This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
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 within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Herefordshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Herefordshire 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.HerefordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HerefordshireTemplate:WikiProject HerefordshireHerefordshire articles
As of the date of this Talk comment, this article says that one notable son (Robert Harley) of this article's subject (Edward Harley), was, later, Earl of Oxford. That's wrong. Robert Harley was created "1st Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer", which is ONE Earldom. Similarly the title "Earl of Oxford and Asquith" created later is ONE Earldom. Wikipedia contradicts itself on whether the Earldom of Oxford is extinct or is dormant. But the article on the title itself consistently says dormant, not extinct. Most likely is that it is considered dormant, because if it could be locked down that it went extinct when the last title-holder died then the Crown wouldn't have balked at re-using the name. The problem with re-using the name when you aren't CERTAIN that a title is extinct is that the 1st Earl of Oxford could for all we know have a living descendant (male-line if need be) who would, if he attempted it, succeed at claiming the older title, and then you'd have two Earls of Oxford at the same time. This is not NEVER done (Earl of Mar), but the Crown would like it to be as rare as possible.2603:7000:9906:A91C:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]
.svg)
