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. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on High Sheriff of Devon. 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.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not certain how many of the cited references currently used in this article can be regarded as reliable sources. After 1665, we have the London Gazette. As an official record, I think we may be able to treat this as a reliable source and I would like to suggest that we use that as the reference for all records after that date.
For the earlier period we have a problem - there is no definitive record and sources seems to conflict. Therefore the current list seems to me to present too simplistic a record. The reference below (from rootsweb) is not a reliable source, being self published but references two important lists for the earlier sheriffs: Risdon and the list from the National Archives which are perhaps worthy of consideration but certainly Risdon is also not be regarded as a reliable source. It also explains how they conflict. The article currently also uses Pole. I am at a loss to know how to proceed with this article in the presence of so much confusion for this period and I am not that a list format is the best option. I'd like to know what other people think. Is there a single source we can use or does this article need to present all of the lists? Or is it impossible to make a good article unless we can find an up to date reliable source that discusses all of the issues?
I also removed this one as although it is a published source, it is not currently cited in the text and I have no way to judge the
NHSavage ( talk) 19:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
APPENDIX A. Hereditary Sheriffs. The dates here given are only approximate, as a reference to the text will show. It is unknown whether the Avenels executed the office of sheriff. 1070-1090. Baldwin the Sheriff. 1090-1107. William, son of Baldwin. 1107-1137. Richard, son of Baldwin. [Geoffrey de Furnell acted as deputy between 1128-1130.] 1137-1143. Adeliza, daughter of Baldwin, /vicecomitissa/. 1143- .... Ralph Avenel, grandson of Baldwin. c. 1153. William Avenel, son of above. c. 1153-1154. Matilda de Avranches, grand-daughter of Baldwin, /vicecomitissa/. After this date, i.e., on the accession of Henry II, Richard de Redvers, son of Baldwin de Redvers the 1st Earl of Devon, was /appointed/, and he was succeeded by his son Richard.
Following on from our earlier discussion, I have now added the references back to 1831 (the end of Hughes) based on the London Gazette. I now propose to use Hughes for all sheriffs before that date, before moving on to the tricky early period. Where a Gazette reference already exists, I will leave it in, but I will delete other less reliable sources.
Great work everyone in getting this far and please shout here if you don't agree.-- NHSavage ( talk) 17:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
-- NHSavage ( talk) 13:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
In 1752, as well as loosing 11 days, the definition of when the year begins changed. Before this date, it was on 25 March, after this it is the 1st January. /info/en/?search=Calendar_(New_Style)_Act_1750#Start_of_the_year
It is also important to know which convention Hughes uses. In the introduction it states "years being reckoned as beginning on the 1st January". This is consistent with the statement here "When recording British history, it is usual to use the same dates recorded at the time of the event, with the year adjusted to start on 1 January". I therefore suggest we follow this approach, but I would like to seek consensus on this as it has potential to be very confusing (and I think is probably the reason for some conflicts between Hughes and Pole in the 17th Century - Pole uses Regnal years and the calendar may not have been correctly accounted for when converting). NHSavage ( talk) 09:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Per your request on my talk page, I'm sorry I wasn't able to contribute, but it looks as if you're making good progression towards an answer. Surely there must already be extensive discussions about this buried in the archives? — SMALL JIM 11:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
For a number of entries, there are differences between some of the other sources and our most reiable sources: The London Gazette and Hughes. I present these here with the action I have taken to invite comment. NHSavage ( talk) 15:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
the article contained this entry for 1718:
Burke, John (1846). A genealogical and heraldic history of the commoners of Great Britain and Ireland. p. 175. Retrieved 2012-03-25 – via Google Books.
The actual text in the reference reads: "Elizabeth Calmady who espoused John Pollexfen, high-sheriff for the co in 1718". I am inclined to read this as the date she married him, not the date he was sheriff. He is recoded as sheriff in 1743 and it is rare for one man to serve multiple years in this period. I will remove it for now, but I thought I should note it here. NHSavage ( talk) 16:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Previously the article used The Exeter Pocket-Journal; Or, West-Country Gentleman and Tradesman's Memorandum-Book for the Year of Our Lord 1755. for some of the references. The list in this reference does not always agree with Hughes before 1709. The question is, should I record these disagreements given the nature of this source? NHSavage ( talk) 17:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The list currently includes Robert Shapcote for 1654. He is not included in Hughes' list and his appointment is not included in his page on History of Parliament. I will remove him for now. There is however a reference given: Ward, Joseph. Violence, Politics, and Gender in Early Modern England. p. 171. so if someone can check this and see exactly what it says, we can consider restoring him to the list if the reference supports it. NHSavage ( talk) 10:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Another inconsistent date from Burke's. Both Hughes and the Gazette have Cabell appointed as Sheriff in November 1668 but Burke, John. History of the Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies of England Ireland and Scotland. p. 208. has "Ricahrd Cabell Esq. of Brooke in Devon, Sheriff of the county in 1664". Again I going to ignore this but I am willing to add a footnote on this, if it is considered important.-- NHSavage ( talk) 12:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, for all of the above I'd be inclined to follow Hughes - a publication by the Public Record Office (1892-1936, reprinted with manuscript amendments 1963) - unless there are later reliable sources that specifically explain why Hughes is wrong (so that might apply to the Ward book about Shapcote, if you can access and assess that, presumably later, source). Otherwise I don't think there's any need to mention any older sources that differ. — SMALL JIM 22:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The list currently includes: 16 January 1347: Thomas de Ralegh, on a pretended commission. This has been flagged as clarification needed which is fair enough. The problem is that is all the information contained in Hughes. I am not even certain what a "pretended commission" is - presumably some sort of fraud but I may be wrong. I think that if we were to try and understand this we would probably be getting into some original research. I therefore suggest that we simply drop this statement.-- NHSavage ( talk) 09:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
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. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on High Sheriff of Devon. 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.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not certain how many of the cited references currently used in this article can be regarded as reliable sources. After 1665, we have the London Gazette. As an official record, I think we may be able to treat this as a reliable source and I would like to suggest that we use that as the reference for all records after that date.
For the earlier period we have a problem - there is no definitive record and sources seems to conflict. Therefore the current list seems to me to present too simplistic a record. The reference below (from rootsweb) is not a reliable source, being self published but references two important lists for the earlier sheriffs: Risdon and the list from the National Archives which are perhaps worthy of consideration but certainly Risdon is also not be regarded as a reliable source. It also explains how they conflict. The article currently also uses Pole. I am at a loss to know how to proceed with this article in the presence of so much confusion for this period and I am not that a list format is the best option. I'd like to know what other people think. Is there a single source we can use or does this article need to present all of the lists? Or is it impossible to make a good article unless we can find an up to date reliable source that discusses all of the issues?
I also removed this one as although it is a published source, it is not currently cited in the text and I have no way to judge the
NHSavage ( talk) 19:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
APPENDIX A. Hereditary Sheriffs. The dates here given are only approximate, as a reference to the text will show. It is unknown whether the Avenels executed the office of sheriff. 1070-1090. Baldwin the Sheriff. 1090-1107. William, son of Baldwin. 1107-1137. Richard, son of Baldwin. [Geoffrey de Furnell acted as deputy between 1128-1130.] 1137-1143. Adeliza, daughter of Baldwin, /vicecomitissa/. 1143- .... Ralph Avenel, grandson of Baldwin. c. 1153. William Avenel, son of above. c. 1153-1154. Matilda de Avranches, grand-daughter of Baldwin, /vicecomitissa/. After this date, i.e., on the accession of Henry II, Richard de Redvers, son of Baldwin de Redvers the 1st Earl of Devon, was /appointed/, and he was succeeded by his son Richard.
Following on from our earlier discussion, I have now added the references back to 1831 (the end of Hughes) based on the London Gazette. I now propose to use Hughes for all sheriffs before that date, before moving on to the tricky early period. Where a Gazette reference already exists, I will leave it in, but I will delete other less reliable sources.
Great work everyone in getting this far and please shout here if you don't agree.-- NHSavage ( talk) 17:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
-- NHSavage ( talk) 13:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
In 1752, as well as loosing 11 days, the definition of when the year begins changed. Before this date, it was on 25 March, after this it is the 1st January. /info/en/?search=Calendar_(New_Style)_Act_1750#Start_of_the_year
It is also important to know which convention Hughes uses. In the introduction it states "years being reckoned as beginning on the 1st January". This is consistent with the statement here "When recording British history, it is usual to use the same dates recorded at the time of the event, with the year adjusted to start on 1 January". I therefore suggest we follow this approach, but I would like to seek consensus on this as it has potential to be very confusing (and I think is probably the reason for some conflicts between Hughes and Pole in the 17th Century - Pole uses Regnal years and the calendar may not have been correctly accounted for when converting). NHSavage ( talk) 09:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Per your request on my talk page, I'm sorry I wasn't able to contribute, but it looks as if you're making good progression towards an answer. Surely there must already be extensive discussions about this buried in the archives? — SMALL JIM 11:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
For a number of entries, there are differences between some of the other sources and our most reiable sources: The London Gazette and Hughes. I present these here with the action I have taken to invite comment. NHSavage ( talk) 15:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
the article contained this entry for 1718:
Burke, John (1846). A genealogical and heraldic history of the commoners of Great Britain and Ireland. p. 175. Retrieved 2012-03-25 – via Google Books.
The actual text in the reference reads: "Elizabeth Calmady who espoused John Pollexfen, high-sheriff for the co in 1718". I am inclined to read this as the date she married him, not the date he was sheriff. He is recoded as sheriff in 1743 and it is rare for one man to serve multiple years in this period. I will remove it for now, but I thought I should note it here. NHSavage ( talk) 16:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Previously the article used The Exeter Pocket-Journal; Or, West-Country Gentleman and Tradesman's Memorandum-Book for the Year of Our Lord 1755. for some of the references. The list in this reference does not always agree with Hughes before 1709. The question is, should I record these disagreements given the nature of this source? NHSavage ( talk) 17:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The list currently includes Robert Shapcote for 1654. He is not included in Hughes' list and his appointment is not included in his page on History of Parliament. I will remove him for now. There is however a reference given: Ward, Joseph. Violence, Politics, and Gender in Early Modern England. p. 171. so if someone can check this and see exactly what it says, we can consider restoring him to the list if the reference supports it. NHSavage ( talk) 10:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Another inconsistent date from Burke's. Both Hughes and the Gazette have Cabell appointed as Sheriff in November 1668 but Burke, John. History of the Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies of England Ireland and Scotland. p. 208. has "Ricahrd Cabell Esq. of Brooke in Devon, Sheriff of the county in 1664". Again I going to ignore this but I am willing to add a footnote on this, if it is considered important.-- NHSavage ( talk) 12:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, for all of the above I'd be inclined to follow Hughes - a publication by the Public Record Office (1892-1936, reprinted with manuscript amendments 1963) - unless there are later reliable sources that specifically explain why Hughes is wrong (so that might apply to the Ward book about Shapcote, if you can access and assess that, presumably later, source). Otherwise I don't think there's any need to mention any older sources that differ. — SMALL JIM 22:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The list currently includes: 16 January 1347: Thomas de Ralegh, on a pretended commission. This has been flagged as clarification needed which is fair enough. The problem is that is all the information contained in Hughes. I am not even certain what a "pretended commission" is - presumably some sort of fraud but I may be wrong. I think that if we were to try and understand this we would probably be getting into some original research. I therefore suggest that we simply drop this statement.-- NHSavage ( talk) 09:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)