Patrick 7th Earl of Dunbar or Patrick III

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Patrick 7th Earl of Dunbar or Patrick III

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 nov 2006 17:39:02

On wikipedia here
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_III%2C_Earl_of_Dunbar_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_II ... _of_Dunbar)

Someone has been running around renaming all the Earls.
I checked Leo's site
_http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00164955&tree=LEO_
(http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 5&tree=LEO)

and Leo calls this guy "7th Earl of Dunbar"
citing CP, SP and Burke 1866

Do these sources actually call him 7th Earl? or do they call him Patrick III
as wikipedia now does?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Patrick 7th Earl of Dunbar or Patrick III

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 29 nov 2006 19:37:08

In message of 29 Nov, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

On wikipedia here
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_III%2C_Earl_of_Dunbar_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_II ... _of_Dunbar)

Someone has been running around renaming all the Earls.
I checked Leo's site
_http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00164955&tree=LEO_
(http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 5&tree=LEO)

and Leo calls this guy "7th Earl of Dunbar" citing CP, SP and Burke
1866

Do these sources actually call him 7th Earl? or do they call him
Patrick III as wikipedia now does?

Both volumes follow the normal convention for peers, in which they are
given their forename followed by their title name.

It is not uncommon for friends of a peer to call him, say, Patrick
Dunbar and he might sign himself thus or, sometimes, 'Dunbar'.

But the more formal naming is 'Patrick earl of Dunbar' where his surname
is not used and this is what Scots Peerage does, though for reasons of
economy probably uses 'Patrick seventh earl of Dunbar' instead of
'Patrick earl of Dunbar, seventh earl'.

Complete Peerage follows a different convention by putting the surname
(if any) in brackets as in 'PATRICK (DE DUNBAR), EARL OF DUNBAR' with
the whole lot in capitals. It does not include the succession number
in the name, having it to the left of the paragraph (and in fact having
two numbers, one the number from the first creation and second the
number of the latest creation).

I would suggest that what you do is entirely up to you and that the only
recommendation is that you are consistent. As long as your name clearly
identifies the chap, it should be good enough.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»