Talk:Elizabeth Douglas-Home

Article location

Since she's best known as the PM's wife, before he was enobled, Elizabeth Douglas-Home would IMHO be the best location for this article. Unless there are objections I'll move the page after 72 hours. Timrollpickering 14:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I object. The MoS advices that peerage titles should be used unless the person is always known without them. Lucy Baldwin is not widely known at all, and therefore her name and title should be used. Also while her husband was PM, briefly, she was known as Lady Douglas-Home, so should that be article title? I think the best idea is the current location. --UpDown 15:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The convention on Wikipedia is that disclaimed peers are not listed at their peerage titles. The only other wife of a disclaimed peer who appears to have a page is Caroline Benn which isn't at Caroline Benn, Viscountess Stansgate. The Peerage Act 1963 removes the title entitlements from both the disclaiming peer and his wife. So Elizabeth Douglas-Home, Countess of Home would be one of the worst possible locations.

With regards the how well known, I think a woman whose only claim to notability (and a Wikipedia article) is her marriage to a Prime Minister is best known by the non-titled form. (And if she is making a name in her own right, it's often either by her maiden name - e.g. Cherie Booth - or her commoner married name.) The key point on "widely known" is if the non-titled form is overwhelmingly more familiar than the titled form, not that the individual has to be very famous for it to kick in.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names is actually rather vague about wives of peers and what seems to be the last discussion - Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)/Archive 5#Peeresses - didn't get very far in thrashing out a guideline and got diverted mainly down the route of suo jure peeresses who hold higher titles by marriage than in their own right. But it feels wrong to have the various wives of PMs at locations derived from their husband's retirement honours, rather than their name at the time of fame which would be more natural. Timrollpickering 02:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My point about the being known thing is that, these people aren't widely remembered (I think Cherie Blair & Denis Thatcher may be the exceptions), so there is no justification to exclude the peerage title. The only reason to exclude the peerage is if they are widely known without it, and these woman are not widely known without it. With the case of Douglas-Home, she was never known as Elizabeth Douglas-Home, as due to her husband's knighthood during marriage, she was known as Lady Douglas-Home. I think it's easier and more logical to put them all at name and title. --UpDown 12:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing what "not widely known" means - it doesn't mean that if the individual isn't widely known then they should automatically be at the highest title but rather that if they are relatively overwhelmingly better known without the title than with it then the article should be named without it. That they may not be widely known to the public at large is irrelevant (although many were prominent during their husband's premiership and often noted in the media) - the point is what title would someone expect to find the article at? Elizabeth Douglas-Home may be one of the exceptions but overwhelmingly the wives of Prime Ministers ennobled in retirement are known to history by their names when married to their husbands. (Joan Canning and Clementine Churchill are exceptions because both were ennobled after their husband's deaths.) We have Margot Asquith not Margot Asquith, Countess of Oxford and Asquith. It is less logical and counter intuitive to have women whose fame derives from their husband being PM at a different name form. (And what do we do with the wives of Shelburne and Goderich? Put them at locations that don't contain those words?) If their husbands are at the peerage form (e.g. Henry Addington, 1st Viscoutn Sidmouth), or if there's a need to disambiguate (e.g. Mary Wilson) or they have achived fame in their own right under their enobled title (perhaps Clarissa Eden) then there's a case for it, but I just don't see the reasoning for insisting on using the titled form as a default when their notability (the very criteria for the articles existing at all) is for events before they got the title. Timrollpickering 14:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I would still argue that unless someone is widely known without their peerage title then it should be included. This makes Wikipedia more standard throughout, otherwise it can be confusing if we have different rules for different people. Many people were widely known in their time, but are now largely forgotten. I think this applies to most of these women, and means that we should not use the name by which they were once widely known. For Violet Attlee is not remembered in history, and for many years she would have been known as Countess Attlee. I firmly believe that all spouses, unless they are still widely known otherwise, should be under their name and peerage title. --UpDown 17:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If someone is notable enough to be on Wikipedia they should be listed at the correct name form by which they are best known, regardless of how widely known they are known. We already have "different rules for different people" - indeed their husbands are some of the prime examples - and in so far as they are known it is for their marriages.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere arguing this back and forth. What is clear is that the naming conventions are not clear cut when it comes to the wife of a peer (and heaven help us when we get to Mrs Pitt the Elder who was both a peeress suo jure and peeress by marriage - Hester Pitt, 1st Baroness Chatham or Hester Pitt, Countess of Chatham) especially when a) the woman is primarily known because of who she was married to and b) the article on her husband is not using the titled form.

So can I suggest a) not moving any relevant page for now (other than to correct spelling) and b) try to determine a rule at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Naming conventions for wives of peers where we can get wider input. Timrollpickering 19:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the discussion is a good idea. --UpDown 07:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiple names

"Thanks to her husband acquiring and renouncing various titles she had, according to The Guinness Book of Records (1974-90), more names successively in her lifetime than any other monogamous British woman. Her names in order were: Elizabeth Alington; The Lady Dunglass; The Countess of Home, Lady Douglas-Home and Baroness Home of the Hirsel."

I won't dispute that the GBoR says this, but I don't see how it can be true. 5 names are listed here, but, to give an obvious counter-example, Catherine Wellesley, Duchess of Wellington, wife of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, was successively:

1. Catherine Pakenham
2. The Hon. Catherine Pakenham
3. The Hon. Mrs Wellesley
4. The Hon. Lady Wellesley
5. The Viscountess Wellington
6. The Countess of Wellington
7. The Marchioness of Wellington
8. The Duchess of Wellington

Even if you count "Catherine Pakenham" and "The Hon. Catherine Pakenham" as one name and conflate "Viscountess Wellington" to "Marchioness of Wellington" on the grounds that she was commonly called "Lady Wellington" with all of them (which is a slightly dodgy way of counting names), she still equals Lady Home of the Hirsel.

Then, going further back, Bridget Osborne, Duchess of Leeds, wife of Thomas Osborne, 1st Duke of Leeds, was successively:

1. Bridget Bertie
2. The Lady Bridget Bertie
3. The Lady Bridget Osborne
4. The Viscountess Osborne
5. The Viscountess Latimer
6. The Countess of Danby
7. The Marchioness of Carmarthen
8. The Duchess of Leeds

All 8 of these seem to be unique names to me. On what basis, then, does the GBoR make this claim? Proteus (Talk) 14:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Very much later but without the GBoR in question I guess they're either counting living people or treating "Pakenham", "Wellesley" and "Wellington" as just one name each. Bridget was never "British" - she died in 1704, before the Act of Union. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)