Talk:Jacobite peerage

message: Anyone know who Justin McCarthy, Viscount Mountcashel was?  He appears in the  Battle of Newtownbutler. --Henrygb 22:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So should he be listed here (which seems to start on 12 January 1689)? --Henrygb 00:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: Although they are not specifically created by each monarch in turn, shouldn't the dukedoms of Cornwall (in England) and Rothesay (in Scotland) be listed here? Most interestingly they would continue to be held by heirs to later pretenders (for example the present pretender, Franz, Duke of Bavaria, would have been Jacobite Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay from 1955 to 1996, when they'd "merge into the crown").
On a related note, the page might list the creation of the title "Prince of Wales" by James III for his son Charles, and possibly that by James II for James III (or at least its continuance, whereas in the actual peerage it was revoked). Andrei Iosifovich (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cornwall & Rothesay

message: This article lists peerages created after 1689.  But were there also peerages 
* created before 1689 by James or his prededcessors
* attainted after 1689 by William and Mary or their successors
* regarded by Jacobites as extant, since the attainder was illegitimate in their eyes?
If so, these should also be listed.  
Another possible wrinkle: Connor Maguire, 2nd Baron of Enniskillen says:
: Maguire married Mary, daughter of Thomas Fleming of Castle Fleming, Queen's County, by whom he had a son. The chieftainship of Fermanagh during the civil war fell to his brother Rory, who was killed in the winter of 1648. Descendants direct or collateral were long called Barons of Enniskillen in the service of France or of James II. The last titular lord was a retired captain of Lally's regiment at the outbreak of the revolution in 1789.
jnestorius(talk) 18:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  pre-1689 peerages? 

message: :Category:Jacobite peers and :Category:Peers in the Jacobite peerage seem to duplicate each other/cover the same ground. I suggest that the former should be merged into the latter. The latter could then have the following subcategories:
*:Category:Dukes in the Jacobite peerage
*:Category:Marquesses in the Jacobite peerage
*:Category:Earls in the Jacobite peerage
*:Category:Viscounts in the Jacobite peerage
*:Category:Barons in the Jacobite peerage
*:Category:Lords of Parliament in the Jacobite peerage
:Category:Jacobite peerages and :Category:Peerages in the Jacobite peerage seem to duplicate each other/cover the same ground. I suggest that the former should be merged into the latter.
Alekksandr (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please post comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 21 Alekksandr (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: Could a legend please be added that explains why some of the titles are in boldface? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 01:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legend  

message: Is there a reason for excluding the Duke of Berwick from the Jacobite peerages listed in the article? ¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:8402:b200:d916:3131:f78d:e21f (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it was created well before James left London. —Tamfang (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke of Berwick 

message: Seems to me the article's title ought to have a lowercase p.  The subject is not a single unit, like the Peerage of Scotland; it is a set of pretenders in the three Peerages of the three Kingdoms.  Any holders who insist that the titles are genuine (whatever that means) would hardly style themselves "the Jacobite Peerage". —Tamfang (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. DeCausa (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Requested move. Opera hat (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decapitate! Decapitate! 

message: I’ve deleted this section here as it is pure WP:OR without relevant sourcing. It’s highly unlikely to be correct as well, as under English law James’s reign is deemed to have ended with his flight and not with the coronation of William and Mary. Therefore, as the section admits, he ceased to be King of Ireland at the same point he ceased to be King of England in 1688 not 1689. But in any case there are zero sources in the section that back up what’s written. Looks like someone’s own pet theory. DeCausa (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creations of 1689 

message: Peers who supported the Jacobites and lost their titles in the kingdoms and were only recognized as peers by the Jacobites, like some Viscounts Clare as Charles O'Brien, 6th Viscount Clare. Where can one find them? Should they not also be listed somewhere, as they were seen as traitors and their titles had only been regognised in catholic or/and Jacobites circles? Many of them had also flown to catholic countries, like Charles O'Brien whom I mentioned. --Universal-Interessierterde (talk (de)) 02:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peers who were only recognized by the Jacobites with titles created before 1689 

message: There are several issues with the way information is presented on this page. Chiefly, the end column heading 'Current holder' is niether accurate nor neutral. In law, none of these titles are currently held by anyone as they are unrecognised. If one takes a Jacobite perspective  one could possibly say the titles are in dispute by, but that is I think an over-generous description of the situation today. 'Current claimant' in any case has perjorative connotations, implies a title in pretense and suggests that these individuals make such a claim. Some might do, some might not, but we shouldn't make a general assumption either way. I would suggest 'Current heir', which accurately describes the relationship between the person listed and the original grantee i.e. the person who is the legal heir and would be entitled to claim the peerage/baronetcy today if it were retrospectively recognised by the reigning monarch (which possibility, however unlikely, always exists).  Following on from this, it is not accurate to refer to the heirs by these titles, especially when they hold titles in their own right which are not in dispute e.g. Bruce Murray, 12th Duke of Atholl should appear as such rather than as Bruce Murray, 12th Duke of Rannoch. This is particularly important for those who are not peers (such as some of the Clan Chiefs listed) otherwise we might be giving the impression these people have been styling themselves as something when they haven't. 
As an extension of the above, listing courtesy peers in the 'current' column is also inaccuarte, because the sole substantive holder of all titles (including subsidiaries) is the peer/baronet in question; the heirs are meerely styled with a lesser title by convention. The existing structure also makes the tables look crowded and untidy. 
Lastly, some of the links, particularly in the lists of baronetcies, are to articles which don't list the Jacobite titles; those that don't  might be unrelated families with the same name, and these should not be included. 217.155.59.206 (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with  information presented on this page