Talk:Suo jure

Merger request

Oppose - I think Wikipedia should make it as easy as possible for people to find info clearly, not take them to complicated composite list pages. --mervyn 14:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support- Most all important Latin phrases are included and explained on the list alone, and there is nothing special about this particular phrase to justify the existence of a separate article.Thesocialistesq 05:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I agree with Mervyn. It is much harder to link to items in a list. Also, the entry may grow overtime and I don't really see a disadvantage of a separate (possibly tiny) article. Cjrother 17:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Unlike a written encyclopaedia there is no disadvantage to having a small stand-alone article describing suo jure. If a user types 'suo jure' into the search box, this article will almost certainly be the information they are looking for. --Surturz 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This being an encyclopedia, not a Latin dictionary, it is entirely appropriate to give suo jure it's own entry, particularly as it requires more than a single line of explanation to fully grasp its definition and review examples. Not only is it easier to find than in a list, but it being its own article means that it's much more likely to be found via a non-Wikipedia search engine.Clepsydrae (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Female form

A note was added that: "The female form is sua jure." -- however I have not seen this form used in the context of peerages - can anyone else check this? TIA --mervyn 13:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, it's nonsense. "suo" is grammatically aligned with the grammatical sex of "iure", not with the gender of the person in question. —Nightst a llion (?) 14:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British dukedoms

the Dukedom of Marlborough is the only extant British dukedom that can still be inherited by females

I'm skeptical. When did the rules change for Scottish dukedoms? I can readily believe that Marlborough is unique among English dukedoms (it was created before England and Scotland became the single kingdom of GB). —Tamfang (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Notable suo jure titles"

I put back the "Notable suo jure titles" section - think it is worth discussing first before deleting. I know it can't be comprehensive, but has use to the general reader in showing examples of what a sj title means in reality. --Mervyn (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the list is not a list of notable suo jure holders of titles. It is a list of random women. Why Elizabeth Philipps, 14th Baroness Strange and not Cayetana Fitz-James Stuart, 18th Duchess of Alba? Why Duchess Mary of Burgundy and not Queen Joan II of Naples? Why Louise Henriette de Bourbon and not Maria Theresa of Austria? Are those listed really more notable than those who are not listed? Surtsicna (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the word "notable" is the problem here. I just think there should be some examples given, to make it more than just a dictionary-like entry. --Mervyn (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Queen Liz? 78.148.66.128 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinochet in title list?!?

Why is a male holder of a non-hereditary pseudo-democratic office in this list? As far as I understand, this is not a good example of what the phrase usually means 109.250.66.238 (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]