Talk:Giles Daubeney, 1st Baron Daubeney

Wrong title

According to the ODNB, Giles Daubeny was the 1st Baron Daubeny http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/7185/—Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs) 22 October 2009

What about the numerous ones that proceeded him (listed here: Baron Daubeny)? There are a couple named Giles. Do they appear in the ODNB? Do the earlier ones have a different title (like "lord" or something)? How are their surnames spelt: Daubeny or Daubeney? Maybe you could do a quick clean-up of the lists at Baron Daubeny and Earl of Bridgewater, with the ODNB article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

According to ODNB, his ancestors were knights, not barons. I can find no reference in ODNB to previous barons Daubeny. DuncanHill (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, if the ODNB doesn't list them, then i guess they ought to be removed from the list. The Earl of Bridgewater article lists previous 'barons', though also names them 'lords' and 'barons' within the text. "The Daubeney family descended from Elias Daubeny, who in 1295 was summoned by writ to the Model Parliament as Lord Daubeny. The eighth Baron was created Baron Daubeny by letters patent in the Peerage of England in 1486 and was also made a Knight of the Garter the following year".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• So the situation we have is: The article title calls him the 8th Baron, 2) the article text calls him the 6th Baron, and 3) ODNB says he was the 1st Baron. I'm inclined to request deletion on the grounds of being hopelessly confused. DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The other article is causing some more confusion (see: Talk:Giles Daubeney, 6th Baron Daubeney). What I think we should do is rename that one, remove the 'baron' part from the title, and disambig him with a date or something. The ODNB is the better source. I noticed that the The Complete Peerage (read online here) lists this Giles (d.1508) as both the 1st and 10th baron. And for the 'first' 1st baron (Elis d.1305) (p95), it notes that "he is held to have become LORD DAUBENEY". Maybe it's one of these debatable things, where titles are up in the air, and the speculation was/is that an ancestor was a baron (Elis d.1305), and that this right passed down through his descendants, but one of these descendants (Giles d.1508) (p100) was actually the first of the family to be undoubtedly granted such a title. Something like that. The whole list of barons before Giles 1508, could be out-dated, maybe the current view is they weren't barons. Maybe the list at Baron Daubeny should be removed and we should start with this baron. I think maybe we should do that, and follow the most recent and reliable source.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)