Talk:Earl of Perth

Untitled

Has the 18th Earl of Perth a son? His eldest one would have the courtesy title Viscount Strathallan. I have found no children of the 18th earl. --VM 18:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He has two sons (James David, Viscount Strathallan, and Robert Eric) and one daughter (Annabella Margaret)

Attainder

"Often, those who claimed the title after the attainder but before its reversal are excluded from the numbering. However, such persons are, because the attainder was completely reversed, technically Earls of Perth, and therefore are here included in the numbering."

I have removed as this is not correct. Reversal of attainder has no impact on intermediate heirs. They are not deemed in law to have held or been capable of holding any title under attainder. The writer may be confusing dormantcy where later recognition does retrospectively number all previous 'holders'. Alci12 13:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and thus the numbering here is wrong. The "18th Earl" is actually the 9th Earl, and the "5th Earl" to the "13th Earl" weren't Earls of Perth at all. (This is all seeming very familiar, for some unknown reason...) Proteus (Talk) 14:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I did smile but I have a slight concern. Burkes Cockaynes and Cracrofts disagree here 2-1 in favour of what we would expect. It could be just error but I would like to know why Alci12 15:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd trust Cracroft's over Burke's or the CP any day. (And Burke's just slavishly copies the CP anyway, even in its obvious errors like the territorial designation business, so they can't really be called two separate sources.) Proteus (Talk) 16:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well when we do renumber, do you think we should break out the 'dukedom' to a jacobite peerage entry on its own. As this mixing of genuine and assumed titles is probably not helpful.Alci12 16:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. (I've already had to move a couple of Jacobite Dukes to their legally recognised titles.) Proteus (Talk) 16:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I must get a hang of this be bold concept and just edit!Alci12 23:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet, this article is still ridiculous. What's the deal with all the "de jure" earls? They were not de jure earls. A de jure peer is one who was entitled to a peerage but was never recognized as such due to the title being dormant. As, for instance, the various de jure earls of Devon between 1556 and 1831. There were no de jure earls of Perth because the title was forfeit. This article is a hopeless mess. john k (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The numbering depends on whether or not you are a Jacobite. Following 1716, according to the Hanoverians, they were not earls at all, but for being raised to the Dukedom, they would have continued calling themselves earls, but the appropriates description is "titular" not "de jure". I have slightly added to the article in a way that I hope deals with. I raised this issue in relation to another Jacobite title, as to how to handle the matter in succession boxes. It was suggested to me that "s-tul" should be used instead of "s-ttl", and this seemed to work well. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Menteiths

"The Red Book of the Menteiths" clearly discounts the Hungarian Prince as a myth likely formed to give status to the Drummond origins. The Drummonds in the 12th Century were allied to the Menteiths their early fortunes became through the relationship. Indeed, one "Johannes De Drumon", said to have died in 1301, was buried in Inchmahome Priory which was founded by the Menteiths.

And who or what are these Menteiths? The earls of Menteith, or something else? —Tamfang (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)