# Talk:William Ferrers, 5th Baron Ferrers of Groby

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Ferrers, 5th Baron Ferrers of Groby/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 16:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


### Criteria
No DAB links Y
No Dead links Y
Images appropriately licensed Y
As there are no issues, I will be passing now, and adding prose suggestions later. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


### Prose Suggestions
#### Lede
was an English baron in the Late middle ages. suggest was an English baron in the Late Middle Ages.


#### Early years
The bulk of the Ferrers' family land holding was in Leicestershire. is this to say modern day Leicestershire, or did this exist as a unit at the time? I'd suggest adding a "modern day" or, was in the modern region of Leicestershire.

Before I jump and start editing someones article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ferrers,_5th_Baron_Ferrers_of_Groby I have a question for those more experienced than I. In the final paragraph of the article a second son Thomas is mentioned (there is no link to such a person), and his estate was inherited by his granddaughter Elizabeth. I call into question the existence of this Thomas, and if he did exist, he preceded his father to the grave.
My basis for this is England common law of [[primogeniture] it was fairly rigid, in that an estate and title devolved to the next living male heir, in the absence of an heir, then the oldest daughter, in the absence of such then to grandson, finally to the granddaughter. The fact that there was no Thomas Ferrers 6th Lord of Groby. Is evidence that he didn’t exist. For if he did he would have most certainly challenged Elizabeth’s  inheritance (and won). It is inconceivable that a son Thomas would have passed on this chance. And there is no information that he was disinherited in the fathers will.

It is my opinion that a fictional son was created in the early days of genealogy as a means of creating an ancestral link. I know for a fact that this has been done in the case of Henry Farrar  died 1548, and there is no such parentage. Henry’s parents remain a mystery. He is my 12th great grandfather and must definitely not a grandson of Thomas Ferrers.
This belief has created many spurious genealogies, resulting in spurious trees and a lot of anger and anguish whenthe myth is confronted.
http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/ferrersg1299.htm does have  a Sir Thomas Ferrers of Tamworth Castle m Anne Hastings. My problem with this is that the 15th century was an era of rigid, patriarchial, primogeniture and I just can’t see the 2nd son being passed over in favor of the daughter of the first son.
Is there anyway of discussing this with someone more knowledgeable on primogeniture in the 15th century. If I am correct, then Sir Thomas Ferrers of Tamworth was a scion of another family?
So how do I correct this?Alvanhholmes (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Are you the creator of this article? If so I am pinging you for discussion.Alvanhholmes (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Alvanhholmes, it is I, Leclerk. Yes, it is complicated isn't it! I have to disagree with your assertion that this Thomas either died young or didn't exist. Thomas—this article's the younger son—died in 1459, having married an Elizabeth de Freville, heiress of Tamworth in her own right, in 1420. They had a son, also called Thomas who IIRC lived until the 1480s. There is a petition to the King of c. 1453 which was filed by the latter mentioning the former (these Thomases held Tamworth Castle, which was under attack by Warks. gentry), classmark SC 8/111/5528 at the National Archives in Kew. I'm not sure what the 16th-C chap you mention has to do with Ferrers though. It's also worth remembering that what guided the descent of baronies was not primogen, but the entailment that they had been created with. So, in this case, it descended through the eldest born and their heirs rather than the stricter form of entail male which would have meant the nearest male heir. For an example of this, see the earldoms of Kent and Nottingham early 1400s, which descended rapidly through multiple brothers as each died childlessly. I hope this helps, but I have to just remind you that an article's talk page is for discussion of the article rather than the topic generally. Just FYI. Take care! ——SerialNumber54129 19:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129:   I thank you so very much for your answer. I was actually hoping that there was someone who could explain this to me.
I think that the article on Primogeniture needs some improvement though.As the situation you described is not reflected in it's contents.As regards the nature of the discussion. I felt that I had to clarify my concern and to do that I had to talk about the subjectAlvanhholmes (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

There is this the Ferrers of Punsborne Visitation of Hertforshire 1634, in which during the visit by the King's Herald, a lineage showing descent from John Ferrers married Agatha Breakespeare as patriarch of the Punsborne, Hertfordshire line.  Thomas Ferrers of Tamworth Castle is also mentioned, but this pedigree chart pertains to John Ferrers son of William, was he also passed over in favor of Williams granddaughter Elizabeth, would it be eappropriate to add John Ferrers and wife, no dates or places otherwise are mentioned?Oldperson (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)