Talk:English feudal barony

move

A more usual title would be Feudal barony (England). For one thing, article titles are normally singular. —Tamfang (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

My intention was to create a twin article with List of Scottish feudal baronies. If the title must be changed I would therefore prefer "List of English feudal baronies". In truth I think the existing title is preferable, as it's more than a list, it discusses the concept of the barony too. It is not about a single entity, the barony, as your suggested title implies, but about several of them, being a list, hence my use of the plural. All debateable points, but that was my reasoning. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC))

The definition of X and a list of Xs are two different things. If this article is to be primarily a list rather than a definition, then call it a list. Either way, there's no reason to capitalize feudal barony. —Tamfang (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is intended as both definition and list, the definition being a necessary introduction to the list. Your point is taken about the capitals, if you wish the title to be changed to "English feudal baronies" I would have no objection. My preference for titles is to use capitals, as in the title page of a book, but if WP guidelines must be applied, so be it.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC))

Merge proposal

Some one has suggested the Baron by tenure be merged here. I would support this. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the proposal has now had a sufficient consultation period, so let the work proceed! (Merger now completed (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC))) Incidentally a similar operation is required for Barony (country subdivision), which lists Westmorland and Kendal, both included in Sanders's list, but which interestingly seem the only 2 which have survived, at least in geographical terms. That useful information can be merged into this article(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

Some further logical rationalisation is needed in conjunction with the Feudal baron article, mostly about Scottish baronies. Any suggestions? (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

Wodemanse

I would question whether what an unlogged in user who gave the edit summary "Found in a private family history records of my family that Edward I of England Granted my 22nd great-grandfather a Feudal barony in 1297, for which he payed two shillings and sixpence per month" is correct. I had a mind to revert this but this seemed to extreme. I suspect that what he has found is a confirmation of a manor to be held by a fee farm rent. This does not make the grantee a feudal baron. However, not having seen his source, I have left the addition, making his source a footnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. This article must be accurate. Sanders discovered exactly 132 certain baronies and 72 further possible ones. I think it would be a good idea to number the entries so that when all 132 have been entered, which I will resume doing shortly, any spurious entries will be evident. I do not believe any further entries should be accepted unless proof of "baronial relief" having been paid (Sanders's methodology) can be provided by the contributor. The edit summary provided in this instance was: "Found in a private family history records of my family that Edward I of England Granted my 22nd great-grandfather a Feudal barony in 1297, for which he payed two shillings and sixpence per month". This is not a feudal barony, full stop. Regretfully, it should be reverted, which I have done, whilst repeating the text below, for the record. If the contributor can find the necessary supporting evidence, he is invited to reinsert the text. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

Text removed:"|Wodemanse||Yorkshire||John le Carter || 1297 ref Carter, Titus Robert "Genealogical Records of the Carter Family", Byron, 2008. /ref" (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

Rationalisation of feudal barony articles

I propose the following as a logical structure for the broad area of the feudal barony:

• "Feudal barony" (effectively an entry level disambiguation page, to be created by renaming Feudal baron and de-merging its constituent elements into the articles listed below. Feudal baron mainly concerns Scottish baronies and is 99% identical to Prescriptive barony. The latter needs to be merged into the former.)
• English feudal barony- article to be renamed (done), and to receive merger from Barony (country subdivision)
• Scottish feudal barony- article to be renamed and to receive demerged Scottish elements from Feudal baron
• Irish feudal barony- new article, to be de-merged from Feudal baron. Done, text copied, but not demerged pending consultation.
• Scottish feudal lordship - no changes needed, ideal format.
• Marcher lordship to be renamed & merged from List of Marcher lordships

I am pasting the above to talk pages of the other articles concerned. Your comments please.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

If some of the content Barony (country subdivision) of is to be moved to English feudal barony, then well and good. But there should still be a separate page called Barony (country subdivision) (possibly a DAB rather than an article) since not all baronies are English. jnestorius^(talk) 11:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC))

Barony only encompasses barons?

Why werent there any counts or earls or dukes at Runntmede? Why only barons? 74.88.201.22 (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)