Talk:Lord Hume of Berwick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the patent for creation exists then it must be clear from which great seal is used and/or any writ of summons as to which peerage it was. If the patent was lost before any claim or reality of non standard decent English peerage law assumes heirs male and the case law for Scottish claims before the House of Lords is that if they don't have a remainder, without prior non standard succession, they tend to leave the title dormant.(see Glencairn) Did the daughter or her husband seek to made good the claim to the title or sought summons. Did their son sit in either parliament after his mother's death an before he gained the earldom? I can't find any good source that has this title as held Alci12 16:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, now back to the fun at talk Stirling (I still can't work out how his posts are within the rules) Do you have any info on the remainder for 'Lord Hume of Berwick'? Alci12 11:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The LG Issue 11665 [1] published on the 11 May 1776 says: - The King has also been pleased to grant the Dignity of a Baron of the Kingdom of Great Britain unto the following Gentlemen, and their Heirs Male; viz. Alexander Hume Campbell, .Esq; commonly called Lord Polwarth, by the Name, Stile, and Title of Baron Hume of Berwick. - I hope, this is what you are looking for. ~~ Phoe _talk 15:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

Please look at Debretts, a pretty standard modern source - as cited on discussion page. If you're interested I can email you correspondence from the Lord Lyon on this peerage. I can't think how else to reference it.Christina Kaye 20:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that neither Lord Lyon nor Debrett's are legal authorities on such matters, and the fact that they think someone should be entitled to a peerage doesn't automatically make it so. The House of Lords is the only body with authority to decide such matters. To take two other examples, it's pretty much universally accepted that Lord Willoughby de Broke also holds the Barony of Latimer, but the House of Lords hasn't confirmed it and so the title is not used and we mark it as de jure, and likewise everyone knows that Lord Mountgarret is almost certainly the heir to the Earldoms of Ormonde and Ossory and yet the claim hasn't yet been admitted and so he's still a Viscount. To take a more Scottish example (one concerning a subsidiary Lordship of Parliament, no less), the 3rd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos had to go to the House of Lords to confirm his right to the Lordship of Kinloss, and that was a much more straightforward case than this. Proteus (Talk) 23:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Edmund Lodge, Norroy King of Arms does not include it in the titles and creations he lists for the Earl of Home, nor does Burke's Peerage, the mammoth 105th edition of 1970, edited by Peter Townend who was held in very high regard in this field. Burke's Family Index (London 1976) cites it as "Dormant and Extinct". The Lord Lyon would not pronounce on an English baronage. I am entirely unsatisfied with the assertions Christina Kaye makes. David Lauder 13:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your reversion making this a Lordship of the Scottish Parliament. What is your evidence? He was gazetted an English Baron. Berwick is in England. The lists of the Lords of Parliament in Douglas don't have him. How can you make such a reversion without proof? David Lauder 15:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can be certain what should be there at the moment. My feeling is that this being the case and absent sources we should AFD the page in question and move the discussion about this lordship/barony to the earldom talk page. PS Fwiw it looks as though the Official Roll of the Peerage may be available online in the near future. Alci12 15:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. David Lauder 16:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Me again. I have dug out the booklet by the Reverend J Kirk, M.C.,C.F., (Minister of Dunbar Parish Church 1913-18) entitled George Home, Earl of Dunbar (published by R & R Clark Ltd., Edinburgh, 1918). Rev.Kirk made something of an intense study of Home. He states (p.6) "in 1599 he was Sheriff of Berwick-upon-Tweed". On page 8 he continues: "on 7 July 1604 he was created an English peer of the realm with the title of Baron Home of Berwick, one of the titles appearing on his monument" (in Dunbar church). "In the charter (Letters Patent) of his peerage he was given the privilege of nominating to the King any kinsman or relation to bear and transmit to his heirs the title of Baron of Berwick, but he never exercised that power. On page 32: "at Berwick-upon-Tweed he had been building what was described as 'a sumptuous and glorious palace' which was due to be finished and opened by a great 'house-heating' on Saint George's Day, April 23, 1611", but he died before then. David Lauder 18:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course neither monuments nor accounts by vicars are exactly 'proof'. Though they tend to suggest that whatever the facts they believed it an English title and that the vicar believed that to be the remainder Alci12 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a published source by a credible author. I have already demonstrated, I believe, that other competent authors believe it extinct. All this argument yet no-one appears to have given credible sources better than mine. David Lauder 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Vicars are not generally experts on peerage law and so I don't think that source is compelling. The balance of evidence from the usual peerage publications seems to be not strong enough in favour of the title being held (only Debretts has been cited in favour) and that we ought leave it that other than with further evidence that it is not presently held and is probably extinct. Beyond that I remain to be convinced. Alci12 12:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel bound to say that your/my opinion here does not really count. Articles are supposed to be as far as possible sourced. The assertions and opinions in these articles were just that. I provided a very credible source by a learned scholar, who I feel you rather ridicule by referring to him as you have, and Debretts were not "in favour" but rather venturing an opinion. This afternoon I found another,earlier, reference, by William Anderson (The Scottish Nation, Edinburgh, 1867, volume IV), where he states in a large section on page 75: "Dunbar, Earl of, a title in the Scottish peerage, revived in the person of George Home, third son of Alexander Home of Manderston.......In 1603 he attended King James to London on his accession to the English throne, and on 7th July 1604 was sworn a Privy Councillor of England, and created a Peer of that kingdom by the title of Baron Home of Berwick." David Lauder 19:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you mean do I prefer to see citations from professional peerage sources over people whose expertise in that area is not clear then yes I certainly do and indeed wiki expects us to assess sources. Simply because there is a source(s) does not make it an accurate source (we could all go to the BBC news website now and easily find peers given the wrong title). Though I see no reason not to give the details of the title and its extinction I do feel that as we don't have a primary source establishing the above details that a note should be added to the article explaining that the details are unclear/disputed or some such wording. I don't think the title needs it's own article but can perfectly well be included in the Earldom page alone with the note there.

Can both possibilities not be included with sources and any views. E.g. Critics think ... - Kittybrewster 19:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I would never regard a journalist as a primary source, ever, especially from the BBC. I have, however, provided two good academic sources (more than anyone else has so far provided). Whilst they may not be experts in peerage law, they are both nevertheless highly regarded as scholars, Anderson in particular is a highly regarded biographer. At the moment we have no other sources at all and "disputes" must at least be supported by another verifiable source before they are flagged up on an article page. Otherwise someone's personal opinions are appearing as possible fact without an ounce of credibility. I agree with you that the Berwick peerage should not be on a page of its own but should be merged into the Earldom page. David Lauder 13:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well this article is spread over rather too many pages but I understood Proteus was asserting that Cracrofts called it dormant, Christina that Debrettes regarded it as extinct. That both (one by calling it dormant ie an heir may exist) the other by their comments of Home's possible claim imply a non standard remainder. So it still seems to me that they are sources in dispute. Alci12 14:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Correction - I didn't cite Debrett's as saying the barony was extinct. On the contrary the 1973 edition says that the barony is held by the Earls of Home. I'm sorry, I haven't got a more up to date version, but no doubt someone can check this Christina Kaye 16:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry trying to re read too quickly I took the Lord Hume of Berwick page on succession as having been all your edit :'Generally regarded as extinct, P. Montague-Smith, editor of Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage' So are you saying the '73 version has it extant, the '79 version (dormant?) but with Home having a claim, or de jure having no made a claim for both? Alci12 16:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No you did not say it was extinct. You are arguing to the contrary and, I suggest, wrongly. Lodge does not list the barony in the Earl of Home stable, and Reverend Kirk and Burkes state it is extinct. A claim has not been before the Committee of Privieges for it. So what the then editor of Debretts bases his opinion on heavens only knows. I shall find a copy of that opinion but you originally said it was in the 1979 edition. Which is it? David Lauder 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi David. I’ll check the edition of Debrett’s next time I’m in the reading room. I’m happy with the consensus as it stands in the article though. And while the question of the remainder is fascinating (to some of us), Wikipedia probably shouldn’t be the place to try and resolve it, as original research would be needed. If anyone wants me to email them the letter I received from Lyon about this, please leave a message on my talk page. The only thing that might need some attention for disambiguation purposes is the Polwarth version of the peerage, as mentioned by Phoe above. I have no sources on this. Proteus? Christina Kaye 19:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to write to Debretts (David Williamson is now dead) to ask if they actually had sight of the Letters Patent otherwise I would find it hard to accept their assertion. It would effectively mean that his eldest daughter had a fundamental right to call herself and be referred to in all legal documents as Baroness or Lady Home of Berwick. But in fact there is not one document - notably her Testament - that I can find that refers to them as such. Merely as his daughters with the honorific 'Lady' because they were daughters of an Earl. In addition, Debretts cannot settle these issues. Did Alec Douglas-Home make a claim in The House for that Peerage to be added to his stable? Because that seems to be what they're saying. Frankly I would treat such a suggestion with disbelief. David Lauder 17:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)