Talk:Baron Lucas

	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 articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled[edit]

Are recipients of a writ of acceleration counted in the numbering if they do not succeed their fathers? Donald, 0100 hrs, 6th December 2004 (GMT) I think not, sir. --Anglius 21:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering[edit]

This is a discussion, moved from the respective userpages:

Hello. I see that you disagree with me over the present Baron Lucas of Crudwell. Who's Who (2003 edition) and dodonline.co.uk lists Ralph Matthew Palmer as the 11th Baron. Also, Debrett's (1990 edition) lists his mother as the tenth holder and does not include Anthony Grey (Earl of Harold) in the numbering. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to Burke's or The Complete Peerage, so I don’t know if they disagree with Debrett's (also don’t know which of the three is considered the most authoritative). What are you sources for the present Baron being the twelfth holder? Hopefully we can sort this out. Regards Tryde 17:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have access to Burke's which lists the present baron as the 12th (as does Cracroft's, which I admit is a bit of a carbon copy of Burke's anyway) but unfortunately I haven't got access to Cockayne's either. He's rightly listed with the 12th ordinal due to Anthony, Earl of Harold being called up the Lords in 1718, thus making him the 3rd baron (I assume you're familiar with writs of acceleration, so won't go into them). The Marchioness Grey was thus the 4th baroness and the Countess de Grey the 5th baroness and so on and so on. Interestingly, on Lord Harold's death in 1723, the barony passed back to his father, the Duke of Kent and wasn't inherited by Lord Harold's neice (later the Marchioness Grey) until the duke's own death in 1740 - due to the slight complexity of writs of acceleration combined with the even more complex nature of the terms of the barony's patent, this totally confuses me as to why it didn't just pass to the duke's eldest daughter, the Countess of Breadalbane and Holland (mother of Lady Grey). That aside, I believe we can definately count Lord Harold as the third baron simply by the fact that every other eldest son of peers that were called up and didn't succeeded to their father's higher peerage, have also been given an ordinal. Thanks, Craigy (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Proteus has access to Cokayne's. I suggest you alert him. - Kittybrewster 18:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I had a discussion with User:Craigy144 regarding the intricate history of the barony of Lucas of Crudwell and user:Kittybrewster suggested I should contact you as you supposedly have access to The Complete Peerage. The question is whether the present baron is the 11th or 12th holder of the title. This depends on whether Anthony Grey, Earl of Harold (son of the second Baron, the first Duke of Kent) should be included in the numbering or not. Lord Harold was summoned to the House of Lords through a writ of acceleration as Lord Lucas of Crudwell, but predeceased his father. Debrett's does not include him in the numbering and lists the present Baron as the 11th Baron (he is also listed as the 11th holder on dodonline.co.uk). Burke's and Cracroft's apparently disagrees and includes Lord Harold in the numbering, and consequently lists the present Baron as the 12th holder. What does Cokayne say on the subject and what are your thoughts? Regards Tryde 19:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CP calls him the 3rd Baron (well, technically, it puts the numeral "III" next to his entry, and the numeral "IV" next to the Marchioness Grey's entry, and so on, since it doesn't use the same numbering system as most other works). However, there does seem to be some variation here: William Howard, Lord Howard of Effingham, eldest son of Charles Howard, 1st Earl of Nottingham, was summoned to Parliament as Baron Howard of Effingham and died childless in his father's lifetime, the Barony reverting to his father, and is not included in the numbering of the Barony of Howard of Effingham, whilst Oliver St John, 5th Baron St John of Bletso, eldest son of Oliver St John, 1st Earl of Bolingbroke, who was similarly summoned to Parliament as Baron St John of Bletso and died childless in his father's lifetime, the Barony reverting to his father, does seem to be included in the numbering of the Barony of St John of Bletso. Forced to choose (which of course we are), I'd be inclined to go with "12th" here, since my instinct says that the Howards are wrong and the St Johns right. Proteus (Talk) 20:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]