Talk:Baron Grey of Codnor

Contradiction of dates

The text indicates the barony's creation in 1299 whilst the genealogical chart indicates 1397. This needs explanation or revision. Tmangray 18:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

What is the source for the coat of arms? All other sources show a different one with the motto "anchor fast anchor". Tmangray 18:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"of Codnor"

What were Proteus's sources for the following statement?

The Barony, though simply "Grey", is often termed "Grey of Codnor" or "Grey (of Codnor)" to distinguish it from the other Grey Baronies throughout history and from the extant Earldom of Grey, though it should be noted that the holder is always styled simply The Right Honourable Lord Grey

Proteus has often argued forcibly, notably here [1], that the London Gazette is the only available source that can be relied upon to get territorial designations right. It gives the title as 'Baron Grey of Codnor', as can be seen here [2]. Should the Grey article therefore be amended? Flozu 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• As I believe has been pointed out on other occasions, the LG is reliable when reporting the creation of a peerage (as it has access to the letters patent). On other occasions it can be as mistaken as the rest of them, and as for the creation of this peerage, unfortunately the LG doesn't exist for the year 1397... Proteus (Talk) 00:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In this instance, the LG was reporting a new writ of summons issued when the barony was called out of abeyance in 1989. The situation is surely therefore analagous to reporting on a new creation by letters patent - as in either case the document signed by the monarch becomes definitive with regard to title, doesn't it? Can you shed any light on this? I don't want to harp on about this, but a clear understanding of the strengths and limitations of the gazettes would be extremely helpful. In answering, I would be grateful if you could share your sources for your statement at the top of this section. Thanks. Flozu 13:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • As to the usage, I'm going mainly by Burke's, which calls Lord Grey "THE 6TH LORD (BARON) GREY (of Codnor, Derbys)" and his style at the beginning of his address "The Rt Hon The Lord Grey DL" [6]. The problem with definitive answers on this particular issue is that the Barony of Grey was created by writ, and so doesn't have an exact form specified by letters patent, but all baronies by writ are essentially "Lord X" rather than "Lord X of Y", because being summoned as "Ricardus de Grey de Codnor" made someone "Lord Grey" rather than "Lord Grey of Codnor" (it meant "Richard de Grey from Codnor" rather than intending to add anything to a title). Occasionally the "of Y" bit has been added through custom and usage (as with Willoughby de Eresby and Willoughby de Broke, which are both technically simply Willoughby (and if one became extinct the holder of the other would be free to drop their distinguisher)), but that simply hasn't happened with Grey. Proteus (Talk) 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for clearing up the sourcing. I must admit to raising a wry eyebrow at your citing Burke's, given your earlier comments about its unreliability with regard to tds. Nevermind, that's water under the bridge. Back to the matter in hand... if Charles Cornwall-Legh was summoned to Parliament by writ as 'Lord Grey of Codnor' in 1989, wouldn't this provide evidence that the accepted form of the title should now be written in this form, particularly if custom and usage can be considered determining factors as per your Willoughby example? Wouldn't it also seem to contradict the statement"the holder is always styled simply The Rt Hon. Lord Grey", at least as far as the Lord Chancellor's Department is concerned? Flozu 22:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Rather bafflingly, Burke's gets TDs wrong when writing out peerages yet manages to miss them off when writing forms of address. Thus they call Lord Dufferin "The Rt Hon The Lord Dufferin and Claneboye" whilst saying he's "THE 11TH BARON DUFFERIN AND CLANEBOYE OF BALLYLEIDY AND KILLYLEAGH , Co Down, and a Baronet" [3]. As for the writ summoning Lord Grey to Parliament, writs like that generally don't set out the title how letters patent set it out, and it's entirely possible the LG (or, indeed, Parliament) got it wrong, but that doesn't change the title. Proteus (Talk) 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
          • In summary.... the barony follows a different rationale from other comparable peerages. We have agreed that writ creations are mutable - the Willoughby examples show that the exact form of titles do change over time through custom and usage. We would expect this peerage to have done the same, given the existence of many other Grey peerages, but for some unexplained reason it hasn't. I think we'll just have to leave it there until someone comes up with a source weightier than Burke. The Committee of Privilege's ruling on the abeyance might be a good starting point. May I suggest that for now we change the wording of the article to something like this:

The Barony, though technically simply Grey as it was created by writ, is often termed "Grey of Codnor" or "Grey (of Codnor)" to distinguish it from the other Grey Baronies throughout history and from the extant Earldom of Grey; though it should be noted that the holder is always by convention styled simply as 'The Right Honourable Lord Grey. Flozu 08:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'll copy this string to the Grey of Codnor page in the hope that it may elicit some answers. 09:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• That sounds reasonable to me. Proteus (Talk) 10:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with the above with a qualified caveat. That the writ of summons must be that of the 'exant' barony or the very act of the issue of the writ and its presentation and by sitting, were it worded other that of the 'accepted baronial title', would have created a new peerage by writ. Alci12 14:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)