from  an immediate line of the Duke of Norfolk. See "Anne Arundel Gentry", 1st ed.  All claims have since been found to have little foundation."

I'll repeat the last sentence again. "All claims have since been found to have little foundation."

To list this mistaken thought that the Arundell family ever used the Howard name (or Arundell-Howard) on Wikipedia is wrong.

There is additional information on my page: http://home.netcom.com/~fzsaund/howardarun.html

I suggest reading two sources mentioned there: Edward Doran Webb, "Notes by the 12th Lord Arundell of Wardour on the Family History", (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1916), 32-41 which may be viewed here: https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE13278333

and John Pym Yeatman, "The Early Genealogical History of the House of Arundel," (London: Mitchell and Hughes, 1882), 274-277 which may be viewed here: https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE4753858

Neither of those have any mention of this mistaken idea of this family going under the Howard surname or referring to him as Matthew Arundel-Howard, the reason being that this was a theory popularized around the 1920s by genealogists trying to forge a relation between Matthew Howard of Virginia and Maryland and this Arundell family.

I tried editing Wikipedia once, and found it cumbersome (and have no idea what my username was to sign in here). I am listing this on the talk page hoping that someone will take appropriate action and relegate the listing of "Arundel-Howard" to where it should be: a footnote that it was theory created by genealogy conspiracy theorists trying to forge a genealogical link.

Feel free to contact me at fzsaund@ix.netcom.com for any thoughts or comments.

Rick Saunders


 * Hi, is this the article you're referring to? etothepi 👽 (u)&bull;(t) 16:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)