This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
I'm withdrawing the comment below, as it appears that this article's subject never had the "Barony of Talbot" at all. Rather, he was "Baron Talbot of Hensol" (1733), a different peerage entirely. But, you might STATE that it's not the abeyant "Baron Talbot" but, rather, "Baron Talbot of Hensol". Also please note I STILL don't think one peerage title can become "part of" another. Consider the Dukedom and Earldom of Sutherland. Was the Earldom "part of" the Dukedom just because both of these titles were held by Dukes #2 through #5 held BOTH of the titles? No, their being held by the same person doesn't merge them. When the Fifth Duke of Sutherland (also 23rd Earl of Sutherland) died in 1963, the Earldom went (most likely by ordinary rules of male-preference primogeniture) to his niece Elizabeth, who was thereafter 24th Countess of Sutherland, while his Dukedom went via a male-only line back up to a higher ancestor and then down to Elizabeth's cousin, John, henceforth 7th Duke of Sutherland. So, the Earldom was never included in the Dukedom despite the titles being held and inherited by the same person four times in a row.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]
As I'm typing this, this article contains the text "At his death, the earldom became extinct, whilst the barony of Talbot passed to his nephew (and is now part of the earldom of Shrewsbury),". How does that work? I've never heard of such a thing before. It seems most likely (excluding the obvious cases where a title and a subsidiary title are both created at the same time for the same person with the same rules of succession) if A is created Noble of This (with succession standard to his legitimate male descendants), A's second son C is created Noble of That with the same succession, and for a time B (who is A's eldest son) is Noble of This and then dies without children. C is now both the Noble of This and the Noble of That, and, the rules of succession being identical, the two titles descend in lock-step. However, even this example that I've tried to think of has the defect that what if there is a third-eldest son D? If at some future point in time C has no living descendants qualifying, then the title "Noble of That" will go extinct while the title "Noble of This" may well fall to a qualifying descendant of D since D is a descendant of A but D is NOT a descendant of C. So even in this case you can say "The Nobledom of That became part of the Nobledom of This" ONLY if you know, after B's line has died out, that C's line dying out will spell the end to BOTH titles. Anyway, however it may be alleged that this can sometimes happen, the statement is wrong anyway. The two titles MOST DEFINITELY ARE NOT HELD BY THE SAME PERSON at this moment. Gilbert Talbot KG (1552-1616) was the 7th Earl of Shrewsbury, and the 13th Baron Talbot. Upon his death the Earldom of Shrewsbury went to the 8th Earl of Shrewsbury (Edward Talbot (1561-1617)) while the Barony of Talbot went into abeyance, and came out of abeyance to Alethea Howard, 14th Baroness Talbot (1585-1654). From her it went along to a succession of Dukes of Norfolk until the death of Edward Howard, 9th Duke of Norfolk and 19th Baron Talbot, at which point the Barony of Talbot went into abeyance and according to Wikipedia it has remained abeyand ever since. Meanwhile the Duke of Norfolk has continued to descend to the present engineer of a recent coronation and disregarder of traffic-laws, and the Earldom of Shrewsbury had descended to the 22nd Earl of Shrewsbury, and NEITHER ONE OF THESE PEOPLE is "Baron Talbot". So even if there is a mechanism by which a Barony becomes "now part of" some Earldom, that mechanism has DEFINITELY not occurred in this case. It's simply false to say that the Barony of Talbot is part of the Earldom of Shrewsbury.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
