Talk:Christiana Hely-Hutchinson, 1st Baroness Donoughmore

Notability

For a woman to be created a baroness in her own right was surely very unusual then. Certainly not a speedy delete. However more references are needed. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See Earl of Donoughmore, which explains why she was ennobled. Her husband was notable; there is nothing in this article to indicate that the wife was. --Russ (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, her husband was not titled, she was. Suo jure peeresses are notable. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Suo jure peeresses are usually created to honour their late husbands, yet all the rest have wiki articles!--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC) - see [[Category:Hereditary suo jure peeresses]]. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also - her husband died after she did! So why wasn't he titled if it was purely for his recognition? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Clearly not {{speedy}} deletable. I have removed tags. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 10:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute the removal of the speedy tag; it clearly is a matter that is subject to debate. However, I don't think suo jure peeresses, or any other peers for that matter, should be considered ipso facto notable. An article about any peer still needs references and some description of why the person is/was notable. --Russ (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As a suo jure peeress, I presume she would have been entitled to take a seat in the Irish House of Lords. Is that correct? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure on the rules re. women in the Irish Lords. Females weren't allowed into Westminster until 1963. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)