Talk:Baron Bergavenny

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

I am not certain this is correct. Bergavenny was originally a barony by tenure, and then separated from the lands. The daughter of the 2nd Marquess did not become co-heirs to the barony, and as far as I know, the current Marquess (6th) is the new Baron Bergavenny. wikibiohistory 15:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The barony by writ of 1397 is presumably in abeyance, if the usual rules apply to it. A barony by tenure presumably depends on the ownership of the lands held by the tenure of being one of the king's (or queen's) barons. However feudal tenures were abolished at the English Restoration. Accordingly an English (or Welsh) barony by tenure can hardly be regarded as more than an honorary position attached to the ownership of land. The question thus probably becomes that of who is the lord of the manor of Abergaveny. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barony by tenure

Should the title not be Baron of Abergavenny or Lord of Abergavenny, not Baron Abergavenny until the barony became a barony by writ? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul

I've massively rewritten the article to explain how things have worked legally. And unless I'm missing something, I don't see how any creation could have fallen into abeyance in 2000: the 5th Marquess was not heir general of the 1st Marquess. Proteus (Talk) 17:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and obviously something will have to be done about the article names of the holders. I don't know what we should do about those who never actually held any of the titles, though: they were de facto Barons Bergavenny, I suppose, but certain not de jure ones. Proteus (Talk) 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd creation

I have a few questions about the 3rd creation of this peerage.

Shouldn't the first holder of that title be the Edward Nevill who died in 1588? This page lists his son, the Edward Nevill who died in 1622.
Shouldn't the heir of Henry Nevill, 9th Baron Bergavenny (actually 3rd earl of the 3rd creation) be his son, John? This page lists someone else. Coemgenus 22:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it probably should. The question about barony by tenure wasn't "resolved" (if you can call it that) until 1604, after the death of the 7th baron, which is probably why he was left off, but it would probably make sense to include him.
No. We're treating the barony of 1604 as created by a writ of summons, hence descending by heirs-general; the heir-general of Henry (d. 1641) was the daughter of his eldest son Sir Thomas Nevill, who predeceased him in 1628 without leaving male issue. Choess (talk) 05:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11th baron de facto

The de facto 11th Baron has no de jure title, although he's the father of the de facto 12th/de jure 1st Baron? Shouldn't the 11th be the 1st of that de jure creation?--78.50.155.156 (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Baron Bergavenny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baron Bergavenny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Nevill, 14th Baron Bergavenny

The above-named is treated as de jure 3rd Baron of the 1695 creation by writ. He died on 15 November 1723. He had posthumous children by Elizabeth, twin girls born on 20 November 1723, both of whom died on 1 December 1723. If he held a barony by writ, which could descend to females, then: -

1. Did it go into 'suspended animation' on his death on 15 November, until the result of his widow's pregnancy became clear?

2. Did it go into abeyance between his daughters on their birth on 20 November?

3. Did the abeyance terminate on the death of the first daughter to die on 1 December?

4. Was the surviving daughter briefly 3rd Baroness of the 1695 creation by writ? Compare Charles Brandon, 3rd Duke of Suffolk who died on the same day as his brother and is counted as having been a duke for an hour.

5. Was the girls' uncle Edward Nevill, 15th Baron Bergavenny 4th Baron of the 1695 creation by writ?

Alekksandr (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]