Talk:Duke of Northumberland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Peerage and Baronetage / Royalty and Nobility (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
 
WikiProject England (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Layout[edit]

I've changed the layout a bit. The history I've made more like the other "Duke" pages, and the list of titleholders I've changed to improve the look. Hope that's OK. Swanny18 (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Intro[edit]

I don't know about this
"Soon after the Norman Conquest of England, the huge earldom was parceled out, and the dynasty's heirs were left with only a rump of it in Huntingdon and Northampton, in the 12th century holding only the title of earl"
The earldoms of Northumbria and Huntingdon were separate entities, though both were held by Waltheof, then his heirs in the House of Dunkeld. And the Scottish crown held Northumbria more or less intact (though intermittently), until it was lost. Also, whichever dynasty this refers to, it wasn't that of Simon de St.Liz II. Swanny18 (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Dubious[edit]

OK I've removed this
"In Latin, ealdormans of Northumbrians were called Dux when they were vassals of Anglo-Saxon kings of England (Wessex). Bamburgh's lords (holders of Bernicia), Osulf I (d.963) and his son Waltheof I, founded a dynasty of Northumbrian duces. Soon after the Norman Conquest of England, the huge earldom was parceled out, and the dynasty's heirs were left with only a rump of it in Huntingdon and Northampton, in the 12th century holding only the title of earl."
And this
"The title Duke of Northumberland was created in 1551 for John Dudley. This appellation for his dukedom was chosen because, according to feudal custom, he and his family saw themselves as the rightful heirs of the Bamburgh dynasty, being descended from a daughter of Simon de St.Liz II, great-great-great-great-grandson of dux Waltheof I of the Northumbrians."
It's all pretty dubious, so unless someone has a source to back it up, I'll delete it. Swanny18 (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced line of succession[edit]

This article has a rather extensive - and unsourced - line of succession. I'm planning to delete it unless someone has a better idea.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The main source is An Online Gotha, which is an indented list of all male-line descendants of the 1st Earl of Beverley, younger son of the 1st Duke (the list here is simply those on that list who are not dead). Cracroft's is the source for the fact that only the male-line descendants of Lord Beverley are in line to the title (the male line of the elder son of the 1st Duke died out in 1865, which is why the Beverley line now holds the title). Proteus (Talk) 13:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Changes to article[edit]

I have made some changes to the article. I expanded the section on the descent of the Percy dukedom. The table used in the article is not something I have seen in peerage articles before. There is a problem with using the style "Henry Percy" etc for the different dukes (with a separate column for the ordinal) - and the use of this style is not supported in any guidelines. This implies that this was their legal name and that the title was an honorific, while in fact the title was part of their legal name and how they were known. I have therefore removed the column for the ordinal and included the full names of the dukes in the table. This is also easier for the reader. I also removed the section on the line of succession. This is too detailed for Wikipedia and very hard to maintain. Tryde (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. As for the table, it is presently used in few articles, but I hope it will eventually become a norm because it offers relevant and important information. For example, the traditional lists do not even offer the reader information on how long the person held the title; that must be concluded from the year of death of the peer's predecessor and the peer's own year of death, and even that's not always the case, making it extremely confusing for someone who doesn't know how peerage works. Texts often refer to people simply as "the Duke of Northumberland", and people come to these articles to find out who held that title in 1825. The same is true for their wives; who was "the Duchess of Norfolk" after whom Norfolk Island was named? Now, if there's a way to improve the table (as you did), it should be done, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I must say I prefer the simpler lists always used on Wikipedia (which are also the guidelines). I think the table used in this article is a bit too detailed - there are after all articles on all the dukes. As for the benefit of including information during which period a certain duke held the title - I think you are underestimating the intelligence of Wikipedia readers. Tryde (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we should be afraid of improvement. I'm not estimating anyone's intelligence; I'm just not sure why the article about the title shouldn't inform the reader about who held it during a certain period of time. To me, it seems to be much more relevant and expected than, for example, Ducal Pipers. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the table is too detailed because there are articles on all the dukes; it doesn't seem to prevent us from explaining the history of the family in great detail, so why should we neglect basics such as who held the title at certain point? Surtsicna (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)