 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Searching for Douglas Earls of Wigtown takes one to the Earl of Wigtown page, where a link to Douglas Earls of Wigtown takes one to the Earl of Douglas page, where the link to Earls of Wigtown goes back to the Earl of Wigtown page. Can one of this page's editors please break the cycle? And, no, I do not want to do it myself. Shipsview ( talk) 19:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
This is totally not WP:DUE, it's a bought title without any notability or relevance, and has received no attention at all [1]. Fram ( talk) 11:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Whether its a bought title or not isn't relevant. It is simply the matter of fact. By your logic all pages that concern Scots baronies should be removed. The title was mentioned in the peerage page because it isn't notable enough to have a separate article. Daniel Plumber ( talk) 11:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The feudal title is actually relevant to the peerage title, as with all Scottish feudal earldoms.
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
11:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- If all such Scots baronies are bought titles without other importance or notability then yes, they should be removed. How is it "relevant" if it isn't a continuation of the peerage title but a separate title? Have reliable sources discussed the two titles together?
Fram (
talk)
11:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are you familiar with Scots feudal titles? They are relevant to eachother because they were granted to the same bloodline, but are actually 2 different titles. Unlike peerage titles which become extinct if no eligible heirs are founded, feudal titles are a form of property and can be descended to the female or distant lines.
- Can you elaborate what do you mean by "reliable sources discussed the two titles together"?
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
12:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You know that feudalism is long dead? That the title holder you want to include has no relationship at all to the original owners? That they have no power, no influence, no relevance for an encyclopedia article at all? Anyone can buy such a title, that doesn't grant you automatic inclusion here. If no other sources treat Zettel (or any of the others) as soemhow important for an history of the earls of Wigtown, then we shouldn't do this either.
Fram (
talk)
12:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The edit was a means to provide more context for readers. Why do the relationships between titleholders and the original holder matter? If it is reasonable to leave out a feudal title with a significant relationship to the peerage title, then all baronies' articles should be removed, as most of the titleholders whose titles have their own articles are assignees and hold no descent from the original holder. Like Lord of Balvaird or Baron of Grougar.
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
12:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- What is in this case the "significant relationship to the peerage title"? Which
reliable sources make the link between zettel's title and the original peerage title?
Fram (
talk)
12:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- https://poms.ac.uk/record/source/10804/ this is the summary of a crown charter regranting the feudal earldom of Wigtown to the peerage earl of Wigtown excepts the regality. Finding full charter takes time and I'm doing it. Daniel Plumber ( talk) 12:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- "meaningless bought title" again Sir, this is your opinion, which is not backed by the facts. FYI most of these titles are always inherited and stay within the same family for generations. Yes they can also be bought and sold but that doesn't mean they're meaningless. The dignity of baron, the hereditary offices associated, are protected in law in the 2004 scottish law act.
Kellycrak88 (
talk)
12:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- So, who did Zettel inherit it from? Which "dignity" or "hereditary office" has he now? And I have abslutely no idea what
this has to do with the inclusion or exclusion of Zettel from this article, I am not advocating to delete the Earl of Wigtown article.
Fram (
talk)
12:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You asked for sources that link Zettel's title with the peerage title, which I shared for you. These 2 titles were being granted to the same bloodline - the Flemings family.
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
12:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- A source which doesn't even mention Zettel has no importance for this discussion.
Fram (
talk)
13:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- It mentions Zettel's title, not Zettel himself. What do you expect - a whole deed of assignation and a whole inventory of prior writs? Better do your own experiment by reaching out the Sasines register and the SBR.
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
13:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- While there is little sources indicate that Zettel holds the title, I find no source that says otherwise. Daniel Plumber ( talk) 13:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- It mentions Zettel's title, not Zettel himself. What do you expect - a whole deed of assignation and a whole inventory of prior writs? Better do your own experiment by reaching out the Sasines register and the SBR.
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
13:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- As written before in the article, the title descended to the daughter of the 6th peerage earl, and then assigned to Burns of Kilmahew. Dr Zettel acquired the dignity by being an assignee.
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
12:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Assigned" by whom?
Fram (
talk)
13:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You'll have better luck asking out the gentleman, as there is no obligation for a property owner to publicise the info. Some noblemen prefer anonymity, some don't. I just put the info based on everything that is in the public domain. Daniel Plumber ( talk) 13:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Assigned" by whom?
Fram (
talk)
13:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- A source which doesn't even mention Zettel has no importance for this discussion.
Fram (
talk)
13:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You asked for sources that link Zettel's title with the peerage title, which I shared for you. These 2 titles were being granted to the same bloodline - the Flemings family.
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
12:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- So, who did Zettel inherit it from? Which "dignity" or "hereditary office" has he now? And I have abslutely no idea what
this has to do with the inclusion or exclusion of Zettel from this article, I am not advocating to delete the Earl of Wigtown article.
Fram (
talk)
12:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- What is in this case the "significant relationship to the peerage title"? Which
reliable sources make the link between zettel's title and the original peerage title?
Fram (
talk)
12:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The edit was a means to provide more context for readers. Why do the relationships between titleholders and the original holder matter? If it is reasonable to leave out a feudal title with a significant relationship to the peerage title, then all baronies' articles should be removed, as most of the titleholders whose titles have their own articles are assignees and hold no descent from the original holder. Like Lord of Balvaird or Baron of Grougar.
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
12:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You know that feudalism is long dead? That the title holder you want to include has no relationship at all to the original owners? That they have no power, no influence, no relevance for an encyclopedia article at all? Anyone can buy such a title, that doesn't grant you automatic inclusion here. If no other sources treat Zettel (or any of the others) as soemhow important for an history of the earls of Wigtown, then we shouldn't do this either.
Fram (
talk)
12:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- If all such Scots baronies are bought titles without other importance or notability then yes, they should be removed. How is it "relevant" if it isn't a continuation of the peerage title but a separate title? Have reliable sources discussed the two titles together?
Fram (
talk)
11:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
so basically you have nothing to show that Zettel has any link to the previous title except for just having bought it or claimed it, you have no reliable independent sources giving attention to Zettel, as far as you know he has no "hereditary offices" or "dignities", all he has is a paper which has the value of "you may use this title which hasn't been granted for services or even inheritance, and which has no meaning, no rights, no lands, no powers, but it looks nice on your letterhead"? Why would we indlulge such vanity titles by including them in an article about a centuries-old title which has died out ages ago? If I proclaim myself King of the Merovingians and find some entity willing to state "feel free to call yourself this" (probably in return for some payment), I should be included in the articles about the Merovingians? That makes a total mockery of the purpose of an encyclopedia. Fram ( talk) 13:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Alright then. I lost. There simply isn't enough source. There are also other articles that have better coverage. Daniel Plumber ( talk) 13:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- https://baronage.scot/tour-of-the-baronies/wigtoun/
- Click on the icon in the bottom right. The Forum for the Scottish Baronage lists the feudal Earldom held by Dr. Roland Zettel.
Kellycrak88 (
talk)
13:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I reckon he will dismiss this site though ;-)
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
14:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I do agree though that the sources for Wigtoun are weak. Also needs to be in another source such as Registry of Scottish Nobility, Scottish Barony Register, Debretts, Burke's Peerage Kellycrak88 ( talk) 14:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I reckon he will dismiss this site though ;-)
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
14:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Searching for Douglas Earls of Wigtown takes one to the Earl of Wigtown page, where a link to Douglas Earls of Wigtown takes one to the Earl of Douglas page, where the link to Earls of Wigtown goes back to the Earl of Wigtown page. Can one of this page's editors please break the cycle? And, no, I do not want to do it myself. Shipsview ( talk) 19:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
This is totally not WP:DUE, it's a bought title without any notability or relevance, and has received no attention at all [1]. Fram ( talk) 11:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Whether its a bought title or not isn't relevant. It is simply the matter of fact. By your logic all pages that concern Scots baronies should be removed. The title was mentioned in the peerage page because it isn't notable enough to have a separate article. Daniel Plumber ( talk) 11:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The feudal title is actually relevant to the peerage title, as with all Scottish feudal earldoms.
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
11:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- If all such Scots baronies are bought titles without other importance or notability then yes, they should be removed. How is it "relevant" if it isn't a continuation of the peerage title but a separate title? Have reliable sources discussed the two titles together?
Fram (
talk)
11:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are you familiar with Scots feudal titles? They are relevant to eachother because they were granted to the same bloodline, but are actually 2 different titles. Unlike peerage titles which become extinct if no eligible heirs are founded, feudal titles are a form of property and can be descended to the female or distant lines.
- Can you elaborate what do you mean by "reliable sources discussed the two titles together"?
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
12:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You know that feudalism is long dead? That the title holder you want to include has no relationship at all to the original owners? That they have no power, no influence, no relevance for an encyclopedia article at all? Anyone can buy such a title, that doesn't grant you automatic inclusion here. If no other sources treat Zettel (or any of the others) as soemhow important for an history of the earls of Wigtown, then we shouldn't do this either.
Fram (
talk)
12:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The edit was a means to provide more context for readers. Why do the relationships between titleholders and the original holder matter? If it is reasonable to leave out a feudal title with a significant relationship to the peerage title, then all baronies' articles should be removed, as most of the titleholders whose titles have their own articles are assignees and hold no descent from the original holder. Like Lord of Balvaird or Baron of Grougar.
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
12:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- What is in this case the "significant relationship to the peerage title"? Which
reliable sources make the link between zettel's title and the original peerage title?
Fram (
talk)
12:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- https://poms.ac.uk/record/source/10804/ this is the summary of a crown charter regranting the feudal earldom of Wigtown to the peerage earl of Wigtown excepts the regality. Finding full charter takes time and I'm doing it. Daniel Plumber ( talk) 12:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- "meaningless bought title" again Sir, this is your opinion, which is not backed by the facts. FYI most of these titles are always inherited and stay within the same family for generations. Yes they can also be bought and sold but that doesn't mean they're meaningless. The dignity of baron, the hereditary offices associated, are protected in law in the 2004 scottish law act.
Kellycrak88 (
talk)
12:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- So, who did Zettel inherit it from? Which "dignity" or "hereditary office" has he now? And I have abslutely no idea what
this has to do with the inclusion or exclusion of Zettel from this article, I am not advocating to delete the Earl of Wigtown article.
Fram (
talk)
12:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You asked for sources that link Zettel's title with the peerage title, which I shared for you. These 2 titles were being granted to the same bloodline - the Flemings family.
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
12:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- A source which doesn't even mention Zettel has no importance for this discussion.
Fram (
talk)
13:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- It mentions Zettel's title, not Zettel himself. What do you expect - a whole deed of assignation and a whole inventory of prior writs? Better do your own experiment by reaching out the Sasines register and the SBR.
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
13:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- While there is little sources indicate that Zettel holds the title, I find no source that says otherwise. Daniel Plumber ( talk) 13:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- It mentions Zettel's title, not Zettel himself. What do you expect - a whole deed of assignation and a whole inventory of prior writs? Better do your own experiment by reaching out the Sasines register and the SBR.
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
13:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- As written before in the article, the title descended to the daughter of the 6th peerage earl, and then assigned to Burns of Kilmahew. Dr Zettel acquired the dignity by being an assignee.
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
12:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Assigned" by whom?
Fram (
talk)
13:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You'll have better luck asking out the gentleman, as there is no obligation for a property owner to publicise the info. Some noblemen prefer anonymity, some don't. I just put the info based on everything that is in the public domain. Daniel Plumber ( talk) 13:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Assigned" by whom?
Fram (
talk)
13:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- A source which doesn't even mention Zettel has no importance for this discussion.
Fram (
talk)
13:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You asked for sources that link Zettel's title with the peerage title, which I shared for you. These 2 titles were being granted to the same bloodline - the Flemings family.
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
12:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- So, who did Zettel inherit it from? Which "dignity" or "hereditary office" has he now? And I have abslutely no idea what
this has to do with the inclusion or exclusion of Zettel from this article, I am not advocating to delete the Earl of Wigtown article.
Fram (
talk)
12:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- What is in this case the "significant relationship to the peerage title"? Which
reliable sources make the link between zettel's title and the original peerage title?
Fram (
talk)
12:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The edit was a means to provide more context for readers. Why do the relationships between titleholders and the original holder matter? If it is reasonable to leave out a feudal title with a significant relationship to the peerage title, then all baronies' articles should be removed, as most of the titleholders whose titles have their own articles are assignees and hold no descent from the original holder. Like Lord of Balvaird or Baron of Grougar.
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
12:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You know that feudalism is long dead? That the title holder you want to include has no relationship at all to the original owners? That they have no power, no influence, no relevance for an encyclopedia article at all? Anyone can buy such a title, that doesn't grant you automatic inclusion here. If no other sources treat Zettel (or any of the others) as soemhow important for an history of the earls of Wigtown, then we shouldn't do this either.
Fram (
talk)
12:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- If all such Scots baronies are bought titles without other importance or notability then yes, they should be removed. How is it "relevant" if it isn't a continuation of the peerage title but a separate title? Have reliable sources discussed the two titles together?
Fram (
talk)
11:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
so basically you have nothing to show that Zettel has any link to the previous title except for just having bought it or claimed it, you have no reliable independent sources giving attention to Zettel, as far as you know he has no "hereditary offices" or "dignities", all he has is a paper which has the value of "you may use this title which hasn't been granted for services or even inheritance, and which has no meaning, no rights, no lands, no powers, but it looks nice on your letterhead"? Why would we indlulge such vanity titles by including them in an article about a centuries-old title which has died out ages ago? If I proclaim myself King of the Merovingians and find some entity willing to state "feel free to call yourself this" (probably in return for some payment), I should be included in the articles about the Merovingians? That makes a total mockery of the purpose of an encyclopedia. Fram ( talk) 13:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Alright then. I lost. There simply isn't enough source. There are also other articles that have better coverage. Daniel Plumber ( talk) 13:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- https://baronage.scot/tour-of-the-baronies/wigtoun/
- Click on the icon in the bottom right. The Forum for the Scottish Baronage lists the feudal Earldom held by Dr. Roland Zettel.
Kellycrak88 (
talk)
13:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I reckon he will dismiss this site though ;-)
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
14:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I do agree though that the sources for Wigtoun are weak. Also needs to be in another source such as Registry of Scottish Nobility, Scottish Barony Register, Debretts, Burke's Peerage Kellycrak88 ( talk) 14:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I reckon he will dismiss this site though ;-)
Daniel Plumber (
talk)
14:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)