Talk:List of baronies in the peerages of Britain and Ireland

This is the second largest page on the Wikipedia
- it needs to be split up... ugen64 19:41, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If no-one objects, I will split it up into hereditary and life baronies. &mdash;Ashley Y 01:48, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)


 * Anyone know if it's possible to become a baron in todays society?--84.217.9.89 2 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)

Murrican seeking help with ye olde lordes and laydies
Hey folks, I'm working on User:Jengod/List of Virginia county name etymologies as part of lists of U.S. county name etymologies. The general consensus is the Culpeper County, Virginia is named for Thomas Culpeper, 2nd Baron Culpeper of Thoresway or for someone in his family. (Apparently they owned landed in the Northern Neck area during the colonial period.) However, the Barons Culpeper or Barons Culpeper of Thoresway don't appear to have any articles on Wikipedia. Is that b/c there are many Barons and you haven't gotten to them yet, or because his titling is screwed up? Thank you! jengod 21:28, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * The spelling is slightly wrong - the man you're looking for is Thomas Colepeper, 2nd Baron Colepeper (1635-1689). The peerage became extinct in 1725 on the death of the 4th Baron, and there are many extinct titles we don't have articles on (I believe all the extant ones have articles). Proteus (Talk) 22:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Thanks guys! jengod 22:36, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Split
This page is still enormous. Perhaps List of Baronies in the Peerage of England, List of Lordships of Parliament, List of Baronies in the Peerage of Great Britain and List of Baronies in the Peerage of the United Kingdom would be better? (We can have a link to List of Life Peerages and List of Law Life Peerages in the last of these, as I think adding "hereditary" to the title would make it too long.) Proteus (Talk) 14:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It's all the moderns' fault. If they hadn't created so many UK baronies...Might not be a bad idea though, especially if we ever compile lists of foreign baronies. Mackensen 18:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The split never happened. I think it's still a good idea as even good old Firefox is slow to render this page, and it is a pain using it for reference while working on other articles. I agree with Proteus's suggested titles, except maybe we could have List of hereditary baronies in the United Kingdom if we're worried about title length.  J Rawle  (Talk) 17:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with this; Rawle's amendment makes sense, with a redirect from the other. Septentrionalis 15:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Baron Mohun
Baron Mohun seems to be missing. See for example Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun. Fawcett5 20:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Charles Mohun was (specifically) Baron Mohun of Okehampton (which I am about to add! have added). I added the first Mohun; however, I'm not sure what its current status is. The abeyance of Strange was terminated in 1921, but it is unclear to me whether that also applies to Mohun. Ardric47 00:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know if it's possible to become a baron in todays society?--84.217.9.89 2 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)
 * Nowadays, life peerages are always of baronial rank, created under the Life Peerages Act 1958 and carry with them, presuming the recipient meets qualifications such as age and citizenship, seats in the House of Lords. --Wetman 2 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)

Use of TCP, and a note on the Barony of Musgrave
I currently have checked out from a library vol. IX (1936) of The Complete Peerage. I believe it is widely considered to be the foremost reference on the British Peerage; however, there have obviously been developments since the edition that I have been using.

Concerning the Barony of Musgrave: TCP suggests that it was (at the time of publication) possibly extant de jure but unclaimed. The heir at that time was given as Frederick Millbank(e) Davison-Bland (1854–). A quick internet search turns up almost nothing, though. The most comprehensive information that I could find offhand was at http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=syngeplus&id=DF12 .Ardric47 03:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * By all means fill them in as you find them, we can always fix it later. We know this page is incomplete, and that it's full of errors, so we all just keep poking at it as we find problems. Mackensen (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Spelling/Abeyance
This entry: Baron Botecourt 	1305 	Somerset 	extant 	Held by the Duke of Beaufort should read Baron Botetourt 	1305 	Somerset 	abeyant the heirs of Lady Blanche Linnie Somerset.

The Baronies of Botetourt and Herbert both became abeyant on the death of the Henry_Somerset,_10th_Duke_of_Beaufort which I'd noted on that article but did not transpose to this page. Interestingly (well if you like this sort of thing) the Queen terminated the abeyance on the Herbert barony but not the Botetourt barony in 2002. However the holder of that title David John Seyfried-Herbert has a 1/2 share in the remaining abeyant title and the rival claimants (the reason I assume both weren't terminated) have only 1/4 shares which aren't normally sufficient to terminate. All things being equal this title will probably eventually be terminated in his favour if he and/or his heirs continue to persue it.Alci12 12:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Abeyance List
This link []scroll down gives a list of abeyances that don't include some we do and includes many we don't. The source Patrick Cracroft-Brennan (Cracrofts Peerage) is reliable but certainly it leaves me with more questions than answers as to the discrepancies.Alci12 13:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's quite possible that we've missed a fair number that exist. What are the ones we include that he doesn't? john k 14:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps it's a matter of inclusion. That list is abeyances so perhaps confirming that our entry Baron Mortimer of Wigmore 1295/de Mortimer/status?/ is considered extinct. Basically a few like that. For Baron Neville de Raby we have an 1295 entry (forfeit) so not listed I guess but we don't have his 1311 Neville.


 * It does throw up some other issues, take Ap-Adam. We say its Dormant 1310 because the son wasn't summoned. However that's true of plenty of titles but that's not excluded their eventual decent and list in the succession. Cracrofts gives the abeyance date as 1424 which is pretty different. It's hard to decide on what basis we are making these decision apart from the whim of each individual editor.


 * I'm puzzled why we have as many titles by writ listed as extinct, baring those extinct C13/C14 or so it's nearly impossible to be sure of their status so should probably be listed as Abeyant/extinct or something. I recently amended one title thats 800 years old from No heir to No known heir becuase we haven't a hope of proving the former.Alci12 17:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Dormant" should be the term used for titles where it is not clear who the heir is, or if there is one. I also think that if a title is never claimed after the death of a peer, it's fair to say that it's become dormant. The Ap-Adam title, for instance, was not claimed after the death of the first holder in 1310.  Thus it became dormant - nobody was recognized as holding the title.  The title then became abeyant in 1424 when the male line died out.  But maybe that's not an appropriate use of "dormant" - I'm not sure.  Part of the problem is that trying to figure out all these 14th century titles by writ is basically trying to apply a modern system anachronistically.  The titles weren't seen as hereditary peerages at the time. john k 18:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The whole things is tricky, I've always considered dormant assumed there is possibly somewhere a 'holder' of the title by right if they could be found. Abeyant assumes multiple heirs who might be able to make a claim.Alci12 18:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO (FWIW), the earliest date at which the peerage lapses (due to dormancy, abeyance, etc.) should go in the "Current status" column (so we know how long it's been since there was a "Baron X"), and further events, i.e., the abeyance or attainder of the dormant line should go in the "Notes" column. The Barony of le Despencer and (IMO) the 2nd Barony of Burghersh make excellent pathological examples for this sort of thing. Choess 03:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

A bold proposal
Given the discussion here and the general support for moving the article to a more descriptive and accurate title, would anyone object if I moved the article to List of baronies in the peerages of the British Isles with a redirect from List of baronies? I'm going to propose this for the other peerage pages, as well. Fishhead64 20:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Grey of/de Rotherfield
In the list, there is the following:

But at Rayment Leigh's Peerage Page, there is the following:

"GREY DE ROTHERFIELD 	 	 	25 Aug 1338 	B 	1 	Sir John de Grey 	c 1300 	1 Sep 1359 Summoned to Parliament as Lord Grey de Rotherfield 25 Aug 1338 KG 1348

1 Sep 1359 		2 	John Grey 	1320 	4 Jun 1375 	54

4 Jun 1375 		3 	Bartholomew Grey 	1351 	12 Nov 1376 	25

12 Nov 1376 		4 	Robert Grey 		14 Jan 1388 to        On his death the peerage became dormant 14 Jan 1388"

How could that be? And which information is correct? VM 07:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The fourth Lord Grey had an only daughter, who, by modern law, inherited the Barony, and transmitted it to her heirs. This was not fourteenth-century usage; her heirs had perfectly good baronies of their own, and were summoned under them. So it went unclaimed = dormant. (In fact, neither the third or fourth "Lord Greys" appear actually to have been summoned either.) Her last heir was Francis Lovell, 1st Viscount Lovell who was attainted after Bosworth and again after Lambert Simnel. Septentrionalis 17:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Baron Parr of Horton
Found this - not here - should it be? Morwen - Talk 17:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He's in ODNB; and should be added when we decide whether to split. Septentrionalis 15:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Baronies in the Peerage of England, 1066-1263
These should not be here; they are not Peerages of Parliament, and never were; they are half genealogical figments, and half abuses of the fact that every man who holds direct of the King is a "baron". We cannot list every great tenant from Domesday Book, and should not do so here. Septentrionalis 15:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal
Dividing this page into its five obvious subpages: Baronies in the Peerage of England, and so forth, would solve the length problem. We could leave all the present templates in place, and otherwise treat this as a dab. Septentrionalis 15:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Aye - would be usefull Phoe  talk 15:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see at the top that the lists exist. If there is no protest, I will come back tomorrow, collate, and remove. Better to maintain one list of English baronies than two. I mentioned this at WP:PEER. Septentrionalis 15:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

new Barons
BHG has asked whether the barons on Isle of Man were barons or not, or what kind of Barons they were. The sources are clear - they were barons. Additional sources would need to be found to claim otherwise. --KarlB (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop being childish. They were priors and prioresses, who the sources also describe as barons.
 * I posted here some concerns about assuming that the word "baron" always means the same thing. That question is relevant to their inclusion in this list. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, so you're calling me childish. Actually, I don't appreciate that kind of incivility. Please remember to comment on the content, not the contributor. Thanks!--KarlB (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking half of a comment and trying to have an argument about that while ignoring the other half of the comment is chikdish behaviour. Stop it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling someone childish is uncivil. Please stop. Thanks!--KarlB (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

After doing some more checking, I have tagged the Isle of Man section of this list as a disputed section. This section appears to be basically a copy of Noble and royal titles of the Isle of Man, and I have set out my concerns at Talk:Noble and royal titles of the Isle of Man. To centralise discussion per WP:MULTI, it would be best to continue any substantive discussion at Talk:Noble and royal titles of the Isle of Man. Thanks -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)