Talk:Baron Grey of Powis

	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.

Numbering

I have altered the numbering to conform to the statement in Dictionary of Welsh Biography that Richard Grey attended Parliament in 1455. Since none of the holders of the title yet has an article, this raises no difficulty. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References and info (Completed)

Neither of the references strongly support the information on this page. One source in particular is doubtful: Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages. The second reference is an article provides family background, but now history of the lords or barons. It seems to me the references should be deleted. --CaroleHenson (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have since altered the article and corrected this.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Baron Grey of Powys (Completed)

This is a duplicate of a shorter Baron Grey of Powys article, with the most questionable reference. --CaroleHenson (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a redirect from Baron Gray of Powys to this article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Grey summoned to Parliment?

In an effort to find reliable sources, I found that the point about John Grey was refuted in Constitutional History of the House of Lords By Luke Owen Pike at url: http://books.google.com/books?id=2L8rawr2zEsC&pg=PA137&dq=1st+Baron+Grey+Powys+OR+Powis&hl=en&ei=fBNWTfuSBpG4sAOStOSiDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

I'm new here, so rather than just deleting this info, I wanted to put it out there for comment until I have a very clear direction as to what can be substantiated here.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaroleHenson (talk • contribs)

The problem with this story is in the exact interpretation of the doctrine of abeyance, and whether we need to apply it to summary articles like this. The legal cases to claim the title in 1584, 1731 and 1800 which are reported in the Jones article cited in the main article illustrate the problem well. John Cherleton was summoned to parliament in 1314 as Lord Cherleton, but after 1370 this title mutated into Lord Cherleton of Powis and the like which started to be used of his heirs. The barony of Cherleton fell into abeyance in 1422, but until John Grey was summoned to Parliament in the 22nd year of Edward IV as Lord Powis nobody was, so strictly the title was still in abeyance. John Grey and Henry Grey assumed the titles of 6th and 7th Lords Powis by reason of descent, but they were never summoned to Parliament as such - so there was no clear resolution of the doctrine of abeyance. Richard Grey sat in Parliament 33nd year of Henry VI, and 1st Edward IV as Lord Powis - but there was no evidence that he was summoned as such, thereby not resolving the abeyance. Did Edward VI create a new title, was the old title left in abeyance, or did it become extinct ? The old title was certainly not Lord Grey of Powis, but it may never have formally even been Lord Powis, only Lord Cherleton, or perhaps Lord Cherleton of Powis. When John Grey was summoned to Parliament 22nd year of Edward IV as Lord Powis the evidence about the order of names in the Role of Letters Close was later used in the 1584 case as evidence to show that this was not a new creation (Lord Gray of Powis), but the calling out of abeyance the previous title of Lord Powis created by Edward II by writ of summons to John Grey since the order gave the precedence to the title due to the earlier foundation and not that appropriate for a new foundation. By the late 19th century, this interpretation was no longer upheld for the purpose of determining the claimant to the title, but if it had been held in the 16th century should that be enough for us for the purpose of the main article - providing an account of how the lands of the ancient Powis princes passed through to the Marcher Lords. -- Michaelwilson (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in that it is not crystal clear how and when the Greys attained the title Baron Grey of Powis. It seemed to me that in the tangle of conflicting information the most clear message was that the Baron Grey title was created for John Grey (great-grandson of Joan Charleton and John Grey). This makes the most sense, too, since there wasn't a Baron Grey for three generations. So, that's why the article starts out saying the title was created for John Grey, 1st Baron Grey of Powis.

I'm new here, thouth, learning as I go and look toward the wisdom of someone who knows better than I.

I hear that there's a "problem with the article". What do you think needs to be done to resolve the problem?

provide background about the conflicting information the title
describe in more detail how the titles went into abeyance
something else?

Thanks so much for your input! It's VERY much appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Style question regarding Wikipedia links

I see that multiple links to Wikipedia articles were added to the article (e.g., Edward Charleton, John Grey, 1st Earl of Tankerville). I thought that the WP link was used once, at the first instance - rather than multiple times throughout an article. Is that a personal style choice? Or, is it WP standard practice to provide links at every instance of an individual's name within the article? Thanks!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]