Talk:Baron Willoughby de Broke

Baron Latimer?
This article doesn't make any sense. The barony was passed to the Neville family -- as they are named Baron Latimer, that would out these people whom are being claimed as the current de jure Barons as the barony remained in abeyance after the 4th Baron Latimer (John Neville) had no male heirs, until 1913, when the abeyance was terminated in favour of Francis Money-Coutts, who became the fifth Baron Latimer. He was the only son of the Reverend James Drummond Money and his wife Clara Maria Burdett, fourth daughter of Sir Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet, and claimed the peerage as a descendant of Frances, eldest daughter of the Hon. Lucy Neville, third daughter of the fourth Baron Latymer/Latimer. As of 2009, the title is held by the fifth Baron's great-great-grandson, the 9th Baron who succeeded his father in 2003. Latimer/Latymer Barony -- Lady Meg (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It makes perfect sense. You've just assumed (I don't know why) that the Baronies of Latimer and Latymer are the same. They're not. Proteus (Talk) 13:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Barony of Latimer was created by writ in 1290/1299. Elizabeth Latimer, only child of William Latimer, 4th Baron Latimer and suo jure Baroness Latimer, married as his second wife John Nevill, 3rd Baron Nevill. They had two children, a son John Nevill and a daughter Elizabeth, who married Sir Thomas Willoughby. John Nevill succeeded his mother as 6th Baron Latimer and died in 1430. In 1431 his nephew of the half blood, George Nevill (son of Ralph Nevill, 1st Earl of Westmorland, son of the 3rd Baron Nevill by his first wife) was summoned to Parliament as Baron Latimer, despite not being descended from the original Barons Latimer and despite the existence of issue from the marriage of Elizabeth Nevill and Thomas Willoughby. Thomas and Elizabeth's great-grandson Robert Willoughby was summoned as Baron Willoughby de Broke in 1491, and petitioned to be recognised as 9th Baron Latimer of the 1299 creation. The case was not continued after the Lords heard counsel for Richard Nevill, 2nd Baron Latimer of the 1431 creation. The claim to the 1299 creation went into abeyance on the death of Robert Willoughby, 2nd Baron Willoughby de Broke in 1521. The 1431 creation became abeyant on the death of John Nevill, 4th Baron Latimer, in 1577. Richard Verney was recognised as 11th Baron Willoughby de Broke (but not as 19th Baron Latimer) in 1696. The abeyance of the 1431 barony was terminated in favour of Francis Money-Coutts in 1913. So you're saying these are two completely different baronies even though the nephew of John Nevill was summoned to Parliament as Baron Latimer/Latymer and Robert Willoughby's case was not continued after the Lords heard counsel for Richard, the 2nd Baron? -- Lady Meg (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC) From what I gather here.. it is the same title only a new creation of Baron Latimer as it states 'NEVILL -- BARONS LATIMER', not Latymer, made for Sir George Nevill (Neville), son of Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland, by writ of summons dated 25 Febraury 1432 was summoned as Lord/Baron Latimer. "Memorable also is this Richard Lord Latimer for the dispute he had with Robert, Lord Broke touching the Barony of Latimer to which as next heir in blood to John Lord Latimer of Danby who died sp the 9th Henry VI he claimed a right But to end the contention the Lord Broke was informed by an herald that Sir George Nevill grandfather to Richard was created Lord Latimer by a new title which therefore lineally descended to Richard by Henry son and heir of the said George and that the Lord Broke had made a wrong claim who should have claimed his style from William Latimer first created Lord Latimer of Danby the head manor of his barony temp Edward L on this the Lord Broke perceiving his error and having a title of his own was contented to conclude a match between their children and Richard suffered a recovery on certain manors and lordships demanded by the Lord Broke in with which adjustment both parties were well satisfied-- BANKS." - from Burke Peerage -- Lady Meg (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also Leighrayment Peers and statement from Burke's Peerage which was written in 1838, before the abeyance was terminated in favour of Francis Money-Coutts in 1913 -- "WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE BARON Henry Peyto Verney b 5th April 1773 inherited the title as eighth baron the decease of his brother 1st September 1820 and as heir general to the barony Latimer created by writ of summons December 1299 his lordship is by right Lord Latimer although he has has not established his right m in March 1829 Margaret third daughter of Sir John Williams bart of Bodelwyddan" - from Willoughby Broke Peerage -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * These were different peerages, even though they sound the same. The one called out of abeyance for Money-Coutts was the 15th century creation, not that of 1299. Something rather similar happened with the barony of Dacre. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See Banks's Baronia Anglica concentrata, vol. 1 (1844), p. 277, which distinguishes between "the ancient barony of Latimer" and "a new barony of Latimer". Moonraker2 (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I already stated here what is said in the link you just posted and there is a link to where I found it -- about the barony having a new creation in favour of the Neville family as Baron Latimer. A new creation = completely different peerage??-- Lady Meg (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a completely different peerage. If you look at Baron Dacre, you'll see that in a rather similar case the outcome was that there were two Barons Dacre in parliament at the same time, so that for convenience one of them was called "Dacre of the North" and the other "Dacre of the South". Moonraker2 (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see Baron Latymer and Baron Latimer -- Lady Meg (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Do we have to add de jure Baron Latimer to every person?
Does the title of de jure Baron Latimer need to be added to every baron in this article? It's about the Baron's Willoughby of Broke which link to the pages which state within the article that they are assumed de jure Baron Latimer. De Jure is not in the title of the pages for the Barons. They are simply referred to as 1st, 2nd.. Baron Willoughby of Broke. Just wondering. -- Lady Meg (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)