Talk:Gilbert de Clare, 8th Earl of Gloucester

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Gilbert de Clare, 7th Earl of Hertford → Gilbert de Clare, 8th Earl of Gloucester — Though the Hertford title is older than that of Gloucester (1138 and 1218 respectively), the de Clares rarely used the Hertford title even before 1218, but preferred earls of Clare. After 1218 Gloucester became predominant. In secondary literature they are almost always referred to as earls of Gloucester (see in particular Altschul, Baronial Family, ISBN 0-8018-0022-6.). Per WP:NAMES the pages should therefore be titled Gilbert de Clare, 8th Earl of Gloucester etc, and the lead sentence should start "Gilbert de Clare, 8th Earl of Gloucester and 7th Earl of Hertford". Lampman (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Gilbert de Clare, 4th Earl of Hertford → Gilbert de Clare, 5th Earl of Gloucester
 * Richard de Clare, 5th Earl of Hertford → Richard de Clare, 6th Earl of Gloucester
 * Gilbert de Clare, 6th Earl of Hertford → Gilbert de Clare, 7th Earl of Gloucester


 * We had a lot of trouble over the title "Earl of Clare" last year, and concluded that this was not a title at all, and that older books that thought it was were wrong. I hope that we can reach a conclusion on this without going through a similarly longwinded process.  If this change goes ahead, please leave the presetn version as a redirect.  I am not voting because I do not know the source material enough.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I am not suggesting changing the earlier articles to earl of Clare, I'm simply pointing out how underplayed the Hertford title was even before 1218, and certainly after. Lampman (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know the specifics either, but I agree with the nominator that we should use the title by which they are best known, not the one that is oldest.--Kotniski (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Complete Peerage lists these under Gloucester, cross-referencing from Hertford, Gibbs' usual means for indicating the more important title. (By the same authority, there was no Earldom of Clare before 1624; one of the de Burghs was summoned - once - to the English Parliament as Lord of Clare in 1309, but he was never an earl, and the peerage of parliament -in any sense it can be said to have existed -was extinct in 1321.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Frther Support The whole article refers to him as Gloucester so it is nonsense for him to be listed under another title. Jwasanders (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.