Talk:Earl of Barrymore

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

[Untitled][edit]

I added an external link to a short article on Hemry de Barry, last Earl of Barryomre. Both the link and the article have disappeared without trace or explanation. Does anyone know where they are?

Viscount Barry or Viscount Buttevant[edit]

There were many souces for both versions of a viscountcy. Some say the name Buttevant was an error, some didn't mention the name Barry, some say they exist both, some set the creation to 1461, some to 1541 or 1554. Does anyone know more? Was it perhaps a complex writing error in the past? Phoe 23:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency[edit]

According to the page De Barry family, the viscountcy was created in 1385 (and the barony under the first three Angevin Kings of England).--78.51.166.12 (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

extinctions and Americans[edit]

The direct descendants of the earl of Barrymore lineage immigrated to the U.S. before WWI and the title is now considered extinct.

Do the two parts of this sentence have any relation to each other? It seems to imply that the sequence of events is this:

With the death of the 8th earl in 1823, the titles became dormant because none of the "direct descendants of the earl lineage" proved seniority.
By 1914 all surviving potential claimants had emigrated, and were thus unlikely to claim the peerages.
A century later, those American heirs are "considered" extinct.

But perhaps the "direct descendants" mentioned are all in female lines, in which case they are irrelevant to the extinction — and it's less plausible that all such persons emigrated to the same country!

Either way, the passage cries out for cleanup. —Tamfang (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]