Talk:Earl of Ormond (Ireland)

message: Would anyone object to the splitting this rather confusing page? I would have thought that Earl of Ormonde (Ireland) and Earl of Ormonde (Scotland) would do it, with this left as a dab. Any comments? ::Supergolden:: 10:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have been down with a bias to the Irish Peerage, considering that part of nobility is lower in precedence than peers of Scotland, I, ll do something about it now.Brendandh 12:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page split

message: In the introduction it is mentioned that:
:The third creation was for Piers Butler, in 1538. The fifth earl of this creation was made Marquess of Ormonde (1642) and Duke of Ormonde (1660) in the Peerage of Ireland, and Duke of Ormonde (1682) in the Peerage of England.
But in the section heading it says "# 6 Dukes of Ormonde, Ireland (1661)" so is it 1660 or 1661? (Is this a January-March 1661/1660 OS/NS problem?)--Philip Baird Shearer 12:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke of Ormonde 

message: It was brought to my attention that the Earls were probably styled Earls of Ormond (without the "e"), while the Marquess was created Marquess of Ormonde, that spelling being almost universal afterwards. The Complete Peerage refers to the title as "ORMOND or ORMONDE", with the early Earls referred to as "Earl of Ormond". To make matters more confusing, it quotes the granting charter, which is in Latin and uses the spelling "de Ormound", and had another rather cryptic Latin quote where the Earl was referred to as "de Ormonde" - my Latin is too rusty to determine whether that trailing "e" is due to grammar or whether that's actually a different spelling. The place the Earldom was named after was called "Ormond" in the Complete Peerage. So how should we handle this? The most correct approach seems to consist of renaming the Earls to "of Ormond", to note the name change due to the granting of a differently spelt higher rank in this article, and to keep the Marquesses and Dukes under "of Ormonde". That would, of course, include renaming quite a lot of articles. Thoughts? Huon (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and changed the Ormond articles to Ormonde so as to maintain the correct links. I have said that the Ormond spelling was used before the 12th Earl was created Marquess. And the place name was indeed called Ormond. However, as you point out, Huon, the Ormonde spelling has now become "universally" accepted, with all of the articles at Wikipedia reflecting this. Also the article on Ormonde Castle is spelled with an "e". Remember spelling was very erratic in the 16th and 17th centuries. Look at the controversy over the name Catherine/Katherine. One has to bear in mind how the average reader would type in a search on one of the earlier Earls or Countesses. I would have typed Ormond. I think we should wait for feedback from other editors before we change all the articles with the name Ormonde. What do you think, Huon?--jeanne (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't mind using Ormonde for all articles, with redirects for such likely search terms as Earl of Ormond (that one is a redirect already). Renaming that many articles definitely shouldn't be done without a clear consensus. Huon (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with this approach. If he was known as Ormond that is the name he should be under, with a redirect from Ormonde to Ormond. Kittybrewster  ☎ 12:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The problem is that you are both correct. Up until the 12th Earl, the Earls were known as Ormond, yet many-though not all- peerage books and biographers use Ormonde. Personally, it's no problem for me re-naming the articles I was involved with, "Ormond". It would, however, entail the re-naming of ALL of the articles with the name Ormonde, which would be a daunting task, not to mention the article on the 12th Earl would need to mention the change of spelling and how it came about. Another thing, editors would be constantly changing the spelling back and forth. Before we take such a drastic step, we do need a general consensus. How about asking the advice of some of the Tudor historians at Wikipedia?--jeanne (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it does not mean renaming everything. See the Viscount of Arbuthnott who adopted an extra t as the Ormonds adopted an e. Kittybrewster  ☎ 13:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

text: As it stands all of the Ormonde articles link to the right person. We would have to rename everything otherwise the links would be broken. That's why I changed the articles I had written from Ormond to Ormonde.--jeanne (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No the links would not be broken. Bots sort it out. In any event that is a bad argument. Kittybrewster  ☎ 13:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I've gone ahead and changed my articles from Ormonde to Ormond. I had mine written that way initially. I also have changed the Anne Boleyn article.--jeanne (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling? 

message: The article on Piers Ormonde, 8th Earl, makes it clear that he inherited the title from Thomas, the 7th Earl.  The King then induced Piers to give it up in favor of Thomas Boleyn.  Later Piers got it back.
So, it seems to me, that 
* Piers should be listed as the 8th Earl in the first creation section.
* Then Boleyn as a new creation
* Then, I think, Piers again, but not as the third creation, but rather as the "First Creation, Continued".  This follows from the numbering -- if those after Boleyn are a new creation, then their numbers would start with "1".
Thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 00:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a good case to be made for this re-ordering. It is significant that Thomas Bolyn is never among the numbered earls. On the other hand while Pierrs may have been the main claimant and was in possession of Kilkenny Castle, it still had to be ratified by the King. Having induced Piers to resign his rights to the titles, it could be said that Piers thereby acknowledged that he was never in possission of the titles. By this tortuous logic, sede vacante, would be the most accurate desription of the titles between 1515 and 1528. But there's no denying Piers' de facto possession of the benefits and revenues of the earldon in that period. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: How Many Creations?

message: What were the principle estates (someone mentioned Kilkenny Castle earlier on this page) of the Dukes/Earls/Marquesses of Ormonde and for how long did they keep them (e.g. which ones were destroyed by Cromwell and which were given to the National Trust)?
:See Butler dynasty for such info. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Land