Talk:Baron Mowbray

message: *This article does not cite its sources.
*This article lacks formatting consistent with the Wikipedia Manual of Style;  specifically, it needs section headings and a section index to break-up the article text.  I suggest researching other articles of similar topics for style examples.
* An example of an article with better style is: Duke of Cornwall.
*There are also several broken wikilinks in the article.  Before inserting a wikilink in an article for a non-existent article for future use, the editor should create a stub article.
Jerry lavoie 17:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for Improvement

message: : The baronies of Mowbray and Segrave were shortly separated ...
Does "shortly" mean briefly or what?  Baron Segrave does not suggest any separation. —Tamfang (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Segrave 

message: Okay, looking at Rayment, who is usually accurate about this kind of thing, the article seemed to have some mistakes which led to wrong numbering for the Stourton Lords Mowbray.  From what I can gather from Rayment, the history of the title is as follows:
Created in the 13th century, the holder is created Earl of Nottingham and then Duke of Norfolk in the late 14th century.  These titles are merged until the death of the last Mowbray Duke of Norfolk in 1476.  His daughter, Anne, who is also suo jure Countess of Norfolk and who marries Edward IV's younger son, then inherits the title.  When she dies sometime around 1480, it falls into abeyance, but Richard III soon calls it out of abeyance for his supporter John Howard, already created 1st Duke of Norfolk.  After Bosworth Field in 1485, John Howard, who had died in the battle, is attainted and all his titles forfeit, including Mowbray.  The title is then not restored along with the dukedom of Norfolk in 1514, but allowed to remain forfeit until 1554, when it is restored for the 4th Howard Duke of Norfolk.  This duke of Norfolk, is attainted and beheaded for his participation in the Ridolfi Plot in 1572.  The Mowbray barony once again becomes forfeit; it is restored in 1604 for the 4th Duke's grandson, who is also restored to his grandfather's title of Earl of Surrey and his father's title of Earl of Arundel, but not yet to the Dukedom of Norfolk, which only returns in 1660.  Then, so far as I can tell, as this article had it.  Because, in this rendition, Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk, Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk, and Philip Howard, 20th Earl of Arundel, never held the Mowbray title, that creates a discrepancy of two between our numbering and the numbering in Rayment, since we also have to add Anne.  I think that Philip's inclusion and Anne's exclusion are almost certainly mistakes - she would definitely have inherited from her father; Philip definitely would not have inherited any titles from his father.  I'm less certain about the other two.  Given that the 2nd Duke of Norfolk was restored to his father's dukedom in 1514, it seems likely he would have been restored to his father's other titles as well.  A look at a definitive source like Cokayne would probably resolve this. john k (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering, identity, etc. 

message: Please double check in particular the following numbering:
*Alfred Joseph Stourton, 21st Baron Mowbray (1829–1893) (Lords: Mowbray-Segrave Case 1877. Abeyance terminated 1878. Family Tree by Stephen Tucker College of Arms 1878)
*Charles Botolph Joseph Stourton, 22nd Baron Mowbray (1867–1936)
*William Marmaduke Stourton, 23rd Baron Mowbray (1895–1965)
*Charles Edward Stourton, 24th Baron Mowbray (1923–2006)
*Edward William Stephen Stourton, 25th Baron Mowbray (b. 1953)
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NearEMPTiness (talk • contribs) 17:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the <nowiki>?? —Tamfang (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering