Talk:Barony of Halton

Changes of title
The original title was "Barons of Halton" of whom there were 15 in number. The Wiki convention is to make such a title singular and it has been changed to "Baron of Halton". However the local historians in the area always refer to the "Barons of Halton" as a sort of entity, even though they were 15, and "Baron of Halton" reads somewhat oddly. In order to, if possible, satisfy all parties, I have again changed the title to one which I hope is acceptable. Peter I. Vardy 16:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Henry de Lacy
The text from this section was removed when Henry was made the subject of a separate article. However to have no text at all in place disturbs the "story" of the barons so I have replaced the text and directed the reader to the main article (as with all the other later barons). Peter I. Vardy 16:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dubious
I have tagged one sentence, as such. William I created three earldoms palatinate on the Welsh border, of which Hereford was gone before Domesday Book and Shrewsbury in early 12th century. He did not divide his kingdom between them (unlike King Lear). This article is treating the succession of barons as if the barony was a title of honour like a peerage. This was a feudal barony under the earldom of Chester. The barony was held by a succession of barons, but I do not think it ought to be treated in quite they way it is at present. The barons might have been referred to as the Lord of Halton, but not Lord Halton. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. In my "defence" I can only say that it was one of the very first articles I wrote, in much ignorance (then) of much about Wikipedia and (then and now) in much ignorance of the history of the time.  I have changed the title and class as it is a list rather than an article.  I have amended the the reference to "division of the kingdom", which was clearly wrong (and removed the "dubious" tag), changed the reference and amended the links.  I think it is better now, but not necessarily OK yet.  Is "seat" the correct term?  Not sure where the reference to "Lord" comes from; it is not anywhere in the list.  Ideas and suggestions for treating the list in a different manner are welcome. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Much improved. I came to this article as a result of somewhere else where the title was treated as if it were a peerage (which it was not).  Quite how feudal baronies should be dealt with in WP is an issue that has not adequately been resolved.  These baronies were ratehr more tenurial than the peerages of laster periods.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)