Talk:Wilfred Stamp, 2nd Baron Stamp
 | A fact from Wilfred Stamp, 2nd Baron Stamp appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 July 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled edit
This makes no sense. There's something wrong.
- Dukedom of Suffolk, Second Creation (1514)
- Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk (1484-1545)
- Henry Brandon, 2nd Duke of Suffolk (1535-1551)
- Charles Brandon, 3rd Duke of Suffolk (1537-1551)
Either the reference to Henry Brandon holding the Dukedom for an hour is wrong, or the Duke of Suffolk page is wrong.
Given that the Duke of Suffolk page shows Henry Brandon as being 2nd Duke of Suffolk at the same time that Charles Branson is listed as being the 3rd Duke of Suffolk, I'm inclined to believe the latter; but then the question arises, who was Duke of Suffolk from 1535 to 1537?
There's a bunch of other stuff that's funny about the Duke of Suffolk page, but I won't get into it now. Vaxalon 19:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- No, that's perfectly sensible, those are birth and death dates, not the dates they held the Dukedom: Charles Brandon, born 1484, created Duke of Suffolk in 1514, died 1545. His son Henry, born 1535, would have inherited the Dukedom in 1545 on Charles' death, died 1551. Charles' younger son Charles, born 1537, inherited the Dukedom in 1551 on Henry's death, died of the same disease an hour later. -- Arwel 10:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
legal fiction edit
Is this really the only case in English legal history of a peer and heir dying in undetermined order, or is it just the most prominent example?--Pharos 00:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
citations to Kelly's Handbook edit
I have repeated the citation template in full because of an apparent difficulty in getting the subsequent abbreviation accepted. Others are welcome to condense.Cloptonson (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)