Talk:Earl of Essex
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Would it be correct to say the Earldom was dormant from 1981 to 1989? After all, it wasn't all settled and the 10th Earl wasn't declared to be as such until 1989... Matjlav 01:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Not really. A title can only really be currently dormant — once it is known who the heir is, they are considered to have held the title during all of the dormancy. A better term would be "recognised 1989", as it would more accurately represent the legal situation. Proteus (Talk) 12:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Look at the Earl of Devon article. They use basically the same setup.
It's in the news again http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=958935, looks like a retired Californian may become the 11th Earl.206.156.242.39 16:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- That would be William Jennings Capell they're talking about, who is already in the article. Matjlav 17:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Is it Baron Capel or Baron Capell? -- SGBailey 10:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- In the article about the current 10th Earl it refers to The Hon John Capel - I'll cahnge that to Capell as well. -- SGBailey 09:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
