Talk:Elizabeth Somerset, Baroness Herbert

Implied notability

A Wikipedia recognized category for English countesses implies notability. No other criteria should be required nor is it requested. Daytrivia (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with notability and the nobility is it's hard to state sometimes, but if she was an English noble of more than two hundred years ago, she was part of the small, elite group who ran the country, with a baroncy in her own right and a husband who was one of the highest in the land and worked with and for the king. This makes her inherently notable. Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If this article is ultimately deleted or merged then thousands more, unfortunately, await the same fate. Daytrivia (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Move to Elizabeth Somerset, 3rd Baroness Herbert

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move DrKiernan (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

I've moved this already because the title is obviously wrong, and the move seems uncontroversial. DrKiernan (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Somerset, Countess of Worcester (c. 1476 – c. 1513) → Elizabeth Somerset, 3rd Baroness Herbert — The current title is simply ridiculuous. I do not think I need to explain why. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support per The Spy. --JaGa^talk 19:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. There is a better reason for this: it is not certain that she was ever Countess; and like Frederick North, Lord North, she was not notable for it. However, since she was Baroness Herbert both in her own right, at least by modern law, and as the wife of Baron Herbert, Elizabeth Somerset, Baroness Herbert would be better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support but prefer PMA's suggestion (why include the misleading "3rd" when it serves no disambiguating purpose?)--Kotniski (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.