Talk:Marquess of Hertford
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Richard de Clare, 1st Earl of Hertford ???
editHello, from where come from the affirmation that he was 1st Earl of Hertford ? There is no doubt that his son was created as such in 1138 by Stephen, but I can't find any proof for his father. Leigh Rayment's Peerage page agrees with me. Any clue ? Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Reference works such as the Complete Peerage and Magna Carta Ancestry all have his son as 1st Earl. Unless someone has a reliable source I think the line should start with Gilbert. Jeffhomes (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Extinct Marquessate
editI had added this page to the category 'extinct Marquessates'. User:JCO312 then said 'Not sure how a title can both still exist and be extinct'. I feel that this can occur when a previous creation of a title has become extinct, and the title has been re-created. In this case the title held by Marquess_of_Hertford#Marquesses_of_Hertford,_first_creation_(1641) became extinct in 1675, and a separate Marquessate was held by Marquess_of_Hertford#Marquesses_of_Hertford,_second_creation_(1793). I feel that anyone using that category would want to be made aware of the extinct creation of 1641. I therefore propose to reinstate the category.Alekksandr (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think this is problematic. The recreation of a title, to my mind, makes it no longer extinct. Moreover, if we were to follow this logic, the majority of the extant peerages (particularly Dukes and Marquesses) would be both listed as both extant and extinct. I do not believe that was the purpose of the extinct category, which I believe is more appropriate for Duke of Portland, for instance. JCO312 (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think that support for this position is found on the Duke of Cambridge page, which reads, in part, "The title became extinct several times, before being revived after a hiatus of over a hundred years in 2011". Thus, the title is either extinct or extant at any given time, but never both. JCO312 (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- NB that the category to which I had added the page was 'Extinct marquessates in the Peerage of England'. The first Marquessate was created in 1641, in the peerage of England. The second Marquessate was created in 1793, in the peerage of Great Britain. I feel that the fact that the two Marquessates were/are in different peerages is a reason for differentiating them. E.g. both the Duke of Richmond and Lennox and the Earl of Wemyss and March are the Earl of March to-day, in the peerages of England and Scotland respectively.Alekksandr (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. I've added the article back into the extinct English marquessates category. Opera hat (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- NB that the category to which I had added the page was 'Extinct marquessates in the Peerage of England'. The first Marquessate was created in 1641, in the peerage of England. The second Marquessate was created in 1793, in the peerage of Great Britain. I feel that the fact that the two Marquessates were/are in different peerages is a reason for differentiating them. E.g. both the Duke of Richmond and Lennox and the Earl of Wemyss and March are the Earl of March to-day, in the peerages of England and Scotland respectively.Alekksandr (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think that support for this position is found on the Duke of Cambridge page, which reads, in part, "The title became extinct several times, before being revived after a hiatus of over a hundred years in 2011". Thus, the title is either extinct or extant at any given time, but never both. JCO312 (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)