Talk:William West, 1st Baron De La Warr

Untitled
I don't follow the change from "would have been" to "would be". Surely the abeyance was terminated by the extinction of the old Barony by the new creation. Not so, of course, for Baron West, which was never re-created and probably remains in abeyance. Robert A West 17:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * A hit! a very palpable hit! Nevertheless, I am not convinced. If modern rules applied (and they did not yet exist in 1597) the title would still be in abeyance, because William West would not be one of the possible candidates for resolving the abeyance, and the decision for his son would have broken the rules, which the Lords can do. I also think this tense may be a hair clearer to someone who *doesn't* understand the situation; because would have been can suggest the abeyance would have ended in the narual course of events. But do what you will. Septentrionalis 19:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Do my eyes deceive me, or is there no article on Cockayne? I'll create a stub; one of us can do more later.
 * On reflection, I decided that the problem with the paragraph is that a non-specialist would likely be confused as to why the modern rules are being mentioned. The problem is that the original author put the argument first and the conclusion second, whereas a newbie needs to see what the point is first, and then to see some of the details.  What I put down seems solid from the sources I have to hand.
 * It seems to me that there are at least four possible views on what was actually done and why.
 * William was heir by settlement, and this either included the titles (by the entail, they could not be inherited sans title) or the titles would have been included as a matter of custom. When restored in blood, William became baron in law, and the letters patent were intended to place the matter beyond doubt.
 * The letters patent were an extraordinary settlement using the prerogative of the crown to create exceptions on a case-by-case basis. The issue of precedence was not considered carefully, and the subsequent act rectified the injustice.
 * The above two solutions being impossible in law, the letters patent were a true second creation of the same title, and extinguished the old title. The new was then granted the earlier precedence to place William's heirs in the same position as if the intended action were possible.  Whether this action also extinguished West and merged it into De La Warr is another matter.
 * The letters patent created a new title without extinguishing the old title. Old De La Warr (and West) are still in abeyance.

Robert A West 17:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What Cokayne [sic, mea culpa] says about the Barony of West is: "...1554, when both the Baronies fell into abeyance, according to modern doctine, between the daughters and coheirs of Sir Owen West... Although a new Barony of de la Warr was subsequently conferred on the h. male (who was not the h. gen.) William West, whose s. Thomas was allowed the precedence of the ancient Barony of de la Warre, [sic -Septentrionalis] there is no reason to except the Barony of West from following the usual course (as defined by modern doctrine) of the devolution of a Barony by Writ." Septentrionalis 18:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't sweat Cockayne. There are at least 579 hits on Google for Cockayne + Peerage, and the misspelling will still get you to where you can purchase the book or CD (which I may do).  Thanks for moving the page and straightening things out. Robert A West 19:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)