Forum:Earl's relations to each

Forums: Index > Watercooler > Earl's relations to each

User:Fandyllic made the request after the last edit war that instead of doing that, we ought to come to his TalkPage before hand when either of us want to add or remove contested information. User:HPR1 ignored that while I'm coming here to say that no proof ever been shown within the show itself or credible behind-the-scene material on how the each Earl of Grantham was related to the previous. I would request permission please to removed that since it's speculative and misleading since there are too many pausible possibilities to mention them all and not really that important either way. Nobody want "possible" written all over the place especially as the possible refers to one situation being accurate when it's just accurate to state "possible not" so the compromise is leave it out. A "note" is misleading and too long since there really isn't any information to state that isn't logical (any contributor can figure out that Earl might be his oldest son or not so it's useless to state) CestWhat (talk) 07:15, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Every Earl from Earl 3 downwards has been father to son.

Heiress that had Downton Place had to have married Earl 4 as only her descendants can inherit it; if she had no descendant, then it could be a cousin of her (or an aunt, uncle, etc) on the side of the family that she inherited Downton Place from.

Earl 4 married Heiress of Downton Place - they had 5th Earl, who married (5th Countess is Violet's mother-in-law) and they had 6th Earl who married Violet; they then had Robert, who was 7th Earl. See? With brains - and the usage of the brain - we can be 99.9999999999999999999% sure that from Earl 3 downwards it WAS father to son. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 07:32, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

So that use of brain remark suppose to be a knock against me? Real classy. "with brains" is just the latest example of trying to hide a total lack of evidence or understanding of concepts being discussed. All you are doing is making statements without anything to back them out. Of course that heiress has descendants. Nobody despites that since Robert is her great-grandson so this point about her having no children is just weird. The situation I gave was that her husband was never an Earl himself and all you have done is despite because you use your brain or whatever (congrats).

Rose wasn't never an only child. Characters don't walk into frame and announce all their relatives. "Remember your Great Aunt Roberta" only shows that Mary, Sybil and Edith are her great-nieces and says nothing about how Violet is related her. If Violet is referring to her brother's wife, then she would say the exact same thing. That isn't an opinion, just obvious fact. If I wanted, by your logic, I can make these vague "with brain" or "it must be" stuff and just write Roberta is the wife of Violet's brother since all you need as proof is apparently nothing.

1) The original discussion about the woman owning Downton Place came as PROOF that the earldom went from Father to son (she married 4, they had 5, who had 6, who had Robert because he owns Downton Place; it was NEVER EVER EVER about her having children! EVER! READ! BRAINS! USE!!!!!!

Even User:Fandyllic tried to explain to User:HPR1 before about how speculative shouldn't be put in since not only can it be wrong, but then it has to be removed. You like to act like I alone am the problem, but you are igoring both that advice as well as making edits with first getting them approved by User:Fandyllic as he/she requested in order to prevent edit warring. I'm trying to adhere to that request. CestWhat (talk) 10:53, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

!"£$%^&*(*&^%$£"£$%^&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%^&*()*&^%$£$%^&*( You are freaking well impossible! Literally, you are the most incorrigible little £$%^&*( I have ever met!

2) Rose, when she was introduced in Episode 3.08 was said to be "Violet's great-niece" and Susan and Hugh's child; there were NO mentions of siblings in that episode, so as far as we knew, she WAS an only child UNTIL the 2012 Christmas Special which showed she had two siblings.

3) If you were to view the "Roberta" Page, you will find that I did not make it, and that the person who did is the one you should be nagging at. All we know is that Roberta is Violet's elder sister born sometime in the early 1840s who, in 1857, Loaded the Guns at Lucknow.

4) Susan and Roberta - it is likely (and very probable) that Roberta is Susan's mother and the "great aunt in 1860 who married a Gordon"; this makes Roberta's surname Gordon. Whatever the case, there is definitely one sister, Roberta - there may be a second sister as Susan says that Violet is "My mother's sister" when speaking to her - while not confirmed, it is about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that she is referring to Roberta. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 11:49, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring all the insults, again, no proof as been offer. What's annoying (it's usually annoying dealing with a contributor causes people to leave this wiki) is this has been dealt with before months ago. Even User:Fandyllic told User:HPR1 this isn't cannonical information (just writing doesn't make it so). I would request that User:HPR1 stop making these edits and wait for our admin to sort this out. Just for the record I'm doing that since edit warring with just happen. This is what I think goes missing in the threats of violence. They are the actions of a bully and not an out-of-blue solely because he was provoked thing. User:HPR1 acts as if anybody must defer to "brains" which is just a jerk move. Throughout all all this discussion, User:HPR1 even writes "while not confirmed" or "very likely" without even noting that it proves the whole point that it's speculative. "Very likely" stuff isn't a note or behind-the-scenes material, it's fanfic. CestWhat (talk) 17:27, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Fine. I've had it. Be a nuisance then. Consider all value you had with me gone. End of conversation. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:18, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Again, not new. User:HPR1 makes this "I'm done therefore I win" stuff all the time. I don't care. User:HPR1 has added misleading information without first getting it approved here (which User:MerryStar and User:Fandyllic told him not). Again, I ask that it be removed since "very likely" isn't a source or worth noting. CestWhat (talk) 18:26, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that was a "I can't be bothered to argue with someone who is stuck entirely in the wrong, so I will end it before I say something I will regret" argument ending, ok? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:46, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

So because you are too immature too not threaten violence again, what... You haven't proven anything. You do get what speculation is, right? You do get why speculation, especially weak stuff, shouldn't be in the articles? I think that even User:Fandyllic would agree that you simply stating "I'm done" isn't a reason that the information in question ought be kept in the articles. 24.141.5.202 19:10, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sure, whatever. As far as I'm concerned, this conversation is over. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:25, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

If I did an edit war (I won't), you be typing on and on about getting the admin's approval. You were the one who demanded that I get the admin to weigh in on stuff before so I don't get why you don't want to it. Of course you'd like it to be over. You did what you were told not to do and somehow don't seem to notice this. You haven't proven anything and this stuff was discussed with many contributors including User:Fandyllic agree that we don't know who Roberta or each of the Earls are related to the central family and you just ignoring that isn't a fair solution. You were completely mean and personal in this conversation and somehow how want to get patted on the back that you didn't make any treats. I'm trying to avoid an edit war by doing exactly what the admins ask, instead of removing you the inaccurate information, come and discuss it here. CestWhat (talk) 20:40, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

For one moment get off your "high and mighty" perch and look at what we know.

Robert is 7th Earl; Matthew is his third cousin once removed - this means that they both descend from the 3rd Earl; Matthew confirmed this, but and now here is the thing that makes me right and you wrong, for Robert to be the 7th Earl is must have passed from father to son. Before you go "NO! WRONG!" and try to interfere, here is the proof:

The 4th Earl had a brother - Matthew's ancestor; Reginald's great-grandfather.

The 4th Earl had a son - 5th Earl, who had a cousin, Reginald's grandfather.

The 5th Earl had a son - 6th Earl, who had a second cousin, Reginald's father.

The 6th Earl had a son - Robert, who had a third cousin, Reginald himself.

Robert is Earl 7; his third cousin once removed is/was Matthew.

Thus, as you can see there, I have proven that it must have gone father to son for the titles and relationship to be right. So, if you'll allow me for a moment, IN! YO! FACE! Nyahahaha!

As for Roberta, well, she must be Violet's sister, since Robert only had one uncle - James Crawley's father (who had James, who had Patrick); James Crawley's mother would be his aunt (and in turn a great-aunt of Mary, Sybil and Edith) and she is dead by the beginning of the series.

Yes, you could say she was still "great-aunt Roberta" but here is why you would be totally, utterly and completely wrong and dumber than the dumbest thing to have ever existed in all of Dumbtopia - Roberta is known to have fought at Lucknow in 1857.

In 1857 Violet was not married to her husband, so if it was his sister - or sister-in-law - who fought at Lucknow, Violet would not know, thus the woman who fought at Lucknow - namely Roberta - must be Violet's sister; that is how Violet would know.

Whether she is the woman who married Mr Gordon, or whether she is Susan's mother, is unknown; there may be a third sister in the pack, but that's irregardless in this situation.

As you can see, using brains, logic, and the show itself, I have proven my points. Nyahahaha!

Point to me, I think. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:37, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Please stop calling me dumb or unwitty variations of. I've tried not to do that to you and I don't think it's fair that any contributor be allowed to call others "dumb" no matter the circumstance.As good as "Nyahahah" is, you still haven't proven anything. Plausible isn't the same thing as proven. Differing to the idea as the one and only one situation is just limited. Nothing in that whole post is actual proof. CestWhat (talk) 00:41, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, all of it is proof. I got thast from what is know (Robert's close family - e,g. James, Patrick, James's mother, etc) as well as the relationship between Robert and Reginald (Third cousins); it makes absolute sense - you're just unwilling to see it because you don't want to admit you're wrong; after all, I'm still waiting for two apologies! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 06:17, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Again, "it makes absolute sense" is another way of stating it's plausible and (again) plausible isn't the same thing as proof. "Making sense" isn't proof. It's a theory. You aren't writing that Robert and Matthew were third cousins, once removed, but stuff that unrelated to it since you haven't made any connection through dialogue in the episode or credible b-t-s material. You've ignore that you're logic doesn't rule out other ways that the Earls can be related to each other. You are wrong that you've offered any proof. Again and again. The admin already state that before and also asked that you not put information on article without clearing with you ignored. CestWhat (talk) 06:34, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember ever telling anyone to tl;dr on my talk page, but even if I did, I'm moving it to the forums. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2 Feb 2013 11:16 PM Pacific

Oh and I didn't read it. However, I got the general sense of the whole nonsense, so I propose something more systematic. List each earl in a section and debate the facts or lack thereof in each section. This massive above gobbledygook is not comprehensible. I will make the sections. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2 Feb 2013 11:19 PM Pacific

You did write to put any contested information edits on your TalkPage. Quote from my TalkPage, "CestWhat, please mention your reversions of HarryPotterRules1's edits on my talk page before you do them." and "If you have an issue with one of his edits you need to talk to Fandyllic and he can undo or fix it as needed." Think it's a bit unfair to call it nonsense since you wanted me to not do edit wars so I didn't. CestWhat (talk) 07:38, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, so please give links to specific additions/edits to consider, not "stuff I don't agree with". You were basically asking for what I deem blanket permission to start removing potentially lots of content without any specifics. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5 Feb 2013 7:00 PM Pacific

The many Earl of Granthams and their relations to each other

Have at it! And please sign your comments. I'm not going to go back and figure out who said what and if I can't tell, it doesn't count no matter how eloquent and insightful it may sound. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5 Feb 2013 6:50 PM Pacific

Okay some starter info is in, but it needs references. If you have a good reference (see Forum:What is canon and good citations/references), I'll use it to update the existing entries. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11 Feb 2013 1:56 PM Pacific

1st Earl of Grantham

Original holder of the title; became Earl of Grantham in 1772. Father of the 2nd Earl. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 06:48, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Had a sister. Had at least one son. CestWhat (talk) 22:24, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

2nd Earl of Grantham

Son of the Second Earl. Has to be son as cannot be brother/nephew since title belongs to 1st earl's offspring and descendants only; brother/nephew is not offspring or descendant. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 06:48, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Grandsons are also direct male heirs of the original title-holder

The line about Piero della Francesca and that he was either a son or grandson of 1st Earl. CestWhat (talk) 22:26, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

3rd Earl of Grantham

Father of 4th Earl and father of Matthew's Great-Great-Grandfather. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 06:48, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

No proof.

Actually, yes; Matthew even says "My great-great-grandfather was the younger son of the Third Earl.". As well as this, for the relationship of Matthew and Robert being third cousins once removed to be correct, the Third Earl has to be the father of the 4th Earl, who was the father of the 5th Earl, who was the father of the 6th Earl, who was the father of Robert. This is the only way that the correct number of Earls - 7 - can have happened and the only way that the family relationship between Matthew and Robert can be correct. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 06:48, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Had at least two sons, younger being Matthew's great-great grandfather. Nearly went bankrupt. That's it. CestWhat (talk) 22:28, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

4th Earl of Grantham

Son of the Third Earl. Died prematurely, wife lived in Dower House. Inherited Downton Place through the marriage of him and his wife. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 06:48, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

No proof of dying prematurely. "Imply" how, "by dying" doesn't have implication be him being dead save Downton Abbey estate whether he was age 19 or 91.

"Saved Downton" implies that his lifestyle was extravagant and he would have run out of money if he hadn't died prematurely, allowing his wife to move to the Dower House. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 06:48, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

This is very big leap without any source. Also if the 4th is a son of the 3rd, why wouldn't Matthew just say his great-great grandfather was the younger brother of the 4th Earl.

It's simple; Martha does ask "How are you related to us, Mr Crawley?" so saying "Younger brother of the Fourth Earl" would make her none the wiser, so he elaborated; Robert does tell her to look in Burke's peerage, so she doesn't know the relations - Matthew elaborated for her sake. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 08:01, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

His death (not mention premature since that in speculation because on nothing) saved the estate. Had to be a son or grandson of 4th Earl. That's it. The Countess and Downton Place shouldn't be in here because of previous discussed reasons. CestWhat (talk) 22:30, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

5th Earl of Grantham

Son of 4th Earl. Wife lived in Crawley house as mother-in-law was still alive when 5th Earl died. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 06:48, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

The Dower House could have been damaged by a fire. She could have been just weird and preferred simple house in the village to the grand Dower House. Her sister-in-law, cousin-in-law, aunt by marriage could have been the Dowager Countess. No proof of anything beyond she lived at Crawley House in Downton village.

""The Fourth Earl only saved Downton by dying" implies that his lifestyle was extravagant and he would have run out of money if he hadn't died prematurely, allowing his wife to move to the Dower House; thus, at the time of Earl 5's death, his mother was still alive and his wife lived in Crawley House because of that. That is what is certainly implied.HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 08:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

It could have nothing to do with lifestyle. It's an over-reading of "by dying" could have nothing or everything to do with lifestyle. We don't know and in fanficdom, one is just as likely as the other.

Nothing is known about his or his relation to 4th Earl or 6th Earl's relation to him. CestWhat (talk) 22:32, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

6th Earl of Grantham

Son of 5th Earl; husband of Violet, father of Robert and Rosamund. Died between 1890 and 14th April 1912. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 06:48, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

"Running Downton for thiry years" line doesn't state the Violet's husband was the Earl of Grantham when she married him. They could have married and then inherited the title afterwards.

True, but 1890 is the earliest known time he could have died; he may have been Earl in 1860, meaning that "running Downton for thirty years" places it at 1890; the latest he could have died is a day before the Titanic sank - though it is likely - and very probable - that he died before 1912. Given that none of his grandchildren mention him, he may have died in the early 1890s, e.g. 1891 or early 1892, for example. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 06:48, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

By that logical, Mary and 2nd Earl must have meet since she talks about him. Simply a lack of dialogue isn't proof of whether he died before or after Mary's birth and early childhood.

True, but there is also the fact that Violet says she was married "in 1860"; we do not know if she became Countess on her marriage - though this is possible; if her father-in-law was alive, her husband would have had to have married a rich heiress to save Downton - and her husband was Earl for thirty years, placing his death in the early - mid 1890s. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 08:03, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

No proof how he's related to the 5th Earl. Violet's husband and Robert and Rosamund's father. Very well traveled. Tied up Cora's fortune into the estate and the title. Had at least one younger brother who father James Crawley. His mother lived at Crawley House and she was disliked by Violet. That's about it CestWhat (talk) 22:35, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Boils down

It boils down to uncontested dialogue from the episodes.

• The Earl of Grantham immediately before Robert was his dad. (Ep. 1.01)
• Robert and Matthew were third cousins, once removed (Ep. 1.01)
• Matthew's great-great grandfather was a younger son of the 3rd Earl (Ep. 3.01).

That's it for genealogical information. About the only things that we get from that are that Robert's a direct-line descendant of the 3rd-Earl and that the 4th Earl had to be a son or grandson of the 3rd Earl because of Matthew's great-great grandfather and his descendants would be in-line for the Earldom of Grantham before an uncle, great-uncle, nephew, cousin, etc... (the one real way to say a son or grandson is more likely then the other) The fact that Robert's father's mother lived at Crawley House in the village rather than the Dower House only kind of seem to be to imply that she wasn't a Countess of Grantham in her own right. It would help to explain why she and Violet didn't get along. Again, that's just a fanfic theory of mine, but it's plausible. CestWhat (talk) 07:58, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Adding this tree just as a demostration that nothing within it disproves anything that's said in the show or b-t-s material, yet except for Robert from his dad, never does a son inherit the Earldom of Grantfam from his father. Just posting one, but if you'd other to further the point there are too many plausible ways for the Earldom to be inherited so state one way or the other, feel free to ask. Looking at the tree, Robert and Matthew would be third cousins, once removed. I'm not trying to say how the Earls are related to each other, just that isn't anything from credible sources that would tell you, User:HPR1, me or anybody else how they would so we shouldn't try on the actual articles. We know that Robert's was Earl for at least 30 years (we don't know if he was the Earl of Grantham at time of his wedding to Violet or not), but there is no such thing as an "average" length of time since you can look at the British monarchs, some reigned for decades while other reigned for less then 5 years (Queen Jane was 9 days in July, poor girl). And Queen Victoria's two immediate successors were her uncles and then grandfather Mad King George III who inherited from his grandfather George II. CestWhat (talk) 08:23, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Just adding this since it's pretty on point and what I've type about in this long discussion. http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Fandyllic?diff=prev&oldid=15421 CestWhat (talk) 09:01, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

I can immediately contest one thing; Robert is the 7th Earl, so his father is the 6th Earl; this means that Violet's mother-in-law, was the wife of the 5th Earl.

Murray, in Episode 3.07, says that the "Fourth Earl only saved Downton by dying" implying that he died prematurely; thus, his wife (countess 4), lived in The Dower House. When her son, Earl 5 died, she was still alive, thus Countess 5 had to live in Crawley House. That is why I said, from EARL 3 DOWNWARDS it goes from son to son.

3 had four; 4 had five, died premature; 5 had 6, then died, leaving wife in Crawley House; 6 married Violet and had Robert.

As you can see, I have sufficiently proven myself to be correct - your tree above is wrong. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:36, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

My point is further demonstrated here-

HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:56, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Titling some "correct" doesn't make it so. It's plausible, but simply a theory of which there are many. Again (and again) I would to know if this is having any impact on User:Fandyllic. I'm putting out alternative theory not to state "therefore I have proof I'm right." It's just to show "we don't know" which is fine. "We don't know" isn't the same thing as being dumb. Again, I think it was pretty rotten to be call dumb all the time. For example: whatever I thought, I didn't call User:HPR1 names when he was running around demanding I and everybody else believe him that Violet's husband's first name was Patrick because of his own very poor reading comprehension which nobody but him was confused by.

I wrote that uncontested "dialogue" and the 7th Earl comes from Jessica Fellowes' companion books, not dialogue. Whether Robert is the 6th Earl or 7th Earl, that doesn't have the genealogical impact to say, 100% proven, that a continuous father-to-son inheritance occurred everytime an Earl of Grantham died. 4th Earl's death saved the estate doesn't imply that it was premature and either way, that doesn't have any genealogical implication. (site: http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Fandyllic?diff=prev&oldid=15421) Regardless, I would please like to know if I have proven a case we don't know how the Earls are related to each other to you, User:Fandyllic? If not, what may I do to show it further or what point am I not getting across? CestWhat (talk) 22:00, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

That part about "the inheritance of the title was restricted to direct male heirs of the original title-holder." I'm not using myself as the sole source, (site: 1, 2, 3) CestWhat (talk) 22:22, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Source 2 states: From the reign of King Richard II (1377-99) earldoms were either life creations or hereditary with 'remainder to heirs male' (the inheritance of the title was restricted to direct male heirs of the original title-holder). <-- father to son

Source 3 states: if a man inherits a peerage, it is because he is the eldest surviving legitimate male who can trace a direct (father to son) lineage back to an earlier holder of the peerage.  In other words, he doesn't inherit because he was the brother or the cousin or the uncle of his predecessor, but because his own father, or grandfather, or great-grandfather, or great-great-grandfather, etc. <--- see? No uncle/cousin, brother/brother, cousin/cousin inheritance, thus 1 - 7 must have been father to son. We also know this because if they weren't the relationship between Matthew and Robert (3rd cousins once removed) would be wrong if it was grandson - grandson inheritance.

If it was grandson to grandson or brother to brother then the numbering would be wrong and the relationship would be wrong too.

Basically, in providing those sources you stabbed yourself in the foot and proved me right.

As I have been saying right from the start.

GO ME! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:39, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Again, not to bring up your really reading comprehension (Patrick the Earl), but all that means is that male-line (which is another way of stating a father to son inheritance). Robert and Matthew are male-line third cousins, once removed meaning they are related in father-to-son line rather then being father and son. father-to-son line just mean you can't be related to the 1st Earl father-to-daughter (i.e. Mary or Rosamund), mother-to-daughter (if Rosamund had a daughter) or mother-to-son (Mary's son claim doesn't come through her despite being the Earl's daughter). Father-to-son isn't literally only one's father if you are his son, just a father-to-son line. It doesn't address how the Earls are related the previous Earl, just that each Earl is a male-line (or father-to-son line) descendant of the 1st. If the 5th Earl's younger brother or his uncle, the 5th Earl is still father-to-son descendant of the 1st Earl. CestWhat (talk) 22:49, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

"Another way of saying father to so inheritance" - yes; but again, we know there were 7 Earls - Robert is Earl 7 - and that he and Matthew are third cousins once removed; this, combined with the line of if a man inherits a peerage, it is because he is the eldest surviving legitimate male who can trace a direct (father to son) lineage back to an earlier holder of the peerage.  In other words, he doesn't inherit because he was the brother or the cousin or the uncle of his predecessor, but because his own father, or grandfather, or great-grandfather, or great-great-grandfather, etc. from source 3, implies - and almost outrightly states - that 3, 4, 5, 6 and Robert were father and son every single time. The number of Earls and relationship between Robert and Matthew would be wrong if it was any other way. Like I said, your sources proved me right. See? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:53, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is one version where it isn't a son inheriting the title from his father and Robert and Matthew are third cousins, once removed. son inheriting from his father each don't have to take place for that genealogical relationship to take place.

CestWhat (talk) 23:11, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

While you may be correct, this bit from source 3 - if a man inherits a peerage, it is because he is the eldest surviving legitimate male who can trace a direct (father to son) lineage back to an earlier holder of the peerage. In other words, he doesn't inherit because he was the brother or the cousin or the uncle of his predecessor, but because his own father, or grandfather, or great-grandfather, or great-great-grandfather, etc - shows that only a son can inherit; that is confirmed by the doesn't inherit because he was the brother or the cousin or the uncle of his predecessor line from Source 3. As well as this, with the number of Earls - 7 - and the relationship, there can't be any other way.

Source 3 confirms it has to be son to son (In other words, he doesn't inherit because he was the brother or the cousin or the uncle of his predecessor), and the number of Earls and the relationship between Matthew and Robert - third cousins once removed - cuts out any other ways, thus we can safely state that - until Robert had three daughters - it always passed father to son.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:23, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Source 3 is only referring to the heirs of the original holder of the title, not the ones afterwards.

The sources are just point out what we saw in Ep. 1.07, that if a son is born, he gets to be first in line to the title. "we can safely state" doesn't proof that any of the previous earls had sons and if they did have sons, that those sons outlived them to succeed to the title.

If only sons can inherit, then James Crawley couldn't be the heir of his first cousin and then Matthew couldn't be the heir of his third cousin, once removed after he was lost with his only son in the Titanic sinking.

You just wrote that family tree is correct and it disproof the claim you've been making since the very start that the number of Earls having any effect of how Robert was related to Matthew (it doesn't). CestWhat (talk) 23:44, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

In the case of James he is the son of the son of an Earl and there are no male heirs left - so it would have passed to him; the same thing occurs in Matthew's case. But with 7 Earls and the 3rd cousin once removed relationship, if it's not father to son then the numbers of earls would a) be wrong and b) the relationship between Matthew and Robert would be wrong. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:48, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Specifics

What are the specifics? We don't know how the Earls outside Robert to this dad and 4th to the 3rd and 2nd to the 1st even then it's just that they were either a son or grandson. This is because of dialogue within the show, b-t-s material or just the laws behind how peers inherit their titles. The 1st, 3rd and 6th Earls are the only ones confirmed to have legitimate children, don't know (mostly likely doesn't count) the Countess as the Earl's wife could have died before he inherited the title or they were married multiple times while they were Earl of Grantham. There is nothing wrong will just stating that as is on the Earl of Grantham page and removing the "Countesses" pages.CestWhat (talk) 00:09, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

We know that they all had legitimate children, as it happens. 1 had 2, who had 3, who had 4, who had 5, who had 6, who had Robert.

We know this is correct as the 4th earl's wife is decribed as Robert's "great-grandmother" thus she is the mother of 5 and grandmother of 6. As well as this, as there have been 7 earls we know - and I mean know - that it was father to son - it cannot be any other way as the relationship between Robert and Matthew would be wrong if it was any other way. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 06:54, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Specifics again

http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/Countess_of_Grantham_(wife_of_the_5th_Earl)

renamed to "6th Earl of Grantham's Mother" since Violet mentions her quick often (which are super funny). A line along the lines "it's unknown if she was or was not ever a Countess of Grantham herself." Delete "approximately 1892" since no source (can we establish that Mary lack of mentioning of characters isn't proof when they died). Delete "Hon." part since never established that 6th Earl's father was or was not an Earl of Grantham himself.

• Delete "son" stuff expect "son or grandson" for 2nd Earl and 4th Earl. In the note section explain 2nd Earl has to be direct-line descendant of the original title holder. In the 4th Earl, because the 3rd Earl had a younger son who is Matthew's great-great grandfather and therefore his brother or nephew inherited the title as those are the only people with a suprior claim tht title them him.

• In both Earl of Grantham section, remove the numbering on the countesses. No proof that Robert's heiress great-grandmother was or was not the wife of 4th Earl, let alone while he was earl. Plausible she was, just as plausible she wasn't. All the stuff about great-granny is in the Downton Place article anyhow. To comprise, in the section at the start of the article listing the properties, just mentioning that. Also changing Downton Abbey isn't the actually name, but a potential name they would change it to if they sold Downton Abbey which never happened.

http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/Countess_of_Grantham_(wife_of_the_4th_Earl)

• Permantly delete. All the Downton Place stuff is in the Downton Place article. Again, repeating the point about lack of proven connection when she was or was not 4th Earl's wife during his time as earl.

http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/6th_Earl_of_Grantham#cite_note-1

• Delete 1842 since does anybody think he was a least 12 years old when he got married? Or there really people who wouldn't have known that? It's more clear to just to have unknown or nothing since it makes it clear we don't know. Delete "He died in 1890"

There is more stuff. CestWhat (talk) 07:51, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Let Fandyllic delete it - as admin, it is his job. For Earls 3 - 7 it is father to son, but yes, the "son" bit can go in Earl 2, and can be "son or Grandson".

As it happens, his heiress great-grandmother was the wife of the 4th Earl; if the 4th earl was succeeded by a nephew or cousin, then Downton Place - or whatever we're calling it - would no longer be in the family, as it passes to the heirs of her, namely Earl 5, Earl 6 and Earl 7 - then Mary, and her son.

Once again, you've misunderstod about the 4th Earl; Matthew was saying that his great-grandfather was the YOUNGER SON of the 3rd Earl; that means his elder son was the 4th Earl. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 07:57, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Again, User:Fandyllic do you wish me to response since this has been gone over again and again, but I don't mind doing it again since User:HPR1 is misleading on what is accurate and inaccurate? User:HPR1, you're a hypocrite for telling me to wait for User:Fandyllic to change the information when you've been changing the actual articles which you and I were told not to do during this whole discussion rather then waiting as requested and acting as if you've made any consistant or proven case. If I had done, you would clicked "undo" without hesitation. Also referring to me as dumb for not agreeing with you (which again is different then not understanding your fanfic) and other name calling is totally immature and mean-spirited. CestWhat (talk) 08:08, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I have been changing the articles - Fandyllic said to sign your edits, so I went through and signed all my edits - that is the only edits I have done. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 14:55, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Eryholme heiress doesn't have to be Countess of Grantham

or

CestWhat (talk) 22:26, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Now you are just being picky; as far as anyone is concerned, she is the 4th Countess of Grantham. Non-one ever stated otherwise. It's 99.999999999999999999999999999999 (to the power of infinity) confirmed that she is a countess and Robert's great-grandmother. Once again, THE NUMBER OF EARLS WOULD BE WRONG, since, for the relationship of Robert and Matthew to be correct it has to be Earl 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 as father and son. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 15:21, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

It's not "picky" simply because one person states that it is. User:HPR1 has been stating for quite some time that it's impossible that he's wrong, but now it's 99.999999999999999999999999999999% likely. We can all make up numbers, but if 99.999999999999999999999999999999% then it isn't impossible. Admitting that "or grandson" is okay also doesn't quite square with the claim made repeatedly without proof or sourcing that the numbering of the earls can only be one way for Robert and Matthew to be related the way that they are. CestWhat (talk) 20:40, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

For once in your wretched little life, stop going against it and look at it my way - FOR ONCE!

If the relationship between Matthew and Robert is third cousin once removed (which we know it is, as Violet and Matthew confirm it) then there must be 4 generations (as Robert is 7th Earl) between Earl 3 and Robert; thus, it must go 3 had 4, who had 5, who had 6, who had Robert.

Any other way makes the relationship wrong, so the Erylholme Heiress must be the 4th Countess - as she is Robert's grandmother and the title passed into the hands of the EARLS of Grantham from her. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:28, February 11, 2013 (UTC)