Talk:William de Valence, 1st Earl of Pembroke

Untitled

I found this while adding bits from the bio on the Earl of Pembroke page (from the 1911 Britannica):

• Though he is sometimes called earl in contemporary documents, it is uncertain when if ever William was formally created or recognized as Earl of Pembroke.
• In 1295 was summoned to parliament as Earl of Pembroke.

These sentences are in direct contradiction, but I don't know which one is right! The first was on this page, the second on the other one (apparently from Britannica). Chose to leave it off until someone could sort it out... Lordjim13 01:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Same question again

I have found reliable sources that say he was never Earl of Pembroke; e.g. T. F. Tout, "The 'Communitas Bacheleriae Angliae'" in English Historical Review vol. 17 (1902) pp. 89-95: "was certainly never recognised as Earl of Pembroke", p. 92. He claimed to be (and was) "lord of Pembroke", thanks to his marriage, but that's not the same thing. I haven't found any reliable sources for the statement that he was Earl of Pembroke. So I've placed a "citation" tag on the page. Andrew Dalby 13:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Likewise "Medlands": "He styled himself Lord of Pembroke, but was never invested with the earldom of Pembroke". This is sourced to Cokayne's Complete Peerage. Andrew Dalby 13:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sinmce no one has cited any sources, I have now shortened him in the first sentence to "William de Valence". See also my comment about the proposed move below. Andrew Dalby 08:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

What ever his status why is he titled 1st Earl of Pembroke when later it is stated that this honour belonged to his wife's grandfather? Chrysippo (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe from what I can pick up (this isn't my line really) that you couldn't inherit a peerage from your father-in-law. Instead, if your wife or mother was the child of a peer, who had no male heir, and if the king hadn't taken against you, he might re-create the peerage for you. You would then be the 1st earl of the second creation. This happened at least twice with the Pembrokes. Andrew Dalby 17:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right. Seemingly, even if a previous holder of the title was a direct relative, eg an uncle, numbering restarted if for any reason that previous holder had lost claim to the title. Just as well monarchs are ordered differently, with title number depending on how many previous incumbents there were of the same name no matter how their reign ended or how tenuous the relationship. I imagine current prince of Wales would feel uncomfortable with associations of becoming Charles I. 82.33.115.143 (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Move?

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved: drop of the unnecessary disambiguator was uncontested. I suggest you do another RM if you want the drop the title as well. DrKiernan (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

---

William de Valence, 1st Earl of Pembroke (3rd Creation) → William de Valence, 1st Earl of Pembroke –

• no need to disambiguate with creation number as only one person of this name ever held title Agricolae (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

For the reason I give in the previous section, William de Valence would be better. There is no reliable evidence that he held this title "Earl of Pembroke"; there is reliable evidence that he had no claim to it. Andrew Dalby 08:42, 9 October 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.