Talk:Earl of Wessex/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ducal titles

Surely the title of Duke of Cornwall would not have been available in this case, being reserved for the eldest son of the monarch and in any case already held by the Prince of Wales. rossb 16:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In line with the above, what's this about the dukedom of Devonshire? That's not a royal title. Mackensen (talk) 6 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)

It would be pretty harsh to take the Dukedom off the present Duke of Devonshire, Peregrine Andrew Mornay Cavendish, 12th Duke of Devonshire to give it to someone else! Dunc|☺ 6 July 2005 09:42 (UTC)

Second creation

This section isnt clear on when the second creation came into effect, as it is implied from this:

“ In 1999, Queen Elizabeth II's youngest son, Prince Edward, married Sophie Rhys-Jones. ”

Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex states

“ He has held the title of Earl of Wessex since 1999 ”

Jayvdb 03:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

prior to..

Office of the Earl of Wessex implies that the earldom dates back as far as 1983, and Sean O'Dwyer also phrases it to appear as if the earldom predates 1999:

“ ... and Private Secretary and Equerry to the Earl of Wessex 1987-2001. ”

To be accurate, I think that should be rephrased to:

“ .. was Private Secretary and Equerry to Prince Andrew and Prince Edward from 1987 to 2001. ”

Jayvdb 03:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Duke of Edinburgh, reverts back vs. merges with the Crown

The title will "revert back to the Crown" (see Ref [1]) not "merge with the Crown," both of these have formal definitions. In this instance it would "revert". ThinkingTwice (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"theatrical links"?

Why would Edward's links to the world of theater make the tile of Earl of Wessex suitable, as the article implies? --Jfruh (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but the reasons the title was created are pure speculation, which we don't indulge in. All we can really say is that it was unexpected, given what people had been predicting. (The "slimming down" reason also seems rather spurious, given that it was announced he would become a Duke eventually.) Also, it's not really relevant that Wessex isn't an administrative area: members of the Royal Family have been created Duke of Albany for centuries, and Albany's no more a legally defined area than Wessex. People have also been created Duke of Clarence, and Clarence isn't even a place. I've therefore removed some of the odd comments from the article. Hopefully it's now a lot less questionable. Proteus (Talk) 18:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

First creation

I've re-written this section, as it wasn't altogether accurate. The Anglo-saxon earldoms were a different kettle of fish, really; some of the stuff here (and elsewhere) seems to be extrapolated back from the current peerage. Swanny18 (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Edward & James are both Viscount Severn?

That's what the article appears to be claiming. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Edward is the only Viscount Severn. James holds the title by courtesy. Where does the article say that they are both Viscounts Severn? Surtsicna (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Having the title & holding it by courtesy, seems very simliar. I just thought that 'Viscount Severn' was James's title. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It may seem very similar but the difference is that James is not actually a peer. He is a commoner. Surtsicna (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

William FitzOsbern

Our article has William FitzOsbern being created Earl of Wessex in 1066 and Earl of Hereford in 1067. A reference is given which, sure enough, says "In place of Harold as earl of Wessex, King William placed his old and intimate friend, William fitz Osbern." This was a surprise to me, and none of the standard authorities I've consulted give him any such title as Earl of Wessex. The Complete Peerage, The Handbook of British Chronology and David C. Douglas's William the Conqueror all agree in just calling him Earl of Hereford, while the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography refuses him even that, saying his title of earl "was personal, not territorial". William FitzOsbern was certainly given lands that approximated to those held by Godwin and Harold as earl of Wessex, but he doesn't seem to have claimed that title. I believe that's all the reference was saying. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? --Antiquary (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, since no-one has dissented I'll remove William FitzOsbern. --Antiquary (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)