Talk:Elizabeth Plunket

Genealogy and the ONDB
The genealogical timelines in this article need further elaboration. There seems little doubt that Lucas Plunkett's first wife was Elizabeth. That she was Rory O'Donnell's daughter also seems well-founded, and well-sourced. That she was the 1st Countess of Fingal may be less obvious, if she died before the Earldom was granted, as may be the case if Lucas Plunkett's other marriages preceded the earldom's creation. Other contributors welcome, but just make sure your edits are well-sourced, please! Seneschally (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now corrected this article after more research revealed her true identity as a Fitzgerald, not O'Donnell. Also, she was never Countess of Fingall, but rather Lady Killeen, as she died in 1611 before her husband became Earl of Fingall years later. Could somebody please correct the title? Seneschally (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Seneschally, I think that your correction verges on OR. This is particularly true because you rely on the DNB while the ONDB is ambivalent on the issue. I think that we should follow the lead of the ODNB:
 * -- PBS (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @[User:PBS|PBS]] I disagree. The abundance of contrary evidence cited by me is a sincere effort to disprove the error of her being considered a second daughter of O'Donnell: Her evident age renders her unlikely to be Rory & Bridget's daughter. The Fitzgerald genealogies claim her as their own, in fact as Bridget's sister, not daughter. Furthermore, regardless of whether or not she was born an O'Donnell, she died unquestionably in 1611, and cannot therefore have been the Countess of Fingall, but rather Lady Fingall (as Baroness), as her husband was not raised to the Earldom until 1628, long after she died. Hence the article title should be changed. Seneschally (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @Seneschally, I do not watch this page so either inform me on my talk page if you message me or include a link to my home page so that I am informed of your message. I am raising this issue at  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, so that more eyes are upon this article, in the hope that a consensus can emerge. -- PBS (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @[User:PBS|PBS]] I disagree. The abundance of contrary evidence cited by me is a sincere effort to disprove the error of her being considered a second daughter of O'Donnell: Her evident age renders her unlikely to be Rory & Bridget's daughter. The Fitzgerald genealogies claim her as their own, in fact as Bridget's sister, not daughter. Furthermore, regardless of whether or not she was born an O'Donnell, she died unquestionably in 1611, and cannot therefore have been the Countess of Fingall, but rather Lady Fingall (as Baroness), as her husband was not raised to the Earldom until 1628, long after she died. Hence the article title should be changed. Seneschally (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @Seneschally, I do not watch this page so either inform me on my talk page if you message me or include a link to my home page so that I am informed of your message. I am raising this issue at  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, so that more eyes are upon this article, in the hope that a consensus can emerge. -- PBS (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * According to the article on his husband, be did not succeed even to the lesser title of Baron Killeen until 1613. Accordingly not only was she never a countess, but not even a baroness.  Like many women of her time she did nothing notable except bear children.  I would suggest the appropriate solution is an AFD as NN, possibly resulting in merger/redirect to her husband.  This is particularly appropriate since her parentage and date of birth (like that of her husband) are so uncertain.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Further Comment -- This whole article is about a genealogical dispute. It is arguing that a 1864 book based on family archives is to be preferred to various peerages and ODNB.  That feels very odd to me, though it may be right.  As I have said above, this probably needs to be deleted anyway.  I have just moved it to remove the erroneous "countess", but if this article is survive, it needs an archival source on the marriage, such as a marriage settlement.  The archives of most English landed estates are now in Record Offices.  I presume those of the Dukes of Leinster still survive, in which case the settlement could be cited.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That would, in any case, be research from primary sources, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Publish this argument, if valid, in Notes and Queries - and, in this case, bring us the letters column as feedback - and we will by all means note that her place in the genealogy is disputable. We can even note the disagreement now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Spelling
Why are we using one t, if her husband has two? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)