Talk:High Sheriff of Devon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High Sheriff of Devon. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources[edit]

I am not certain how many of the cited references currently used in this article can be regarded as reliable sources. After 1665, we have the London Gazette. As an official record, I think we may be able to treat this as a reliable source and I would like to suggest that we use that as the reference for all records after that date.

For the earlier period we have a problem - there is no definitive record and sources seems to conflict. Therefore the current list seems to me to present too simplistic a record. The reference below (from rootsweb) is not a reliable source, being self published but references two important lists for the earlier sheriffs: Risdon and the list from the National Archives which are perhaps worthy of consideration but certainly Risdon is also not be regarded as a reliable source. It also explains how they conflict. The article currently also uses Pole. I am at a loss to know how to proceed with this article in the presence of so much confusion for this period and I am not that a list format is the best option. I'd like to know what other people think. Is there a single source we can use or does this article need to present all of the lists? Or is it impossible to make a good article unless we can find an up to date reliable source that discusses all of the issues?

  • Fuller, Thomas (1840). The history of the worthies of England. Vol. 1. London. pp. 428–440.

I also removed this one as although it is a published source, it is not currently cited in the text and I have no way to judge the

NHSavage (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My general approach has been to start with Hughes (the original PRO list--I have no idea where to get hold of the 1960s updates) and then cross-reference with other more or less reliable compilations when they give somewhat different names. See High Sheriff of Cornwall for the fruits of this approach. Choess (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I will take a look 'Next Door'. After some digging, I have found this version of the PRO list, which although an American edition also seems to have the 1960s updates: "Calligraphic Amendments incorporated from the master copy in the Search Room of the Public Record Office ". These seem to be handwritten additions to the text, and have had Crown Copyright 1963 on them which is the date of the publication, not the date they were done.NHSavage (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for alerting me to this. I don't want to get involved in editing this article, but unless there's a recent definitive list that everyone agrees on, the general principle that we describe a dispute (or uncertainty), rather than taking sides, should apply. It certainly appears that a narrative format for the early part of the list at least would be appropriate.
Just to add to the mix, I found an article in the 1932 issue of the Transactions of the Devonshire Association by Mrs Rose-Troup (a well-regarded researcher, I believe). Titled "The Hereditary Sheriffs of Devon", she spends 15 pages of dense argument to produce a summary on p.412, which I've transcribed below.
APPENDIX A.
Hereditary Sheriffs.

The dates here given are only approximate, as a reference to the text will show.
It is unknown whether the Avenels executed the office of sheriff.

1070-1090.    Baldwin the Sheriff.
1090-1107.    William, son of Baldwin.
1107-1137.    Richard, son of Baldwin.
	      [Geoffrey de Furnell acted as deputy between 1128-1130.]
1137-1143.    Adeliza, daughter of Baldwin, /vicecomitissa/.
1143- ....    Ralph Avenel, grandson of Baldwin.
  c. 1153.    William Avenel, son of above.
c. 1153-1154. Matilda de Avranches, grand-daughter of Baldwin, /vicecomitissa/.

After this date, i.e., on the accession of Henry II, Richard de Redvers, son of Baldwin de Redvers the 1st Earl of Devon, was /appointed/, and he was succeeded by his son Richard.
("/" indicates italics in the original). Hope this helps,  —SMALLJIM  13:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that - I wasn't aware of that article. I may try and read the whole thing in DHC one lunchtime (I work near by). I therefore suggest we use this list for the earliest period, with some explanation, followed by Hughes and then the London Gazette after the end of that list. Then supplement this by a discussion where there are differences between authors (referencing Risdon and Pole who I suspect be the source of most later works).NHSavage (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can email you a scan of the article if you like.  —SMALLJIM  10:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Way forward[edit]

Following on from our earlier discussion, I have now added the references back to 1831 (the end of Hughes) based on the London Gazette. I now propose to use Hughes for all sheriffs before that date, before moving on to the tricky early period. Where a Gazette reference already exists, I will leave it in, but I will delete other less reliable sources.

Great work everyone in getting this far and please shout here if you don't agree.--NHSavage (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now completed adding Hughes from 1700 onwards.NHSavage (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now completed all references from Hughes. I won't be doing any more for a while. Still to do I think:
  • complete the early parts of the record using all available sources - probably in a more discursive format
  • extend the history section and add references for it
  • Consolidate all references to Burke's Peerage into a single Bibliography entry as done for Hughes
  • check all remaining references to enusre that they are complete and consolidated properly
  • clean up access dates to be consistent format

--NHSavage (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New style or old style years before 1752?[edit]

In 1752, as well as loosing 11 days, the definition of when the year begins changed. Before this date, it was on 25 March, after this it is the 1st January. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_(New_Style)_Act_1750#Start_of_the_year

It is also important to know which convention Hughes uses. In the introduction it states "years being reckoned as beginning on the 1st January". This is consistent with the statement here "When recording British history, it is usual to use the same dates recorded at the time of the event, with the year adjusted to start on 1 January". I therefore suggest we follow this approach, but I would like to seek consensus on this as it has potential to be very confusing (and I think is probably the reason for some conflicts between Hughes and Pole in the 17th Century - Pole uses Regnal years and the calendar may not have been correctly accounted for when converting). NHSavage (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even Hughes seems to have made a mistake with this in 1723/4 ... NHSavage (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also MOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Julian_and_Gregorian_calendars "At some places and times, the new year began on a date other than 1 January. For example, in England and its colonies until 1752, the year began on Annunciation Day, 25 March; see the New Year article for other styles. In writing about historical events, however, years should be assumed to have begun on 1 January (see the example of the execution of Charles I in "Differences in the start of the year"); if there is reason to use another start-of-year date, this should be noted.". This also follows Hughes.NHSavage (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have now had a discussion on this over on the MOS pages, and the consensus seems to be a. use Julian calendar dating until 2 September 1752 but always treat the year as starting on 1 January. This is also consistent with what Hughes does.NHSavage (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some more advice on dates might be forthcoming soon. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Julian_and_Gregorian_calendars_in_England_and_the_Colonies --NHSavage (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request on my talk page, I'm sorry I wasn't able to contribute, but it looks as if you're making good progression towards an answer. Surely there must already be extensive discussions about this buried in the archives?  —SMALLJIM  11:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jim. The manual of style is actually clear enough now (following me prodding the people over there). We should use Julian dates untol September 1752 but use the new style convention for the start of the year i.e. 1 January. I will add a footnote to this effect.NHSavage (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Differences from Hughes and Gazette[edit]

For a number of entries, there are differences between some of the other sources and our most reiable sources: The London Gazette and Hughes. I present these here with the action I have taken to invite comment.NHSavage (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pollexfen[edit]

the article contained this entry for 1718:

  • 1718: ??John Pollexfen

Burke, John (1846). A genealogical and heraldic history of the commoners of Great Britain and Ireland. p. 175. Retrieved 2012-03-25 – via Google Books.

The actual text in the reference reads: "Elizabeth Calmady who espoused John Pollexfen, high-sheriff for the co in 1718". I am inclined to read this as the date she married him, not the date he was sheriff. He is recoded as sheriff in 1743 and it is rare for one man to serve multiple years in this period. I will remove it for now, but I thought I should note it here.NHSavage (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exeter Pocket Journal[edit]

Previously the article used The Exeter Pocket-Journal; Or, West-Country Gentleman and Tradesman's Memorandum-Book for the Year of Our Lord 1755. for some of the references. The list in this reference does not always agree with Hughes before 1709. The question is, should I record these disagreements given the nature of this source?NHSavage (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Shapcote[edit]

The list currently includes Robert Shapcote for 1654. He is not included in Hughes' list and his appointment is not included in his page on History of Parliament. I will remove him for now. There is however a reference given: Ward, Joseph. Violence, Politics, and Gender in Early Modern England. p. 171. so if someone can check this and see exactly what it says, we can consider restoring him to the list if the reference supports it.NHSavage (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Cabell - 1664 or 1668?[edit]

Another inconsistent date from Burke's. Both Hughes and the Gazette have Cabell appointed as Sheriff in November 1668 but Burke, John. History of the Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies of England Ireland and Scotland. p. 208. has "Ricahrd Cabell Esq. of Brooke in Devon, Sheriff of the county in 1664". Again I going to ignore this but I am willing to add a footnote on this, if it is considered important.--NHSavage (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, for all of the above I'd be inclined to follow Hughes - a publication by the Public Record Office (1892-1936, reprinted with manuscript amendments 1963) - unless there are later reliable sources that specifically explain why Hughes is wrong (so that might apply to the Ward book about Shapcote, if you can access and assess that, presumably later, source). Otherwise I don't think there's any need to mention any older sources that differ.  —SMALLJIM  22:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretended commission[edit]

The list currently includes: 16 January 1347: Thomas de Ralegh, on a pretended commission. This has been flagged as clarification needed which is fair enough. The problem is that is all the information contained in Hughes. I am not even certain what a "pretended commission" is - presumably some sort of fraud but I may be wrong. I think that if we were to try and understand this we would probably be getting into some original research. I therefore suggest that we simply drop this statement.--NHSavage (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:High_Sheriff_of_Devon&oldid=1207427192"