Talk:Ambrose Dudley, 3rd Earl of Warwick

Legacy

The article on Warwick Castle says that he lefy his property to the Queen. Is this correct? Or was it had his interest was only an entail, so that it reverted to the Queen? Or what? I have come across indications of other property of his passing to the Queen, but have never found a satsifactory source as to this. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lord of Bedale

The satement that he was Lord of Bedale is no doubt correct, but this refers to the lordship of a manor; it is not a peerage. I do not think WP has space to list every manor, which the subject of every biographical article owned. What is spcial about Bedale? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Picture!

The man shown is William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, I am afraid! It was obviously misattributed in the early 19th century or earlier. The book from which this image was scanned is early 19th century. It is clearly William Cecil, from a very well-known portrait attributed to Eworth. The Marquess of Salisbury is given as source of the picture, so that would reasonable, as Salisbury was a descendant of Cecil. Sadly there seems to be no other image of the Earl of Warwick at WPCommons, although there are several in existence. So can anyone help? And should we remove the wrong picture? Buchraeumer (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've now removed this picture, and supplied a photo of Beauchamp Chapel, Warwick, where Ambrose is buried. Sadly I didn't find a portrait, but the former was definitely William Cecil! However I was unable so far to change the file name in WP Commons, so this should of course be done sometime. Please consider this problem before putting this wrong picture again in this article. Buchraeumer (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I found a good portrait. - PKM (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your troubles: finding, uploading...I remember to have seen this on google. But I am very weak on things like uploading, I often have even difficulties understanding the instructions. Buchraeumer (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

3rd Earl?

I believe that Ambrose is properly the 1st Earl of Warwick under a new creation of 1561, but these things are slippery (as the numbering of Henry FitzAlan, 19th Earl of Arundel (or 12th?) testifies. Let me research this. - PKM (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

ThePeerage.com calls Ambrose the 1st Earl of Warwick, citing Burke's Peerage.

Burke A general and heraldic dictionary of the peerages of England, Ireland, and Scotland: extinct, dormant, and in abeyance (1831) separates "DUDLEY—EARL OF WARWICK. By Letters Patent, dated 26th September 1561." (Ambrose, p. 184) as a separate creation from "DUDLEY — VISCOUNTS L'ISLE, EARLS OF WARWICK, DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND" (Earldom granted by letters patent 17 February 1547).

Ambrose would have been the 3rd Earl only as the heir of his older brother John Dudley, 2nd Earl of Warwick; John was attainted and his titles forfeited. He died on 21 October 1554, aged 23. Ambrose and his brother Henry were "restored in blood" in 1556 and in 1561 Ambrose was elevated to the peerage as Baron d'Lisle and Earl of Warwick.

I posted this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage and we'll see if anyone can advise on this. - PKM (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing is indeed tricky. Robert Dudley, not yet Earl of Leicester, was having it both ways: "...these comfortable news, which are, that it hath pleased the Queen's Majesty...to restore to our house the name of Warwick and yesterday hath created my brother the Earl thereof." Buchraeumer (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an argument on semantics. I think that the best solution is probably to leave the title as it is. This implies that the patent restored the title. I think that somethign similar has been done with other titles, such as Duke of Norfolk, which (I seem to recall) was restored to a younger (but Protestant) son and later passed to a more senior (Catholic) branch of the family. I would suggest that the standard should be based on Burke, Debrett, or GEC Complete Peerage; where these differ, we should accept any one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

GEC also seems to treat the 1561 creation as a new one. I think we have a good precedent in Henry Stafford, 1st Baron Stafford. GEC notes that Stafford was restored in blood as heir of his father the Duke of Buckingham in 1547, and granted the title of Baron Stafford (one of Buckingham's subsidiary titles), but "The creation of 1547 was unquestionably a new one, neither were there any words therein to give it the precedence due to the old barony." I think the cases may be treated as analogous; if Ambrose's restoration in blood had allowed him to inherit the title, he would have been Duke of Northumberland as well. I would suggest that we go ahead and move to Ambrose Dudley, 1st Earl of Warwick. (Incidentally, Peter, I think you're thinking of the Duke of Somerset; due to the incestuous infidelity of the 1st Duke's wife Catherine Fillol, the dukedom was created with an entail preferring the descendants of the second marriage over the first. Fillol's descendants, baronets of Berry Pomeroy, succeeded to the dukedom on the extinction of the junior line in 1750.) Choess (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer may be provided by the subsidiary title of Baron Lisle which WP treats as a new creation also in 1561, despite its having been held by his father and brother. If that title had been restored, rather than regranted, and since it had previously been capable of passing in the female line, I suspect that it would have been (at worst) abeyant on Ambrose' death, not extinct. Neverhteless, I wonder whehter the answer might not be to make the article Ambrose Dudley, Earl of Warwick, since there never was another. Of course the present article and a 1st Earl form should be retianed as redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. Even Croft’s Peerage has him as 1st Earl of Warwick. “created

25 Dec 1561 Baron Lisle, with the usual remainder to the heirs male of his body

26 Dec 1561 Earl of Warwick, with a special remainder failing heirs male of his body to his brother Sir Robert”

Anyone still interested in this? Lady Meg (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ambrose Dudley, 3rd Earl of Warwick/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: found and fixed two. Also fixed two broken ref links in the references section.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is reasonably well written. I would suggest that if you wish to take this further, to WP:FAC, you brush it up to become excellently well written. Some of the sentences verge on the over-long, they might be better broken up and made plainer.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   On-line sources check out. Assume good faith for off-line, all appear reliable sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Appropriately used, tagged and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Fine. I find that this article satisfactorily meets the GA criteria. The prose could be improved but it is "reasonably well written". Passing as GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Buchraeumer (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! - PKM (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)