Talk:Earl of Desmond

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

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 articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.

Ireland Mid‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Numbering of Earls

This was briefly discussed on

Talk:Gerald FitzGerald, 15th Earl of Desmond

but remains unresolved. I've assembled the publications that I've been able to find on the subject, maybe a consensus can be reached when all are assessed.

The main issue with numbering appears to be with regards to the 13th Earl - the dispute surrounding John FitzThomas (an old man, brother of 11th Earl, who disputed his nephew the 12th Earl's claim), who forcibly seized the Earldom and subsequently passed the title on to his son James FitzJohn, the 13th *OR* 14th Earl.

See headings added below. KerryMuso (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Peerage 1916

See 2nd edition, vol.4 1916 pp. 237–254.

(#1) Maurice FitzThomas (d. 1355/6)
(#2) Maurice FitzMaurice (d. 1384)
(#3) Gerald FitzMaurice (d. 1398)
(#4) John FitzGerald (d. 1399/1400)
(#5) Thomas FitzJohn (d. 1420)
(#6) James FitzGerald (d. 1462/3)
(#7) Thomas FitzJames (FitzGerald) (d. 1467/8)
(#8) James FitzThomas (FitzGerald) (d. 1487)
(#9) Maurice FitzThomas (FitzGerald) (d. 1520)
(#10) James FitzMaurice (FitzGerald) (d. 1529)
(#11) Thomas FitzThomas (FitzGerald) (d. 1534)
(#12) James FitzMaurice (FitzGerald) (d. 1539/40)
(#13) James FitzJohn (FitzGerald) (d. 1558)
(#14) Gerald FitzJames (FitzGerald) (d. 1583)

NB: Followed by the James, The Tower Earl (stated #15 but accepted so far on WP as 1st and last of a new creation)

So Complete Peerage doesn't include this John FitzGerald in the sequence, but on page 251, note 'b' it mentions that he disputed the accession of James FitzMaurice (12th Earl), that he "styled himself Earl of Desmond" and that he is "sometimes considered so". Thus, Gerald FitzGerald is named 14th Earl.

Dictionary of National Biography 1900

DNB has more detail on John FitzThomas in the article on his disputed nephew James FitzMaurice (12th Earl), but again doesn't list him in the sequence of Earls. It calls John "Earl de facto" and James FitzMaurice "Earl de jure".

(#12) James FitzMaurice (FitzGerald) (d. 1539/40)
(#13) James FitzJohn (FitzGerald) (d. 1558)
(#14) Gerald FitzJames (FitzGerald) (d. 1583)

Thus, Gerald FitzGerald is named 14th Earl.

Encyclopedia Britannica 1911

See Desmond, Gerald Fitzgerald and FitzGerald.

This calls Gerald FitzJames the 15th Earl, but doesn't quite explain why as as it doesn't include a comprehensive list of successions from the beginning of the title. Second link above details the dispute of 12th/13th Earls, again calling John de facto Earl and James de jure Earl.

Directory of Royal Genealogical Data 2005

Tompsett's Directory of Royal Genealogical Data says:

(#12) James FitzMaurice (FitzGerald) (d. 1539/40)
(#13) John FitzThomas (FitzGerald) (d. 1536) [1]
(#13) James FitzJohn (FitzGerald) (d. 1558) [2]
(#14) Gerald FitzJames (FitzGerald) (d. 1583) [3]

Note the repeated no. 13.

Thus, Gerald FitzGerald is named 14th Earl.

Current state of WP list

WP currently has:

(#12) James FitzMaurice (FitzGerald) (d. 1539/40)
(#13) John FitzThomas (FitzGerald) (d. 1536)
(#14) James FitzJohn (FitzGerald) (d. 1558)
(#15) Gerald FitzJames (FitzGerald) (d. 1583)

Proposals

Proposal 1:

Refer to James FitzMaurice (d. 1539/40) as 12th Earl de jure in text/navboxes
Label John FitzThomas (d. 1536) as 12th and refer to as de facto in text/navboxes
Label subsequent Earls as James (13th), Gerald (14th) etc

Proposal 2:

Refer to James FitzMaurice (d. 1539/40) as 12th Earl de jure in text/navboxes
Label John FitzThomas (d. 1536) as 13th and refer to as de facto in text/navboxes
Label subsequent Earls as James (13th), Gerald (14th) etc

Proposal 3:

Keep current sequential numbering system (i.e. John is numbered 13th, James 14th, Gerald 15th)

I vote Proposal 2. It assigns a number to John FitzThomas, but allows legal numbering to be maintained afterwards, and specifically numbers him the same as at least one published source (Tompsett).KerryMuso (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for presenting that in a tidy fashion. I'll use the death years to distinguish the individuals. 1536 was contemporary with 1539/40, and didn't overlap with 1558. I'd say keep 1536 as #12 de facto. If you take de jure/facto as mutual terms, ie. one depends on the other, the #12 de jure must absorb the #12 de facto on the death of 1536, so 1558 succeeds to a unified entity and becomes #13. Seems like the logical way, but I recognise this is the Irish peerage and is subject to some weird calculus beyond arithmetic. Therefore vote proposal 1.Shtove (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering of Earls, completion of articles

Hello, all. Just finished getting an article started for each of the earls of Desmond. As thoughtfully discussed above, the numbering scheme situation is a difficult one. While creating the articles about the de jure and de facto 12th earls, I just couldn't bring myself to declare either of them the 13th and imply some sort of regular succession. So I've numbered the earls in their time period the 11th, de facto 12th, de jure 12th, and 14th. Far from a perfect solution, but the best I could manage. I rather regret the decision not to count poor Nicholas as the 3rd earl, as it causes our scheme to diverge from that in so many of the available secondary sources, as for instance the very helpful Alfred Webb. Still, the decision was made by other editors long before I chipped in on this project, so it behooves me to let it stand.Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to chime in here about Nicholas, son of the 1st Earl. Unlike Wikipedia, I am going to be re-numbering my online tree to include him as he is included in the two main sources (Cokayne, Vol. 3, 1890 and Burke, A Genealogical History, 1866) used for the 1st Earl as the 3rd Earl. I'm not sure why this has been decided to be overlooked, even if he is called "an idiot." -- Lady Meg (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Earl of Desmond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Earl of Desmond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120106204431/http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/public/genealogy/royal/ to http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/public/genealogy/royal/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"House of Desmond" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect House of Desmond. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 12:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]