Talk:Earl of Devon

message: The title of Earl of Devon was created several times in the Peerage of England, and was possessed first by the de Reviers family, and later for the Courtenay.  It is not to be confused with the title of "Earl of Devonshire", held along with the title of Duke of Devonshire by the Cavendish family, although the patent for the creation of those peerages used the same Latin words, Comes Devon.  The title was dormant for several centuries after the death of the last Earl in 1556, but a Courtenay successfully claimed the title in the mid-19th century.
Unlike the Dukes of Devonshire, the Earls of Devon are strongly connected with the county of Devon.  Their seat is Powderham Castle, near Starcross on the River Exe.
====Earls of Devon, First Creation (1141)====
*Baldwin de Reviers, 1st Earl of Devon (d. 1155)
*Richard de Reviers, 2nd Earl of Devon (d. 1162)
*Baldwin de Reviers, 3rd Earl of Devon (d. 1188)
*Richard de Reviers, 4th Earl of Devon (d. 1193)
*William de Reviers, 5th Earl of Devon (d. 1217)
*Baldwin de Reviers, 6th Earl of Devon (1217-1245)
*Baldwin de Reviers, 7th Earl of Devon (1236-1262)
*Isabella de Reviers, 8th Countess of Devon (d. 1293)
====Earls of Devon, Second Creation (1335)====
*Hugh de Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon (1276-1340)
*Hugh de Courtenay, 2nd Earl of Devon (1303-1377)
*Edward de Courtenay, 3rd Earl of Devon (1357-1419)
*Hugh de Courtenay, 4th Earl of Devon (1389-1422)
*Thomas de Courtenay, 5th Earl of Devon (1414-1458)
*Thomas Courtenay, 6th Earl of Devon (1432-1461) (attainted 1461)
*John Courtenay, 7th Earl of Devon (1435-1471) (restored 1470; forfeited 1471)
====Earl of Devon, Third Creation (1469)====
*Humphrey Stafford, 1st Earl of Devon (1439-1469) (restored May 1469; forfeited August 1469)
====Earl of Devon, Fourth Creation (1485)====
*Edward Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon (d. 1509) (attainted 1484; created 1485; restored 1485; forfeited 1509 by son’s attainder)
====Earls of Devon, Fifth Creation (1511)====
*William Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon (1475-1511) (attainted 1504; restored 1511; died before investiture)
*Henry Courtenay, 1st Marquess of Exeter, 2nd Earl of Devon (1498-1539) (attainted 1538)
====Earls of Devon, Sixth Creation (1553)====
*Edward Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon (1527-1556) (restored 1553; dormant 1556†)
*William Courtenay, 2nd Earl of Devon (d. 1557)
*William Courtenay, 3rd Earl of Devon (d. 1630)
*Francis Courtenay, 4th Earl of Devon (d. 1638)
====Courtenay Baronets (1644)====
*Sir William Courtenay, 5th Earl of Devon, 1st Baronet (d. 1702) (created 1644)
*Sir William Courtenay, 6th Earl of Devon, 2nd Baronet
====Viscounts Courtenay (1762)====
*William Courtenay, 7th Earl of Devon, 1st Viscount Courtenay (d. May 16 1762) (created 1762)
*William Courtenay, 8th Earl of Devon, 2nd Viscount Courtenay (d. 1788)
====Earls of Devon, Sixth Creation, revived====
*William Courtenay, 9th Earl of Devon, 3rd Viscount Courtenay (1768-1835) (retrospectively revivied 1831†)
*William Courtenay, 10th Earl of Devon (1777-1859)
*William Reginald Courtenay, 11th Earl of Devon (1807-1888)
*Edward Baldwin Courtenay, 12th Earl of Devon (1836-1891)
*Henry Hugh Courtenay, 13th Earl of Devon (1811-1904)
*Charles Pepys Courtenay, 14th Earl of Devon (1870-1927)
*Henry Hugh Courtenay, 15th Earl of Devon (1872-1935)
*Frederick Leslie Courtenay, 16th Earl of Devon (1875-1935)
*Charles Christopher Courtenay, 17th Earl of Devon (1916-1998)
*Hugh Rupert Courtenay, 18th Earl of Devon (b. 1942)
====Earls of Devon, Seventh Creation (1603)====
*Charles Blount, 1st Earl of Devon (1563-1606) (extinct)
†: 1553 creation was with remainder to his heirs male whatsoever, so theoretically succeeded by his sixth cousin once removed; thus the 1831 revival was to the 9th member of the family with respect to said creation.
: Is this right, or am I making a complete mess of it?
: James F. (talk) 13:24, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 2 - 1335 as second creation 

message: *Charles Blount, 1st Earl of Devon (1563-1606) (extinct)
†: 1553 creation was with remainder to his heirs male whatsoever, so theoretically succeeded by his sixth cousin once removed; thus the 1831 revival was to the 9th member of the family with respect to said creation.
</div>
: Is this right, or am I making a complete mess of it?
: James F. (talk) 13:24, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Earls of Devon, Seventh Creation ([[1603]])

message: Is it appropriate for those who were only discovered to have been an earl long after their death to have an article with the description Earl.  The de jure 6th Earl was an MP, which he could not have been if he had known he had an earldom and was entitled to sit in the House of Lords.  This is not merely an academic point, as WP is likely to ahve articles eventually for all MPs. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might look at Baron Hylton as an example; we have, e.g., John Hylton, de jure 18th Baron Hylton, sometime MP. Choess (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, my view is that an article title which would have surprised most of the subject's contemporaries, and perhaps even the subject himself, must be wrong. Surely the "de jure 18th Baron Hylton" (or whatever) is better left out of the article title but should be included in the lead? Moonraker2 (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say de jure titles should only be included when necessary for disambiguation, and there's no other way to disambiguate.  The de jure 6th Earl should probably be at Sir William Courtenay, 2nd Baronet, just as his son is at William Courtenay, 1st Viscount Courtenay. john k (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support that line of reasoning.  The practice is that the article title should incorporate the highest title that the subject held.  For a person with a de jure title of which he was unaware, that title will be one that he never held in his lifetime.  Contemporary references to him will inevitably be to the title of which he was aware.  To apply the de jure title to him is a form of anachronism.  His right to the higher title should no doubt be mentioned, possibly in the lead, probably in any discussion of his descendants.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this seems right.  I do think that if there's someone for whom we have an article and no other way to distinguish him than by the de jure title, we should perhaps use it - for instance William Courtenay, de jure 3rd Earl of Devon - but I'm doubtful that such people are likely to be notable. john k (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title for ''de jure'' Earls