Re: Eleanor Fitzalan and Thomas Browne
- From: WJhonson@xxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 20:47:57 +0000 (UTC)
In a message dated 6/1/06 3:55:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ADRIANCHANNING@xxxxxxx writes:
<<
Probably not, see
<_http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/arundel.shtml_
(http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/arundel.shtml) >
Adrian >>
I'm confused by this reference to a new placement for Mary FitzAlan, wife of
John, 4th Lord Strange of Blackmere
First it states that " Mary was a daughter of Edmund, the 9th earl, not
Richard, the 10th (see further details below). "
This would place Mary as a sister to Richard the 10th Earl
But then immediately below this it states that "Edmund, SON of Richard, 10th
earl of Arundel, had at least three daughters" [my emphasis] and then gives
them and ADDS this Mary in that location.
I think this last part is a mistake. Mary should not be a daughter of
Edmund, son of Richard, but rather, an aunt to this Edmund, which would match the
first statement and the remaining argument.
Will Johnson
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Eleanor Fitzalan and Thomas Browne
- From: Chris Phillips
- Re: Eleanor Fitzalan and Thomas Browne
- Prev by Date: Re: William Davison
- Next by Date: Re: Sir William Brenchley
- Previous by thread: Re: Eleanor Arundel and Thomas Browne
- Next by thread: Re: Eleanor Fitzalan and Thomas Browne
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|