Talk:Duke of Northumberland

message: I've changed the layout a bit. The history I've made more like the other "Duke" pages, and the list of titleholders I've changed to improve the look. Hope that's OK. Swanny18 (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: I don't know about this
"Soon after the Norman Conquest of England, the huge earldom was parceled out, and the dynasty's heirs were left with only a rump of it in Huntingdon and Northampton, in the 12th century holding only the title of earl"
The earldoms of Northumbria and Huntingdon were separate entities, though both were held by Waltheof, then his heirs in the House of Dunkeld. And the Scottish crown held Northumbria more or less intact (though intermittently), until it was lost. Also, whichever dynasty this refers to, it wasn't that of Simon de St.Liz II. Swanny18 (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: OK I've removed this
"In Latin, ealdormans of Northumbrians were called Dux when they were vassals of Anglo-Saxon kings of England (Wessex). Bamburgh's lords (holders of Bernicia), Osulf I (d.963) and his son Waltheof I, founded a dynasty of Northumbrian duces. Soon after the Norman Conquest of England, the huge earldom was parceled out, and the dynasty's heirs were left with only a rump of it in Huntingdon and Northampton, in the 12th century holding only the title of earl."
And this
"The title Duke of Northumberland was created in 1551 for John Dudley. This appellation for his dukedom was chosen because, according to feudal custom, he and his family saw themselves as the rightful heirs of the Bamburgh dynasty, being descended from a daughter of Simon de St.Liz II, great-great-great-great-grandson of dux Waltheof I of the Northumbrians."
It's all pretty dubious, so unless someone has a source to back it up, I'll delete it. Swanny18 (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious

message: This article has a rather extensive - and unsourced - line of succession.  I'm planning to delete it unless someone has a better idea.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The main source is An Online Gotha, which is an indented list of all male-line descendants of the 1st Earl of Beverley, younger son of the 1st Duke (the list here is simply those on that list who are not dead). Cracroft's is the source for the fact that only the male-line descendants of Lord Beverley are in line to the title (the male line of the elder son of the 1st Duke died out in 1865, which is why the Beverley line now holds the title). Proteus (Talk) 13:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced line of succession 

message: I have made some changes to the article. I expanded the section on the descent of the Percy dukedom. The table used in the article is not something I have seen in peerage articles before. There is a problem with using the style "Henry Percy" etc for the different dukes (with a separate column for the ordinal) - and the use of this style is not supported in any guidelines. This implies that this was their legal name and that the title was an honorific, while in fact the title was part of their legal name and how they were known. I have therefore removed the column for the ordinal and included the full names of the dukes in the table. This is also easier for the reader. I also removed the section on the line of succession. This is too detailed for Wikipedia and very hard to maintain. Tryde (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. As for the table, it is presently used in few articles, but I hope it will eventually become a norm because it offers relevant and important information. For example, the traditional lists do not even offer the reader information on how long the person held the title; that must be concluded from the year of death of the peer's predecessor and the peer's own year of death, and even that's not always the case, making it extremely confusing for someone who doesn't know how peerage works. Texts often refer to people simply as "the Duke of Northumberland", and people come to these articles to find out who held that title in 1825. The same is true for their wives; who was "the Duchess of Norfolk" after whom Norfolk Island was named? Now, if there's a way to improve the table (as you did), it should be done, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say I prefer the simpler lists always used on Wikipedia (which are also the guidelines). I think the table used in this article is a bit too detailed - there are after all articles on all the dukes. As for the benefit of including information during which period a certain duke held the title - I think you are underestimating the intelligence of Wikipedia readers. Tryde (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should be afraid of improvement. I'm not estimating anyone's intelligence; I'm just not sure why the article about the title shouldn't inform the reader about who held it during a certain period of time. To me, it seems to be much more relevant and expected than, for example, Ducal Pipers. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the table is too detailed because there are articles on all the dukes; it doesn't seem to prevent us from explaining the history of the family in great detail, so why should we neglect basics such as who held the title at certain point? Surtsicna (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to article

message: Something looks very wrong here. Not sure where the Secc is being sourced from but I can't see how the Durands (near end) can be in succession but are included Garlicplanting (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: These lines of succession are recent additions. They are entirely unsourced and should be removed per WP:BLP. Durands, of course, are not in line to succeed to the dukedom. Surtsicna (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Think rm'ing the whole heirs might be a touch excessive its not as though the immediate family members and heirs aren't known and uncontroversial additions.Garlicplanting (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, nobody but the two sons of the present duke was known to me, so that's rather subjective. That is why policy demands sources for all additions related to living people. Surtsicna (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession 

message: In America's successful men of affairs, the section about Edward George Faile says about his mother, Joan Hall: "a descendant of the Burrells of Northumberland, England, and of John Burrell, a courtier of Henry V.".  Edward was born in 1799, so I'm guessing Joan was born around 1770-1780.  I see here that Frances Burrell was the wife of the 2nd duke, so presumably that's the connection.  If anybody has anything more solid, I'd be interested to learn about it.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joan Hall? 

message: The 26th person in line of succession to the Dukedom was born in 1903; should he be alive today he would have been about 118 years old; the second oldest currently living person in the world (the first was born on January 2 1903), and the oldest man to ever have lived.
Googling his name says that he was born on November 26th with no date of death. Ancestry.com does not give a date of death either. I could look up more info on Burke's Peerage but I'm not gonna spend any money for this.
Does anyone have an answer?Ian P. Tetriss (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: He is not, and that whole list is unverifiable. I have therefore removed it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Captain Bryan Heber-Percy still alive?