Talk:Earl of Shrewsbury

First comments
Yes, I know the "of" in the Viscountcy looks weird, but the London Gazette says:
 * The King has also been pleased to grant the Dignities of Viscount and Earl of the Kingdom of Great Britain to the Right Honourable John Lord Talbot, and the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten, by the Name, Stile and Title of Viscount of Ingestrie, in the County of Stafford, and Earl Talbot of Hensol, in the County of Glamorgan.

I've been working through some of the LGs now online, and "of"s are turning up all over the place where previously we thought they never would (except in Scottish titles), so it looks like our current wisdom may need rethinking. (They're still never actually used, of course.) Proteus (Talk) 21:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I presume you are referring to the relevant London Gazette in 1784, when these two titles were given. Oddly, Debrett's Peerage & Baronetage-1995 refers to "Viscount Ingestre" (page 1156). "Ingestre" or "of Ingestrie": what does the original patent say? By the way, as the wiki-page on Earl Talbot page points out, there were in fact two such creations, 1761 and 1784, the latter presumably "Earl Talbot of Hensol", and the former just "Earl Talbot". Worth correcting? The lines did not converge until later.Seneschally 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I don't have access to the original patents (I can but dream...), so the LG's all I've got to go on. The difference was the addition of a territorial designation to the second one. (The later one was "Earl Talbot, of Hensol in the County of Glamorgan" [you can't trust the absence of a comma in the LG to mean anything], whilst the earlier one was simply "Earl Talbot", as the LG shows:


 * The King has been pleased to grant unto the Right Honourable William Lord Talbot, Baron of Hensol in the County of Glamorgan, and the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten, the Dignity of an Earl of the Kingdom of Great Britain, by the Name, Stile, and Title, of Earl Talbot. (1761)


 * The Barony was "Lord Talbot, Baron of Hensol in the County of Glamorgan", being one of the odd titles in that form.) I'd imagine the "Ingestrie"/"Ingestre" issue is simply a change in the conventional spelling, which often happens with titles (though just as often the original spelling is retained and contrasts with the new spelling of the place). Proteus (Talk) 17:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
I've moved the detail on the Barons Talbot  to their own page; this one was too cluttered, and anyway and it seems reasonable to have separate pages for different institutions. I hope that's OK with everyone. Swanny18 (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

PS I’ve added some detail about the first creation; A single paragraph seems a bit sparse considering it contained, arguably, the most notable characters. I've also changed the layout a bit to make it look better; I hope that's OK with everyone. Swanny18 (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Earl of Wexford?
There seems to be some evidence to suggest at least some of the Talbot Earls of Shrewsbury have been Earls of Wexford. I first came across this as Pugin addresses the 16th Earl as the 'Earl of Shrewsbury, Waterford, and Wexford' in the dedication to one of his books. John Talbot, the 1st Earl, is also referred to as Earl of Wexford in the grant making him Earl of Waterford, and elsewhere, so there must be something in it. Does anyone have any intel on where this earldom went? This man from 1831 thinks it was assumed without authority, but it's not the best source in the world. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Baron Dynevor
Is there any evidence that the Earl of Shrewsbury is also Baron Dynevor? He's not listed with this title in my ~1950 Burke's Peerage, and there is of course another extant Baron Dynevor. Is this an error that has been carried from one page to the next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:A1A1:7A00:B5F4:6B8D:ADFF:28C2 (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Baron_Dynevor The remainder from the first Earl was to his daughter not the to Earls.Garlicplanting (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

s and/or m

 * These earls were sometimes styled Earl of Shropshire (Conte(s/m) Salop).

What can "(s/m)" mean? My first guess is that it's about Latin cases, but that would be Comes (nominative), Comitem (accusative), no n anywhere. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if French Comte were sometimes spelt with n, but then the endings are inexplicable. —Tamfang (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The supposed Latin equivalent seems to have been added by User:Adam37 in 2017 with the edit summary "More often in latin texts of the county rather than town." No reference is provided. In the absence of a reference and given that it is unclear what it even means, I would suggest it should simply be removed. Proteus (Talk) 12:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I describe very curtly - it saves bytes. It means 'indeed, more often in the surviving texts in Latin of the 12th century (as the context makes plain I think) they are described... and the words I have used are lifted from the Victoria County History entries most likely but I cannot remember which editions, I probably consulted a few. I can well believe contes and contem were used as abbreviation was heavy in those days and influence of 'conte' the French also present.  The reason I bother to write here is I think it's fairly intuitive surviving texts from that period about this sort of thing were very seldom in English to we the amateur/professional historians, but not to 'Joe public'.- Adam37  Talk  18:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Wrong Coronet
In the illustration of the bottom of the page the text says "coronet of an Earl" but the coronet in the illustration is the coronet of a Marquess. All the more bewildering since the coronet in the coat-of-arms at the top-right of this article IS the coronet of an Earl. At least nobody can say "at least nobody can say 'you're consistent'".2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson