Talk:Thomas West, 3rd Baron De La Warr
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We really need to discuss the de la warr(e)/West family line at some point.. Rhymeless 07:07, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I see no reason for not explaining why Thomas West, 3rd Baron De La Warr is two centuries after Reginald West, 6th Baron De La Warr, when a single phrase will do it. Please do not delete again without explanation here.Septentrionalis 14:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It's absolutely bloody obvious, that's why. Peerages are recreated all the time, and there's absolutely no way we're sticking "of the xth creation" after the name of every single peer. Proteus (Talk) 14:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I see the point. You may be confusing me with someone else; I'm editing the family of West/De La Warr, not making a general revision.
- In this case, the peerage was recreated in the same family, with the same surname, and there was (at this point) no higher title by which the Barons De La Warr were known. Nor were they distinguishable by local epithet, like the Lords Grey - or I would have added that instead. I think that offers peculiar scope for confusion, and I would oppose adding the phrase under any other conditions.
- I don't intend to add the phrase everywhere the conditions above apply, either; just to some barons in this family. Wikipedia is inconsistent. Good enough? Septentrionalis 15:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- As for its being "absolutely bloody obvious", that is true only if you already know the subject. Since this person is of interest to students of U.S. history who don't know about second creations, some kindness to them seems in order.Robert A West 6 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)