Jump to content

Talk:Territorial designation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Varifiable?

[edit]

Is this statement verifiable?

"if a peerage title in the format "Baron X of Y" is wanted, the full territorial designation must be used. Thus if the Barony of Stanley of Alderley were created at the moment, it would have to be Baron Stanley of Alderley, of Alderley in the County of Chester."

Baron Lee of Trafford of Bowdon in the County of Cheshire and Baron Taylor of Holbeach of South Holland in the County of Lincolnshire both created 2006 come to mind as obviously not fitting that pattern assuming I have their details correct Alci12 15:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the sentence is that the "of" in the title (if any) and the "of" in the t.d. are not the same thing and therefore neither can (in current practice) be omitted even if they happen to be the same. Forms such as you cite have always been possible, but they do not give rise to the haplographic temptation. Well now, how shall the sentence be reworded to avoid the false interpretation that Alci12 points out? —Tamfang 16:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HV

[edit]

Is this article really within the scope of the heraldry and vexillology project? If it is based on the small role played by Lord Lyon, then surely the papal orders are. Thoughts?--Eva bd 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was in Category:Heraldry at one point, which is why it was tagged. It was removed from this category a couple of weeks ago, for not relating to heraldry, as you point out. I've removed the WP:HV banner. Dr pda 13:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Eva bd 21:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How chosen?

[edit]

It would be useful to explain how the territorial designations are chosen, both in the past and today. The victory titles are obvious, but what about the others? Do they simply denote where the peer lives or owns land? --Jfruh (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I once read that HM The Queen even allows one to chose ones own TD. Sadly, I am not sure where I read this, or I would have added it. More information is def. needed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.56.139.73 (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikpedia article on Ralf Dahrendorf mentions that he chose his territorial designation (Clare Market, in the City of Westminster) as an in-joke - Clare Market is a medieval street name in London, and the street now serves as a parking lot for LSE, where Dahrendorf worked. This anecdote implies that there is at least a possibility for the new peers to suggest territorial designations. SchnitteUK (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems awful long, no?

[edit]

I certainly trust that the people writing this article know what they're talking about, but the assertion that a shortened version (e.g. The Lady Thatcher of Kesteven) is incorrect still seems bizarre to me. After all, there are examples such as the Earl of Sandwich, after whom the Sandwich Islands were named, and who is most commonly known as simply that - Earl of Sandwich - not "Earl of the Town of Sandwich in the County of such-and-such"... Similarly, Lord Elgin, famous for his association with the Elgin Marbles, is known quite commonly simply as Lord Elgin, and not as "Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin in the county of such-and-such in the kingdom of Scotland and 11th Earl of Kincardine in the county of such-and-such, Lord Bruce of Kinloss, Lord Bruce of Torry".

Are these shorter versions really incorrect? LordAmeth (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Thatcher is correct; Lady Thatcher, of Kesteven would be okay I reckon; Lady Thatcher of Kesteven is incorrect, not because it's shortened but because it confuses the TD with the title. The passage in question does not (at least intentionally) disparage such forms as Lord Sandwich and Lord Elgin or even Lord Mountbatten. —Tamfang (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you're saying. It's a matter of confusing the name for the territorial designation. It's why calling Lord Mountbatten instead Lord Burma is wrong. Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite the same wrongness, but in the same ballpark. —Tamfang (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know this discussion is really old by now, but I'd still like to add that not all titles take a territorial designation. Looks like all baronies (at least the life peerages, which are all baronies) do, but not all of the higher titles. Earl of Sandwich doesn't, if we are to believe the Wiki article on it, and neither does Earl of Elgin. That's why uses like "Earl of Sandwich" and "Lord Elgin" are perfectly correct. "Earl of Sandwich" would, I reckon, even be correct if the title were something like "Earl of Sandwich, of Sandwich in the County of So-and-so", since dropping the territorial designation entirely is acceptable. SchnitteUK (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use in Continental Europe

[edit]

The French particule and Italian predicato are very similar to the English territorial designation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.193.216.190 (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK centric article

[edit]

This is completely UK-centric. Everyplace there is nobility, there are territorial designations in use. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add non-British examples. —Tamfang (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Head of House

[edit]
The Head of House includes all the various styles and titles which designate the territorial nobility.

This sentence puzzles me. (The phrase Head of House does not occur elsewhere in the article.) Does it mean "all territorial nobles can be collectively considered Heads of Houses"? If so, would anything be lost by its omission? —Tamfang (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what HoH has to do with a TD at all. Seems superfluous i've rm.Garlicplanting (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Integral part of all baronetcies? Not according to the Baronet page.

[edit]

An "integral part of all baronetcies"? That is inconsistent with the statement in the relevant section of the Baronet page that "only more recent creations duplicating the original creation require territorial designations". I hope the authors can confer and eliminate the inconsistency. Robin Patterson (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Territorial designation. 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) 13:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Territorial_designation&oldid=1241474036"