Talk:Earl of Winchilsea
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alleged Insulting Remarks
editI have removed alleged. The letters/notes contents are well enough known and reproduced in various biographies. I don't think there is a need to hide behind alleged!
Winchilsea claimed the duke under the cloak of outward zeal for the protestant religion...[carrying] on his insidious designs, for the infringement of our liberties, and the introduction of popery into every department of state [Ref. Elizabeth Longford, Wellington: Pillar of State p 236] Alci12 14:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Anne Finch's marriage (see Wikipedia article on her) Anne Finch was not married to Charles Finch, the 4th Earl of Winchilsea. She married Heneage Finch (15 May 1684)who became the 5th Earl of Winchelsea when his nephew died without issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.11.94 (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Debreets listing do not match all the articles created for Earl's of Winchilsea
editHi I have been updating sources for First Lord of the Admiralty in my draft here:User:Navops47/sandbox2. There are discrepancies with articles created and this Debrett's listing here:https://books.google.lk/books?id=v6u5S-H7BCUC&pg=PA88&dq=Daniel+Finch,+8th+Earl+of+Winchilsea+First+Lord+of+the+Admiralty&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiolIrRg8bSAhVIqI8KHWpTBCEQ6AEIHDAB#v=onepage&q=Daniel%20Finch%2C%208th%20Earl%20of%20Winchilsea%20First%20Lord%20of%20the%20Admiralty&f=false
According to listing on page 88 its states that Daniel Finch, 2nd Earl of Nottingham, , 7th Earl of Winchilsea was First Lord of the Admiralty in 1741 and again in 1757, however in the First Lord of the Admiralty it lists the 8th Earl of Winchilsea. I am no expert but when reading the Debrett's section it appears that this article Thomas Finch, 2nd Earl of Winchilsea eldest son of the Elizabeth Finch, 1st Countess of Winchilsea has been named wrong he was the 1st Earl [1] which has now affects all succeeding articles.--Navops47 (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ Courthope, William (1839). Debrett's Complete Peerage of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland: With Additions to the Present Time and a New Set of Coats of Arms from Drawings by Harvey. J. G. & F. Rivington. p. 87.
Requested move 23 July 2017
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved to Earl of Winchilsea. No such user (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham → Earl of Winchilsea – Peerages usually only share an article when they have never been held separately, i.e. their history is shared and there's no point duplicating it over two articles. This is the case with, for example, the Earl of Waterford, which redirects to the Earl of Shrewsbury. However, Earl Talbot has its own article, as the Earl Talbot has not always been Earl of Shrewsbury. Similarly, the Earl of Winchilsea has not always been the Earl of Nottingham. Nottingham also has its own page, so there's no need for this article to be titled as it is. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I just reversed a technical move of this page to the proposed title; it's not eligible due to this RM. This move would probably make sense as "Earl of Winchilsea" is much more common than "Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham", and as said, Earl of Nottingham has a separate article, though the article needs to note that the joint form is in use.--Cúchullain t/c 14:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Is there anything preventing this being closed, and the technical move being done anyway? It's been over a week, with no objections. As for the 'joint form', that's less of a problem. Peers with multiple titles of the same rank are often referred to as the 'Earl of X and Y', even when X and Y are separate titles, so we can just follow the convention in similar articles, like that of the Earl of Shrewsbury or Duke of Richmond.--A.D.Hope (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- The problem with doing a technical close is that it leaves the discussion open even when the article is moved. Once that's open an admin or closer has to close it (and will when they get to it - there's a backlog now). As for the joint titles, I'll defer to editors who are familiar with the subject.--Cúchullain t/c 17:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.