Talk:Earl of Mar

Untitled

"Bobbin' John" appears as John Erskine, 23rd Earl of Mar under Secretary of State for Scotland, but John Erskine, 6th Earl of Mar here: please sort it out and correct Jacobitism. Thanks, dave souza 06:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've done a major overhaul of this page. Hopefully the double-numbering for some of the Earls should be clearer now. Proteus (Talk) 10:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The numbering system is messed up. You can't number from the ancient Gaelic earls, as the first is unknown and the entire number would be subject to a great deal of dispute. It is customary to begin numbering from when the title passes from the Gaelic family to the new family. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've thought about this for a while - and it seems to me that this page is a very good attempt at an impossible task - creating a single page about a wide-ranging topic that really should be covered by many articles. The various 'Earls of Mar' have often nothing in common but their title, and 'some' property in 'Mar' - different families, and different properties. For example 'Bobbin John' was an Erskine and a big part of his Earldom was near Stirling. We wouldn't try to have a single article of the kings of Britain - that seems obvious - and each of them would have their own article. When it comes to the Ears of Mar - I think we need a disambiguation page that explains in detail the different creations, numbering, families, geography etc. then perhaps we could have individual articles on much smaller units - the individual families fro example WikiWriter (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The numbering system here is chaotic. See comment at Talk:John Erskine, 22nd Earl of Mar (cf the red link above). Ben MacDui 18:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A renaming has been done by Fixer88, but wasn't necessary. The mot reliable source you can find is : Christoph v. Ehrenstein, ‘Erskine, John, styled twenty-second or sixth earl of Mar and Jacobite duke of Mar (bap. 1675, d. 1732)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008.

So all the renamings must be undone. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks PurpleHz. Now, to complete the clarification, can the numbering in the main article also be updated to correspond to the article titles, and to reliable sources. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've renamed the 2 articles back to their usual titles, and it corresponds to the numbering of the ODNB (which is a reliable source). The problem with the Earl of Mar title is that because of The Earldom of Mar Restitution Act 1885, some try to apply two numbering schemes. PurpleHz (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Article titles

In view of the fact of the divergent numbering for the same individuals between 1550 and 1866, perhaps the article titles for those individuals should be changed to make them, well, more distinctively individual?

There are too many John Erskines : do I want the article titled the 20th Earl or the 19th, for instance? A trap for the unwary!

It is very easy to think that Wikipedia contributors have made a mistake, when in fact it is reality which is confusing in this case.

You could use the subsidiary Lord Erskine title to number these individuals or refer to one of the dates of creation of the two Earldoms, or even have a subtitle referring to the other numbering.

213.246.92.141 (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've make the corrections, an Earl was missing. Now it's ok. PurpleHz (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article as it stands appears to be non-neutral
The text states that there are two extant creations of the earldom of Mar, resulting from a confusion in the 19th century, and so we have two earls of Mar. The article as it stands appears to be pushing the POV that one of them is somehow superior to the other. ("as the result of a mistake..." Really?)
So I’ve edited it to restore the neutrality somewhat. Swanny18 (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've also simplified the numbering, and trimmed out that de jure, de facto stuff. it wasn't helpful, or accurate (you can't be a de facto earl, it's a grant from the monarch; the alternative to a de jure titleholder is a pretender, which I'm guessing is what whoever put it in was implying. (It's taken from this website, which has a definite POV)). Swanny18 (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Numbering

The numbering seems a lot better, now; congrats to PurpleHz for fixing that. There's still a bit of an issue; Burkes has Margaret (current titleholder) as 31st, but Leigh Rayment, and the Tribe of Mar website (which seems to be connected to the family somehow) have her as 30th. I've put a note in, but I'm only assuming that's the reason. Can anybody with access to Burkes confirm it? Swanny18 (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture

Seems like the statement about the Genesis song that: "...depicts the failure of the unsuccessful Jacobite campaign and the innocence of the Earl's young son." could use a bit of elucidation, so far as time/place of the reference if it's to be included. Not saying it shouldn't be included, but it just seems to come out of nowhere, reference-wise. o0drogue0o 13:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by O0drogue0o (talk • contribs)

Numbering, again

This article and its dependent pages are still in a bit of a muddle. It is a complex enough situation already, as we not only have two creations of this title running concurrently but the first creation has more than one numbering system. Some sources (like the official website) list John Erskine (d 1572) as 18th Earl, others (Leigh Rayment) as 17th. Yet another ([[1]) has Robert Erskine (d 1453) as 1st Earl, making that John Erskine the 6th.
The article doesn't help the situation by following the official website for the first creation, (making John Erskine 1st/18th earl), and Leigh Rayment for the seventh (making him 1st/17th). Also, John Erskine 18th/1st earl (d 1572) links to the John Erskine, 18th Earl of Mar page, who turns out to be the John Erskine who died in 1634. We have pages on the 17th, 18th, 21st, 22nd, and 23rd earls, who all lived in the 16th and 17th centuries, but the page on James Erskine, 14th earl, is on the current Earl of Mar and Kellie.
To resolve this somewhat I suggest we a) standardize the numbering in both creations, making the John Erskine who died in 1572 the 18th/1st of the first, and 1st/18th of the seventh, creations, and b) disambiguate all the individual articles by their dates, rather than by their numbers, which might make it clearer who we are talking about.
If there are no objections I will do that in a few days. Swanny18 (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

With the caveat I haven't fully looked at the details - which will take some considerable time - careful. Your 'official' site is merely a personal site and not an authority able to make legal determination of the correct numbering. You cannot take any peers site as unquestionably correct - some have errors - and we need to verify anything in the usual manner. The numbering issue seems to relate to an 'erroneous' inclusion of 'Alexander Stewart, Earl of Mar' based on an illegal regrant. If that is so he is considered only jure uxoris (that is his wife is the peer not him) and not in the numbering. Others may need time to see this and give an opinion but I'd wait a little longer if you can. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. The authoritative sources (Burks? Debretts?) are not accessible to me, so I'm not sure where else to check. I know Whitaker's lists one of the current holders, Margaret, as 31st Earl of Mar (and I seem to remember finding a link to her Burk's page(or maybe it was the other one's) which confirmed that number. But I won't be doing anything just yet. I understand the doubts about Alexander Stewart being in the numbering (and yes, he was only jure uxoris), but the precedence does date from his acquisition of the title. I'd hate to think the House of Lords got it wrong! Do you know where else to get confirmation? And how do you feel about using their dates instead of their numbers for the individual pages? Swanny18 (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make but did so badly was that Mar site seems to fall into wikis self-published source

I can find various sources online and they are split - more to 31 than not but certainly split.

The original precedence is from the decreet of ranking not the HoL although their special C19 act is quite mad. Its certainly among a list of incoherent political decisions which leave so many loose ends (of which this is one) due to there not being based on a clear legal process. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying about the Mar site; it's certainly written with a very particular POV.

You mentioned the Decreet of Ranking; does it throw any light on the numbering? I saw this but wasn't sure what to make of it, in this context.

As far as the article here goes I just want to make it consistent. Its bad enough labelling someone (say, John Erskine) the "18th and 1st" Earl, without having to say he's the "17th or 18th and 1st". If the sources to 31 are ahead by a nose, it's probably worth going with that and adding a footnote (eg. "Some sources count him a 17th earl, lowering subsequent numbers by one". Detailing the sources would be even better) Swanny18 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Well the D of R has politics/later corrections - However saying that it ranks Mar between Morton (1458) and Linlithgow (1600) Indicating a creation between those dates!

We have on some other peerages Lord_Hume_of_Berwick written a section on the main page explaining the disputed nature of a peerage. I'm not sure any have been especially successful. Though something could be added to the page and an explanation of why the numbering is disputed. Alternately we do have quite a few pages with two/three sets of numbering given throughout Earl_of_Arundel Garlicplanting (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

<od> I found a copy of Burke's peerage in the town library (and also a Debretts) which both confirm the numbering up to 31 for the 1st creation title. So I've gone with that, adding a footnote about the other style.
They both listed Alexander Stewart as 12th earl; I had thought he was titleholder only in right of his wife, but Burke says she gave him a life-rent of the title (with remainder to her children) in 1404, which was confirmed by the king (as you might expect); so maybe it does make sense to include him; you might know more about that than me. Swanny18 (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Have any of you consulted the Complete Peerage, which should be clear up through the early 20th century? Scots Peerage would do.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)