Talk:Baron of Dunsany
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the priority scale. | |
 |
An image is requested for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the image-needed parameter once the image is added. | |
Baronies and Lordships of Parliament that were originally created as "Baron of X" or "Lord of X" are now never referred to with the definite article. Proteus (Talk) 16:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Cokayne quotes 15th-century documents as saying Dns. de Dunsany butLord Dunsany is from 1585, and is COkayne;s own usage, as far as I can see. Is there some confusion with the first grantee haveing been "Christopher Plunkett, of Dunsany"? Septentrionalis 22:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
More seriously, Cokayne says that the precedence usually assigned is next after Trimlestown (cr. 4 March 1461/2 and extant), and cites no earlier evidence. What's the source for 1439? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh. This article depends on Debrett's: a notoriously unreliable tertiary source. I'm whelmed. Fifteenth century Ireland is a difficult topic, very little data having survived; but let us not charge blindly into error. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- So, to summarise, there is a dispute over (a) whether this is the 2nd oldest or 3rd oldest title, and in the background (not relevant to this article) (b) whether Debrett's, one of the main sources for this type of information, is reliable enough. One point is not enough to put an "Accuracy" tag on the article as a whole. And questionable as a whole, as this material aligns exactly with the family's own account, plus the book "The Story of Dunsany Castle", written by someone with access to family papers. I will add the latter citation, and am removing the tag, or at most querying only the point about "2nd oldest". SeoR 08:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Doubtless using Debrett; although the family's claim should be mentioned. The leap to the conclusion that the family has papers from 1461 is quite long (especially given the Irish climate). If they say so, of course, that's a different matter; but I don't recall they do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- So, to summarise, there is a dispute over (a) whether this is the 2nd oldest or 3rd oldest title, and in the background (not relevant to this article) (b) whether Debrett's, one of the main sources for this type of information, is reliable enough. One point is not enough to put an "Accuracy" tag on the article as a whole. And questionable as a whole, as this material aligns exactly with the family's own account, plus the book "The Story of Dunsany Castle", written by someone with access to family papers. I will add the latter citation, and am removing the tag, or at most querying only the point about "2nd oldest". SeoR 08:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Noted. I did not say that the source of "The Story of Dunsany Castle" comprised papers from 1461 - only that the book's authors had access to the family and their documentation. My broader issue is that there are three major sources of peerage data, and this question arises because of an assertion that Debrett's, probably the best known of these, is "notoriously unreliable." This assertion is not mentioned in the (long) Debrett's WP article. At the end of the day, the disputed point is not exactly a critical matter, but is there an implication that Debrett's should not be used as a source at all? SeoR 10:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, merely that it should not be relied upon when contested. It has the usual problems of a tertiary source: it was compiled from secondary sources, largely by a staff not themselves experts in the subject at hand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Noted. I did not say that the source of "The Story of Dunsany Castle" comprised papers from 1461 - only that the book's authors had access to the family and their documentation. My broader issue is that there are three major sources of peerage data, and this question arises because of an assertion that Debrett's, probably the best known of these, is "notoriously unreliable." This assertion is not mentioned in the (long) Debrett's WP article. At the end of the day, the disputed point is not exactly a critical matter, but is there an implication that Debrett's should not be used as a source at all? SeoR 10:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Intro
The lead needs to be phrased with care. There are three reasons why Dunsany is not the second oldest peerage in Ireland.
- There are older Earldoms, some of which existed before there was an Irish Parliament at all.
- There were a dozen baronies in the fifteenth century; many of them still exist, but the barons have been promoted to a higher title; some of these are older than Dunsany. For example, the Baron of Killeen is now also Earl of Fingal.
- The question of order among the three which remain only baronies: Kingsale, Trimlestown, and Dunsany. This is the least decidable, and probably the least important, question. (If the Irish Peerage were ever likely to meet again, this might be different.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. My point was that it is the x oldest extant - there are no others left - Killeen / Fingall, for example being extinct since the 1980's. SeoR 18:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's what I get for not checking Cokayne's 1994 Supplement. Make the example Baron Kerry, which is attested from 1295, and is now held by the Marquess of Lansdowne. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- May as well join, for clarity. So, "The Complete Peerage", in a modern update, has more to offer. Fair enough, as I have seen errors alleged in all three "Peerages". And as someone said early on, there is a murky period of history here. The above is interesting, and I wonder why Kerry has been missed in the Peerage of Ireland article. Can I suggest a slight rewording to end this debate, as, as SeoR said, this is not a crucial point... Skir77 05:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Because the Marquess of Lansdowne is one Peer, although he holds half-a-dozen titles. (Almost all peers of greater rank hold a barony; when the family did not hold one when given a viscounty or an earldom, one was created for the purpose.) For all Irish baronies, see List of Baronies in the Peerage of Ireland. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- May as well join, for clarity. So, "The Complete Peerage", in a modern update, has more to offer. Fair enough, as I have seen errors alleged in all three "Peerages". And as someone said early on, there is a murky period of history here. The above is interesting, and I wonder why Kerry has been missed in the Peerage of Ireland article. Can I suggest a slight rewording to end this debate, as, as SeoR said, this is not a crucial point... Skir77 05:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Grand. I will, when I have a chance, see if I can find more on this, but my main focus on Dunsany is elsewhere. It has been informative, and I will be more cautious around Debrett's in future. How does the third source (Burke's, I assume) rate? SeoR 09:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Somewhat worse that Debrett's, I believe; it has the same systemic flaws. For what it's worth, the Complete Peerage is distinctly opinionated; but they are at least informed opinions. (Also, CP has room to explain "maybe A, maybe B, possibly C"; it's in fourteen volumes, not one.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Grand. I will, when I have a chance, see if I can find more on this, but my main focus on Dunsany is elsewhere. It has been informative, and I will be more cautious around Debrett's in future. How does the third source (Burke's, I assume) rate? SeoR 09:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Complete set
Would someone be willing to take on the completion of articles, at least on some of the more recent holders? Surely the fairly well/known 19th and his wife are sourceable? Skir77 (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
