Talk:Grey (surname)

peerages

I'll bite: how is the multi-colored table "more useful for researchers"? Why list Baron Delamer (for example) on a separate line, when that title effectively has no separate existence? (It was created along with the earldom of Warrington, they descended together, they went extinct together.)

Nice of you to write, now, even if the beginning, as well as the end, is labelled fanged,

if a title is listed anywhere in Wikipedia (possibly only here) then a seeker for enlightenment can begin to track it down. Next sentence, you are obviously unaware of this:

refer Courtesy title para 1:1

By the way, 'Assistant-janitor' is just another title. Would he/she be any use in running his/her part of the country? Would his/her children inherit any influence justifying their involvement in running the country? Until very recently all peers had a permanent (senatorial) job helping run their nation. An elected from them few still do.

Eddaido (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

All of these titles are listed elsewhere in Wikipedia, and Grey (surname) is hardly the place where one would begin to track them down if one knew only the title. (Nor is it where I'd begin to look for a definition of duke; that whole column is redundant.)

I am sure its a mistake to believe many people operate like you with your wide heraldic knowledge. If one's surname was Grey and the table caught the eye and the curiosity was stirred one might like to take advantage of the highlighted word to find out what it meant, few have more than a limited understanding of what a peerage is. Eddaido (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

So link peerage in the introductory sentence. Your way, we're explicitly saying "the earl of Tankerville was an earl; the earl of Kent was an earl; the earl of Huntingdon was an earl; the earl of Stamford was an earl; the other earl of Tankerville was an earl; the earl of Harold was an earl (even though he wasn't) ..." How many readers are interested in the subject and unable to work this out for themselves? —Tamfang (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If by mentioning courtesy titles you mean to point out that the styles of Warrington and Delamer (for example) were in simultaneous use by different men — yes, but they don't have separate articles.

This is where you make it clear you want a directory. My table stands in its own right, its no listing of what's available in Wikipedia. You see? you want a directory to Wikipedia. Eddaido (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a table full of links. How is that not a directory? (The whole page is a directory!) I only want to make it a less misleading directory, i.e. one that does not give the false impression that the peerages of (for example) Kent, Harold and Goderich were independent; and a less cluttered one, without the 'Rank' column (which as I've said is slightly misleading besides). But if you'd rather make it not a directory, fine, I'll strip out all the links. —Tamfang (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(And the style Lord Delamer was presumably never used by the person whom you listed beside it!)

Furthermore, the persons entitled to it probably called themselves Lord Grey of Groby (the more senior barony) instead. —Tamfang (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

When I click on a list of peerages and find that several of them are (appropriately) redirected to more senior titles that I have already looked at, I'm not grateful that they were separately linked; I'm peeved. That's part of why I listed Delamer, unlinked, beside Warrington. —Tamfang (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at this article about a man with 16, the Duke of Hamilton If you stripped one from him while he was not looking, I'd bet he'd be quick to raise the question in the correct quarters as to where it had gone to! Also would you prefer your father had one Purple Heart or Two Purple Hearts (I think I'm talking US bravery awards here). Eddaido (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If I omit a peerage from the table, do point it out. —Tamfang (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The Purple Heart is not exactly for bravery, it's for being wounded in action. —Tamfang (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate reform of the House of Lords. I'll be happy to discuss it on our personal Talk pages, if you like. —Tamfang (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone in the "Created For" column should be in the main body of this page, even if receiving a peerage is the only notable thing he ever did. —Tamfang (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

My short answer is, in my opinion no-way. Eddaido (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In hindsight I regret the hyperbole. Most recipients of peerages had done something to become notable.... —Tamfang (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And why did you change "order of precedence" to "order of rank"? Precedence among peerages is determined by rank (degree) and date of creation, which is how I arranged that table. (The sequence would be more complicated if any of the titles were in the peerage of Scotland or Ireland.) —Tamfang (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Still saddened by the chutzpah (as in the Hebrew version), the sense of en title ment of a particular 'contributor'. Should I have simply deleted your superfluous table? I would have preferred that. Eddaido (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Devilment.Eddaido (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what this means. —Tamfang (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You're a fine one to brandish WP:OWN. If you'd rather insult me than explain yourself, I have no duty to assume that you have reasons for what you do. —Tamfang (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It occurred to me today that the persons who had the styles Earl of Harold, Viscount Goderich, Viscount Glendale, Baron Delamer – whether by substance or by courtesy – did not rank exactly with other Earls, Viscounts or Barons, so the Rank column is misleading. —Tamfang (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems to me to be unclear thinking by you. Eddaido (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems to me ignorance and bluff on your part. If I'm mistaken, say how. —Tamfang (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me you want a directory. If that is what your table is then that is fine by me but could it be a little superfluous? I'll come back with my answers for your other remarks if you would not mind just giving your reasons for wanting your table. Also I think this one family uses one basic shield though I know nothing about it, is that correct? Eddaido (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by 'directory'. Some months ago I simplified the multicolor table, removing superfluous data and rearranging it in a more logical way: I combined titles that were created together, and indicated when they were held by Greys (rather than the entire existence of the title; periods when they were held by other families are not relevant here). I also removed (mistakenly, it seems) at least one title that I could not (then) find elsewhere in Wikipedia. No one commented on these changes at the time. Now you paste in a duplicate of the old table, refuse to give clear reasons for preferring it, and ask why I want a superfluous table?!

When I saw you had made your change without any consultation as noted above I, stunned, decided my best defence was to wait a while. People who shoot from the hip . . . . Please may we know why you put up your table. Your purposes are clearly different from mine and that has to be the reason for this wrangling. Eddaido (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "put up" a table: I improved the existing table in the ways that I've just described. Are you still too stunned to say how those changes make you unhappy? I ask yet again: Who needs the colors? Who needs the "Rank" column? Who needs the separate listing of titles that were always subsidiary? Who needs the name of the first grantee (which is in the peerage article and, if Grey, ought to be in this article above)? Why are your date-ranges more appropriate than mine? —Tamfang (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting ... —Tamfang (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Check out Directory and when you've read that take the ladder up to Wiktionary.
Still hoping someone else will also take an interest in the discussion. Who needs? Well for the moment, I do but you do not.
I like the colours because they separate the various titles and minimise the fact that its just another long list - but a list to a purpose - which is to show the sheer number of titles concerned.

So you want to emphasize and minimise the length of the list? —Tamfang (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

People care, they have listed out 16 for the Duke of Hamilton - that covers the (your term) subsidiary comment too. The person it was first given to is likely to have had better cause to wear it than his heirs but that is far from being invariably true. This is about people not about decorations for people to wear so they are given their own name rather than an impersonal peerage name. Are your date ranges different from mine? I thought it was just the presentation. Eddaido (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Look for yourself to see if the two sets of dates differ. —Tamfang (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As to the shield, there are at least two. Rietstap's Armorial gives:

• Duke of Kent: Barry argent and azure — ditto Earl of Stamford & Warrington (quartered with Booth), Earl de Grey & Ripon (quartered with Robinson)
  • Baron Grey de Ruthyn: Barry argent and azure, in chief three torteaux — ditto Baron Grey of Codnor
    • Duke of Suffolk: Barry argent and azure, in chief three torteaux, overall a label ermine — ditto Viscount Graney
    • Viscount l'Isle: Barry argent and azure, in chief three torteaux, on the first blue bar a label argent — ditto Baron Grey de Wilton
    • Baron Grey of Rotherfield: Barry argent and azure, in chief three torteaux, overall a bend gules
  • Baron Walsingham: Barry argent and azure, in chief three annulets gules
  • Grey-Egerton baronets: quarterly Egerton and Barry argent and azure, a label of five points gules
• Earl of Tankerville: Gules, a lion and a border engrailed argent — ditto Earl Grey, Baron Grey of Powys, Baron Grey of Werke, baronet 1814

So there are two families here, one of which shows cadency variations. —Tamfang (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. I'd noticed the similarities but my hunt was not exhaustive. I think your assumption of two families is not quite correct. Eddaido (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained opinions are not interesting, but I'll make the statement more precise: the last common Grey ancestor, if any, apparently lived before modern heraldry developed in the 13th century. —Tamfang (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Tam, you may have noticed something I was unable to resolve by myself. I put it in in the hope that someone smarter (there's a few around) might have the explanation. To me it looks like a 'phantom' title and you may have spotted it. Eddaido (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What is this about? —Tamfang (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

One set of details in my table seems to me to be doubtful. There are always editors about who know more than I do and I thought this was the best way to get confirmation or whatever. —Eddaido (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be prying to ask which set of details you have in mind? —Tamfang (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but I would rather wait until it is noticed, it is probably correct. Eddaido (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The longer you wait, the more websites will copy it in the belief that it's accurate ... and later someone editing Wikipedia will cite those other websites .... —Tamfang (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please may we know your own reasons for having any table. Eddaido (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mourn if the whole section were deleted. —Tamfang (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please may we know your own reasons for having any table. Eddaido (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no reasons for having any table. It wasn't my idea to include a table, only to improve an existing table. Shall we delete the table(s)? —Tamfang (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it goes with the meaning of the name but few now seem to know of this old family or its extraordinary extent. I want to make a display of their achievement. I thought the foot of the article Grey (surname) the right place to put it.

It seems to me natural to link to articles where they exist and also to link to articles describing the title (under rank). I've put it up for the casual reader or browser with an interest in people named Grey rather than for a focussed researcher.

The table is an advertisement of their notable success. Perhaps with your help it can have a logo.

Would you be comfortable with that? Eddaido (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Comfortable with what, exactly?

Comfortable with my purpose and my table now that I've added its reason for existence to its heading. Eddaido (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No. —Tamfang (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

In a brief overview "for the casual reader" it seems to me unnatural to every article under the sun just because "they exist". Someone who needs a definition of duke can look it up without our help.

Something seems to be missing from the lines above, I don't understand. Eddaido (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I now see that I dropped a word or two: "it seems to me unnatural to link to every article …" —Tamfang (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

If by "logo" and/or "display of their achievement" you mean armorial, which one? All of them? —Tamfang (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not be deterred from decorating as you wish, I was thinking of just the one, the three blue bars on a white background.

Showing only one would be misleading. Showing all of them would be excessive. I suppose showing the bars (simplest version) and the lion would be okay, if the captions make clear who bore each rather than implying that everyone on the list bore the same arms. —Tamfang (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A technicality: It's not "three bars on white" (making seven pieces in all), it's six pieces. —Tamfang (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You may feel I've not sufficiently responded to some of your points. That is because this page is becoming a bit of a tangle. Would you mind re-listing those issues you still want me to respond to and I will get at them for you. Thanks. Eddaido (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You have, for the most part, adequately stated your preferences and motives. If I happen to find them unpersuasive, repetition won't help. —Tamfang (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Tamfang. I'm keen to try to see this your way and I think this is what that is, do I have it right? You like to be very exactly accurate by your own standards. You like to codify concepts/relationships as part of your personal de-mystification of a theme and you achieve results which please you and leave you feeling secure. Then you like to provide readers with an explanation that fits your requirements (which might also suit some readers).

Our fundamental difference is that my interest is in people, not in concepts or codes. Here we have an outstanding family (we can pull out your 'cuckoos' later). Take away the people as you wish to do and for me you take away most of the raison d'être. That seems to me to be the basis of our wrangling.

Do you agree with me?

Diplomacy, they say, is the art of warfare by other means, lets see it through that way.

Our wrangling is now looking really messy. If you like, make us a list of unresolved issues and we can re-commence.

Music to lighten-up by - a message from Queensland Eddaido (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by 'cuckoos'.

You (or someone) made a list of "titles held by members of the once powerful Grey family". To list the first grantee of each peerage (who in some cases was not a Grey) is to dismiss, by implication, all the other Greys who held those peerages, the purported raison d'être of the table. How does that show a greater "interest in people"? On the other hand, to list all of them would be clutter. So we can give links to peerage articles, each of which lists all the holders.

Our other differences have nothing to do with "people vs codes", except insofar as I have in mind the convenience of readers who are presumed to be people. —Tamfang (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

recap

Since you ask, here is a recap of our disagreements (have we resolved any?):

• Whether to list peerages created together – a 'head' peerage and its subsidiaries – together or separately.
  • I say: Combining them shows important context; separating them creates an inconvenience for the reader who will click two seemingly unrelated links only to find that they redirect to the same article. Also, if the first holder is to be shown, separation is misleading because the first Earl of Harold (for example) was never known by that title.

(a) How do you show context if you hide it? You mean they link to the same person don't you? I would not mind deleting all the links if that is what you want.

(b) I can see you believe you are correct. Can you think of an occasion when it might suit you or suit me to perfectly legitimately use a name we are not commonly known by and without any fraudulent intent? The man in question could for example turn up in Rome and avoid unwelcome fuss by calling himself the Earl of Harold which he would be perfectly entitled to do. Eddaido (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What on earth do you think is "hidden" if simultaneous peerages are listed together? Isn't it "hiding" to disguise the fact that two or three simultaneously-made peerages are related? — They don't link to the same person, they link to the same article about the principal title.

We don't decide things by speculation around here, as a rule. —Tamfang (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Whether to list the first holder of each title.
  • I say: This information is in the respective peerage articles, and those persons ought to be listed above on this page if their name is Grey (if not, that's another reason not to list them).

My table is not for people surnamed Grey. Your's is.

The first holder acquired the title and gets the kudos.Eddaido (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If the table is not for people surnamed Grey, then it does not belong in Grey (surname). I will accordingly delete it tomorrow. Whew, a resolution at last! —Tamfang (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no retort— Tomorrow comes eventually. —Tamfang (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Whether to include a 'Rank' column.
  • I say: How stupid do you think the reader is? – If subsidiary titles are separated, this column is wrong: every substantive holder of the Harold earldom ranked as a marquess, and the courtesy bearer of the style Earl of Harold does not rank as an earl.

No wish to insult anyone unless suffering aggression. Googling will show you that the man known as the Earl of Harold has that name on his monument at Flitton. Eddaido (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll rephrase the first point. You evidently assign considerable weight to the possibility that someone looking at the table might be unable to guess that an Earl of Tankerville is a kind of earl. I don't.

A courtesy title carved on a monument is still only a courtesy title. If the bearer was not a substantive earl during his lifetime, he doesn't rank as an earl now that he's dead. —Tamfang (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • Quibble: two of the baronies were accelerated – though not any of the peerages created as subsidiaries.

A writ of acceleration. Isn't that what you got if you didn't watch your CHiPs. Eddaido (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Whether to color the rows according to the rank (of the peerage, not its holder).
  • I think it's tacky, but not such a big deal.
• Who needs more urgently to lighten up.
  • That would be you, as is obvious to any objective and reasonable observer. :P

—Tamfang (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the person who wrote "I wouldn't mourn if the whole section were deleted. —Tamfang (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)"?

Eh? Would it be lighter to say "The table must be preserved!" ? —Tamfang (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that we are both arguing for the convenience of the reader without any input from, y'know, readers. —Tamfang (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You should consider the possibility your so stoutly maintained point of view is unique.

There are traces of an audience but no applause. Eddaido (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope I always recognize that possibility (it's part of why I'm a libertarian). Do you? —Tamfang (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to state here:

I've put the table up for the casual reader or browser who has landed on this page with an interest in people named Grey rather than for a focussed researcher. Eddaido (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What's your point here? That usefulness to the reader is irrelevant because usefulness is not your purpose? —Tamfang (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh?

Dear Tamfang, and that's sincere, a bit of opposition is good for you and for me. Being aware of the breadth and depth of your knowledge and the indefatigability of your Wikipedia editing I simply did not believe you misunderstood this statement of mine - "My table is not for people surnamed Grey. Your's is".

So look at it this way, the people listed in this article may be said to be a very few of the members of a set of people using the surname Grey. Within that same no doubt very large set there is also a separate subset of members of one family. My table is for that last subset, the members of one particular family.

Forgive me but I believed I was very safe in assuming your comment "If the table is not for people surnamed Grey, then it does not belong in Grey (surname). " was meant in happy jest.

I look forward to your further comment. Eddaido (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand you any better now than before. (I thought you might mean "My table is not meant as an exhaustive list of people named Grey," but then what the heck can "Your's [sic] is" mean?)

Does your table include people not named Grey because it is "for that last subset [of Greys]," or because it is not for people surnamed Grey?

Are you saying that you would exclude peerages for people who were named Grey but not of that family? —Tamfang (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have the gist of it now. Would you consider your daughter's children (or daughters' children) to be part of your family? Eddaido (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying your table is for people ancestral to or descended from some member of one of the Grey families? (I guess what you really want is an article about that family. Not meaning to imply that I'd object to the creation of such an article.) —Tamfang (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

My table is headed "Some of the titles held by members of the once powerful Grey family of England". That is to say one family. You have already pointed up the inadequacy of your preferred type of records with this "the last common Grey ancestor, if any, apparently lived before modern heraldry developed in the 13th century" .

While I'm here, the difference between Henry Duke of Kent turning up in Rome as The Duke of Kent and (metaphorically) slipping in the Vatican's side door as the Earl of Harold is just the difference between a US President making a State Visit to Germany and the same President just flying in to Berlin for talks with their Prime Minister. A lot of public fuss and bother then talks or just getting the job (talks) done. Eddaido (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, does the Vatican have different arrangements for receiving Dukes vs Earls?

I take it that you have a family tree of the once powerful Grey family of England? I guess you'd need to either show that tree or specify (in a separate list?) which lords who happened to be named Grey were not of the o.p.G.f.o.E.; otherwise we'd keep seeing well-meaning editors sticking the 'missing' ones back in. —Tamfang (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(1)You could begin with the references at the foot of this article Protocol (diplomacy) to find how it worked at the Vatican in the early eighteenth century.

(2)Only the one so far. Eddaido (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) I took a quick look. Even if I were persuaded that the Vatican did make such a distinction and that one (or more) of those sites can tell me how, each of which appears unlikely, even I have better things to do than go searching for such data.

(2) Only the one what? You know of only one Grey-But-Not-OPGFOE peerage? Only one busybody (me) has tried inserting a wrong'un? —Tamfang (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." Sites?? Nothing so evanescent, just read further down.

(2) A well-meaning editor. Eddaido (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's especially tough if the horse is skeptical of the claim that there is any water. —Tamfang (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Come on now, pucker-up! Eddaido (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Low or no enthusiasm. Would you prefer to read some 17th century English history? See if you can construct from it an all embracing seamless backdrop just like that of a children's novel. Eddaido (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

partial armorial

What should I stumble on but ...

• 
• 
• 

—Tamfang (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The Father of All Greys

No suggestion that the writer is an authority but you might like to look at the last paragraph on this page which sets out the problem.

http://www.thurrock-community.org.uk/historysoc/grey2.htm

Which is: Is Henry TFoAG?

• Dugdale - Yes
• Burke - Yes
• ODNB - Maybe
• Cokayne - No

Where do we go from here? Eddaido (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Your link did not work, but I eventually found the article/page you mentioned above: http://www.thurrock-history.org.uk/grey1.htm. I did note in the article that the CoA on p.3, w/the notation "as borne at Carlaverock in 1300" is different from the CoA described by Burke, Bernard .. With supplement (1884). The general armory of England, Scotland, Ireland, and wales comprising a registry of armorial bearings from the earliest to the present time. London: Harrison and Sons. Retrieved 2 November 2013.. Drdpw (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

to dab or not to dab?

Under See also, JustAGal changed Baron Grey to Baron Grey (disambiguation) — which redirects to Baron Grey. I changed it back. JustAGal changed it again. Why prefer a redirect? —Tamfang (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have explained. Quoting from the opening section of Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, "Where an article intentionally links to a disambiguation page, that link should be through a "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect, to make it clear that the link is intentional."--JustAGal (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. —Tamfang (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)