Talk:White Knight (Fitzgibbon family)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted on 5 June 2008 by reviewer Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs). Ireland Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The text of this article clearly is taken (if poorly transcribed) from an older source. Can anyone note what that source is? (I suspect a history of the family that held the hereditary knighthood.) 76.231.244.34 (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have located the original sources for the transcribed material. I will be updating the History section, including revising the use of these quotations. Please see my below section on this Talk page, "New version of History section". Justinstuartlyon (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I received notification on my talk page from user:Doug Weller about edits by a new user user:Justinstuartlyon that alters the lead in this article (White Knight (Fitzgibbon family)) from "and has since become dormant." to "and continues to be held by heirs to the family line".

The initial edit included two citations:

1. http://www.thepeerage.com/p5615.htm#c56147.1
2. http://www.william1.co.uk/t24.htm

The edit was reverted by user:Doug Weller with an edit summary "Not reliable sources, peerage.com uses blogs, Wikipedia, etc., the other is a personal website."

user:Justinstuartlyon re-added the information with a list of new sources and the comment "1st source lists a multitude of references to Burks Peerage, in its many versions, related to the lineage. 2nd source is an extensive catalog curated by Alan G Freer, Member of the Society of Genealogists, London. Read better before undo-ing, mate.)"

user:Doug Weller also left a message on the talk page of user:Justinstuartlyon

"Peerage.com uses all sorts of sources, including our articles which can change in seconds, read the discussion here.[1] The other one was just someone's website. Please read

WP:RS]. You need a source with the status of Burke's Peerage. Doug Weller talk 19:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)"[reply

]

The second edit to the page made by user:Justinstuartlyon was itself edited by user:Opera hat with the editorial comment "some neatening; removed reference to www.william1.co.uk/t24.htm which contains no mention of this family".

The link provide by user:Doug Weller is I presume to the section "RSN/Archive 175#Judgepedia" to which I made a number of comments using Darrly Lundy's website thepeerage.com as an example.

OK those are the facts so far I will sign this now and if any of the parties disagree please post amendments as indented comments directly below this one. -- PBS (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As

The initial citation to Lundy (1) fully formatted was:

• Lundy, Darryl (8 July 2017). "James Alastair Garry Stuart-Lyon". thepeerage.com. p. 5615 § c56147.1.

Lundy is a self-published website by a non-expert. As such the website is not reliable see (

1. Mosley, Charles, ed. (2003). Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage,. Vol. volume=1 (107th in 3 volumes. Wilmington, Delaware ed.). Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books). p. 1150. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Missing pipe in: |volume= (help).

3. Garry Stuart-Lyon, "re: Stuart-Lyon Family," e-mail message to Darryl Roger LUNDY (101053), 2 February 2010.

Let us suppose that Lundy had made the statement but used only citation one (Mosley) to support it. I can add it to Wikipedia using

"He was born on 11 December 1934 (Lundy 2017 p. 5615 § c56147.1 cites Mosley 2003, vol 1, p. 1150).

But if he had only provided support from his footnote (3) then I can not add the fact because there is no reliable source to the fact.

"He was born on 11 December 1934 (Lundy 2017 p. 5615 § c56147.1 cites email message no. 101053)

The second source cited by user:Justinstuartlyon has been cast aside by user:Opera hat because it does not contain the information it is purport to support. If you do not think this is so then, user:Justinstuartlyon, please quote the sentences you think are relevant.

I can not see in Lundy the information to support your addition. It you did read it in Lundy then please quote the relevant sentences and give the page name and section number. We can then see if it meets the requirements of reliability.

-- PBS (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):PBS, Thanks very much. I've just tried to check the link in (Burke's Peerage - Article Library - A to Z Definition Guide) but in fact there is no website at www.burkes-peerage.net/. Burke's Peerage site is [http://www.burkespeerage.com/records.php here.

I then looked at G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., volume 5, page 679 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000). which can be read here. Nothing on p. 679 that seems relevant and indeed the only mention of a White Knight is completely irrelevant.

Of course, this appears to bea waste of my time and that of User:PBS. The text that was added states "continues to be held by heirs to the family line." yet none of the sources can possibly state that as the oldest is 1998 and the others are older, eg Vol 5 of the Complete Peerage was written in 1926. Doug Weller talk 11:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the Cokayne text establishes a genealogical line between the Fitzgibbons associated with the earldom of clare, and those associated with viscountcy of lower conello, ireland, which fills in a gap left between the genealogy established in Burke's, and the genealogy established in Hammond. I appreciate the concern, but I don't see how you can authoritatively refute my evidence without reading ALL the relevant citations, as they establish a genealogy spanning several centuries. Obviously, the necessary material requires multiple sources for the complete picture. My insistence on the Freer source is for exactly the reason that Doug Weller points out above: it is an authoritative source listing LIVING members of the family line, as Freer's genealogy was published in 2012. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having read

WP:NOR, I concede that to my knowledge there is no existing authoritative source that expressly identifies anyone as currently holding the title. If simply establishing an unbroken genealogy is not sufficient to prove the title is currently held by certain living persons, then I suppose you are correct in finding that my addition, "and continues to be held by heirs to the family line" is disputable. However, I would contend that the original statement "and has since become dormant" is itself not proven by any evidence present in the article. Unless some can be provided, I would suggest the lead should not make any reference to whether the title has become dormant or not. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding the Freer source, I found in the article

WP:V in reference to self-published online material, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Off hand, Allan Freer appears to have contributed to many scholarly works concerning the historical context surrounding the subject of the article in question. As stated elsewhere, Freer was a member of the Society of Genealogists, London at the time of publication. He was a regular contributor to the North British Review until 2015. Here is a link outlining some of his contributions to publications https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/archives/8033f81a-1a2b-391f-bba8-4c51947e9fe3 Justinstuartlyon (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The article already states "His eldest male descendent [sic] were constantly denominated by that title", which sort of implies that whoever would be the extant heir in that line would hold the title. My evidence provides an identification of that heir explicitly. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another inconsistency that I think justifies the accusation of bias previously made, is that none of these editors seems to have detected that references to http://www.thepeerage.com/ already appeared TWICE in the article BEFORE my citations were added. Why were these citations not a problem prior to my addition? These references to thepeerage.com still exist in the article! No one has removed them! Somewhat comically, after citing standard texts such as Burke's, I'm asked if I've actually READ them. I mean please. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The two existing Lundy citations are in the form

WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. BTW "unreliable source" is a Wikipedia expression for any source that is not considered reliable. One unreliable sources that is used in a lot of articles is {{Rayment}}, like Lundy it has been found to be accurate over time, but by its nature (self published) it is considered Wikipedia "unreliable". So in the long term all Rayment citations ought to be replaced with reliable sources, but as Rayment is generally accurate editors are reluctat to remove information based on Rayment and instead tag the citation with {{better source needed}}-- PBS (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

That's the wrong Freer - that one is "Freer, Allen, b 1926, educator, artist, art collector and writer." - have I missed something about his genealogical contributions? You really need to stop these accusations of bias, it taints your other edits. As for using the peerage.com, what's been used is a reference to reliable sources used in peerage.com, not the website itself. Frankly I don't think we should do that, we should use the original source Lundy used. I don't have the resources to do that, please feel free to fix that yourself. I've removed the suggestion there's a current holder as a violation of

WP:BLP. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

My friend, that is the correct Freer. Sometimes, people are interested in multiple disciplines. Although his academic career was mainly concerned with the art and aesthetics of the medieval period, he was also a genealogist. I'm sorry if you don't have time to read the entire article I cited containing Freer's works. But you probably shouldn't dismiss evidence just because it's hard for you to read it all. You should really look into Freer's work with the North British Review. All you need to do is search Amazon.com to find his writing. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was added by a problem editor in 2008 but was missed. This should match Knight of Glin and Knight of Kerry. I'm still waiting for sources that show someone still holds this title. Doug Weller talk 12:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See citations 2-6 in the article, as well as the discussion above, for evidence refuting that the title has become dormant. I should point out that there is absolutely no evidence cited in the article stating the title as explicitly dormant (see

WP:NOR), so I'm unsure how the above editor is so sure about his facts. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Further, despite the above editor's error concerning the dormancy of the title, 'title' is still a more correct usage than 'pedigree', since the knighthood is an hereditary one. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Taken from the Ulster Journal of Archaeology, Volume 6,1858"[2]

"Edmund Fitzgibbon, the "White Knight" already mentioned, was enabled to arrange with the English government, as one of the conditions of his betraying the Earl of Desmond, that he should not only preserve his landed property, but should transmit it to his daughter, contrary to the usual rules of descent of Knight's Fees in Ireland, which would have given it to David Fitzgibbon, of Kilmore, commonly called ne Cccrrig, (i.e., David of the Rock.) It must be observed, however, that, if the of the White Knight had been allowed to descend, according to the common course of law, to his cousin, David ne Carrig, it would have been confiscated; as the estate actually possessed by the latter was, in consequence of participation in the rebellion of Gerald, sixteenth Earl of Desmond, in the year 1585." - I, Doug Weller, wrote this, see date before -Justinstuartlyon interpolated his post below.

I feel it's pretty obvious that Doug Weller's interpretation of his above quotation is totally inaccurate. The above quote states that the title was not passed to who would have been the typical heir (David ne Carrig), it was passed to Edmund's daughter to PREVENT the title from becoming extinct/dormant. The title was then available for that daughter's male child, who would have been Edmund's grandson. The following quotation is from the source Doug Weller cited within the article regarding the title's dormancy, which I've found actually catalogs the most recent heir at the time of the source's publishing: "The representative in the male line of the White Knights is most probably the eldest surviving son of the late Mr. Maurice Fitzgibbon of Crohanna House, Kilkenny" (JRSAI 213) [3]. This Maurice Fitzgibbon of Kilkenny is included within the geneology I've cited within the article, in Burke's 1976, and he is listed WITH ISSUE. In absolutely no place does the "Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland" source state that the title is either extinct or dormant. Please provide a direct quotation, if you have one.

The following is verbatim from Doug Weller's above source, "Ulster Journal of Archaeology, Volume 6,1858": "It has been universally acknowledged by our genealogists that his male descendants are long extinct, though some of his female descendants may still be extant...", and as is pretty clearly proven by the quotation Doug Weller provided above ("Edmund Fitzgibbon, that the "White Knight" already mentioned, was enabled..."), that the title can pass from father, to daughter, to son. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burke's Peerage and Gentry A-Z guide at [4] " (Holders of three hereditary knighthoods of feudal origin have long existed in Ireland: the Knight of Glin, or the Black Knight (see WAKEFIELD), the Knight of Kerry, or the Green Knight (see FitzGERALD, Bt, of Valencia), and the White Knight, a member of the FitzGibbon family, among whom a claimant to the title apparently exists although it has been dormant for many years." Doug Weller talk 15:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a reliable source (see the original at [5]}, unlike this which does say extinct rather than dormant, going extinct with Maurice Oge Fitzgibbon, 12th White Knight (d. 1611).

although that seems to be a reliable source, I can't find any reference to the title being dormant or extinct at all. Could you provide a quotation that actually proves your point? Justinstuartlyon (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A number of sources say extinct. I think this one[6] is probably sufficient. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this is obviously not a reliable source, it is a personal website with no expert sources whatsoever. I mean seriously? You try to go after thepeerage.com, and you cite this? Justinstuartlyon (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Justinstuartlyon:Please don't interpolate your edits with mine. You're getting confused. The line of mine above, where I say "I think this one" is a link to the Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland (why do you call it a personal website?) and says "On the arrival of George IV. in Ireland in 1821, the then Earl of Kingston endeavoured to revive the extinct title, and wished to be publicly acknowledged as the White Knight, but in this he was successfully opposed by William Vescy Fitzgerald, afterwards Lord Fitzgerald of Desmond. The representative in the male line of the White Knights is most probably the eldest surviving son of the late Mr. Maurice Fitzgibbon, of Crohanna House, Kilkenny." The title is extinct, the line continued.

You are still adding original research. If you can't give me a quote stating that the title still exists, I'm going to have to take this to one of the noticeboards to discuss it. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Irish Pedigrees: Or, The Origin and Stem of the Irish Nation, Volume 2 By John O'Hart " Maurice Fitzgibbon, the fourteenth and last known White Knight. d. s.p., temp. Charles I."[7] Doug Weller talk 18:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above evidence, I have to admit "Earl of Kingston endeavoured to revive the extinct title... but in this he was successfully opposed" is pretty conclusive. I feel I have to agree it would be valid to state in the article that the title is extinct, but I think it would be most accurate if the statement chosen does not imply that the Fitzgibbon line is also extinct. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Justinstuartlyon's argument seems to have been that the Fitzgibbon Earls of Clare were descended from the White Knights, that they have male descendants living today, and that one of those descendants is the rightful White Knight.

The citation to Forster (1844) asserts that the third Earl of Clare "...represents a collateral branch of the house of Fitz-Gerald, […] that of Fitz-Gibbon descending from Gilbert Fitz-Gerald, the eldest of four younger sons of John Fitz-Maurice Fitz-Gerald (killed at Callan […] in 1261)". Early peerage works were notorious for their bogus pedigrees. Burke's Irish Family Records (1976) is more cautious, saying (page 430) that "This family is, by tradition, a junior branch of the Geraldines through the line of The White Knight. A connected descent for this can only be traced from Thomas Fitzgibbon, of Ballylanders", the great-great grandfather of the first Earl of Clare. A family tradition is not a verified descent. User:Justinstuartlyon informed me on my talk page that "The references to physical texts draw a complete line from the early medieval period in Ireland, through the Earls of Clare, to the modern period" and invited me "to search 'Fitzgibbon' within [the website www.william1.co.uk], to find a clear relationship between historical and living members of the family line in question." I did, and found no relationship given between the White Knights and the Earls of Clare.
Even if such a descent could be proved, it wouldn't make any difference. The earldom of Clare became extinct upon the death of the third Earl in 1864. He left three daughters, the eldest of whom, Florence, inherited his personal property, while the second, Louisa, inherited the family estates of Mount Shannon (BIFR, page 431). Louisa married a younger son of the 13th Viscount Dillon, he adopted the name FitzGibbon, and it is their descendants who are listed at volume I, page 1150 of the 2003 Burke's Peerage and on the link to the Alan Freer website. Quelle suprise, her heir-general turns out to be one J. A. G. Allbutt, born Stuart-Lyon. But unfortunately for User:Justinstuartlyon, even if the elder daughter Florence's present heir Lord Kimberley were willing to waive his senior claim, Irish hereditary knighthoods cannot descend by the female line. Lord Kingston, a female-line descendant of the 11th White Knight, had his claim to the title rejected in 1822 (BIFR, page 429), and on the death of the 29th Knight of Glin in 2011 all his obituaries described him as the last Knight of Glin, despite his leaving daughters.

Just because the descendants of the earls of Clare aren't the heirs, I don't think this necessarily means the title of The White Knight is extinct. The first White Knight was succeeded by his younger son David, but his elder son also left issue, known as "The Old Knight's Sept" (Mac an tShen Ridire). The elder son's line to Maurice FitzGibbon of Crohana, co. Kilkenny, who claimed the title in 1878, is summarised in this pedigree, published at the expense of Maurice and his brother Abraham. Burke's Irish Family Records is again more sceptical, stating merely that Maurice's sixteenth-century ancestor David was "the supposed rep[resentative] of the elder son of the 1st White Knight" (page 429), a gap of 200 years. Nevertheless, BIFR still describes the 1878 claimant's grandson Maurice Desmond FitzGibbon, born 1895, as "a possible claimant to the hereditary title of The White Knight" in 1976 (page 428). Finally, the broken link to the defunct www.burkes-peerage.net website that User:Justinstuartlyon provided is still available on the Wayback Machine. Copyrighted to 2009, it mentions "the White Knight, a member of the FitzGibbon family, among whom a claimant to the title apparently exists although it has been dormant for many years". Presumably such a claimant would be the heir male of the FitzGibbons of Kilkenny. Opera hat (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Opera hat I do appreciate your serious investigation into the matter. I am in complete agreement with your interpretation of my citations and other sources in your above comment, except for a few minor points. First, regarding the Freer source, it's only meant to establish the link between the younger son of the 13th Viscount Dillon (Gerald Normanby Fitzgibbon (Dillon)) and living persons, to complete the genealogy. The sub-page from Freer's website that I cited describes that genealogy specifically, linking the Earls of Clare with a junior branch of Dillon, and tracing the resultant descendants into the present. Here's the link to that sub-page, for convenience [ http://www.william1.co.uk/t24.htm].

Secondly, regarding Florence Fitzgibbon's progeny representing a senior branch of the Fitzgibbon line, this is incorrect. A royal license was granted to Gerald Normanby Dillon and his wife in 1873 that conferred upon him and his heirs all arms, rights, and titles of Fitzgibbon [8]. This was presumably to prevent the Fitzgibbon arms, rights, titles from becoming subsumed under Kingston (an English peer), as the daughters of the 3rd Earl of Clare were considered the heraldic heiresses to Fitzgibbon at that time, and the eldest daughter, Florence, had married the male heir to Kingston. Concerning this royal license, the document itself is not online, but I have had a copy of the relevant pages made and sent to me from the National Library of Ireland's archives. I can make it available if anyone is interested in viewing it. I will make it clear that the term "white knight" does not appear explicitly in that royal license. However, the title of Earl is explicitly stated as NOT being transmitted via the license, and so I would assume that any other titles belonging to the 3rd Earl that were also not intended to be transmitted to Gerald Normanby via the license would have also been explicitly mentioned in the license. Addition: I have found a newspaper clipping from the period mentioning this royal license [9].

Thirdly, regarding the descent of the title of The White Knight in the female line, I have to admit it would appear User:Opera hat has made a strong argument that it may only be allowed by special permission from a royally mandated authority. It appears Lord Kingston was unsuccessful in 1821, but that the daughter of Edmund Fitzgibbon was allowed to transmit the title to her son in 1585, perhaps because she was an heraldic heiress with an Irish husband, although this can only be supposed.

Finally, User:Opera hat has cited Burke's 1976 pg 429 in the above, to show that the title of White Knight could be considered to be conferred upon a descendant (by Burke's) even after a 200 year period where the title was recorded to be held by no one. I think Opera Hat is therefore correct in surmising that the title is not veritably extinct, but either in abeyance or active. To further support this claim is the following quotation: "After the death of 12th White Knight the title fell into abeyance... the matter fell into abeyance until the title was assumed by Maurice FitzGibbon, of Crohana" (Burke's Irish Family Records 1976, pg 430). Obviously implicit in this statement from Burke's is that the title MAY fall into abeyance when not currently held by an individual, and may be reclaimed later by a rightful heir. The title does not, however, become extinct. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When adding text to the article based on sources it is important not to

Please see my comment in the 'Lead' sub-section of this Talk page. I may re-write this debated information as its own section, once the debate has been resolved. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I have had a copy of the relevant pages made and sent to me from the National Library of Ireland's archives" -- see "

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS) -- PBS (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I must point out that the link I provided is to the National Library of Ireland's own website, which is certainly a valid source according to the conventions of Wikipedia. The text published on the website itself identifies an existing document within the library's archives as being titled: "Copy of grant of arms to The Hon. Gerald Normanby Dillon and to his wife, the Lady Louisa Isabella Georgina, daughter of Richard Hobart Fitzgibbon, 3rd and last Earl of Clare, on their assuming under Royal Licence the name and arms of Fitzgibbon, Dec. 26, 1873." The title of the document itself, I believe, proves the point I was making in reference to the citation. Here is a link to a newspaper clipping from the period, which contains some details regarding this royal license [10].

One more point: as far as I can understand, according to

WP:V

, a published source doesn't have to be publicly available to be valid, it simply needs to be published by a reliable institution. Since the royal license I'm referring to is contained in a hand-written manuscript published by the BRITISH CROWN, I'd say that meets the requirement of a reliable source. The National Library of Ireland webpage I've cited confirms my statement regarding who the manuscript was published by.

According to

WP:PSTS, regarding Wikipedia policy for primary sources: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." My statements regarding the cited royal license are taken directly from the text without interpretation. I fail to see how this source does not meet Wikipedia conventions. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

You say you are using it to prove a point. Have I misunderstood that, because it sounds like interpretation. See

WP:SYNTH. I'm not convinced it was published either, a document written by someone to give to someone else isn't published. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Once again User:Doug Weller, I have to encourage you to investigate my sources properly. The manuscript in question exists as a PUBLIC RECORD of the grant of arms, titles, etc to Fitzgibbon. To say that a public record made available through a national library's genealogical office is not a valid primary source is really ridiculous to my mind. User:Doug Weller, I feel your understanding of WK:NOR is illogical. Almost all articles on Wikipedia contain references to multiple sources in order to build ideas that logically follow one another. It's obvious that proving a complex argument using a single source is in most cases impossible. As far as I understand, WK:NOR dictates that articles do not contain original INFERENCES made on sources. Constructing an argument using overlapping information is obviously necessary for any complex topic, and doesn't violate WK:NOR. How else could you possibly verify a genealogy spanning centuries, when no genealogical text exists that covers the entire period from early medieval Ireland up to the present?

The point I am making regarding the royal license is a simple restatement of the text, that X person was granted Y titles at Z date. There is zero interpretation. If you're suggesting that reading something and then accurately paraphrasing it is inference, well that's just laughably meta. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

original research. I have no dog in this fight, I am just trying to make sure that all editors who are discussing the content of this article understand the relevant policies and guidelines. It is up to you to convince other editors that an index listing on a website of an archive is "reputably published". Once that hurdle is overcome then that no interpretation of a primary source is taking place. What this means is editors can quote or make a statement from it, but what editors can not do is draw even obvious inferences from it -- that has to be done by a secondary source. -- PBS (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

As I've clearly stated, the current holder of the manuscript is the National Library of Ireland, and the original author of the manuscript was the Crown's Representative. The library's website (a modern, reputable source) verifies that the crown was the party that originally authored/authorized the document. To underline my point, a reputable institution (the library) considers the manuscript a REPUTABLE historical document authored by "people who are directly involved", therefore it is a reputable primary source, according to

WP:PSTS. This "index listing on a website of an archive" proves that a document with such title as I have above quoted does IN FACT exist in the library's archive. Since the title of the document expressly and directly states my argument as being true, I fail to see how this source is refutable in any way. I feel that the content of the document is also a valid primary source, but it seems to me my point has already been explicitly proven in the text of the document's title alone. Additionally, I feel that all of User:PBS's criticisms have already been addressed in my above comment "Once again User:Doug Weller, I have to encourage...", and I restate them only for the sake of thoroughness. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Leaving aside publication issue, I'm not clear what the point is that is being proven in the text of the title. I haven't had time to follow up on all of this. Besides my work as an Administrator and member of the Arbitration Committee which can take up a lot of time (I'm also a Checkuser and and Oversighter), I have over 15,000 pages (plus their talk pages) on my Watchlist. Doug Weller talk 18:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The argument was made by Opera hat that EVEN IF the title of "The White Knight" is held by a living person (which Opera hat still contends), that person could not be held by the specific branch of the Fitzgibbon family line that I have above identified, for the reason that an elder branch of the family line exists, whose heir would be represented by Lord Kimberley. My reference to the manuscript in discussion was to prove that the specific branch of the Fitzgibbon family line that I have above identified is in fact the one with the right to the Fitzgibbon name, titles, arms, etc. The manuscript is a grant of these rights i.e. X person was granted Y titles at Z date. For more details, see my above comment: "Secondly, regarding Florence Fitzgibbon's progeny...".

(edit conflict) I don't think there is a point. The Royal Licence for Gerald Normanby Dillon and his wife to assume the name and quarter the arms of FitzGibbon was reported in the Dublin Gazette on 25 November 1873 and in the London Gazette on 28 November. There's nothing particularly remarkable about such a grant; in fact they were very common when the inheritance of one family passed to another. But (as I had hoped I had already made clear earlier) the Dillon-FitzGibbon relationship is totally irrelevant to the descent of the title of the White Knight, to which the Earls of Clare never made a claim. Opera hat (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And no, I'm not contending that the title is held by a living person, I'm saying that Burke's says it is dormant and so should Wikipedia. For a title to become extinct all potential heirs have to die out. It seems possible that there are male-line descendants of the White Knights still in existence, so the title is dormant. But for any individual to claim the title, he would have to prove not only unbroken descent from a previous holder, but also that any senior lines of descent to the claimant had died out. Given the passage of time we are talking about and the scarcity of Irish records, I would suspect this is genealogically impossible. So the title is dormant and likely to remain so, as it has been for 400 years. Opera hat (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

despite the continued contention regarding the Earls of Clare being the heirs to the title of "The White Knight", Opera hat you must agree that your above argument regarding Lord Kimberley: "But unfortunately for User:Justinstuartlyon, even if the elder daughter Florence's present heir Lord Kimberley were willing to waive his senior claim...", is disproven by the 1873 royal license. Unless other senior branches can be validated, I would suggest that I have therefore satisfied the second clause of what you have, in your own words, stated above as the necessary burden of proof for my general argument. In other words, if I can establish an "unbroken descent from a previous holder" to the 1st Earl of Clare, then by Opera hat's own terms I have proven my general argument. All that is then left, is to unpack the statement into its own section in the article, as in the concern expressed by PBS in the below 'Lead' section. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree. I think you are confusing inheritance of property with inheritance of titles. In the absence of any entail, the third Earl of Clare could leave his property to whomever he chose. He happened to choose his second daughter, doubtless for the reason you suggested, that the eldest daughter was already married to an English peer with an estate of his own, while the second was married to a youngest son with few prospects. But the Royal Licence for him to assume the name and arms of FitzGibbon (and nothing more) did not change the fact that the third Earl's heir general was his eldest daughter, and her descendant Lord Kimberley is the heir of line.

A modern example: Sir

Iain Moncrieffe of that Ilk, 11th Baronet, married Diana Hay, 23rd Countess of Erroll; they had two sons. The elder son took the surname of Hay and succeeded his mother as Earl of Erroll and Lord High Constable of Scotland. The younger son succeeded his father at Easter Moncrieffe and is Chief of the Name and Arms of Moncrieffe. Does this mean the younger son also succeeded to his father's baronetcy, created in 1685? No it does not: the baronetcy passed to the senior heir Lord Erroll. An Irish example is the 8th Earl of Thomond, who died in 1741. He left his property to his wife's nephew Percy Wyndham, who was granted permission

to take the surname of O'Brien, just as the 3rd Earl of Clare's son-in-law was granted permission to take the surname of FitzGibbon. The Earldom of Thomond was even re-created for Wyndham-O'Brien in 1756. Does this mean that Percy Wyndham-O'Brien had any claim to the ancient title of The O'Brien, Prince of Thomond? It does not.

But all of this is off-topic: Irish hereditary knighthoods cannot pass by the female line. Any right the Earls of Clare may have had to the title of the White Knight died out with the third Earl in 1864. The Wodehouse descendants of his eldest daughter, the FitzGibbon-Lee-Dillon descendants of his second daughter and the Cavendish descendants of his third daughter all have the same rights to the title of the White Knight as they do to the Earldom of Clare: none whatsoever. Opera hat (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)h[reply]

I feel convinced by your arguments above, Opera hat and I do see your point regarding the senior line. It seems well supported. At present, the statement included in the article regarding the facts being discussed here is "Though the title of The White Knight is presently in abeyance, heirs to the Fitzgibbon line remain extant through the living descendants of the Earls of Clare". I wonder if you find this statement problematic? Interesting in everyone's thoughts. If we can agree on this statement, I wonder if anyone could help me locate a better source for proof that living descendants of the Earls of Clare remain extant. My Freer genealogy remains highly contended :). Justinstuartlyon (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we mention heirs in this article? And the wording in quotes would need a source stating that. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller I feel like I'm always filling you in when all you have to do is read the existing comments. See the talk section 'New Version of Holders of the tile" to understand why the Earls of Clare relate to the White Knight genealogy, with cited proof. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.218.223.54 (talk) [reply]

You still don't get it. Not onlyhave you failed to show that Freer is a source we can use, we have no source making the link you want to make and imply by using "though". See

MOS:OPED. Doug Weller talk 20:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Doug, it's you who doesn't get it. I'm not going to bother responding to you if you keep being intentionally dense and failing to make an effort to understand the elements of the discussion. READ THE ENTIRE SECTION BELOW 'New version of 'Holders of the title"', then come back and make an argument. I've clearly shown through verbatim quotation that the Earls of Clare were descended from the White Knight lineage. I do not rely on Freer to prove this. It looks like I'm not going to be able to use Freer, but that's beside the point now. I honestly can't even really tell what point you're trying to argue. Please do some reading and come back. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the statement beginning with "Though". It's unsourced and NPOV. I don't know why you call me dense but don't directly respond to what I said about the word "though "(sorry for the typo, but if you read

MOS:OPED I would be obvious what I meant. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

No-one is disputing that the Earls of Clare have descendants living, but they are not heirs male to the FitzGibbon line, and so are not relevant to this article. Opera hat (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Doug is disputing that, but I agree it's a silly dispute. Take a look at this page 432 [11]. There are several male-line descendants of the last earl born after 1960. I assume they/their children are alive. These names listed represent descendants of the Fitzgibbon line in question (Limerick), therefore I feel my statement is now proven through citation.

Regarding the importance of this fact to the topic of the article, I've clearly established and proven a strong traditional and factual association between the historical White Knights and the Earls of Clare, both contemporaneously to the historical period (Forester) and in modern sources (Burke's). It's clear from the sources the Earls of Clare were in the lineage of the White Knights, though its not clear they actually used the title. Tracing the lineage of the White Knights is the topic of this section, and I feel this statement strongly reflects that topic, and is of interest and import.

Further, if Lord Kingston's unsuccessful claim is relevant, then surely the association with the Earls of Clare is also worthwhile. I will note that before my edits, the final paragraph of this section ONLY mentioned Lord Kingston's claim - with some factual errors.

Prior to my edits, the original lead of this article cited TWO sources. The first was a broken link to the Burke's Peerage website. The second, apparently to give historical context, was a quotation from the Forester text. Guess what the section of the text that quote comes from? Well... the section's title is: "CLARE, EARL OF (Richard Hobart Fitz-Gibbon)". Essentially, before I became involved, the sources were already concerned with the Earls of Clare.

One final point here, I want everyone to take a look at the title of this article. It's "White Knight (Fitzgibbon family)". That second part in the brackets is important :) Justinstuartlyon (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Justinstuartlyon:, it's actually not significant in the way I think you mean. It's there to distinguish in from the dab page White Knight. See WP:Disambiguation. If it wasn't needed to distinguish it from other pages, we would just call this article White Knight

kay but like I've made at least four distinct arguments regarding this issue in the above. You addressed one. Kinda. And I mean its a weak argument because out of all the possible terms that could have been used to "distinguish" the article, 'Fitzgibbon family' was chosen. That's obviously significant. And it's significant because NO ONE EVER held this title who WASN'T a Fitzgibbon. Like duh. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.218.223.54 (talk) [reply]

This seems to be an Alan G. Freer. Justinstuartlyon has linked to [12] which is an Allen Freer. Then there's the Allan Freer who I think is making available copies North British Review published in the 19th century or is someone who was involved with it. I'm told that Freer was "a regular contributor to the North British Review until 2015". Please, can someone clarify this? Is there actually a new North British Review and if so User:Justinstuartlyon can you give us some examples of his contributions? I can't find it on Google Scholar.[13] I hope I'm not wasting my time. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does turn out that the Allan Freer associated with the North British Review is a different Allan Freer than the one associated with the genealogical website I've cited, as the North British Review has not been published since the 19th Century. My mistake was due to various reprints being available for purchase (on Amazon, amongst others) and listed as having been published up to 2015. The 21st century date refers to this new round of re-publishing. Despite this, the Allan Freer associated with the bibliography at [14] IS the same Freer as the one I've cited in reference to this article. It appears User:Doug Weller is in agreement, given his above statement. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not convinced that the "Allen Freer" at that website is the same as "Alan Freer" - different spellings for a start. Taking this to

WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 13:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I've removed all reference to Freer in the article. I can now prove the same information in Burke's Irish Family Records 1976 pg 432 [15] Justinstuartlyon (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For all those who have been editing the lead section of the article please read the Wikipeia guideline "

The original lead, before the recent edits, stated that the title is dormant/extinct. This is itself controversial, and was not proved by citation in the article, or text in the article. As I have stated in this Talk page, and given evidence submitted by myself and others in this Talk page, the dormancy of the title is not verifiable and should not be stated as fact in the lead or elsewhere. If an editor would prefer to map the discussion in this Talk page to a new section in the article, I feel that that would be completely valid and also in-line with the Wikipedia conventions described by User:PBS above. I may find time to do this myself, but before I make the effort I feel the issues currently being debated on this Talk page should be more-or-less resolved to prevent tedious re-writing. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

assume good faith

, and accept that over the years I have seen many talk page disputes and that I am trying to find a method by which a NPOV article can can be constructed based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

It is no longer relevant what the lead said. The sentence under consideration prior to your edit was an summary of the section now titled "Holders of the title"--I have change the section name to that because of the requirements of

MOS:HEADINGS

}--and was not considered controversial by editors who had contributed to this page.

Now that you have raised the issue of inaccuracy in the lead, then the sentences (and its derivative) ought to be removed, or moved out of the lead into the section "Holders of the title" in the body of the text, and a balanced pretension given. I would expect that whoever does this will know about and have read the essay "Writing for the opponent|". I think this should be done sooner rather than waiting for any dispute resolution to be worked through to a resolution, which will be aided by moving the sentence from the lead into the body of the article that discusses all the points of view that are found in reliable secondary sources. -- PBS (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

assume good faith. I apologize for any perceived inconsistency in my tone, and do understand that all editors involved in this discussion have varying levels of experience on this platform, and that all involved are essentially working toward the same goal, which is the most valid article possible given the existing parameters of Wikipedia. I will say that I did initially feel my earnest arguments treated with prejudice by the first editor to contribute to the discussion, especially in reference to comments left on my own user talk page: "You need to find better sources, and I doubt that you can" - Doug Weller, " It isn't another editors job to sort through a bad source for a good one, and I notice that you still added the personal website although that's been removed again by another editor. I'm very surprised no one else has found those sources you added." - Doug Weller, and on this article's talk page: "Of course, this appears to bea [sic] waste of my time and that of User:PBS" - Doug Weller. I also found that in reference to my initial usage of thepeerage.com, PBS reacted by immediately supporting the casting aside of my citation, without any investigation of his own: "The edit was reverted by user:Doug Weller with an edit summary "Not reliable sources, peerage.com uses blogs, Wikipedia, etc., the other is a personal website."". However, when I pointed out that the existing article ALREADY contained referenced to thepeerage.com that no one had EVER challenged, PBS responded "The two existing Lundy citations are in the form WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT... This is not ideal, but it does allow people to check a reliable source for support. In the long run once an editor has done that then the Lundy part of the citation can be dropped". Why not simply suggest a reformat? I feel this is an obvious example of prejudice towards a "new user". However, having said this, I do feel that PBS has a genuine desire to create the most accurate possible article, and to ensure that the guidelines of Wikipedia are being respected. I also feel that Opera hat

has done a tremendous job of validating citations and providing his own supporting research from excellent sources.

Regarding the formatting and arrangement of information within the article, I have already stated that I am inclined to rewrite the information in the article in a suitable manner, but only after the discussion is settled between the editors currently involved. I feel that we are close to a resolution, but I am willing to continue the discussion as long as is necessary to prove or disprove the various arguments. If any editor would like to begin the process of drafting a new article, I recommend they do so, but I would appreciate it if information wasn't removed that hasn't been disproven, and/or replaced with information that is yet unproven. In good faith, Justinstuartlyon (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Why not simply suggest a reformat?" A reformat of what? -- PBS (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My original citation of thepeerage.com with respect to

WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT Justinstuartlyon (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The link was http://www.thepeerage.com/p5615.htm#c56147.1 (diff)

In my initial edit to the section "September 2018 I showed how to format that citation (diff):

• "Lundy, Darryl (8 July 2017). "James Alastair Garry Stuart-Lyon". thepeerage.com. p. 5615 § c56147.1."

I also commented (diff):

"Lundy is a self-published website by a non-expert. As such the website is not reliable see (

WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT

... I can not see in Lundy the information to support your addition. It you did read it in Lundy then please quote the relevant sentences and give the page name and section number. We can then see if it meets the requirements of reliability."

I could not format the Lundy citation because I could not see where in that section he wrote anything that supports the claim you were making (which is why I gave an example from another article). If you can quote the sentence(s) from that Lundy section that you were citing, then I will format the citation here on the talk page and we can see if it meets the reliability requirements. -- PBS (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your offer is much appreciated, but I've already done it. Thanks. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where in that section did Lundy write anything that supports the claim you were making? -- PBS (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Lundy is the publisher of thepeerage.com? Anyway, he cites Burke's Irish Family Records 1976 several times in relation to the White Knight and the Fitzgibbon line. It's moot now anyway. I've already transposed the citations directly to the primary sources. And yes, I did read them :). In fact, I've copied out the relevant quotations verbatim in the below section 'New version of holders of the title' in this Talk page. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the ethnic identification in the Lead section from

"I assume Lundy is the publisher of thepeerage.com?" Yes! He has his copyright on every page of peerage.com. "he cites Burke's Irish Family Records 1976 several times in relation to the White Knight and the Fitzgibbon line". But not on the page and section that you cited ( http://www.thepeerage.com/p5615.htm#c56147.1 ). -- PBS (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Higher up this section you wrote "PBS reacted by immediately supporting the casting aside of my citation, without any investigation of his own". No I did not! What I said in my initial post which was to create the section "#September 2018". "OK those are the facts so far I will sign this now and if any of the parties disagree please post amendments as indented comments directly below this one". That posting was a statement of facts. I also stated in the second part of that posting which was an explanation of Wikipedia polices and guidelines was "The second source cited by user:Justinstuartlyon has been cast aside by user:Opera hat because it does not contain the information it is purport to support. If you do not think this is so then, user:Justinstuartlyon, please quote the sentences you think are relevant". -- PBS (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-written the final paragraph of the section to bring the text into line with the current discussion, and to make statements that I feel have so far been proven. I have also made a small edit to the lead to remove reference to contentious material while still giving a context for the topic. Below I will go through each statement I added to the 'Holders of the title' section one by one, and I will include the direct quotes from the cited references, that directly state my arguments as fact:

A claim to the title of The White Knight was asserted by Lord Kingston in 1821, who was a descendant by marriage of Margaret (1602–1666), the granddaughter of Edmond Fitzgibbon, 11th White Knight

"After the death of the 12th White Knight the title fell into abeyance. Ketherine, the yst [sic] dau of his sister Margery and Sir William Fenton (see above), eventually became sole heiress and m Sir John King, 1st Lord Kingston (see BURKE'S Peerage, Kingston, E), who may have claimed the title. On the occasion of King George IV's visit to Ireland in 1822, 3rd Earl of Kingston claimed the title, but without success as he was opposed by Col Rt Hon William Vesey-FitzGerald (later 2nd Baron FitzGerald and Vesci), who claimed a male descent (see FORSTER-VESEY-FITZGERALD), Sir Robert Peel refused bothy claims and the matter fell into abeyance until the title was assumed by Maurice Fitzgibbon, of Crohana 1878 (see below)." - Burke's Irish Family Records 1976 pg 429

but was successfully contested and refused by the crown.

"At the time of the visit of his Majesty King George IV. to Ireland, in 1821, the claim of the Earl of Kingston, to be allowed a place on public occasions, as "the White Knight," in company with the Knight of Kerry, was successfully opposed by Mr. William Vesey Fitzgerald, (afterwards Lord Fitzgerald of Desmond, and of Clangibbon,) eldest son the the Right Honourable James Fitzgerald." - O'Donovan, John. “The Descendants of the Last Earls of Desmond.” Ulster Journal of Archaeology, vol. 6, 1858, pp. 95

The last recorded holder of the title of The White Knight was Maurice Fitzgibbon of Crohana, Kilkenny, who assumed the title in 1858.

"MAURICE FITZGIBBON, of Corhana, nr [sic] Stoneyford, co Kilkenny, assumed the title of The White Knight 1878" - Burke's Irish Family Records 1976 pg 430

Though the 'Kilkenny' Fitzgibbon line has since become extinct

The section on the Kilkenny Fitzgibbons ends on page 430 of Burke's Irish Family Records 1976 with "PHILLIP JOHN FITZGIBBON, of Poona, India, b Dec 1859, m 26 Aug 1884, Ruth Mary, dau [sic] of M. Hearn, of co Cork, and d 1928, having had issue." His six children, including one male, are all listed without issue. The line appears to end with the final son, one "MAURICE DESMOND".

the 'Limerick' branch of the family remains extant

The section of Burke's Irish Family Records 1976 pertaining to the Fitzgibbon's of Limerick begins on page 430. Somewhat confusing is the first name listed, one "ROBERT LOUIS CONSTANTINE DILLON FITZGIBBON... b 10 June 1919". I suppose he appears to be in extra large font and bolded in the source, and listed first, as he is somewhat famous in the culture of 1976. Upon a careful inspection, it is obvious the Limerick Fitzgibbon line begins with "THOMAS FITZGIBBON, of Ballylanders, co Limerick, m, and had issue" - Burke's Irish Family Records 1976 page 430-431

On page 432 or Burke's Irish Family Records 1976, you will find reference to at least four male children born after 1960 in the line. I think it's fair to assume they/their children are extant.

The Fitzgibbons of Limerick represent the last remaining branch of the FitzGibbon lineage:

"Lineage-This family is, by tradition, a junior branch of the Geraldines through the line of The White Knight. A connected descent for this can only be traced from - THOMAS FITZGIBBON, of Ballylanders, co Limerick..." - Burke's Irish Family Records 1976 pg 430

"The Earl [of Clare] represents a collateral branch of the house of Fitz-Gerald, which also gave progenitors to the great families of Kildare, Desmond, and Leinster (see LEINSTER); that of Fitz-Gibbon descending from Gilbert Fitz-Gerald, Baron Offaly (killed at Callan, with his eldest son, Maurice, by Macarthy More, in 1261), upon whom were conferred, by their kinsman, the Earl of Desmond, as Count Palatine, the distinctive titles of "The White Knight," "The Black Knight, or Knight of Kerry," "The Knight of Glyn," and the Knight of the Valley, or Island," [sic] which are borne, by courtesy, by their descendant chiefs." - Forester, Henry Rumsey, The pocket peerage of Great Britain and Ireland 1852 p.88

Regarding the O'Donovan citation, I'm not giving a direct quote because the article discusses the various collateral lineages of the House of

FitzGerald

at length. One would have to read over most of the text to get all the details. What it boils down to is that there are no remaining descendants of the Earls of Desmond. It also details the existing descendants of the collateral branches i.e. Fitzgibbon, FitzGerald of Kerry, and FitzGerald of Glynn.

The Fitzgibbons of Limerick once held the title Earls of Clare (see: John_FitzGibbon,_1st_Earl_of_Clare) from 1794 until 1864:

"JOHN FITGIBBON, 1ST EARL OF CLARE, PC (Ireland 1782, UK 1790), of Mount Shannon... EARL OF CLARE 12 June 1795..." - Burke's Irish Family Records 1976 pg 431

"RICHARD HOBART FITZGIBBON, 3RD EARL OF CLARE, etc, of Mount Shannon... and dspms [sic] 10 Jan 1864" - Burke's Irish Family Records 1976 pg 431

I am adding an additional paragraph to this section, to reflect some additional details regarding the passage of the title from Edmund, 11th White Knight to Maurice Oge Fitzgibbon, 12th White Knight, via Edmund's daughter. Below I will go through my additions one-by-one, with the relevant quotation(s) copied verbatim:

After the death of Edmund Fitzgibbon, 11th White Knight, his land holdings were transmitted to his daughter, Margery, contrary to the "usual rules of descent of Knight's Fees in Ireland, which would have given it to David Fitzgibbon, of Kilmore, commonly called ne Carrig, (i.e., David of the Rock.):

"Margery" is listed as Edmund's only daughter - Burke's Irish Family Records 1976 pg 429

"Edmund Fitzgibbon, the "White Knight" already mentioned, was enabled to arrange with the English government, as one of the conditions of his betraying the Earl of Desmond, that he should not only preserve his landed property, but should transmit it to his daughter, contrary to the usual rules of descent of Knight's Fees in Ireland, which would have given it to David Fitzgibbon, of Kilmore, commonly called ne Carrig, (i.e., David of the Rock.)" - O'Donovan, John. “The Descendants of the Last Earls of Desmond.” Ulster Journal of Archaeology, vol. 6, 1858, pg 94

This was allowed due to a special arrangement made by Edmund Fitzgibbon with the English government, "as one of the conditions of his betraying the Earl of Desmond":

"Edmund Fitzgibbon, the "White Knight" already mentioned, was enabled to arrange with the English government, as one of the conditions of his betraying the Earl of Desmond, that he should not only preserve his landed property, but should transmit it to his daughter...” Ulster Journal of Archaeology, vol. 6, 1858, pg 94

If the estate of Edmund Fitzgibbon had been allowed to pass to David ne Carrig, it would have been confiscated by the English government as a consequence of David ne Carrig's support of the 16th Earl of Desmond in his rebellion against the English:

"It must be observed, however, that, if the fief of the White Knight had been allowed to descend, according to the common course of law, to his cousin, David ne Carrig, it would have been confiscated; as the estate actually possessed by-the latter was, in consequence of participation in the rebellion of Gerald, sixteenth Earl of Desmond, in the year 1585" - O'Donovan, John. “The Descendants of the Last Earls of Desmond.” Ulster Journal of Archaeology, vol. 6, 1858, pg 94-95

The son of Edmund Fitzgibbon, Maurice, died the day before his father, in 1608:

"Maurice,... and d [sic] (the day before his father) at Old Castletown, co Cork 22 April 1608..." - Burke's Irish Family Records 1976 pg 429

The title of the White Knight was therefore passed to Maurice's son, who was Edmund's grandson:

"MAURICE OGE, s his grandfather." - Burke's Irish Family Records 1976 pg 429

"His grandson, MAURICE OGE FITZGIBBON, 12th White Knight..." - Burke's Irish Family Records 1976 pg 429

This was Maurice Oge Fitzgibbon, 12th White Knight, and although he inherited Edmund's ancient title, Edmund's lands passed to Margery, Edmund's daughter:

"His grandson, MAURICE OGE FITZGIBBON, 12th White Knight..." - Burke's Irish Family Records 1976 pg 429

"Edmund Fitzgibbon, the "White Knight" already mentioned, was enabled to arrange with the English government, as one of the conditions of his betraying the Earl of Desmond, that he should not only preserve his landed property, but should transmit it to his daughter...” Ulster Journal of Archaeology, vol. 6, 1858, pg 94 Justinstuartlyon (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See

I'm puzzled. I can find a number of sources that confirm he's in the line of the White Knights, why don't they say he held the title if he actually did? [16] (Unpublished Geraldine documents, ed. S. Hayman (J. Graves). journ., Roy. hist. arch. assoc. Ireland) calls him the true representative of the extinct White Knight. This Journal article[17] says he's a lineal descendant but that's all. "A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry of Great Britain & Ireland" Vol 1[18] has a good lineage but no title. Surely if he actually held the title these sources would have said so? Doug Weller talk 11:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Burke's source I've cited is quite recent (1976) and explicitly states that this Maurice holds the title, it even gives a date that he assumed the title, so I'm not sure how much more clearly that can be proven... I think the use of the title has a lot to do with the relative wealth of the family over time. I don't have a direct source, but I would suggest when the family has access to wealth, those in the line tend to use the title, and when thee family is relatively broke, the heir tends not to use the title Justinstuartlyon (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It says he assumed the title. Anyone can assume a title (e.g.

Michael Joseph O'Rahilly; Melville Henry Massue). It doesn't mean they have proved a legitimate right to it. Opera hat (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

"Charles X. assumed the title of King of France - [19]

"Antigonus assumed the title of King of Asia" - [20]

"Misraim built cities in Egypt, and was the first who assumed the title of king in that division of the earth. Saul was the first king of Israel, 1095 B.C." - [21]

"Tordelvach O'Connor, king of Connaught, assumed the title of king of Ireland" - [22]

"Edward assumed the title of king of France" - [23]

Opera hat it's certainly false that "Anyone can assume a title"... and have it printed in Burke's... I mean, it should go without saying that Burke's vets whatever they print, that's why its such a respected source. I think from the above it's pretty obvious that "assume" and "inherit" or "had right to" are equivalent meanings, and you guys are just splitting hairs now because I've basically succeeded in proving all my arguments, with the exception of the Freer source. One final point, I will note that the wording I used in the article is: "The last recorded holder of the title of The White Knight was Maurice Fitzgibbon of Crohana, Kilkenny, who assumed the title in 1858", so I don't really see the conflict. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

someone really needs to clean up and/or rewrite the History section. The information is fragmentary and uncited. Surprised it's been that way for years and no one took any issue. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will be updating the History section, including revising the use of these quotations. Please see my below section on this Talk page, "New version of History section". Justinstuartlyon (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading through several sources already included on this page, as well as a few new ones. Please use this section of the Talk page to discuss the new additions and sources. Justinstuartlyon (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the following content added 8/12/2021 by user JerseyResearch: "His eldest son Philip John Fitzgibbon claimed the title after his father's death. The last known claimant of the White Knight title was Maurice Desmond Fitzgibbon, the grandson of Maurice Fitzgibbon. Maurice Desmond Fitzgibbon emigrated to Australia in 1927, where he lived until his death in 1976."

The above content does not have an accompanying citation and thus cannot be verified. The last verified claimant has already been stated in the article. His son and grandson are certainly recorded as heirs in Burke's, but there is no mention as to claims on the title of White Knight after the death of M. Fitzgibbon of Crohana in 1881. [Special:Contributions/Justinstuartlyon|contribs]]) 18:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)