Talk:Earl of Lucan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

To say the title only became notorious in 1974 ignores the Charge of the Light Brigade does it not?--Darrelljon 16:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with calling the Earl of Lucan "Lord Lucan"? I thought it was only dukes who weren't also called "Lord Foo". (At least, that's what the Earl of Bradford says on his site.) Marnanel 19:18, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's correct. It's superfluous. It's like saying John Smith (colloquially known as Mr Smith). Mintguy (T) 19:36, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's certainly not superflous, as the Google hits to which I referred indicate. Andy Mabbett 19:37, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What has Google hits got to do with anything with respect to this? ???

It's a measure of colloqquial use of the phrase. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Andy Mabbett 19:46, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear Andy Mabbett (who is colloquially knwon as Mr Mabbett) That is not the issue. Mintguy (T) 19:55, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re Lord Lucan, please see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage#Commonly_known_as_Lord_... Mintguy (T) 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's as may be; but Lucan is apsecial case, given the press and public's interest in his disappearance. See also Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan. Furthermore, I note that your first removal of this fact was undeclared, and done under the guise of a "minor" edit.Andy Mabbett 19:46, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It was a rollback. Mintguy (T) 19:51, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ALL of the Earls of Lucan were commonly known as Lord Lucan. All Earls with a few exceptions are commonly known Lord Whatever. There is NOTHING special about Lord Lucan any more than there is about any other peer who has received media attention at any time. Please see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage#Commonly_known_as_Lord_... for the current view on this. If you want to discuss this issue please discuss it on the Project talk page. In the meantime please revert this page. My 3 reverts for the day are up. Mintguy (T) 19:50, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Certianly not; not least because no such policy is mandated at that page. Note also that I used "colloquially", not "commonly". Andy Mabbett 19:59, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Colloquial \Col*lo"qui*al\, a. [See Colloqui.] Pertaining to, or used in, conversation, esp. common and familiar conversation; conversational; hence, unstudied; informal; as, colloquial intercourse; colloquial phrases; a colloquial style. -- Col*lo\"qui*al*ly, adv.

So, you agree that he IS colloquially called Lord Lucan. Good, now perhaps you'll stop trying to remove mention of this encyclopedic fact. Andy Mabbett 20:04, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Do you therefore intend to add the redundant phrase to every article about every peer except dukes? Mintguy (T)

"Colloquially known as Lord Lucan" is decidedly redundant. A better way to make the point would be to have two sentences, the first reference giving the full form, and subsequent ones being to "Lord Lucan"; the reader should then understand that the two terms refer to the same individual. -- Emsworth 20:26, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

I've replaced "7th Earl" with "Lord Lucan," so, one hopes, the issue is resolved. -- Emsworth 20:27, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

I believe Lord Lucan was officially declared dead in 1999

[edit] Is there an 8th Earl of Lucan?

The Times (of London) today contained the sentence 'Lady Lucan said of her son, who has taken his father?s title but does not use it....'. This implies that her son, George Bingham is officially the 8th Earl. Is this true? And what evidence supports the article's assertion that the Earldom hasn't passed to George Bingham?

I also note that the Dowager Lady Lucan's website [1] states:

In late 1998 my son applied for a writ of summons to take his father's Seat in the House of Lords but this was not authorised by the Lord Chancellor.

He did not apply to use his father's title. He automatically became 8th Earl of Lucan when his father was presumed deceased in 1992 but chose not to use the title. No one else has a claim to it. He is the 7th Earl of Lucan's only son and heir.

Probate was granted on 11th August 1999 in the same way it is for anyone who has made a Will. The Grant issued by the High Court of Justice read:

BE IT KNOWN that the Right Honourable RICHARD JOHN BINGHAM 7th Earl of Lucan of 72a Elizabeth Street London SW1 died on or since the 8th day of November 1974. (The net value of his estate amounted to £14,709.)

jguk 10:59, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He's still Lord Bingham. He needs a death certificate to inherit the title, and one hasn't been issued. Lady Lucan is wrong (and, if she calls herself "The Dowager Lady Lucan", is also in need of a copy of Debrett's Correct Form). Proteus (Talk) 11:11, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does Debrett's (or some other guide) have a brief comment on the 8th? Earl that you could quote or provide a URL to? Or, indeed, that confirms your statement that he needs a death certificate to take the title? (It's just I can't seem to find anything specific one way or another online.) And also, is there some official state body that rules on such matters? jguk 11:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cracroft's Peerage (up to date as of about 2 weeks ago) still has the 7th Earl as the incumbent (and has a note saying "the 7th Earl of Lucan disappeared 7 Nov 1974 and has not been seen since") and his son as "Hon George Charles Bingham, styled Lord Bingham". The Debrett's reference was to the fact that if she were a Dowager she'd be "The Dowager Countess of Lucan" (referred to informally as "Lady Lucan"). "The Dowager Lady Lucan" is the style of a widowed Baroness. The House of Lords is the final authority on such matters (well, except The Queen, of course), and it has so far refused to recognise Lord Bingham as Earl of Lucan (see this BBC News story from 1999). Proteus (Talk) 11:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I must admit I'm almost tempted to add Lord Bingham as de facto 8th Earl. The HofL ruling seems peverse, past deaths of peers in air crashes and shipwrecks have resulted in normal succession and the issuing of a writ without a body and without in some instances even a court ruling to confirm the death. Other than waiting till the 7th Earl would be >118 (or whatver the longest lived human is now) I struggle to see how this would be ever proven to the satifaction of the HofL.Alci12 16:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think a specific decision could be made in this case as disappearing peers seeme to be even less common than 100 year old ones (Manny Shinwell and Lord Denning are perhaps the best known of a mere handful).

Slightly changing the question. Did Tony Benn's renunciation of the peerage include his heirs - and if not would Hillary Benn become the de facto 3rd Viscount: if semi-permanent would, in due course, an heir of the first Viscount be able to ask for the in abeyance title to be restored (and if so, which number viscount would they be)? Jackiespeel 17:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Title was disclaimed - it's not abeyant - you can only renounce for yourself and in due course TBs eldest son will inherit Alci12 16:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title issue.

This is a mess:

"Patrick Sarsfield's great nephew, Charles Bingham had the title restored in 1795. Due to the long period in which the title was in abeyance, and because legal questions had existed over whether James II was still king when awarding the title"

Either the original title was granted lawfully and that grant exists (it passed the great seal and a copy presumably still held) or a new grant was issued and that grant must exist. How was the title 'restored', if it was, a writ granted in the heirs favour to attend parliment? We ought to be able to answer these qustions and the present is not clear and seems confused. Alci12 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)