Talk:Earl of Essex

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Earl of Essex article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Would it be correct to say the Earldom was dormant from 1981 to 1989? After all, it wasn't all settled and the 10th Earl wasn't declared to be as such until 1989... Matjlav 01:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not really. A title can only really be currently dormant — once it is known who the heir is, they are considered to have held the title during all of the dormancy. A better term would be "recognised 1989", as it would more accurately represent the legal situation. Proteus (Talk) 12:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look at the Earl of Devon article. They use basically the same setup.

It's in the news again http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=958935, looks like a retired Californian may become the 11th Earl.206.156.242.39 16:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would be William Jennings Capell they're talking about, who is already in the article. Matjlav 17:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Baron Capel or Baron Capell? -- SGBailey 10:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's "Capell". I've changed the article. Proteus (Talk) 10:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the article about the current 10th Earl it refers to The Hon John Capel - I'll cahnge that to Capell as well. -- SGBailey 09:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capell

Some of the earls chose to drop one of the 'l's whilst spelling their surnames, untill the 6th Earl resurrected it.

However, the 1st Baron's name was Arthur Capell, with two 'l's. And the title was Baron Capell of Hadham, in the county of Hertford. i.e. the comma was after 'Hadham', which would make Hadham a part of the main title, and not the territorial designation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicera (talk • contribs) 10:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Currently the article states "Earl of Essex is a title that has been held by several families and individuals, of which the best-known and most closely associated with the title was Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex (1566–1601)."

It depends on which area of history one is interested in Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex is well known but so is Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex the general who lead the Parliamentary armies in their first major Battles of the English Civil War. --PBS (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reality of 2nd and 3rd creations ?

For Nicholas Vincent (‘Bohun, Humphrey (IV) de, second earl of Hereford and seventh earl of Essex (d. 1275)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2010), as you can read in the title of the article, Humphrey is the 7th Earl. For David Walker (‘Bohun, Henry de, first earl of Hereford (c.1175–1220)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2009), his mother Mathida successed to William FitzGeoffrey de Mandeville, 3rd Earl of Essex, her brother, in her own right (suo jure) from 1198 to her death in 1236. Both historians state that her son Humphrey then inherited the Earldom.

F. J. West (‘Geoffrey fitz Peter, fourth earl of Essex (d. 1213)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008) writes that Geoffrey paid to receive the 3rd penny of the county but not received the title. At John's coronation, he had a sword of Earl.

So it seems historians consider the title was dormant between 1189 and 1199. I don't have a source for that. Do you ? Changes need to be done to the article. Agree ? PurpleHz (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6th Earl

I looked up the lineage of the 6th Earl and I think the family tree was slightly wrong - John Capell had been confused with John Thomas Capell. It seems that George Capell-Coningsby, 5th Earl of Essex (1757–1839) died without issue, and the title passed to his half-brother's son. Please correct this is if I am wrong, but thePeerage.com seems to clarify this. See:

Based on the above information, I think the family tree is now correct. Cnbrb (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC) I agree. --174.88.148.55 (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

litigation

Heirs to the 3rd creation of Earldom in litigation proceedings. Heirs of this creation are the descendants of Joan de Bohun d.1414, who would be under the patent of the 4th creation of the Earldom.

When was this litigation? Before the fourth creation? Today? — A word seems missing after "would be"; would be heiress? —Tamfang (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]