The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. -Doc^g 00:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vice Great Seneschal of Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

NOTE: this page has recently been revised to remove the implications I have objected to (that it was a hereditary post) and otherwise rewritten to discuss the deputization of the Lord High Steward's functions. As discussed below, there is ample precedent for non-hereditary deputies; change my vote to Speedy Keep due to revisions in article. Choess 22:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 3 refers to honorary hereditary officer of the Crown - Kittybrewster 22:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's in reference to the Lord High Steward, not his deputy. Choess 01:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is reason to believe that the existence of this office cannot be substantiated. Most of the references on the page refer to the right of the Lord High Steward of Ireland to appoint deputies. However, such deputyships, like appointments as deputy of the Earl Marshal, are not hereditary, as this office claims to be. The one exception, a reference to the Dublin Grant Book of 17 July 1442, appears to be a reference to the creation of the office of Lord High Steward itself. Furthermore, the office does not appear in any of the usual works of reference describing such dignities. Unless further evidence can be produced, I believe it should be deleted as unsubstantiated. Choess 00:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. - Kittybrewster 23:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless modern sources specifically detailing it's nature can be provided. Alci12 13:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Seems to provide adequate references. On the other hand, I've never heard of this office (and my interest in traditional hereditary offices, and knowledge thereof, is rather extensive). The nominator is correct that most deputies to hereditary officers are not themselves hereditary - for instance, the Earl Marshal traditionally designates his eldest son and heir as Deputy Earl Marshal. However, this isn't necessarily a universal rule, and I would tend to trust the references. Walton monarchist89 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/question - the article says one of the duties of office was "to formerly act as President of the Court by which a Peer may have been tried by his Peers in the Peerage of Ireland." Was there ever such a trial? If so, there are probably publications available concerning it and they would indicate who presided. Newyorkbrad 00:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Newyorkbrad - Yes, such a trial would have occurred (as Choess says below); historically all peers in the UK had the right to trial before other peers, as they could not be tried before a jury of commoners. In England and Wales they were tried before the House of Lords, under the presidency of the Lord High Steward (more recently, the Lord Chancellor fulfilled this role, as the hereditary Stewardship has been in abeyance for centuries). I presume that in Ireland (before the 1801 Act of Union) the Lord High Steward of Ireland, or his designated deputy, would have presided (as Choess explains below). So you're right, there should be publications relating to this (although bear in mind that such trials were always quite rare, due to the small number of peers compared to the population as a whole). Walton monarchist89 09:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I knew about the rule in the UK (thanks to Clouds of Witness by Dorothy Sayers) but not in Ireland. Newyorkbrad 18:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There seems to be some confusion upon points of fact here, so let me try to explain at greater length. Two facts are incontestable: first, that there is such an officer as the Lord High Steward of Ireland, an office now hereditary in the Earl of Shrewsbury, whose duties are to carry a white rod on certain occasions and who formerly had the right to preside over the trial of Irish peers. However, as explained in the article on the Lord High Steward (recently expanded, and excellently, by the author of the article now being considered for deletion), the office was for many centuries not claimed nor its rights exercised, until after Catholic Emancipation; the Earl of Shrewsbury petitioned to be recognized as Lord High Steward of Ireland in 1862, and was so confirmed. The second fact is that the Lord High Steward had the power to appoint non-hereditary deputies, as the Earl Marshal has the power to appoint Deputy Earl Marshals. (An examination of the list of Deputy Earl Marshals in that article will show that the deputyship has been given to various people unrelated or distantly related to the Earl Marshal; the grant to the eldest son is a matter of tradition, not of hereditary right.) Again, this is unquestioned, and in the past few years the current Earl of Shrewsbury has announced plans to sell deputyships. Such deputies have the power to exercise all the functions of the office of Lord High Steward of Ireland when the Lord High Steward is unable, himself, to carry them out. All this, I consider to be established. The controversial part of this article is that it asserts the existence of a hereditary deputyship granted to a member of the O'Donnell family, information which is *not* sufficiently corroborated. The first and third references establish the legal basis for creating non-hereditary deputies. I suffered the article to stand for some time on the basis of the second reference, to a grant of "17 July 1442" in the Dublin Grant Books, but I am now decidedly skeptical of that reference (which does not quote from the grant). John Talbot was created Earl of Shrewsbury in the year 1442, and Earl of Waterford and Lord High Steward of Ireland on 17 July 1446. The reference appears to be a confutation of those two dates. Given that the article draws heavily on the description of the duties and rights of the Lord High Steward, this would seem to be a reference to the creation of that office. It would seem most remarkable if the creation of the Vice Great Seneschally, simultaneously with that of Lord High Steward/Great Seneschal, escaped the notice of all the references on United Kingdom dignities which recognize the latter; particularly since I can think of no other Great Officer of State with whom a hereditary deputyship is associated. The office is described as being associated with that of "seneschal of Tyrconnell", and I find it not implausible that the O'Donnells of Ardfert might hold such an office created by the prerogative of Hugh Roe O'Donnell as King of Tír Conaill, rather than as part of the United Kingdom system of offices. This would be congruent with the statements made by the author of this article, in other articles, that Hugh "left some of his O'Donnell kinsmen behind in Ardfert," "in stewardship to hold it". If such is the case, I would be happy to see evidence put forth for it, but it should be described as such, rather than part of the official order erected by the then Kings of England. Please note that I haven't put this up for deletion because of republican sentiment or some sort of political nonsense; a considerable amount of my work in Wikipedia concerns the peerage, offices under the crown and so forth. I'm simply concerned that this is not an accurate description. To claim the existence of a demi-Officer of State who has not, as far as I can tell, been recorded in any of the many works on the official structure of the UK is something of an extraordinary claim, and deserves careful scrutiny. Choess 03:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, I'd strongly agree that if this is not an accurate description then it should be altered; I share your interest in the peerage and officers of the Crown. However, what about the references cited in the article? Obviously they could be incorrectly quoted - I don't have reference materials on hand to check them out. Walton monarchist89 09:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There doesn't seem to be much evidence that it actually exists, it does seem to smack of charlatans creating false titles, or at least, feigning a long-forgotten title.--Couter-revolutionary 17:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.