User talk:Alci12/Archive 1

Copyright problems
I don't have any experience with copyright problems, I'm afraid, but what you've done seems reasonable to me. Proteus (Talk) 17:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could ask on Village pump (assistance)? Proteus (Talk) 17:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Attainder: an unusual case
Maybe you can help me unravel an unusual case regarding the exact effects of acts of attainder (our current article is wretched, BTW) and suo jure baronies. If you look at Baron le Despencer, you'll noticed that the second baron of the third creation (the Earl of Gloucester) was attainted in 1400. His son Richard le Despencer, therefore, did not inherit the barony, which went into abeyance in 1449; attainder reversed 1461, called out of abeyance 1604. All well and good, and so noted in Leigh Rayment's webbed CP. However, the second creation of the Baron Burghersh is also entangled in this. The Earl of Gloucester's mother, Elizabeth, was suo jure Baroness Burghersh; she died after her son, in 1409. Rayment (and presumably, CP) write that she was succeeded by the aforementioned Richard in the Barony of Burghersh, and so on until the abeyance of 1449, from which it was not called out. It's all a matter of legal fiction, since Richard died in his minority and his successors were either female or held superior peerage titles, but would not the attainder affect the Barony of Burghersh as well? Choess 03:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And while I'm knocking about here, could I solicit comment from you on my proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Peerage? Thanks, Choess 04:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. We have three generations: Elizabeth, Baroness Burghersh (d. 1409), mother of Thomas le Despencer, Earl of Gloucester and Baron le Despencer (attainted 1400), who in turn is the father of Richard le Despencer (d. 1414). Choess 13:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, this is starting to make sense, a clear indication that my mind is going. The first Hugh le Despencer, Justiciar (d. 1265) was summoned to Parliament by Simon de Montfort in 1264, which may or may not be considered a valid writ of summons. His son, later 1st Earl of Winchester, was summoned in 1295, either in the 1264 creation if you recognize it or as the first creation if you don't. During the lifetime of the Earl of Winchester (Hugh the elder), his son (Hugh the younger) was summoned to Parliament in 1314; since this predates the invention of writs of acceleration, it counts as the second creation. Both Hughs were executed and attainted in 1326. So much attested on Rayment's site, although he doesn't note the attainder. Hugh the younger had two sons: Hugh (d. 1349 sp) and Edward (d. 1342). This Hugh was summoned to Parliament in 1338 (third creation), but this creation of necessity extinct on his death sine prole. Edward left a son Edward (d. 1375), summoned to Parliament in 1357 (fourth creation). His son Thomas, later 1st Earl of Gloucester, inherited the barony of the fourth creation on his death (precedence in 1357). However, according to the 1911 Britannica, the 1326 attainder against the Despensers was reversed in 1398, so Thomas would then have inherited the first and second creations, giving him precedence of 1264 or 1295, as you prefer (the 1604 letters patent refer to both of those Hughs). So the first, second and fourth creations of the barony all pass under the 1400 attainder, 1449 abeyance, and 1461 reversal of attainder. The first was called out of abeyance in 1604 for Mary Fane, leaving the second and fourth in abeyance together with the Barony of Burghersh. You may flee screaming now. Choess 15:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Trolling through s.g.m reveals this useful quote on the precedence of de Ros and the writs of summons for De Montfort's Parliament: "In 1616 the Barony was allowed precedence from this writ, a decision accepted by the Lords in 1806 ... ; but these writs, issued by Simon in the King's name, are no longer regarded as valid for the creation of peerages." (2nd ed. Cockayne's.) Supposedly Burke's 1999 recognizes no creations of hereditary baronies before the Model Parliament in 1295 (although the grant of 1616 secures de Ros precedence of 1264 regardless). Unfortunately, I don't know where to find the 1616 grant, and the House of Lords Journal covering 1806 isn't online yet, so I don't know if that recognition extends to the Barony of le Despencer, which if so would be equal with de Ros. As for the question of "premier Baron," I do in fact think that the designation only applies to baronies on the roll; it certainly works that way for earls, the Earl of Shrewsbury being Premier Earl in the Peerage of England and of Ireland because of the submersions of older titles (Arundel, Kildare and Ormonde). Choess 17:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, separate issues here. First, does the present Barony of le Despencer have precedence of the first creation (1264 or 1295) or the 1357 creation? The letters patent make it quite clear (IMO) that it should take precedence of the first creation, inasmuch as they refer to Hugh, the Justiciar, and his son the Earl of Winchester. (Both in English and Latin; rather too much to be a transcription error.) The second issue is, who has been the Premier (male) Baron of the realm when the Barony of de Ros has been abeyant, submerged, or held by a female? The Baron Mowbray (only called out of abeyance in 1878) may be considered to predate it if one accepts the 1295 precedence (covering 1878–1983), but otherwise le Despencer, when extant, would still have precedence during, e.g., the life of the 15th Baron. (And I notice now that the letters patent claim that the Barony of le Despenser has precedence over the Baron of Bergavenny, "who now, during the Life of the said Baroness Le Despencer, holdeth and enjoyeth the first and highest Place and Seat, and hath Precedency and Pre-eminence of and among the Barons of this Realm, as Barons of Parliament:" Which makes no sense, given that Baron de Ros, Baron Fitzwalter, Baron de la Warr, etc. should have taken precedence over him.) Amended – found a quote online from Burke's that says that Bergavenny was given precedence of 1295 due to the earlier barony by tenure. Presumably then de Ros had precedence of 1295 as well until 1616? Choess 18:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And another snippet quoted from Burke's says that a House of Lords decision "now generally held to be flawed" granted 1283 precedence to Baron Mowbray when the title was called from abeyance, and considers the barony, like all others, to date from 1295. So to sum up:

1) No barony by writ has existed in the Peerage of England before 1295. 2) Certain baronies have been granted precedence of an earlier date by the HoL: de Ros 1264, le Despencer 1264 (Burke's 2002), Mowbray 1283 (Burke's). See for cites from Burke's 2002 and  for Burke's on Mowbray. Sound good? Choess 19:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
It's trivial if I'm adding a succession box, etc. anyway, and it looks that much nicer for the next editor. :-) Choess

OK, User:KuatofKDY reverted the "Titles of Nobility" if-statement I'd put in. I've put it back, properly converted all the existing instances, and added instructions; now sovereigns can use for their sovereign titles and it will say "Regnal Titles", whereas the Peerages have "Titles of Nobility". And now I need to think about the Baronetage... Choess 18:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Earl of Ancram
Last September you added a note on Talk:Michael Ancram about him dropping his title when in court as it was confusing for the jury. I remembered reading this too, and found references in the Telegraph and Guardian. I've added them to the talk page, if you'd like to add it to the article.  J Rawle  (Talk) 22:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Earl of Stradbroke
No harm done. I'm about to add the information about the sale of the family estate by the current Earl to the Earl of Stradbroke page and remove the reference to the Governorship from Robert Rous, Viscount Dunwich too. Blarneytherinosaur 02:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Richard Holmes/Duke of Westminster
Well, the Duke of Westminster certainly wasn't a Brigadier at the same time that Holmes was, since there was only one Brig TA at a time. He succeeded Holmes as Brig TA (being promoted Maj-Gen in 2004), so was presumably a Colonel at the time Holmes was Brig TA. -- Necrothesp 18:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I think the Duke has always worked his way up the ranks with no honorary ranks. He's not a member of the Royal Family, after all. Actually, Colonel to Major-General in four years is certainly not unheard of. Promotion at that level is often quicker than at junior levels. It's not that uncommon for general officers to be promoted in two or three years. Spending only four years as a Brigadier wouldn't be that unusual, particularly since his current position is brand new and he would have been the only candidate. -- Necrothesp 19:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Military rank
See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies). There is debate on this subject - general consensus seems to be that senior ranks, at least, should be included. Military ranks are rather different from academic and religious honorifics - like "sir", "dame", "lord", "lady" and peerage titles they are almost invariably used (by senior officers at least) and are not particularly controversial if given to officers of an established national military. This is not the case with academic or religious titles. -- Necrothesp 00:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that military ranks have always been used here, whereas the other titles under debate have been used scrappily if at all. The debate is therefore rather different, since it involves taking out titles which have usually been added, not adding titles which have usually not been. A very different proposition. To turn your argument around, I see no reason to remove them/not to use them until the MoS specifically says not to. As it doesn't, as there appears to be no consensus for it to, and as they have commonly been used in the past it seems sensible to continue to use them, and I for one will do so. -- Necrothesp 22:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many did have the Right Honourable pretitle. I've removed a fair few myself. But what you maybe haven't noticed is that a large number of those (especially those relating to peerage titles) were added in a fairly recent concentrated campaign by a single editor or small group of editors, and were not an original part of the articles in question, whereas ranks always have been. I am of course always happy to discuss the issue on the MoS talk page. -- Necrothesp 13:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Source
I'm using Cracroft's Peerage. Proteus (Talk) 10:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Lord Broughton
Alci,

I take your point; I made that note, I think, merely to illustrate that the baronetcy had recourse because of its longer standing, whereas the barony, having been extant only in its first holder, had nowhere to go and thus died off. It might indeed do well to be rephrased. Wally 17:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Feudal barons
You're quite right, someone's obviously been on here pushing these never-used styles. I've reverted their changes to Forms of Address in the United Kingdom, and I've also altered Baron, which was going off on a long rant about how feudal barons are the equivalent of peers and other such nonsense. Proteus (Talk) 10:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Oranmore and Browne
Same thing happened when I tried it (using ** rather than :*). Sure, I'm okay with removing the tag. &mdash;Tamfang 16:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Order of St John
Various sources are pretty clear on the fact that they shouldn't be used outside the Order, so I'd just go ahead and remove them wherever they are. Proteus (Talk) 07:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII
What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 10:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I am confusing you. I merely refer to direct biological descent, not collateral association. That collateral thing would be like saying just because I'm related by marriage to the Charles FitzRoy, 2nd Duke of Cleveland via a common ancestor to Mary Wood and her family, that I am a descendent of Charles II himself. IP Address 13:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the most pressing concern of my broad-sprectrumed queries is; what dynasty began exclusivity with respect to the commons? Aren't most descendents of the Tudors and Stuarts today, still found in old continental royalty (such as the surviving Jacobites in Bavaria and untitled Hanoverians) and present nobility (including their children)? Perhaps another rephrase: Didn't the change of status from our old monarchy to a Constitutional Monarchy change the relationships between sovereign and subject? Many think that in order to be representative of the people, monarchs have to have scions among the lower classes. Could you see descendents of King James VI/I in lower classes of the present day, while not speculating on future integration? I am really skeptic about this, because it appears that only a small percentage of people with UK heritage can prove descent from a reigning Protestant monarch. On the contrast, it is undoubtable that we (of UK blood) all have reigning Catholic royal descent--specifically Plantagenet and before. It is about most recent common ancestor. IP Address 14:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

re: Compromise re Herald
Hello. Just to be clear, I have not banned anything, as I don't have any authority on this site, except that as every other active User. I did write on the talk page of Richmond Herald
 * "In order to maintain a compromise, the following external links should not be used, to avoid a continued edit war, until a clear-cut external link policy is reached."

I did this because there is no clear-cut policy on the issue, and each of the two users wanted a different form of the link. Since both were asked to stop reverting to their preference to avoid a continued edit war, I thought it only a good 'compromise' to take the link out altogether, as that was neither user's pushed preference. After looking at the article and the sites, I believe that the integrity of the article is not lost without the link, as there is a wikilink to College of Arms (which contains the material from the generic external link) and the information in Richmond Herald is already in the more specific link (which at that, isn't very specific, as it is a list of many 'heraldic offices'). Thank you for your comment, and feel free to do with the article as you see best for it and Wikipedia. My only intent on the talk page was to do just that, however, it's always possible that I'm wrong. Have a good day/evening, Ch u ck(척뉴넘) 13:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Heraldry Portal?
Hey. I've proposed the creation of an heraldic portal. If you think that such a thing would be helpful, you can voice your support HERE and hopefully we can get the heraldry category items organized better.-- E va   d  b  13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Adam Bruce
Thanks for the note. I'd been given that reminder once by someone else, but had forgotten that the Bruce article should have been changed. Thank you. Thanks, too, for your support on the heraldry portal idea.-- E va   d  b  17:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hear, Hear...well done.-- E va   d  b  17:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Royal Company of Archers
It looks like that's direct from the Royal website. See also this 1999 newsletter, which refers to the 10th Earl of Elgin as a Brigadier in the RCoA. Choess 15:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't quite understand either, but here's a posting from Michael Rhodes that should seal the deal: Sir John Clerk, Bt, advancing from Brigadier to Ensign to Lieutenant in the RCoA. Choess 15:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Carisbrooke
Instead of your blimpy and jejune response, perhaps you could have given a reference. Or perhaps you believe that statements in the manner of an imperial ukase are sufficiently impressive in themselves?

Tantris 01:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Count of Tyrone
The prime mover behind that — User:Princeton03 — seems to be editing in good faith. I'm trying to get a more full account from him of the affairs post-1887, which seem the most suspicious part. Choess 15:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)