Talk:Earl of Devon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Numbering[edit]

The numbering is probably like his:

First Creation

1. Balwin de Reviers, created about 1141, died 1155, succeeded by his son:

2. Richard de Reviers, died 1162, succeeded by his son:

3. Baldwin de Reviers, died 1188, succeeded by his brother:

4. Richard de Reviers, died in or before 1193, succeeded by his uncle:

5. William de Reviers, died 1217, succeeded by his grandson:

6. Baldwin de Reviers, died 1245, succeeded by his son:

7. Baldwin de Redviers, died 1262, succeeded by his sister:

8. Isabella de Redviers, died 1293, succeeded by her cousin:

9. Hugh de Courtenay, great-great-grandson of the 5th Earl, declared Earl in 1335 (this is sometimes reckoned as a new creation in tail male), died 1340, succeeded by his son:

10. Hugh de Courtenay, died 1377, succeeded by his grandson:

11. Edward de Courtenay, died 1419, succeeded by his son:

12. Hugh de Courtenay, died 1422, succeeded by his son:

13. Thomas de Courtenay, died 1458, succeeded by his son:

14. Thomas Courtenay, beheaded & attainted 1461.

15. John Courtenay, brother of 14th Earl, restored 1470, forfeited & killed 1471.

Second Creation

1. Humphrey Stafford, created May 1469, beheaded & forfeited August 1469.

Third Creation

1. Edward Courtenay, great-great-grandson of the 10th (or 2nd) Earl, attainted in 1484, created Earl of Devonshire in 1485, with remainder to the heirs male of his body, and later the same year the attainder was reversed and his honours restored (possibly including an earldom supposedly created in 1335), died 1509, and his titles forfeited by his son’s attainder.

Fourth Creation

1. William Courtenay, son of the previous Earl, attainted 1504, attainder reversed & created Earl of Devon in May 1511, but died in June 1511 before he had been invested, succeeded in 1512 by his son:

2. Henry Courtenay, obtained a reversal of his father’s attainder and succeeded as Earl of Devon in 1512, attainted 1538, beheaded 1539.

Fifth Creation

1. Edward Courtenay, son of the previous Earl, created 1553 with remainder to his heirs male whatsoever (so determined in 1831), died 1556, theoretically succeeded by his sixth cousin once removed:

2. William Courtenay, great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson of the 10th (or 2nd) Earl, killed 1557, his son:

3. William Courtenay, died 1630, his son:

4. Francis Courtenay, died 1638, his son:

5. William Courtenay, created Baronet 1644, died 1702, his grandson:

6. William Courtenay, 2nd Baronet, his son:

7. William Courtenay, 3rd Baronet, created Viscount Courtenay on 6 May 1762, and died on 16 May 1762, his son:

8. William Courtenay, 2nd Viscount, died 1788, his son:

9. William Courtenay, 3rd Viscount, declared 9th Earl of Devon in 1831 (Sharpe’s Genealogical Peerage, dated 1830, explained: “William, Eleventh Earl of Devon, descended from Hugh, second Earl, succeeded to the Earldom on the judgment of the House of Lords that he had made out his claim, 15 March 1831, as William, Eleventh and Present Earl. The Earl, although only the eleventh of his family who has borne the title, is the eighteenth in hereditary descent; or the twentieth, taking in the reversals of attainder in the short lived restoration of King Henry VI, 1470. He is the ninth under the patent, so long dormant, of 1553, under which he has established his claim”), died 1835, succeeded by his cousin:

10. William Courtenay, died 1859, succeeded by his son:

11. William Reginald Courtenay, died 1888, succeeded by his son:

12. Edward Baldwin Courtenay, died 1891, succeeded by his uncle:

13. Henry Hugh Courtenay, died 1904, succeeded by his grandson:

14. Charles Pepys Courtenay, died 1927, succeeded by his brother:

15. Henry Hugh Courtenay, died February 1935, succeeded by his brother:

16. Frederick Leslie Courtenay, died June 1935, succeeded by his son:

17. Charles Christopher Courtenay Courtenay, died 1998, succeeded by his son:

18. Hugh Rupert Courtenay, born 1942.

Sixth Creation

1. Charles Blount, created “Comes Devon” in 1603, died 1606, title extinct.

Seventh Creation

1. William Cavendish, created “Comes Devon” in 1618, died 1626, succeeded by his son:

2. William Cavendish, died 1628, succeeded by his son:

3. William Cavendish, died 1689, succeeded by his son:

4. William Cavendish, created “Dux Devon” in 1694, died 1707, succeeded by his son:

5. William Cavendish, 2nd Duke & 5th Earl, died 1729, succeeded by his son:

6. William Cavendish, 3rd Duke & 6th Earl, died 1755, succeeded by his son:

7. William Cavendish, 4th Duke & 7th Earl, died 1764, succeeded by his son:

8. William Cavendish, 5th Duke & 8th Earl, died 1811, succeeded by his son:

9. William George Spencer Cavendish, 6th Duke & 9th Earl, died 1858, succeeded by his cousin:

10. William Cavendish, 7th Duke & 10th Earl, died 1891, succeeded by his son:

11. Spencer Compton Cavendish, 8th Duke & 11th Earl, died 1908, succeeded by his nephew:

12. Victor Christian William Cavendish, 9th Duke & 12th Earl, died 1938, succeeded by his son:

13. Edward William Spencer Cavendish, 10th Duke & 13th Earl, died 1950, succeeded by his son:

14. Andrew Robert Buxton Cavendish, 11th Duke & 14th Earl, died 2004, succeeded by his son:

15. Peregrine Andrew Morny Cavendish, 12th Duke & 15th Earl, born 1944.

Hovite 09:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.
Surely the creation of the Dukedom of Devonshire shouldn't be listed here?
So, the article text should be:

Version 1 - 1335 as continuance of first creation[edit]

The title of Earl of Devon was created several times in the Peerage of England, and was possessed first by the de Reviers family, and later for the Courtenay. It is not to be confused with the title of "Earl of Devonshire", held along with the title of Duke of Devonshire by the Cavendish family, although the patent for the creation of those peerages used the same Latin words, Comes Devon. The title was dormant for several centuries after the death of the last Earl in 1556, but a Courtenay successfully claimed the title in the mid-19th century.

Unlike the Dukes of Devonshire, the Earls of Devon are strongly connected with the county of Devon. Their seat is Powderham Castle, near Starcross on the River Exe.

Earls of Devon, First Creation (1141)[edit]

Earl of Devon, Second Creation (1469)[edit]

Earl of Devon, Third Creation (1485)[edit]

Earls of Devon, Fourth Creation (1511)[edit]

Earls of Devon, Fifth Creation (1553)[edit]

Courtenay Baronets (1644)[edit]

Viscounts Courtenay (1762)[edit]

Earls of Devon, Fifth Creation, revived[edit]

Earls of Devon, Sixth Creation (1603)[edit]

†: 1553 creation was with remainder to his heirs male whatsoever, so theoretically succeeded by his sixth cousin once removed; thus the 1831 revival was to the 9th member of the family with respect to said creation.

... or, if taking the 1335 transfer as the second creation:

Version 2 - 1335 as second creation[edit]

The title of Earl of Devon was created several times in the Peerage of England, and was possessed first by the de Reviers family, and later for the Courtenay. It is not to be confused with the title of "Earl of Devonshire", held along with the title of Duke of Devonshire by the Cavendish family, although the patent for the creation of those peerages used the same Latin words, Comes Devon. The title was dormant for several centuries after the death of the last Earl in 1556, but a Courtenay successfully claimed the title in the mid-19th century.

Unlike the Dukes of Devonshire, the Earls of Devon are strongly connected with the county of Devon. Their seat is Powderham Castle, near Starcross on the River Exe.

Earls of Devon, First Creation (1141)[edit]

Earls of Devon, Second Creation (1335)[edit]

Earl of Devon, Third Creation (1469)[edit]

Earl of Devon, Fourth Creation (1485)[edit]

Earls of Devon, Fifth Creation (1511)[edit]

Earls of Devon, Sixth Creation (1553)[edit]

Courtenay Baronets (1644)[edit]

Viscounts Courtenay (1762)[edit]

Earls of Devon, Sixth Creation, revived[edit]

Earls of Devon, Seventh Creation (1603)[edit]

†: 1553 creation was with remainder to his heirs male whatsoever, so theoretically succeeded by his sixth cousin once removed; thus the 1831 revival was to the 9th member of the family with respect to said creation.

Is this right, or am I making a complete mess of it?
James F. (talk) 13:24, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You look to be right - this makes sense out of the 9th Earl thing... john k 15:54, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The following additional comments may be of interest:

The sources for the notes that commenced this discussion were:

  • Sharpe, John (incorrectly dated 1830) Sharpe’s Genealogical Peerage of the British Empire. London.
  • Gibbs, Vicary & others (1910-98) The Complete Peerage, 2nd edition. London.
  • Fryde, E. B & others (1986) Handbook of British Chronology, 3rd edition. London.
  • Samuels, William S. (1980) Burke’s Peerage and Baronetage, 105th edition, 4th impression. London.

Supposed creation in 1335: It seems likely that Hugh de Courtenay simply inherited the earldom from his third cousin.

Burke’s Peerage says: “HUGH, EARL OF DEVON, who succeeded also to the great Honour of Plympton in Devon, 1293, as heir of the family of Reviers, Earls of Devon 1141-1293; was summoned to Parliament as Lord Courtenay 1299-1334; and on claiming the third penny of the county of Devon, was declared Earl of Devon by letters patent, 22 Febuary 1335, following upon due investigation”.

The Handbook of British Chronology lists this Hugh de Courtenay as “9. Hugh de Courtenay, cousin & heir; born 1275-76, styled from 22 February 1335; died 23 December 1240”.

The Complete Peerage says: “He succeeded his father 28 February 1292 in the Okehampton estate, being then 16 years old, and succeeded his abovenamed cousin Isabel 10 November 1293, in such of the Reviers estates as had not been alienated, and (possibly) as de jure EARL OF DEVON, though not so recognised till more than 40 years later”.

On the other hand, Sharpe’s Genealogical Peerage said “representing to King Edward III that the claim which he had inherited to the ‘tertium denarium’ was refused to be paid, because he was ‘no Earl’ was created (the line of Redvers having failed) EARL OF DEVON, 1335, and took his place on the bench as youngest Earl, but the following year was restored to the precendence of his maternal ancestors”.

A similar story is told by

Burke, Sir Bernard (1883) A Genealogical History of the Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct Peerages of the British Empire.

which concludes: “The king immediately instituted an inquiry into the affair, and finding it as stated removed the difficulty by creating his lordship an earl”.

Numbering: The usual practice is that the numbering starts afresh with each new creation, but the various reference books do not always follow this simple rule.

Sharpe’s Genealogical Peerage called the first Courtenay earl “HUGH, FIRST EARL OF DEVON”, but seemed somewhat confused by the supposed dormancy, referring to the revived Earl thusly: “The Earl, although only the eleventh of his family who has borne the title, is the eighteenth in hereditary descent; or the twentieth, taking in the reversals of attainder in the short lived restoration of King Henry VI, 1470. He is the ninth under the patent, so long dormant, of 1553, under which he has established his claim”.

Burke’s Peerage ignored all the earls before 1553, and then numbered them from that creation onwards, referring to each of the imaginary earls during the supposed dormancy as “de jure nth Earl of Devon”.

The Complete Peerage used two different systems simultaneously: Roman numerals for each successive earl and Arabic numerals for the members of the same family, without regard to attainders and new creations. The Blount and Cavendish creations had a separate numbering with this justification:

“The Earldom of this County as enjoyed since 1603 (at which period, and for more than two centuries afterwards, the Earldom thereof enjoyed by the Courtenay family was considered extinct) is treated as ‘Devonshire’ (to distinguish it from the Courtenay Earldom) and is numbered (for the sake of clearness) as if the title were distinct. Two Earldoms of the same county (Devon) having (according to the decision in 1831) existed since the 17th century concurrently, this appears to be the best, though perhaps not the most logical, way of treating the junior one”.

The Handbook of British Chronology used a similar system, but this is only to be expected, because “The chief sources from which this compilation is taken are The Complete Peerage (1st and 2nd editions)”, except that they used Arabic numerals consecutively, using bold numbers to identify each new creation. Inevitably, they listed the Blount and Cavendish creations under “Devonshire”.

Supposed distinction between Devon and Devonshire:

Devon and Devonshire are alternative names for the same place. In reality, the Blount and Cavendish creations were new grants of an old title, then believed extinct, and in both cases (according to The Complete Peerage) the words used were “Comes Devon”. The Courtenay earl created in 1485 is referred to the Parliament Roll as “Devonshire” (again according to The Complete Peerage). It is a fact of history that duplicated titles occur. Other examples are the Barons Strange and the Earls of Mar. The original Baron Strange was created in 1299, but the title is now Baron Strange of Knokin, in order to distinguish it from Baron Strange, accidentally created in 1628, when the wrong man was summoned to Parliament. The Mar case is very confused, involving a confiscation and regrant, but the result is that there are now two Earldoms of Mar, one of which happens to be merged with the Earldom of Kellie.

The correct treatment of the Blount and Cavendish creations is to say something along the lines of “Although these were new grants of the old title, which was then believed extinct, and although the words used were ‘Comes Devon’, these later creations are usually referred to as ‘of Devonshire’ in order to avoid confusion with the subsequently revived Courtenay creation of 1553”.

--Hovite 21:24, 24 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]

But why is the creation of 1603 still the Seventh Creation? - --VM 16:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article title for de jure Earls[edit]

Is it appropriate for those who were only discovered to have been an earl long after their death to have an article with the description Earl. The de jure 6th Earl was an MP, which he could not have been if he had known he had an earldom and was entitled to sit in the House of Lords. This is not merely an academic point, as WP is likely to ahve articles eventually for all MPs. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might look at Baron Hylton as an example; we have, e.g., John Hylton, de jure 18th Baron Hylton, sometime MP. Choess (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, my view is that an article title which would have surprised most of the subject's contemporaries, and perhaps even the subject himself, must be wrong. Surely the "de jure 18th Baron Hylton" (or whatever) is better left out of the article title but should be included in the lead? Moonraker2 (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say de jure titles should only be included when necessary for disambiguation, and there's no other way to disambiguate. The de jure 6th Earl should probably be at Sir William Courtenay, 2nd Baronet, just as his son is at William Courtenay, 1st Viscount Courtenay. john k (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that line of reasoning. The practice is that the article title should incorporate the highest title that the subject held. For a person with a de jure title of which he was unaware, that title will be one that he never held in his lifetime. Contemporary references to him will inevitably be to the title of which he was aware. To apply the de jure title to him is a form of anachronism. His right to the higher title should no doubt be mentioned, possibly in the lead, probably in any discussion of his descendants. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this seems right. I do think that if there's someone for whom we have an article and no other way to distinguish him than by the de jure title, we should perhaps use it - for instance William Courtenay, de jure 3rd Earl of Devon - but I'm doubtful that such people are likely to be notable. john k (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad link, Don't know a correct one to replace References

^ http://www.burkes-peerage.com/Search/FullRecordBottom.aspx?ID=3751 - Devon [edit]External links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shieldwolf (talk • contribs) 15:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different 'creations' of the earldom[edit]

It seems there has been earlier discussion of this topic, but an incomplete resolution of it, as there are inconsistencies in the article itself. For example, mentioned is made of the 10th Earl of Devon in the main text of the article, but there is no 10th Earl of Devon anywhere in the various 'creations' of the earldom listed later in the article.

The Complete Peerage numbers the earls successively, not differentiating them by starting the numbering all over again by separate 'creations', and Richardson's Magna Carta Ancestry, 2nd ed., Vol. I, pp. 538-47, for the period in which it covers the Earls of Devon, does the same. Although the online Oxford Dictionary of National Biography has only a brief entry for two of the pre-Tudor Earls of Devon, it identifies them in the same way as The Complete Peerage and Magna Carta Ancestry.

This must be confusing for Wikipedia readers, who not only find in the main text of this article reference to a 10th Earl who never appears in any of the 'creations' listed in the article below the main text, but who also have to reconcile the renumbering of the Earls of Devon by 'creation', and the links to various individual biographies in Wikipedia, with the consecutive numbering system used in standard sources including The Complete Peerage, Magna Carta Ancestry, and the online ODNB.

Is there a simple solution to this? Comments, anyone? NinaGreen (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean for the medieval earls, I assume? Restarting for each of the various Tudor creations seems to be standard, isn't it? If the earlier earls are, in fact, rarely numbered in the way wikipedia is doing it, we should follow what reliable sources do. john k (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Yes, I meant the medieval earls. I don't think it would be too difficult to change the numbering, although in some cases pages would have to be moved and redirected. NinaGreen (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read the earlier discussion, it seems to me that the 1335 patent was not a creation but a confirmation. This seems to be the consensus of the authors cited. The best solution is probably to regard the earldom as dormant from the death of Isabel de Fortibus until the succession of the first Courtenay earl was recognised in 1335. In other doubtful cases I think we have followed the numbering of Complete Peerage, which is probably still the most authorative work on the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In line with what you've said above, I've added this statement to the Wikipedia page for Hugh de Courtenay, 9th Earl, citing Cokayne, Complete Peerage, Vol. IV, (1916), pp. 322-3:
Forty-one years after the death of his cousin, Isabel de Fortibus, Countess of Devon, letters patent were issued dated 22 February 1335 declaring him Earl of Devon, and stating that he 'should assume such title and style as his ancestors, Earls of Devon, had wont to do'.
See [1]
During this 41-year hiatus he had been summoned to Parliament as Hugoni de Curtenay, 'wherein he is held to have become Lord Courtenay' (Cokayne, p. 323). For the last years of his life he thus held two titles simultaneously, being 9th Earl of Devon (as a result of the 1335 patent), and 1st Lord (or Baron) Courtenay, as a result of being summoned to Parliament in the years prior to the 1335 patent. Richardson terms him '9th Earl of Devon, 1st Lord Courtenay' on p. 539 of Magna Carta Ancestry, 2nd ed., Vol. I. NinaGreen (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've renumbered the Earls of the Courtenay line as per the foregoing discussion, but have not moved any pages. Comments? Is this satisfactory to everyone? NinaGreen (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added new material for individual earls not included in the earlier version of the article, and have added citations from Cokayne, and in some cases Richardson, for each earl in the period from the earliest Redvers Earls of Devon down to the reign of James I. I've also included links to the Wikipedia pages on the individual earls in instances where they were not linked earlier. I may have made some errors. If anyone notices any, I'd appreciate help in fixing them. Earlier editors have put a lot of work into this article, and I hope the editing I've done so far has built on that and improved the article by adding the sourcing requested in the notice at the top of the page. NinaGreen (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earl_of_Devon&oldid=1196052678"