Talk:List of baronies in the Peerage of England

This page has been separated from List_of_hereditary_baronies_in_the_peerages_of_the_British_Isles for length; the two forms of the list had already diverged, as the diff will show. Septentrionalis 17:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Talk:List of hereditary baronies.

Baron Mohun

Baron Mohun seems to be missing. See for example Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun. Fawcett5 20:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Mohun was (specifically) Baron Mohun of Okehampton (which I ~~am about to add!~~ have added). I added the first Mohun; however, I'm not sure what its current status is. The abeyance of Strange was terminated in 1921, but it is unclear to me whether that also applies to Mohun. Ardric47 00:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know if it's possible to become a baron in todays society?--84.217.9.89 2 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)

Nowadays, life peerages are always of baronial rank, created under the Life Peerages Act 1958 and carry with them, presuming the recipient meets qualifications such as age and citizenship, seats in the House of Lords. --Wetman 2 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)

Use of TCP, and a note on the Barony of Musgrave

I currently have checked out from a library vol. IX (1936) of The Complete Peerage. I believe it is widely considered to be the foremost reference on the British Peerage; however, there have obviously been developments since the edition that I have been using.

Concerning the Barony of Musgrave: TCP suggests that it was (at the time of publication) possibly extant de jure but unclaimed. The heir at that time was given as Frederick Millbank(e) Davison-Bland (1854–). A quick internet search turns up almost nothing, though. The most comprehensive information that I could find offhand was at http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=syngeplus&id=DF12 .Ardric47 03:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means fill them in as you find them, we can always fix it later. We know this page is incomplete, and that it's full of errors, so we all just keep poking at it as we find problems. Mackensen (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling/Abeyance

This entry: Baron Botecourt 1305 Somerset extant Held by the Duke of Beaufort should read Baron Botetourt 1305 Somerset abeyant the heirs of Lady Blanche Linnie Somerset.

The Baronies of Botetourt and Herbert both became abeyant on the death of the Henry_Somerset,_10th_Duke_of_Beaufort which I'd noted on that article but did not transpose to this page. Interestingly (well if you like this sort of thing) the Queen terminated the abeyance on the Herbert barony but not the Botetourt barony in 2002. However the holder of that title David John Seyfried-Herbert has a 1/2 share in the remaining abeyant title and the rival claimants (the reason I assume both weren't terminated) have only 1/4 shares which aren't normally sufficient to terminate. All things being equal this title will probably eventually be terminated in his favour if he and/or his heirs continue to persue it.Alci12 12:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abeyance List

This link ([1]) scroll down gives a list of abeyances that don't include some we do and includes many we don't. The source Patrick Cracroft-Brennan (Cracrofts Peerage) is reliable but certainly it leaves me with more questions than answers as to the discrepancies.Alci12 13:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible that we've missed a fair number that exist. What are the ones we include that he doesn't? john k 14:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps it's a matter of inclusion. That list is abeyances so perhaps confirming that our entry Baron Mortimer of Wigmore 1295/de Mortimer/status?/ is considered extinct. Basically a few like that. For Baron Neville de Raby we have an 1295 entry (forfeit) so not listed I guess but we don't have his 1311 Neville.

It does throw up some other issues, take Ap-Adam. We say its Dormant 1310 because the son wasn't summoned. However that's true of plenty of titles but that's not excluded their eventual decent and list in the succession. Cracrofts gives the abeyance date as 1424 which is pretty different. It's hard to decide on what basis we are making these decision apart from the whim of each individual editor.

I'm puzzled why we have as many titles by writ listed as extinct, baring those extinct C13/C14 or so it's nearly impossible to be sure of their status so should probably be listed as Abeyant/extinct or something. I recently amended one title thats 800 years old from No heir to No known heir becuase we haven't a hope of proving the former.Alci12 17:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dormant" should be the term used for titles where it is not clear who the heir is, or if there is one. I also think that if a title is never claimed after the death of a peer, it's fair to say that it's become dormant. The Ap-Adam title, for instance, was not claimed after the death of the first holder in 1310. Thus it became dormant - nobody was recognized as holding the title. The title then became abeyant in 1424 when the male line died out. But maybe that's not an appropriate use of "dormant" - I'm not sure. Part of the problem is that trying to figure out all these 14th century titles by writ is basically trying to apply a modern system anachronistically. The titles weren't seen as hereditary peerages at the time. john k 18:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole things is tricky, I've always considered dormant assumed there is possibly somewhere a 'holder' of the title by right if they could be found. Abeyant assumes multiple heirs who might be able to make a claim.Alci12 18:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO (FWIW), the earliest date at which the peerage lapses (due to dormancy, abeyance, etc.) should go in the "Current status" column (so we know how long it's been since there was a "Baron X"), and further events, i.e., the abeyance or attainder of the dormant line should go in the "Notes" column. The Barony of le Despencer and (IMO) the 2nd Barony of Burghersh make excellent pathological examples for this sort of thing. Choess 03:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bold proposal

Given the discussion here and the general support for moving the article to a more descriptive and accurate title, would anyone object if I moved the article to List of baronies in the peerages of the British Isles with a redirect from List of baronies? I'm going to propose this for the other peerage pages, as well. Fishhead64 20:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grey of/de Rotherfield

In the list, there is the following:

Baron Grey of Rotherfield	1297	Grey	Attainted 1487

But at Rayment Leigh's Peerage Page, there is the following:

"GREY DE ROTHERFIELD

25 Aug 1338 B 1 Sir John de Grey c 1300 1 Sep 1359
Summoned to Parliament as Lord
Grey de Rotherfield 25 Aug 1338
KG 1348

1 Sep 1359 2 John Grey 1320 4 Jun 1375 54

4 Jun 1375 3 Bartholomew Grey 1351 12 Nov 1376 25

12 Nov 1376 4 Robert Grey 14 Jan 1388
to On his death the peerage became dormant
14 Jan 1388"

How could that be? And which information is correct?
VM 07:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth Lord Grey had an only daughter, who, by modern law, inherited the Barony, and transmitted it to her heirs. This was not fourteenth-century usage; her heirs had perfectly good baronies of their own, and were summoned under them. So it went unclaimed = dormant. (In fact, neither the third or fourth "Lord Greys" appear actually to have been summoned either.) Her last heir was Francis Lovell, 1st Viscount Lovell who was attainted after Bosworth and again after Lambert Simnel. Septentrionalis 17:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Parr of Horton

Found this - not here - should it be? Morwen - Talk 17:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's in ODNB; and should be added when we decide whether to split. Septentrionalis 15:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baronies in the Peerage of England, 1066-1263

Title	Date of creation	Created by (monarch)	Surnames	Current status	Notes
Baron Percy	1066	William the Conqueror	(de) Percy	created Earl of Northumberland in 1377	extinct or fallen into abeyance since 1670
Barony of Bedford	?	William Rufus	de Beauchamp, de Brent	Merged to Duke of Bedford in 1138, 1366 or 1414	Forfeit after First Barons' War, and soon after on rebellion against Henry III of England by its holder Faukes de Brent

Paganus de Vilars became the 1st Baron of Warrington 1066 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.77.133 (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These should not be here; they are not Peerages of Parliament, and never were; they are half genealogical figments, and half abuses of the fact that every man who holds direct of the King is a "baron". We cannot list every great tenant from Domesday Book, and should not do so here. Septentrionalis 15:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A modest proposal

Dividing this page into its five obvious subpages: Baronies in the Peerage of England, and so forth, would solve the length problem. We could leave all the present templates in place, and otherwise treat this as a dab. Septentrionalis 15:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye - would be usefull ~~ Phoe _talk 15:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

I see at the top that the lists exist. If there is no protest, I will come back tomorrow, collate, and remove. Better to maintain one list of English baronies than two. I mentioned this at WP:PEER. Septentrionalis 15:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

end copy

Talbot of Richards Castle

Baron Talbot of Richards Castle	1325	Talbot	extinct 1388	??according to Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page not existing??

Here's what I've dug up. A Complete Synopsis of the Peerage of England states that Richard Talbot, who was the brother of Gilbert Talbot, 1st Baron Talbot, married Joan, a daugher and co-heir of Hugh de Mortimer, 1st Baron Mortimer. Mortimer was summoned to parliament in 1299; the title became abeyant in 1304. Richard seems to have inherited the property, but not the title. Mackensen (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Peerage lists this Richard Talbot, who was younger brother of the first Baron Talbot, but asserts his marriage as of 1317. This is one of the boxed articles, which Cokayne used to deny the actual existence of a peerage while giving a genealogy. The dates Mackensen found are for his father-in-law, Baron Mortimer of Richard's Castle. Properly out, I think. Septentrionalis 18:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-categories "Centuries"

I have just made century sub-categories to make searches easier. I hope that it was a good idea.
VM 19:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just a thougth have you forgot lord Bulmer (Bulmer, Baron (E, by writ 1344 - abeyant 1558) Cracrofts peerage; a swede — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.77.133 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

just a thougth have you forgot have you forgot Barons Holand, First Creation (1314) for Robert de Holland, 1st Baron Holand (1290–1328) and Barons Holand, Second Creation (1353) for Thomas Holland, 1st Earl of Kent (d. 1360)married to Joan of Kent a swede — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.46.204 (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Baron of Berkshire"

I removed the alleged "barony of berkshire" from the table. So far as I can tell, it never existed, and the only "source" I can find for it is a rather dubious Google site that appears to be a not-very-elaborate prank.PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert baronies

The Complete Peerage, P207 says that no documents have been found in respect of the supposed creation of Baron Herbert of Ragland, Chepstow and Gower in 1506. I have therefore deleted 'Baron Herbert of Chepstow, Raglan and Gower' (especially as it purports to have been created in 1461) and 'Baron Herbert of Raglan'. Alekksandr (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think should happen with David Seyfried Herbert, 19th Baron Herbert? Emk9 (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is covered in the line "|Baron Herbert||1461||Herbert, Somerset, Seyfried||extant||Held by David Seyfried Herbert, 19th Baron Herbert" - I have just wikified him. Alekksandr (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I thought you had removed all Baron Herbert's from the list, but didn't actually check. Emk9 (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Henry_Somerset,_10th_Duke_of_Beaufort#Family_and_private_life wiki says that "On his death, the baronies of Botetourt and Herbert fell into abeyance between the several descendants of his elder sister". The Complete Peerage, 1st edition, Volume 2, P207 says that the man was summoned to Parliament in 1509 was styled Lord Herbert in right of his wife, the 3rd holder of the 1461 creation. IOW both sources say that the present Duke of Beaufort does not hold the Barony of Herbert of Herbert said to have been created in 1509 [as CP says that it does not exist, and so is not held either by him or by anybody else]. I therefore propose to delete the line "Baron Herbert of Herbert||1509||Somerset||extant - held by the Duke of Beaufort|| " Comments? Alekksandr (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable Emk9 (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - now done.Alekksandr (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Bergavenny

This peerage is currently emboldened. However, it is categorised as 'extant or abeyant'. Its article suggests that has been abeyant since 1938. As I understand it, we only embolden those peerages which are definitely extant. I therefore propose to de-embolden it. Thoughts? Alekksandr (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. Alekksandr (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]