The text referred to a long removed page as this page is now merely a "header" and the original contents went elsewhere. Furthermore the issues raised are historic. All extant baronetcies are now listed (but not yet all extinct ones). So the text is misleading, out of date and valueless. - Kittybrewster 04:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Phoe, I have just corrected the heading you had entered in Norman Bower. You had used "Reference" because there was only one reference, but the Manual of Style requires that the standard headings be used whether there are one or more references: WP:MOSHEAD.
Personally, I think that with a template such as {{Rayment}} or {{1911}}, the "References" heading is superfluous unless there are other references, but I'm not going to change it back. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I see that you have amended the succession boxes for several holders of the offices of Lord Advocate and Solicitor General so as to list them as Judicial offices. These offices would be more correctly categorised as political offices - they are government ministers, not judges. Very often holders of these offices have gone on to become judges (the Lord Advocate formerly had an important role in nominating new judges), but that is another matter.--George Burgess 17:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
According to this, he died before the peerage was gazetted. In this case, I don't think it should be included in the opening line of the article, but of course it should be mentioned later on. As you say, it was before the Life Peerage Act, so it was a hereditary peerage, so if it were included in the opening, should read 1st Baron Garbett of Tongham. JRawle (Talk) 15:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur with JRawle. Are we sure that "of Tongham" was intended to be part of the title? There haven't been any other "Garbett" or similar peerages as far as I'm aware, so it seems possible it was only intended to be in the territorial designation. Proteus(Talk) 16:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
If he did die before the peerage was gazetted, which I am assuming he did as the title does not appear on the usually correct Leigh Rayment page, the title shouldn't be on the opening line either because he never was Baron Garbett of Tongham. He was in the House of Lords as a Lord Spitual, and they are not peers (Rowan Williams isn't Lord Williams for instance). It should of course be mentioned in the article that he was to be made a peer and what it would have been, but it shouldn't be in opening line. I wouldn't change it myself in case I am totally wrong! --Berks105 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I was just typing the same. It must have passed the great seal in his lifetime or doesn't exist. If the latter it can't be in his opening line Alci12 17:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
If the title was never actually created, I wouldn't have thought it'd be in the LG. The prior announcement might be, but that is generally just "To be Barons:" followed by a list of names. It sounds like it was discussed and chosen, but he died before it was actually gazetted, so it seems likely there'll only be an informal record of what it was going to be. Proteus(Talk) 14:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
There is always a potential lag between someone dying and it becoming known in which the potential exists for this to happen.Alci12 18:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Would you please take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Style, where I'm trying to settle on a standardized succession box for Parliament? There's some minor variation in the styles now being used, and developing a consensus would save some work. Choess 14:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in. I've put up a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines so we have a place to house examples and guidelines. I'll announce it at the category talk page, too. Feel free to add on or make changes. Choess 22:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to say your hard work on the life peerages is noticed. I don't really do barnstars as there are too many to pick one ;) Alci12 17:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Phoe, just thought that you might find this template useful: {{npg name}}. It's for making links to the extensive collection of paintings and photographs at the National Portrait Gallery (England) - they have a lot of nobles there. (I made it myself, so please forgive the advertsiment!) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Phoe, I should have shown you he instructions. See reply on my talk. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep. The AJA only allows for life peerages for people being appointed Law Lords. Nowadays LCJs and the like are given normal life peerages if they're not already peers, but back then the LPA hadn't been passed and so hereditary peerages were the only option. Proteus(Talk) 21:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Apart from hoping for the benefit of your general expertise in peerages, I am concerned that I may not have labelled the Baronetcy properly: Rayment lists the baronetcy as "KENNAWAY of Escott, Devon", but Baronetage of Great Britain lists it as "Kennaway of Hyderabad" … and I have no other sources to help resolve the conflict. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't help much but he was made a baronet while he was based (1788-91) at the Court of Hyderabad and for arranging a treaty there with Tippoo Sultan. He went returned to live in Escot after his retirement long afterwards. So my feeling was that it would be logical and normal custom for the title to reflect this. Alci12 12:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
It's quite common to talk of joe bloggs of smithfield - meaning joe bloggs comes from smithfield without indicating any titular meaning. So when it says in your link 'Sir John Kennaway, Bart., of Escot House' it does mean JK of Escot House as it's a house (still standing) just down the road from me However having checked everywhere I can I can't find anything but 'of Escot' so I'm happy to go with that.:)Alci12 14:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
No. It is Kennaway of Hyderabad, resident of Escot. - Kittybrewster 08:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Woo-hoo! You got rid of one of those 'Right Honourable' links [1] that have been plaguing Wikipedia. Thanks! That must be worth a minor barnstar of some sort. - Crosbiesmith 07:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I had to add that sentence (which I agree doesn't really belong there) to try to get rid of the Proteus problem: he insists on having Glenys Kinnock as "Baroness Kinnock" despite the fact that not merely does she not use the title, but no-one else outside Wikipedia really does as well. I expect he may have another go at putting it back in. The wives of life Barons may technically be referred to as Baronesses but in practice everyone uses the title 'Lady' if anything. Fys. “Tafysaym”. 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you commented (very constructively) on this talk page. Viewing the history of the talk page shows your comments and others have been removed and there is an ongoing war raging. Can you please reinstate and block the page from being edited at all for say a week. I have put a suggestion on the talk page of each "vandal". - Kittybrewster 19:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I went to Wikipedia:requests for page protection, and it seems that you did not specify whether this article needs either "full", "semi-" or "move". Thus, we are confused by your suggestion. But you didn't do anything else wrong, and I thank you for that. --Gh87 09:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Crawford Murray MacLehose, Baron MacLehose of Beoch
For your information, not everyone is universally known by their first names. Case in point being the above, who was much more commonly known as "Murray MacLehose". As I am unable to revert the move you effected needlessy to "Crawford MacLehose, Baron MacLehose of Beoch", the page now resides at Murray MacLehose, Baron MacLehose of Beoch. Ohconfucius 07:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the congratulations ! Well, I am a french user (you can see my personnal page on the french wikipedia, and write to me on it) : fr:Utilisateur:Orror. There is a french blazon project (fr:Projet:Blasons), we are some guys working on it. I'd be very glad to draw other blazons for the english wikipedia, but it's quite long, and there are a lot of undrawn blazons in the french wikipedia...
Moreover, I have much time now, but I will have a lot of work soon. But if you ask me for some blazons, I can help you !
(Ich spreche Englisch, weil Ich Deutsch nicht seit sehr lange gesprochen habe... Entschuldigung... Aber Ich mag Deutschland and Deutschen ! Ich bin in Köln, and Koblenz gekommen wenn Ich junger war) See you soon ! 83.179.146.74 23:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
You can also see the coats or arms made by the members of the french blazon project here : fr:Catégorie:Armorial. 83.179.146.74 23:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Ta very much Phoe. My apologies. I was incredibly drunk when I organised my user page. I hope that my example might persuade younger inebriant Wikipedians to commit such acts as: plagiarism, larceny, High Treason, sodomy and smoking! ;)Brendandh 00:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you P. 'scuse the last message ...I certainly WAS very drunk when I sent it. It was my birthday previously so please excuse me. I can quite understand the need for Edit summaries , where relevant. However, when as I do, make lots of Dyslexic typos I flitter around back and forth between screens until they seem to be fixed. It is a failure on my part that I don't on occasion record them all, but I'm not going to self-flagellate unless it is something Really awfully amiss! BTW Love the Green. Happy times. Brendandh 00:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Im glad you found the answer. It does seem bizarre though that a she be referred to as Nicholas, but thats the British peerage for you! --Berks105 21:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
MI5 and MI6 are civilian services, not military services. The header is thus wholly inappropriate. Please stop adding it. See my comment on the project talk page. Forcing into incorrect pigeonholes is pointless and inaccurate. -- Necrothesp 14:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Please would you look at Sir John Rigby and the parliaments he served in. I created the page, sources Wikipedia only. - Kittybrewster 14:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I had deleted the peerage by writ of acceleration because I did not believe it was standard practice to list these separately in succession boxes; however, a quick survey of other peers who used writs of acceleration proved me wrong. I wasn't aware of the policy on dates; thank you for alerting me to it. You will find that I have reverted both the succession box and the month. Thanks for alerting me to my mistakes! TysK 06:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
