Talk:Earl De La Warr
Courtesy Title of heir
[edit]Is the courtesy title Viscount Cantelupe or Baron Buckhurst? The 9th Earl, born after his father inherited the title, was often called "Buck De La Warr" (e.g. in the diaries of his cousin-in-law Harold Nicolson), clearly after Buckhurst, but the Cantelupe title is a century older. Timrollpickering 11:04, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The courtesy title is indeed Lord Buckhurst. -- Emsworth 17:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Abeyance
[edit]The fact that two major titles, and therefore the governance of at least three manors, were allowed to remain in limbo for nearly two decades suggests that abeyance, at least in this instance, is not wholly a fiction of the 17th or 18th centurty rulemakers. Robert A West 06:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Suggestions for Improvement
[edit]- This article does not cite its sources.
- This article may not contain sufficient content to be a stand-alone article. Consider placing the stub-class tag on the page, incorporating this information within a more general article, or adding more encyclopedic content to it.
- There are also several broken wikilinks in the article. Before inserting a wikilink in an article for a non-existent article for future use, the editor should create a stub article.
Jerry lavoie 17:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Abeyance?
[edit]The article says that "In this case, the previous barony was intended to be extinguished (no authority suggests that there is a Baron De La Warr still abeyant)". However, J. Horace Round states in Peerage and pedigree, studies in peerage law and family history, PP67-8 "But it can hardly now be doubted that the Earl inherits a barony under the patent of 1570, while as for the older barony, descendible to heirs-general, the question turns on why the issue of Sir Owen West were excluded. If their exclusion is valid by what is now settled law, the old barony is vested in the Wests, as it was indeed recognised to be in 1597. If, on the contrary, it should prove that their exclusion was not in accordance with such law, the principle asserted in the Norfolk case would seem to involve the admission of their right and the consequent restriction of the earl's right to the later barony alone." I have therefore deleted the words in brackets. Alekksandr (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)