Talk:Earl of Shrewsbury

message: I've moved the detail on the  Barons Talbot  to their own page; this one was too cluttered, and anyway and it seems reasonable to have separate pages for different institutions. I hope that's OK with everyone. Swanny18 (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: There seems to be some evidence to suggest at least some of the Talbot Earls of Shrewsbury have been Earls of Wexford. I first came across this as Pugin addresses the 16th Earl as the 'Earl of Shrewsbury, Waterford, and Wexford' in the dedication to one of his books. John Talbot, the 1st Earl, is also referred to as Earl of Wexford in the grant making him Earl of Waterford, and elsewhere, so there must be something in it. Does anyone have any intel on where this earldom went? This man from 1831 thinks it was assumed without authority, but it's not the best source in the world.  A.D.Hope (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earl of Wexford? 

message: Is there any evidence that the Earl of Shrewsbury is also Baron Dynevor? He's not listed with this title in my ~1950 Burke's Peerage, and there is of course another extant Baron Dynevor. Is this an error that has been carried from one page to the next?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:A1A1:7A00:B5F4:6B8D:ADFF:28C2 (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Baron_Dynevor The remainder from the first Earl was to his daughter not the to Earls.Garlicplanting (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baron Dynevor 

message: :
What can "(s/m)" mean?  My first guess is that it's about Latin cases, but that would be Comes (nominative), Comitem (accusative), no n anywhere.  I wouldn't be a bit surprised if French Comte were sometimes spelt with n, but then the endings are inexplicable. —Tamfang (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The supposed Latin equivalent seems to have been added by User:Adam37 in 2017 with the edit summary "More often in latin texts of the county rather than town." No reference is provided. In the absence of a reference and given that it is unclear what it even means, I would suggest it should simply be removed. Proteus (Talk) 12:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I describe very curtly - it saves bytes. It means 'indeed, more often in the surviving texts in Latin of the 12th century (as the context makes plain I think) they are described... and the words I have used are lifted from the Victoria County History entries most likely but I cannot remember which editions, I probably consulted a few.  I can well believe contes and contem were used as abbreviation was heavy in those days and influence of 'conte' the French also present.  The reason I bother to write here is I think it's fairly intuitive surviving texts from that period about this sort of thing were very seldom in English to we the amateur/professional historians, but not to 'Joe public'.- Adam37 Talk 18:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  s and/or m 

message: In the illustration of the bottom of the page the text says "coronet of an Earl" but the coronet in the illustration is the coronet of a Marquess. All the more bewildering since the coronet in the coat-of-arms at the top-right of this article IS the coronet of an Earl. At least nobody can say "at least nobody can say 'you're consistent'".2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong Coronet