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 within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As of the date of this Talk comment, this article says that when the subject of this article died the title "Earl of Oxford" went extinct. There is evidence that it is dormant, not extinct. The Wikipedia article on "Earl of Oxford" consistently says it's dormant, not extinct. Further, two subsequently-created Earldoms convey a strong impression that the Crown has never been certain that there are no descendants (male-line if need be) of the 1st Earl of Oxford who might make a successful claim to the title. There are two many records of births to check, for centuries, to know for sure that the 1st Earl of Oxford doesn't have a descendant living today who meets the requirements of the original grant (and there are unusual cases where the title can descend not just from the original grantee, but from that original grantee's siblings (usually only brothers), or father, etc.. It all depends on the language in the original grant. If the Crown had ever gotten it nailed down beyond doubt that the title "Earl of Oxford" really was extinct (no living person met the requirements to inherit it), then the Crown would have re-created the title instead of creating "Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer" (which is ONE Earldom) and "Earl of Oxford and Asquith" (which is also ONE Earldom). The non-exact match of names was chosen because if the Crown ever created a person "First Earl of Oxford, 2nd Creation", and if after that someone came forward and succeeded in proving claim to the title of the First Earl of the First creation, then there would be two people called "Earl of Oxford" at the same time. The Crown doesn't like it when that happens and would like to avoid it (as was the case with "Earl of Mar", two of which exist, despite the fact that the Crown didn't like such a duplicate).2603:7000:9906:A91C:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Christopher L. SimpsonReply
.svg)
