Talk:Baron Churchill (1815 creation)

Untitled

Can any1 find an heir for this title? I believe the viscountcy will be come extinct but the barony will devolve to distant cousinAlci12

No, I couldn't find an heir either. I think the viscountcy will become extincy and the baronetcy will then pass to the present viscount's cousin, Richard Harry Ramsay Spencer (who is now 79 years old). Craigy

(talk) 12:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you mean "barony", not "baronetcy", but that is correct — the Viscountcy has no heirs. Proteus (Talk) 20:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, barony <insert shameful face clipart here>. Craigy

(talk) 00:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does Richard Harry Ramsay Spencer have any sons? And are there any other potential heirs? Proteus (Talk) 20:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this subject on thePeerage? Then - yes, he has two sons, first Michael Richard de Charrière Spencer, born 1960 and second David Anthony Spencer, born 1970. Furthermore he has a younger brother Charles Geoffrey Spencer, born 1928 and childless. They descend all from the third son of the 1st Baron. There are also descendants from the forth son: John William James Spencer and his two sons; and a descendant from the sixth son: Philip Henry Spencer. ~~ Phoe _talk 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Thanks. The Barony looks quite safe, in that case. Proteus (Talk) 21:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Baron Churchill (1815 creation). Jenks24 (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viscount Churchill → Baron Churchill – The viscountcy became extinct on the death of the third Viscount on 18 October 2017, but the barony remains extant. According to WP:PEER, extant peerage title should be as the article name. Editor FIN (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page "Baron Churchill" already exists. There are two ways to solve this situation: to expand existing "Baron Churchill" and use it as main page for this title or to name this page "Baron Churchill of Whichwood" GorgonaJS (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, it's better to merge both pages and add more information about previous creations of the barony GorgonaJS (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per GorgonaJS --New Progressive (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merging, because the other Baron Churchill and Lord Churchill titles are subsidiary titles of Duke of Marlborough and are and should under WP:PEER be covered by the dukedom's article. I suggest moving this Viscount Churchill article to Baron Churchill with a hatnote for other Churchill titles. --Editor FIN (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Culloden is also a subsidiary title, but it has his own page with information about this title's creations and links to main titles. GorgonaJS (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Culloden has been a subsidiary title of two different dukedoms. All holders of the other Churchill titles have been Dukes of Marlborough and I also doubt that those titles should or could be considered as different titles than this barony as those titles are extant at the same time than this one. Maybe there could – in addition to a hatnote – be a short mention of those titles in the text of this article. --Editor FIN (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the current disambiguation page Baron Churchill should be deleted to make way for the move. --Editor FIN (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT a "subsidiary title" of the Dukedom of Marlborough---that means a lesser title held by the Duke.It is a title held in its own right by a kinsman who happens to be in remainder to the Dukedom.There is a need to mention both the barony that is now an independent title and the other baronies.I'd say move "Baron Churchill" to "Baron Churchill(disambiguation" and then move the "Viscount" article to "Baron Churchill" with an intro note about the disambig page.12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This barony of Churchill is not a subsidiary title of Duke of Marlborough, but the other Churchill titles are. --Editor FIN (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree on moving the disambiguation page Baron Churchill to Baron Churchill (disambiguation). --Editor FIN (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to create additional pages. See as an example Baron Rivers page. It's enough to add links to main title without lists of titleholders (the dukes).193.34.85.35 (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been a suggestion to create a page more as the disambiguation page is already existing. --Editor FIN (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Despite what the nominator's rationale implies, WP:PEER is not a naming convention. Is this scenario covered anywhere in official naming conventions, or even in informal ones developed by the WikiProject? This is a complex and esoteric field and we often (rightly IMO) defer to the WikiProject. But the above discussion doesn't seem to me likely to lead to consensus to move, and is of little general interest. I considered relisting, but on reflection ~~I'm intending to close as no consensus in a day or so and~~ suggest that those interested discuss the general issues at the WikiProject, and come back with a move proposal if appropriate. That's unless there is something I'm missing, comments very welcome. Andrewa (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As it's been relisted I'll of course hold off for the relisting period.
- Still interested in any relevant guidelines or conventions however informal. Andrewa (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Baron Churchill (1815 creation) There seems to be a lot of confusion in this discussion both about what's being proposed and about the titles. Part of the problem is that there are two "Baron Churchill" titles held by different branches of the same family without the usual disambiguation built into titles themselves (the 1815 title really should have been "Baron Churchill of Somewhere" but it wasn't created as that). It's standard for articles to focus on the current existing peerages with extinct ones that fully overlapped to be listed on the same page so this move would be absolutely standard. Restructuring the disambiguation page or using an inaccurate title like "Baron Churchill of Whichwood" is just going to be messy. Timrollpickering 16:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the proposal of Timrollpickering. --Editor FIN (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.