Talk:Spencer family

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

General discussion[edit]

The definition here seems a bit wrong-headed. The "Spencer family" would ordinarily mean the descendants in male line only of a given Spencer (i.e., members of the "Spencer family" would ordinarily be presumed to have the surname "Spencer"). It may be reasonable to have an article about a given Spencer family (e.g., the Earls Spencer) but it does not seem reasonable to me to list every descendent, or even every notable descendent of Henry Spencer. -- Someone else 07:58 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Don't forget the Earl Spencer (the 3rd perhaps?) who was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in the 1880s at the time of the notorious Phoenix Park murders? JTD 08:31 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Don't know whose idea the page was, but I think it's got a lot going for it, as long as it doesn't go into too much genealogical detail. These Spencers certainly do get about. Deb 21:53 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)
It was originally started by Imran, but I'm not really sure where it can go from here. I suppose it could be about the various peerages that the family ended up with, and the members of those families, but listing non-Spencer descendants could get out of control, if it isn't already! You could come up with similar lists of notable descendants for any family that was well enough documented, but it would look a bit odd if articles like this ended up all over the Wikipedia... So I don't really know if it should be here. -- Oliver P. 22:04 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

lineage question[edit]

I am a little bit confused, because the information of the generations between the given "Henry Spencer" and the 1st Baron Spencer are various on the internet. Leo van de Pas says the Baron was a descendant of William Spencer, of Rodborne[1]; but the Directory of Royal Genealogical Data says that the baron is a descendant of John Spencer, of Hodnell[2]; both, John[3] and William , being sons of Henry. Which information is the correct one? And how many generations are between Henry and the first baron? (My third genealogic source, ThePeerage.com, starts between Henry and the first baron[4].)
VM 15:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the generations, Robert Lord Spencer's great-great-great-grandfather, William, was by both estimations the son of a John. It would appear that Leo has this John as the son of William (Henry's eldest son), whilst the DRGD has him as Henry's second son (who Leo says is a different John). I'd be inclined to go with Leo, as I'd imagine it's easier to lose a generation (and assume a son is his uncle of the same name) than vice versa, which would make William, the elder son, the ancestor in question. But that's just a guess — I'm afraid I can't provide a definitive answer. Proteus (Talk) 22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for helping me. And it's free to all others to make things clearer, if they have better sources.
VM 12:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a further online source which leads from the 1st Baron through all the fathers back to this: familysearch.org/eng. Can one trust this source? Or isn't it reliable?
VM 10:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Sarah, Duchess of York be added as a descendant as she is a descendant of Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire who is listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.4.4 (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Spenser[edit]

I believe that Edmund Spenser, the great Elizabethan poet, claimed some sort of relation to this family in his poem, Colin Clouts Come Home Again and perhaps elsewhere, despite the lack of any real evidence for it. Can someone confirm this and perhaps make a mention of it in the article? (Eeesh 21:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

X[edit]

As regards the heraldry, doesn't a scallop have only two shells? In a shell game, a round object may be under one of the shells; the middle one? Additionally, a threepence coin sometimes has a rose centered behind the royal portrait. 68.84.25.148 (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Admiral Electric[reply]

More than one scallop produces more than 2 shells. Scallop shells were once pilgrim badges.

Churchill[edit]

Should the Spencer-Churchills, headed by the Dukes of Marlborough, be considered members of the Spencer family and thus appropriate subjects for this article? They are the senior male-line descendents of the ancient Spencers, having received the Churchill inheritance only through a female line. It seems perverse to me to consider them as having exited the family when the 5th Duke of Marlborough changed his surname to Spencer-Churchill. The question is relevant in part because of this edit, which was reverted. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before I revise it AGAIN, can I ask you to give a reference to all this? The Spencer website at Althorp does not make any reference to Winston Churchill or any Spencer-Churchills in the family tree; I linked to that in a previous revision. Also, look back to the very first comment under Lineage above: as the 2003 poster says, 'the Spencer family' can surely not be taken to mean EVERY descendant of the original Mr Spencer. It seems to me that Winston Churchill is only a Spencer in as far as many thousands of people today (all descendants of the family since the 5th Duke of Marlborough) are Spencers too. Ultimately unless you've got evidence somewhere that the Spencer family themselves at Althorp consider Churchill to have been 'a Spencer', I suggest it reverts back to something like 'Churchill was related to the Spencers' or 'Churchill's family was descended from the Spencers'. Matt, 20:25, 22 Nov 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.1.122 (talk)
The Althorp website is not concerned with the Spencer family broadly defined, but with the branch that lives at Althorp, namely the comital branch or the Earls Spencer. That should not be taken to support the contention (which, to my knowledge, has only been made by yourself) that the ducal branch has somehow exited the family. We are not talking about "every descendent of the original Mr Spencer"; even by agnatic reckoning, the ducal branch is genealogically senior to the comital branch.
Finally, the scope of this article originally encompassed both branches of the family. The recent changes to exclude the Spencer-Churchills were incomplete and only made the article a bit schizophrenic. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, died in 1722, the Marlborough titles passed to his eldest daughter Henrietta (1681-1733), the 2nd Duchess of Marlborough. When Henrietta died in 1733, the Marlborough titles passed to her nephew Charles Spencer (1706–1758), the third son of Henrietta's late sister Anne (1683-1716), who had married the 3rd Earl of Sunderland in 1699. After his older brother's death in 1729, Charles Spencer had already inherited the Spencer family estates as well as the titles of Earl of Sunderland (1643) and Baron Spencer of Wormleighton (1603), all in the Peerage of England. Upon his maternal aunt Henrietta's death in 1733, Charles Spencer also succeeded to the Marlborough family estates and titles and became the 3rd Duke. When he died in 1758, his titles passed to his eldest son, George Spencer, 4th Duke of Marlborough (1739–1817), who was himself succeeded by his eldest son, the 5th Duke (1766–1840). The 5th Duke of Marlborough was authorised in 1817 to assume and bear the additional surname of Churchill in addition to his own surname of Spencer, in order to perpetuate the name of his illustrious great-great-grandfather. At the same time he received Royal Licence to quarter his paternal arms of Spencer with the coat of arms of Churchill. ( Paul Courtenay, The Armorial Bearings of Sir Winston Churchill) In other words, the Spencer-Churchill Dukes of Marlborough are in fact the senior line of the Spencer family, and also continue to hold the oldest Spencer peerages as Earl of Sunderland and Baron Spencer of Wormleighton. Annetromney (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

I've queried the claim that "the Spencers are one of the very few British noble families to be the heirs body of a once sovereign family": There are plenty of British noble families descended from the various English or Scottish sovereign families, let alone those with connections to European ones. Why is this claim notable? And basing it on John Churchill's tenure as prince of Mindelheim (which his daughters didn't inherit) seems a bit of a stretch. It needs a citation at the very least. Swanny18 (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly needs a citation, but it is an accurate statement as far as I can tell. Being descended from someone is not the same as being heir of the body. For example, lots of people are descended from Sophia of Hanover, but only one is the heir of the body. Surtsicna (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying to this; and yes, I misunderstood what “heirs body” meant.
But I still don't think it is saying very much. If they are heirs to a once-sovereign title that would be a claim of pretense, wouldn't it? Have the family asserted such a claim? Or was someone here being original?
Also, if heirs of the body follow the order of precedence in the original grant, then the present family are disqualified from inheriting an agnatic title just as Marlborough’s daughters were. But if an heir of the body is always by male preference primogeniture, regardless of the terms of the original grant, then the claim here would be that if the title still existed, they would be heirs to it, if only the Austrian inheritance rules recognized them as such. Which is like saying, “if we had some beans we could have beans on toast, if we had any bread”. Anyway, I've changed the tag to a cite erequest; if nothing turns up maybe we can delete it altogether. Swanny18 (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Someone was certainly being original, and at the very least we are dealing with trivia. Why not be bold and remove it? Surtsicna (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thought, but deleting it less than 48 hours after asking for a citation might be seen as over-zealous. I'll give it a bit longer, then go ahead if no-one else responds. Swanny18 (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: OK, done. Swanny18 (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Spencer family. 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) 20:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 August 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


House of Spencer → Spencer family – This shouldn't have been done as an uncontroversial move because of the previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 8#House of. The old title should stay until there is consensus to change it. And articles shouldn't be moved unilaterally when there is previous discussion relating to the article title. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support none of the sources use "House of" and there is no reason that wikipedia should either. The official site of the Spencer family refers to it as a "family" and not a "house" http://spencerofalthorp.com/a-heritage/ Move as per the above discussion and WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOTGOT (not game of thrones ;o) ). Dom from Paris (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "House of" may work for some Continental nobility, but it's not idiomatic for English & other British ones. Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. House of Spencer sounds like a department store and this terminology is not generally used for British families. Should never have been moved in the first place. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill and Diana[edit]

What is their exact relation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.100.251.67 (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@82.100.251.67: Anne Spencer, Countess of Sunderland (1683–1716). --95.24.66.204 (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

spawning[edit]

Founded in the 15th century, it has spawned numerous aristocratic titles including the dukedom of Marlborough, the earldoms of Sunderland and Spencer, and the Churchill barony.

This implies that the first duke of Marlborough was a Spencer, which he wasn't; the title passed to the Spencers with the third duke. —Tamfang (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spencer_family&oldid=1216840300"