Talk:William Jennings Capell

message: Seeing as the Earldom is likely to pass to Mr. Capell due to the current Lord Essex's state of bachelorhood and lack of offspring (legitimate or otherwise), is Mr. Capell himself married/have legitimate issue?  It would be a shame for this historically significant title to go extinct through lack of any further heirs.  (And it also astounds me what distant relations can suddenly and unexpectedly end up with.) -- 65.95.233.121 00:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  next gen 

message: 69.92.85.141: Do you have a source to cite for your change? My understanding of this topic is limited, but it seems to me that only Congress could give Mr. Capell the right to take the title, which they have not yet done and are not likely to do until the question comes up. 
:Article I, Section 9, Clause 8. No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
If you can cite a source, please add it to a External links section. JRP 16:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to reread that. It prohibits the government from granting titles of nobility, and it prevents government office holders from accepting them. It does not place any restrictions whatsoever on the use of titles of nobility by ordinary citizens. I've fixed the misstatement in the article. - Nunh-huh 03:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: There is no other legal impediment: he's already a citizen. The Constitution is relevant only because it is commonly misunderstood. Of course Capell isn't a peer, who said he was? And should he ever succeed to his title, he will probably never sit in the House of Lords. The at-present-very-theoretical issue of whether an American citizen can sit in the House of Lords is unlikely to ever actually come up, and therefore is unlikely to ever actually be settled. But this particular very theoretical case has nothing to do with becoming an American citizen through naturalization. - Nunh-huh 23:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the citizenship question 

message: So can William Capell call himself "Viscount Malden" if he and his cousin so decide? Cranston Lamont 18:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because he is only the heir presumptive, not an heir apparent. If the earldom were a Scottish peerage he'd be "Master of Essex", though. —Tamfang 04:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Courtesy Title

message: This says the Earl, William and Kevin are the only remaining male-line members of the Essex line  while Earl of Essex gives five further cousins.--Rumping (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Last male-line heirs

message: :
Foreign nationality prevents participating in the House of Lords, but as far as I know does not otherwise affect the title.  Disclaiming would make the title dormant for his lifetime but would not in itself resolve the citizenship problem, if there were one, for his son.  Nor would it cause the title to pass to the next British citizen in line, which might be his intent.
Even if this sentence were better sourced, how notable is it that, in the past, he mistakenly considered an unnecessary action? —Tamfang (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  renunciation again