Jump to content

Talk:Roden Cutler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Arthur Roden Cutler)

Date of Sir Roden Cutler's AK

[edit]

Cutler's knighthood in the Order of Australia was gazetted on 7 April 1981. Two months later, on the Queen's Birthday, Sir Garfield Barwick also got an AK. Any idea why Cutler's was given out of the usual sequence - Australia Day and Queen's Birthday. If Barwick was getting one on the QB anyway, why was Cutler's award made early? -- JackofOz (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Styles section

[edit]

I notice Bryce has questioned the need for this section. I second that - Cutler was a Governor, not a King. I haven't seen this in other Australian Governors' articles, and see no reason to have it here - another example of listcruft. If no serious objections in the next couple of days, let's remove it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Ian picked up, I do not see any need for this section; all it does is list his changing postnominals. I was, however, a little too slack to start a proper discussion on the matter, so thank you for that, Ian. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As there has not been any objections, I have removed the section. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be back, and in a few other articles. Does it add any value? --Oliver Nouther (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

Is there any particular reason why this article isn't titled "Roden Cutler". That was how he was always referred to, except in super-official contexts. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the VC articles orignally got created with the recipients full names, and no-one's ever got round to changing this one. David Underdown (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, David. I'd move it myself but there's a redirect from Roden Cutler so we need an admin. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just tag it with {{db-move}}. David Underdown (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done now. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postnominals

[edit]

Excellent Page. Q. Should not the postnominal KstJ also be included in Roden Cutlers Official Title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.47.196 (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because order of st john postnoms are not recognised in ordinary usage by Australia or Britain and are only used within the context of the Order and its operations.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your summary/opinion. Do you have any evidence to support it?
In Roden Cutler's case, I think it's unclear.
If he had been awarded it after 14 August 1982, then http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/docs/order_of_wearing.pdf makes it quite clear. i.e.
"Post-nominals within the Order of St John are not recognised as notified in the Governor-General’s media release of 14 August 1982. Order of Wearing, Page 5, Note 3.
However, his award was before that date, which suggests that it was recognised until 1982, and non-retrospectivity (if that's a word) suggests that those awarded KStJ before that date are indeed entitled to use it.
Your thoughts? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be more sure what the situation was before 1982 - but in any case we are writing now, so there's an argument to stick with current usage too. There's a simlar probably with some of the grades of the Royal Victorian Order. I forget the precise cut off date now, but originally there were two different grades of Member, 4th or 5th Class, and both used the postnoms MVO, QEII changed the rules, and renamed the 4th class to Lieutenant of the Royal Victorian Order. David Underdown (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Roden Cutler. 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: 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) 06:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]