Talk:Marquess of Bristol

pronouns and generations

I would query the last sentence, but quote the paragraph here for ease of reference:

Lord Bristol was succeeded in turn by three of his grandsons, all brothers. The second Earl was the eldest son of Lord Hervey and held political office as Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland and Lord Privy Seal. He died unmarried and was succeeded by his younger brother, the third Earl. He was a Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy and also served as Chief Secretary for Ireland from 1766 to 1767. He died without legitimate issue and was succeeded by his younger brother, the fourth Earl. Known as the "Earl-Bishop", he was a clergyman and served as Bishop of Cloyne from 1767 to 1768 and as Bishop of Derry from 1768 to 1803. In 1799 he became the fifth Baron Howard de Walden when the abeyance of this peerage was terminated. Lord Bristol married Elizabeth, sister and heir of Sir Charles Davers, 5th Baronet (c. 1730-1763), and great-granddaughter of Thomas Jermyn, 2nd Baron Jermyn (see the Baron Jermyn). His second son, John Augustus Hervey, Lord Hervey, was a Captain in the Royal Navy and also served as ambassador to Florence. He predeceased his father. His daughter the Hon. Elizabeth Catherine Caroline Hervey (1780-1803) married Charles Ellis, later first Baron Seaford. Their son Charles succeeded as sixth Baron Howard of Walden on the death of his great-grandfather, Lord Bristol, in 1803 (see Baron Howard de Walden and Baron Seaford).

The last Charles mentioned was the son of the Hon Elizabeth. The grammar of all the previous paragraphs suggests that in "his daughter the Hon Eliz", the his refers to the earl in question. So if she is the daughter of Lord Bristol, her son is his grandson -- not great-grandson. Either way, the paragraph needs to be made more clear. BrainyBabe 19:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

attempts to obtain photos

I've attempted several times to email Ickworth House at ickworth@nationaltrust.org.uk but I kept receiving error messages. I was asking for photos of any and all of the Marquesses to use in their articles, but after trying twice on one address, and once on another, I kept receiving the same error message saying delivery had failed. Perhaps the email address is inaccurate, but it was the one given on the website. I've sent another email to enquiries@thenationaltrust.org.uk and it seems to have gone through. Jonjames1986 13:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Heirs apparent

Last night I added to the article three heirs-apparent to the titles, who predecesaed the holder of the title. Some one officously removed these. I have no wish to list every peer's heir who predeceased the holder. However all those named were people I came across in providing a list of MPs for Bury St Edmunds (UK Parliament constituency), which has hitherto been missing. All of them sat for that constituency, though only one has an article so far. Nevertheless, the consensus is that all MPs are notable. Articles, such as this, provide a convenient means of linking such people into an article on the family. I set them in because they were only heirs apparent. I raised on an approproate portal the possiblilty of adding notable ancestors of baronets and peers to peerage articles, and was encourage to do so. What I did (albeit with one person in the wrong place) was soemthing similar, which I have done on some other peerage article without objection. Please do not revert other people's work (if it is not rubbish), just because you do not like it. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand the lists of Barons, Earls and Marquesses as they are provided in this article as "listings of actual peerage title holders" only (i.e. from the sole perspective of peerage law, regardless of whether such a peer was historically relevant or not) and this is why I removed the heirs from these sections. I find this even more appropriate as most of them do not even have an article of their own. However, I fully agree with you that MPs are notable. Also I must say that a specific list of MPs for any current or former constituency would be desirable. In order to retain all the information you have provided while keeping the lists of Barons, Earls and Marquesses "restriced" to actual title holders, I suggest that we create an entire own section of "Herveys as Members of Parliament" which could then focus on their long service as MPs for Bury St Edmunds. What do you think about this? Anyways thank you for your contributions. Cyan22 (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What you are suggesting represents a large problem. One case that I had in mind (but could not think of) was John Manners, Marquess of Granby, a notable British general, who would have succeeded his father as Duke of Rutland if he had lived long enough. I think I was responsible for his addition to the list of dukes, and this has not been questioned. The question of service as MPs is closely related to that of rotten boroughs. This question has only just come up in the case of Bury St Edmunds, becasue the MPs list was missing until a few days ago. The usual practice has been to note other notable members of the family in the textual preamble to the lists, and I would suggest any missing form there might be added, but this may make tedious reading because there were so many of them. I think there is another Hervey family article, possibly "House of Hervey" (which I have not exmained and cannot now find), but ought to list them all. For many surnames there is a disambiguation page listing people with that surname (which would also cover what you have in mind), but I cannot find one: Hervey, where I would expect it to be is currently a redirect to something else (but perhpas should not be. My real object in doing this, was that when I find an allusion to the Marquess of Bristol in another article, I look at the peerage article to find the precise spelling of the article on that person, or the redlink to a potential article, so as to link it. However, if I come across a reference to "Lord Hervey" and looked for him (under Baron Hervey), I would either be redirected or find a link to this article, and would struggle to find the right person, possibly the 2nd baron (who had the writ of acceleration), but it might also be the one who was a naval captain, the elder brother of the 1st Marquess, and not an MP; I have seen the latter referred to in naval histories.

I observe that you are a fairly new user. WP needs all the constructive editors that it can get, so that I do not want to discourage you, but it is wise to be wary of undoing good faith additions by others without discussion, except where they are clearly wrong or irrelevant, rather than merely apparently impolitic. I am sorry that this does not provide an obvious way ahead. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(three years later!) I've made a disambiguation page for Hervey in place of the redirect. Stanning (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Earldom of Bristol

@Curb Safe Charmer: @Rcb1: @Alekksandr: @ThePeerageEditor: Earlier you said you'd provide a source stating that Daniel M. R. Johnsen-Aitken R is the Earl of Bristol from the first creation, though on other pages you're saying they are the Earl by the second creation. Can you provide those sources? I've looked and can't find anything, every source I've found says the first creation is extinct and Frederick Hervey, 8th Marquess of Bristol is the holder of the second earldom, like [1]. I can't even find an obituary for Norbert R. R. Johnsen-Aitken. Also, can you explain why you are removing Frederick Hervey from the infobox on this page? Notifying some regular peerage editors for input. Emk9 (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Earl_of_Bristol, sub-heading 'Extinction of the first creation'. Please add any response there. Alekksandr (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)