Talk:Trevor Corry

"Baron" of Poland
This is dubious. Polish nobility did not use the title of baron: see szlachta and offices in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. (Pl wiki article on pl:baron, while unreferenced, goes on to say that this title was virtually unknown in Poland, and based on my knowledge of this topic I'd tentatively agree with that.) That's strike one. Polish kings could ennoble someone and/or give them an office but simply couldn't give one a title of baron, prince or such. That's strike two.

Moving to the review of sources:
 * - seems to contradict itself, stating that Polish sources have no record of this, then citing some? Same book, page 337, gives a bit more info.
 * that's it. I am simply not finding a single Polish source that even mentions it. Overall, I find this claim dubious, through not totally impossible, there are some indications that Poniatowski tried to make some money selling a few-half bogus titles (he wasn't really allowed to do it legally) to gullible foreigners. It seems more plausible that Corry was ennobled into a Polish noble, but in either case per WP:UNDUE and WP:BURDEN we should caution the reader with an attribution and perhaps a footnote, something like "According to Bajer, Unger and Basista... this fact, however, is poorly documented in Polish sources". (If there's a reply here, please WP:ECHO me). Also pinging article creator, User:West Marshall. -Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the page in Unger and Basista you cited (353), the absence of the record in Polish is because his first name was entered as "Frevort" or "Frevot" instead of "Trevor" and lists the Polish sources where it was listed that way. Page 338 actually has an image of the patent. Bajar's more detailed discussion in Scots in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, 16th to 18th Centuries (page 311) lists further Polish sources where the records under the misspellings can be found. Can you please explain what sort of re-wording would be acceptable to you? Voceditenore (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I also couldn't find anything while searching for baron+Corry+Poniatowski or such in Polish sources. I feel uneasy about this, the sources seem reliable but the odds are too high someone made a mistake, probably through generalization, like taking the Poniatowski's baron title seriously. I'll ping few more editors knowledgeable about Polish history, maybe they'll have some suggestions or can find more sources: User:Volunteer Marek, User:Halibutt, User:Nihil novi, User:Poeticbent, User:Staszek Lem, User:Sobiepan, User:Mathiasrex. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It's possible that he was a "hrabia" (baron). Generally Piotrus is right in that the title was forbidden in Poland as it violated the idea of "equality among the nobles". However in certain cases the king did have the prerogative to grant the title to foreign nationals and this could very well be one of (these few) instances.

Also, what's with the weird spelling of "Dantzig"?Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This source does appear to have something on it. I'd be nice if somehow we could blow up that image and see.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's another source, Polish one, and you can only see a snippet but it says:

nadanie baronatu konsulowi angielskiemu w Gdansku Trevorowi Corry przez krola Polski Stanislawa Augusta Poniatowskiego w 1773 r. Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Volunteer Marek. According to Butterwick's Poland's Last King and English Culture: Stanislaw August Poniatowski, 1732-1798 (Oxford Historical Monographs), the King also "enobled Bourgeois [referring to Francis Bourgeois] (enabling the painter to use the title of 'Sir' in England)" (p. 219). So he clearly did hand out titles that were the equivalent of the English "Baron", whatever the title was called in Poland at the time. I tried blowing up the image of the Letter Patent via the Google books magnifier, to no avail. It was still unreadable. Piotrus, do you have access to the specific print sources listed by Bajer on page 311 of Scots in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, 16th to 18th Centuries? You can't simply go by what you have or have not been able to find on the internet and then speculate that there were no such misspellings of his name in Polish sources. Re the spelling of "Dantzig", this was the one used in 18th century British sources. I agree, it should be changed to "Danzig" for clarity. Voceditenore (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * One thing though, I don't think the designation "Baron of Poland" is correct, since Poland wasn't a Barony/Baronetcy. That part should be clarified.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm rather minded to leave the "title" parameter blank in the infobox and clarify the wording elsewhere. In addition to Volunteer Marek's source above (Rocznik Polskiego Towarzystwa Heraldycznego, Volumes 5-7, p. 42), Here's yet another Polish source which specifically verifies the misspelling and the use "Baron" to describe his title:
 * "FREVORT v. FREVOT Corry, konsul angielski w Gdańsku, zaszczycony został w 1773 r. od Stanisława Augusta tytułem barona tronu królewskiego, z dodaniem do rodzinnego..."
 * See Rodzina, herbarz szlachty polskiej, Volume 4, p. 61. Google snippet" Voceditenore (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually that source right there gives the proper designation. baron tronu królewskiego --> "baron to the throne of Poland" (or "of").Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's another one from Imago Poloniae: dawna Rzeczpospolita na mapach, dokumentach i starodrukach w zbiorach Tomasza Niewodniczańskiego, Volume 2, pp. 306 and 382 (Google snippets). Voceditenore (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, here's what I've done. I've changed the title to Volunteer Marek's suggestion, "Baron to the Throne of Poland", both in the infobox and in the article text. I've added the Polish source Rodzina, herbarz szlachty polskiej, Volume 4, p. 61 as a reference, with a quote from the original, and referred the reader also to the page in Bajer where he discusses the misspelling. I've removed the template dubious, as I believe there are sufficient sources now to both clarify the title and verify it. Voceditenore (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:Voceditenore, and User:Volunteer Marek, for looking into this. The references seem sufficient to address my concern. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)