Talk:Earl of Sefton

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility 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.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility articles

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.

The page said that the titles went extinct in 1972. If a descendant of an Earl of Sefton could be found, would the title be reactivated? Emperor001 23:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically No, but one can hope. Being a direct descendant myself. Wink Wink 68.24.199.93 (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An heir would have to a male-line descendant, not just a descendant, and no such descendants exist (the 1st Earl's only son was the 2nd Earl; the 2nd Earl's only sons were the 3rd Earl, two unmarried sons and a son who had only a daughter; the 3rd Earl's only sons were the 4th Earl, a son who had two sons (one of whom died childless and the other of whom was unmarried), a son who died childless and a son who died leaving an unmarried son; the 4th Earl's only sons were the 5th and 6th Earls and an unmarried son; the 5th Earl was unmarried; the 6th Earl's only sons were the 7th Earl and an unmarried son; and the 7th Earl had no sons). "Extinct" means that there are no heirs. If no heirs were known of, but there was a chance some existed, the title would rather be said to be "dormant". Proteus (Talk) 06:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page states, "The family belongs to haplogroup I2a2a". For those of us studying the genealogy of the many branches of the Molyneux family, such a statement requires evidence to support it. For example are there documented DNA results for people proven to be descended from the lineage of the Earls of Sefton? This is no small matter, as it has the potential (if unproven) to misdirect and confuse the studies of Mx genealogists and family historians. I would request that supporting evidence be added, or the statement removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsmpdx (talk • contribs) 23:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Earl of Sefton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717054627/http://www.tigerbot.com/sefton.html to http://www.tigerbot.com/sefton.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]