Talk:Gore baronets

Territorial designation of the 1760 creation
There is some inconsistency in the naming of the 1760 creation.

The article on Sir Robert Gore-Booth, 4th Baronet refers to him in the opening para as a Baronet "of Lissadell", and in the succession box as a Baronet "of Artarman".

The references used are inconsistent:


 * http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~truax/gorebooth.html refers to them as Baronets of "Lissadell"
 * At http://www.leighrayment.com/baronetage/baronetsG2.htm, Rayment calls them baronets of "Lissadill"
 * The only reference I can find to "Artarman" is at http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/gg/gore2.htm ... although that refers to the pre-baronetcy days, and the baronetcy is referred to there as "Lissadell"
 * The Lisadell House website implausibly refers to them as Baronets "of Sligo"

I know the area very well, and the term "Artarman" is one I have never heard before, but it looks like a corruption of "Ardtarmon", another place formerly on the Gore-Booth estate, and the site of their castle before they built the first Lissadell House

I have also never seen the spelling "Lissadill" (as used by Rayment); these days it is always spelt "Lissadell".

It seems that the naming is all coming from sources which I find less than authoritative, and I would prefer to be able source the naming from a source like Burkes or Debretts. Since places names are all Irish ones translated into Emglish, the English spelling used in the 18th-century may be different to our contemporary ones, so there are many possibilities.

Does anyone have access to authoritative sources? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Debrett's and The Official Roll of the Standing Council of the Baronetage both say Artarman, Sligo. Burke's (often wrong) says Lissadell. My conclusion is that the seat was Lissadell but the territorial designation is Artarman. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So can the article remain as it is? I realise that guidelines say that info boxes should reflect the article, but is this a case where we can ignore all the usual rules to preserve harmony? (WP:IAR) W. Frank ✉


 * I would suggest that it's best to say it as it is: that the territorial designation is Artarman (nowadays spelt Ardtarmon), but that some sources describe the baronetcy as Lissadell or Lissadill. There's not many articles to change, if we have consensus to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly would not disagree. You're the expert and I know little about either baronets or the locality. (I only got involved 'cos Vinny came to my own talk page asking for copyediting help. Tschuess and sorry I forgot to sign before. W. Frank ✉ 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's v kind of you, WF, but when it comes to baronetcies, I hardly even rate as a beginner compared with Kittybewster, and I see that he's now been at work promptly tiding up the articles. Problem resolved, I think :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Baronets of Artarman
This article is out-of-date wrt to the Artraman Baronets.

It says that "The present holder of the title, Sir Josslyn Gore-Booth, 9th Bt. (born 1950)[4] is also in remainder to the Gore Baronetcy of Magherabegg. Since he has no sons, his cousin Sir David Gore-Booth, former British Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and High Commissioner to India, is the heir presumptive to the baronetcy."

Not any more, he isn't: Sir David Alwyn Gore-Booth died in 2004 (see e.g. the Mieastnews obituary). Does anyone have access to relevant sources to establish who the heir is since David's death? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The heir-presumptive is now Sir David's only son Paul Wyatt Julian Gore-Booth (b. 29 July 1969). Choess 13:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Relationship of current Gore-Booth heir presumptive to present baronet
I made minor changes (changes in bold) as follows

''The present holder of the title, Sir Josslyn Gore-Booth, 9th Bt. (born 1950) is also in remainder to the Gore Baronetcy of Magherabegg. Since he has no sons, his cousin Paul Wyatt Julian Gore-Booth (b. 1969) is the heir presumptive to the baronetcy. '''The heir presumptive, Paul, is the only son of the late Sir David Gore-Booth, former British Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and High Commissioner to India (d. 2007). and the grandson of a Life Peer Paul Gore-Booth, Baron Gore-Booth, himself son of Mordaunt Gore-Booth, younger son of the fifth Baronet. Paul is thus related to Constance, Countess Markiewicz.'''
 * Sir Booth Gore, 1st Baronet (1712-1773)
 * Sir Booth Gore, 2nd Baronet (d. 1804)
 * Sir Robert Newcomen Gore-Booth, 3rd Baronet (d. 1814)
 * Sir Robert Gore-Booth, 4th Baronet (1805-1876)
 * Sir Henry William Gore-Booth, 5th Baronet (1843-1900)
 * Sir Josslyn Augustus Richard Gore-Booth, 6th Baronet (1869-1944)
 * Sir Michael Savile Gore-Booth, 7th Baronet (1908-1987) Allegedly mentally unstable, made a ward of court
 * Sir Angus Josslyn Gore-Booth, 8th Baronet (1920-1996)
 * Sir Josslyn Henry Robert Gore-Booth, 9th Baronet (b. 1950)''

Sir Josselyn Gore-Booth's wife is related to the Earls of Mexborough etc. They have two daughters, incapable of inheriting.

The relationship is as follows

Sir Henry Gore-Booth, 5th Bt (1843-1900) -> Sir Josselyn Gore-Booth, 6th Bt (1869-1944) -> [needs verification] Sir Angus Josselyn Gore-Booth, 8th Bt (1920-1996)-> Sir Josselyn Gore-Booth, 9th Bt (b. 1950)

Sir Henry Gore-Booth, 5th Bt (1843-1900) -> Mordaunt Gore-Booth -> Paul Gore-Booth, Baron Gore-Booth, Life Peer cr. 1969 (1909-1984) -> Sir David Gore-Booth (1943-2004) -> Paul Gore-Booth (b. 1969).

Lord Gore-Booth was according to this, first cousin of the 7th and 8th Baronets; his son Sir David Gore-Booth (d. 2004) was second cousin of the present baronet. Paul is therefore a second cousin once removed, but I need to verify this, not having a Debrett's or Burke's at hand.

wikibiohistory (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Stirnet
Stirnet is now a pay site. We can no longer use it for source citations or sources. Wjhonson (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that this is a misinterpretation of policy. Pay sites are not recommended to be included purely as external links, but there is nothing to stop them being used for citing sources.  David Underdown (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations must be checkable by any random editor. That requires they not be fee-based.  We cannot be in the position of requiring editors to pay for 100 different fee-based sites just to check our sources. Stirnet itself may not be cited, it's underlying sources may be cited if they can be checked freely, for example Visitations of Northampton at a large university library (as an example). Wjhonson (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To me it is a problem of verification. So I've opened a dialog here if you'd like to comment. Wjhonson (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

We as a free encyclopedia, cannot be in the business of driving dollars to commercial sites like stirnet. You are free to discuss this on the link I provided here. Wjhonson (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Where not one poster has agreed with you. Please don't delete refrences without consensus. David Underdown (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Our policy see here is that self-published sources may not be cited. The onus is on you to provide any criteria for why this website, published by a single individual as his own personal site, should be excepted. Wjhonson (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to describe it as self-published, it is more like a niche publisher judging by this http://www.stirnet.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36&Itemid=72 there is some editorial oversight, and there are mechanisms for correction of content. I still think we could do with a wider consensus on the suitability of this particular source, rather than you actin g unilaterally in this way.  David Underdown (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)