Talk:Marquess of Pembroke

Marquess or Marchioness?

Was Anne Boleyn the Marquess or the Marchioness of Pembroke? I know the Queen is the Duke of Lancaster and Duke of Normandy, not the Duchess, but I'm not convinced about Anne Boleyn being a Marquess. This question arises from a comment I posted for the Anne Boleyn article. This article is called Marchioness of Pembroke but describes Anne as the Marquess. The article E.W. Ives, 'Anne (c.1500–1536)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004) accessed 4 May 2008, by Eric Ives, Emeritus Professor of English History in the University of Birmingham, who might be expected to have got it right, says, 'in September 1532 Anne was created marchioness of Pembroke'.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As there only ever was one Marquess of Pembroke I question whether this article is appropriate. Anything encyclopedic should be dealt with in the Anne Boleyn article, or just possibly Earl of Pembroke. PatGallacher (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Has any of the content been merged to the other articles? --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not yet, but I will do so before the article is deleted. PatGallacher (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If content is merged, it cannot be deleted, as there is a requirement to keep the edit history of the page, so it should be redirected with a {{R from merge}} tag (or disambiguated if necessary), not deleted. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well, but I still think it should be turned into a redirect to either Anne Boleyn or Earl of Pembroke, probably the former. A large part of it consists of quotes from references, which although relevant, are overdoing it for an encyclopedia article. PatGallacher (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now copied most of the content which is not quotes to Anne Boleyn. Unless anyone objects in a couple of days I will turn this into a redirect to Anne Boleyn. PatGallacher (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of this is in Anne Boleyn; the content would be useful at Earl_of_Pembroke#Marquess_of_Pembroke_.281532.29:_Anne_Boleyn. Where this should redirect, I'm not so sure. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

So are we moving this page or renaming it? Lady Meg (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Notability

It appears that the notability of this title is being challenged. I've only done a cursory check, and it seems that titles, as separate from title holders, are considered notable for other countries as well as for England, whether there is or was one holder or are or were two or more holders of a title. The Marquessate, in terms of rank, is "less" notable (lower) than the Duke and "more" notable (higher) than the Earl. In my opinion, even though Boleyn was the only ever Marquess of Pembroke, this does not lessen the notability of her title. Turn this article into a redirect, and where will it end? Will the "Earl" articles go next? Of course not.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  16:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ibox name

"Marquess" was substituted for "Marquessate" in the ibox because Marquess is the actual title. Marquessate is the dignity, rank, or position of a Marquess. One would say that Boleyn was granted the Marquessate, or one could say that Boleyn was granted the title of Marquess. Since this article is about the title and not about the dignity, rank, or position of that title, then it is the title itself that should be the name of the ibox, isn't that so?  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  16:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

But isn't it the Marquessate that was created? Isn't it the Marquessate that could pass according to a special remainder and that nevertheless went extinct? The parameters in the infobox now suggest that the Marquess was created, that the Marquess was held by Anne Boleyn and that the Marquess went extinct. If we are to avoid the word Marquessate, shouldn't the name in the infobox be "title of the Marquess of Pembroke"? Surtsicna (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the Earl of Pembroke article, and the ibox is named "Earl of Pembroke", not "Earldom of Pembroke". Seems to me that the title itself should be the name of the ibox. You, Surtsicna, seem to be a very involved editor on all these related articles, so I shall defer to your judgement. Just please note that the ibox itself is named "Infobox peerage title" rather than "Infobox peerage rank of title".  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  18:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

Please could someone enlighten the (in this case uneducated)? I have a question about the "succession" section. Why would it be strange that there was no provision against illegitimate children? As I understand it a) this was the first nobility title to be given "suo jure" to a woman (thus there wasn't any precedence), and b) sexual intercourse was illegal with the Queen (as Anne became to be), so Anne would risk her own life if she attempted to have illegitimate children – a strong deterrant from extramarital affairs. So why would the gathered nobility be even tempted to notice such a thing? Hope I've been clear in what I'm asking. 101090ABC (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Henry could have changed his mind and decided not to marry Anne. In that case, their illegitimate son would have been able to succeed Anne, if not Henry. Surtsicna (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"relatively rare title Marquys"

Why "Marquys" instead of the more common English "Marquis"?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Spelling in that period varied very widely and many things had such variance. Garlicplanting (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

End of the Marquessate

Dubious on point one. A title can only merge with the crown when the crown inherits the title. 2 is clearly the answer but we need a source. Garlicplanting (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The idea is that Henry may have acquired the title jure uxoris, thus merging it with the crown. All three possibilities are sourced. Surtsicna (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the concept of jure uxoris has already been overturned by this time. The last peer summoned to parliament long predates this. The concept in any respect was a right of a husband to sit in parliament under the name and title of their wife but only so long as the wife lived or remained the wife! The husband did not become the peer so a merging cannot occur. The cite is the EB which frankly is not the best source for such concepts Garlicplanting (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)