Complete Peerage and Douglas Richardson version
- From: "Leo" <leovdpas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 20:05:29 +1000
As far as I understand, the Complete PEERAGE is to record the PEERS and those who were obvious heirs to the title but died before succeeding to the PEERAGE.
Even people with honorifics are not "PEERS", even if they are the children of one.
In which case Douglas Richardson should choose his words more carefully.
"In my earlier post today, I noted several irregularities and lapses in the Complete Peerage account of the male children of Robert de Ufford, K.G., 1st Earl of Suffolk.
First, the youngest son......................
Why should the youngest son, who never was heir presumptive, be mentioned? If he is not mentioned, that does not seem a lapse, he does not belong in the Complete Peerage.
I wish, like Douglas Richardson, that all children, even daughters, of Peers were mentioned, but the principle of this series has not included them. If they had, we would have needed twenty volumes, perhaps even more.
I hope what Douglas Richardson was trying to do is add knowledge to the families in CP, which is great but he should not denigrade CP by maintaining irregularities and lapses if they are not.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
- Prev by Date: Re: Jane Greene, wife of William Poole of Taunton, Mass.
- Next by Date: Re: Champernoun/Champernowne
- Previous by thread: Agatha
- Next by thread: Re: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - a total forgery?