A more usual title would be Feudal barony (England). For one thing, article titles are normally singular. —Tamfang (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was to create a twin article with List of Scottish feudal baronies. If the title must be changed I would therefore prefer "List of English feudal baronies". In truth I think the existing title is preferable, as it's more than a list, it discusses the concept of the barony too. It is not about a single entity, the barony, as your suggested title implies, but about several of them, being a list, hence my use of the plural. All debateable points, but that was my reasoning. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The definition of X and a list of Xs are two different things. If this article is to be primarily a list rather than a definition, then call it a list. Either way, there's no reason to capitalize feudal barony. —Tamfang (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is intended as both definition and list, the definition being a necessary introduction to the list. Your point is taken about the capitals, if you wish the title to be changed to "English feudal baronies" I would have no objection. My preference for titles is to use capitals, as in the title page of a book, but if WP guidelines must be applied, so be it.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Some one has suggested the Baron by tenure be merged here. I would support this. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would question whether what an unlogged in user who gave the edit summary "Found in a private family history records of my family that Edward I of England Granted my 22nd great-grandfather a Feudal barony in 1297, for which he payed two shillings and sixpence per month" is correct. I had a mind to revert this but this seemed to extreme. I suspect that what he has found is a confirmation of a manor to be held by a fee farm rent. This does not make the grantee a feudal baron. However, not having seen his source, I have left the addition, making his source a footnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]