Talk:Duke of Norfolk

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Top-importance).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sussex Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Is there really any more to be said for all these guys to justify giving every one of them his own article? The three Tom Howards are all in one article now. Wouldn't it be better to wait until someone creates an article for one of them and then add the link to that one to this article? -- isis 31 Aug 2002

PLEASE do NOT put links on any of the names in the list unless you create an article for them to link to. The ones that have links now are the only ones there are articles for, and there are articles for people with the same name, so if you put a link on the name here, it goes to a totally different person. -- isis 2 Sep 2002

Should "Dukes" be capitalized in the article title? -- Zoe

I'm tidying up Michael Ancram at the moment, and the atricle (as I found it) says that he married a daughter of the 16th Duke of Norfolk. Can anyone confirm that that is correct (this article states that the 16th Duke died without issue). --rbrwr

The 16th Duke' had 4 daughters.

Anne Elizabeth Fitzalan-Howard (b. 12 Jun 1938)

Mary Katharine Fitzalan-Howard (b. 14 Aug 1940)

Sarah Margaret Fitzalan-Howard (b. 23 Sep 1941)

Theresa Jane Fitzalan-Howard+ (b. 24 Jan 1945)

Lady Jane Fitzalan-Howard is Theresa Jane Fitzalan-Howard and rather confusingly Michael Ancram's real surname is Kerr. Mintguy 13:08, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Cheers. I thought that Kerr was right, and already put that in the Ancram article. --rbrwr

Yes, he's "Michael Kerr, called Earl of Ancram", no? john 22:06, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

does anybody else find it extremely annoying the way many of the dukes in the list redirect back to the general Duke of Norfolk page? I like to look at the list and see by redness / blueness which links are worth following, which is obscured by the redirects. So I almost went through and deleted all the redirects.

However, I can see the argument that on OTHER pages which try to link to the 92nd duke, a redirect here is more useful than a red link. So now I'm torn. Doops 15:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's annoyed me for a while now, but I don't know any easy way to delete the pages (as merely removing the redirects keeps the blue links). Someone decided a while ago to create them all, and gave up after doing the first few most senior Dukes, so the problem's not widespread, but it is irritating. For what it's worth, I believe Wikipedia policy states that list items redirecting back to the list is a bad thing. Proteus (Talk) 16:22, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, there's one easy solution - writing articles on all the various Dukes. john k 17:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Are all the Dukes of Norfolk Catholic?

I believe so - the family is always referred to as a Catholic family. I think it would be interesting if somebody has the time to do the research to explain what happened to their property when they were under attainder, and how they recuperated it. It is quite extraordinary that through all that the Duke has retained very senior ceremonial posts. Yet they a re not even mention mentioned on the "attainder" page unless I missed something. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering that too. Today the Dukes of Norfolk are regarded as in some way heading and representing the Catholic community in England. But what was the position prior to Catholic emancipation? I gather they weren't allowed to sit in the House of Lords. Were they nevertheless regarded as premier Duke and premier Earl, and did they always exercise the office of Earl Marshal? It seems odd. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Clun

According to this article on the history of Clun, Shropshire, the Duke of Norfolk also holds the title of Baron of Clun..

http://www.bishopscastle.co.uk/tourism/clhist.htm

If true, can someone add the title to the main Duke of Norfolk page please? David

The titles of Lord of Clun and Lord of Owaldestre are feudal lordships. There is a controversy about those titles being converted to peerages by an act of Parliament 1627 or not. So those titles does not appear in the dukes of Norfolk's list of titles.

Surname

There seems to be some interesting evidence as to the capitalisation of the first "a" in "Fitzalan-Howard", namely that it is actually "FitzAlan-Howard", since Lord FitzAlan of Derwent consistently used (and had used of him) this capitalisation of his title (in mentions of him and letters written and signed by him in the London Gazette, for instance), suggesting the family considers (or at least "considered") this the true usage (which would, of course, be much more consistent with the mediaeval FitzAlans). Should we change our tactics to match this usage? Proteus (Talk) 23:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we can change it without something more concrete than one son's usage unless we can establish the ducal usage over some time. My memory though I can't find anything but one google link - and not to a good source - is that the College of Arms don't capitalise ie "did represent unto Edward William Fitzalan Howard Esquire commonly called Earl of Arundel and Surrey Deputy to The late Most Noble Miles Francis Stapleton Duke of Norfolk Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order Companion of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire upon whom had been conferred the Decoration of the Military Cross Earl Marshal and Hereditary Marshal of England"

As a general point I think that by all logic it should capitalise as it's just 'son of' in this case son of Alan. In the same why you see FitzHerbert and MacDonald. Alci12 11:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, it remains the capitalisation of their Barony of FitzAlan. My view is that capitalisation is the standard aristocratic usage (FitzRoy, FitzGerald, FitzClarence, FitzJames, FitzHardinge, FitzMaurice, etc.), and in this, the most aristocratic of aristocratic families, we should assume they follow the pattern unless given some reason why they do not. It's entirely possible that, given the modern tendency to ignore mid-surname capitals, the Dukes have simply not bothered to correct people calling them "Fitzalan-Howard"., whilst privately considering it capitalised. Proteus (Talk) 11:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the CofA doesn't use the form they prefer (including naming the herald Fitzalan Pursuivant Extraordinary according to their site) I'd be shocked. I still think it's illogical but unless we can find a source showing the Dukes use the form we prefer I think we have to stick to things as they stand. I've been struggling to think of a way to prove the point but so far I can't find anything with their personal choice shown Alci12 13:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have the Addenda to the Complete Peerage, and it lists the 16th and 17th Dukes as "FitzAlan-Howard", as well as the current Duke (listed, of course, as Earl of Arundel and Surrey). Proteus (Talk) 14:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't replied to this, so can I assume you don't object to my altering it on the basis of the CP? Proteus (Talk) 12:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I said if the CoA doesn't use the form you like I think we have a problem changing all enties. Why should the CP form be considered certainly more right then the CoA when the Duke could certainly object to either if he so chose Alci12 12:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking on images of grants of arms from the CoA, but annoyingly they all omit the "Fitzalan-Howard" part of the EM's name. —Ashley Y 06:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should like to make an addition to this discussion of surnames (some years after the fact) with a partially related point. That is that the Fitzalan Howards do not hyphenate their surname themselves. The upcoming edition of the Almanach de Gotha will reflect this, and the Howard entries have been corrected by members of the family themselves. I'll let regular contributors to Wikipedia decide if they want to edit articles accordingly, but felt like passing the information along in any case. I have never seen the A in Fitzalan capitalised by any member of the family. 87.252.46.210 (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Highest-ranking peer

Why is the Duke of Norfolk the highest-ranking peer? The article mentions this without any explanation. 98.209.116.7 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the oldest non-Royal Duchy in England. → ROUX ₪ 00:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles say that only two Dukedoms in the U.K., (Lancaster and Cornwall) have duchies attached. If that's right then Norfolk is the oldest non-Royal Dukedom, not Duchy.2604:2000:C682:B600:D9C4:4627:3EFD:C5E0 (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

This is a relatively simple explanation. British peerages have a weird hierarchy based on senior. The most senior peerage to the most junior go: Pre-Union Peerage of England then the Pre-Union Peerage of Scotland, then the peerage of the post-Union United Kingdom, which is above the Peerage of Ireland, which are all above the peerage of the post 1801 peerages in both the United Kingdom and Ireland. Since the Dukedom of Norfolk is the oldest title in the peerage of England, and is a Duchy, it is not only the most senior Dukedom, it is the most senior non-Royal peerage in the United Kingdom. In comparison, the most junior hereditary peerage in the entire country is the Barony of Margadale, but it is not the most recently created hereditary peerage is the Vicountcy Tonypandy, created in 1983 CanadianPrince (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing Sentence

This article contains the sentence "Following Mary's death and the accession of Elizabeth I, the Duke was imprisoned for scheming to marry Mary." I think that could be better written. The scheming was the scheming to marry Mary Queen of Scots. I think it's strange to refer to two Marys in the same sentence and not differentiate them as Bloody Mary and Mary of Scotland. Also, the sentence as written wouldn't RULE OUT that he had been scheming to marry Bloody Mary, for instance if the scheming including killing her existing husband the King Of Spain or had been conducted before the marriage. It's possible that Elizabeth I could have found something upsetting in the scheming to marry Bloody Mary. I think it'd be best to put it beyond all doubt and specify that the Mary who died is the Bloody one and the Mary whom he schemed to marry (or was accused by Elizabeth I of scheming to marry) is the Scots one.2604:2000:C682:B600:D9C4:4627:3EFD:C5E0 (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duke of Norfolk. 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/20080507145140/http://www.adur.gov.uk:80/your-environment/river-adur.htm to http://www.adur.gov.uk/your-environment/river-adur.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Duke of Norfolk. 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/20110514135546/http://www.bungay-suffolk.co.uk/history/castle.htm to http://www.bungay-suffolk.co.uk/history/castle.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620044024/http://arundelcastle.org/index.htm to http://www.arundelcastle.org/index.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.adur.gov.uk/your-environment/river-adur.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas de Mowbray

I think the sentence in the notes beside the entry for Thomas de Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk is misleading. It says 'exiled by Henry IV and stripped of the dukedom' However, he was exiled by Richard II (albeit due to a dispute with the future Henry IV) and Henry IV annulled the creation of the Dukedom after Mowbray had died in exile. Dunarc (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duke of Norfolk. 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/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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Marshal and/or Marshal of England? Unclear lede.

Hi,
The sentence "The Duke of Norfolk is, moreover, the _Earl Marshal_ and Hereditary _Marshal_ of England" seems to distinguish between two positions as Marshal. However, the link under "Marshal" leads to a general page on that office, and a wiki search for 'Marshal of England' returns the page for "Earl Marshal". Perhaps the second claim only refers to aspects of the office of "Earl Marshal", e.g. that it is hereditary, and actually has the rank of "marshal", etc.; or there might actually be several different offices. Idk - but this might perhaps be made more clear, somehow? T 88.89.217.90 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]