User talk:Alci12/Archive 2

Lonsdale heirs

Does the newly acceeded 8th Earl of Lonsdale have a son, or is the heir presumptive his half-brother, Hon. Wm. James? Choess 05:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Feudal barons

As far as I know none of these "barons" are listed in any kind of reference work like peers and baronets are in Debrett's, Burke's, Cracroft's, Who's Who, etc., so presumably the articles consist entirely of unverifiable information. (Baron of Fulwood, for instance, contains an enormous amount of information that could well be true, but could equally be complete fabrication. Give me a keyboard and half an hour and I'm sure I could produce an equally detailed article on the equally verifiable title Baron of Proteustoun that's been passed down through my family for generations.) At the very least they're original research. Could we not just propose their deletion on this basis? Proteus (Talk) 16:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As for notability, they're equivalent to Lordships of the Manor in England, and I believe they have been officially compared to being "Landlord of the Dog and Duck" by someone in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. WP:DP says renomination is fine, especially if the previous nomination ended as "no consensus" (which this did). As long as we put our case well it should be okay. (At the very least, we need to eliminate all erroneous references to feudal barons being called anything but "John Scott of Glenporridge". Anyone reading these articles would think they are a big thing, which is certainly an impression that needs to be corrected.) Proteus (Talk) 18:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, and I've just removed them. (I also removed Baron of Fulwood from Category:Scotland, since it certainly doesn't belong there.) Proteus (Talk) 22:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Cowley v Cowley in Courtesy title

Thanks for your courteous heads up on the Cowley reference - much appreciated. By all means go ahead and edit. This is under the heading "Divorced wives who remarry", isn't it - a point which crops up every now and then in English literature and fiction, so worth including the old practice although now obsolete, I think. The first two sentences should stay, shouldn't they, but the third one should no doubt be qualified to make clear the point you mention. The first two sentences refer to an excellent and interesting source on what was actually accepted in society at that time. I hope you will feel that the words "customary" in the first sentence, and "common practice" and "not a matter of right" "merely a matter of courtesy, and allowed by the usages of society" in Lord Macnaughten's words make the first two sentences quite correct - indeed, he is rather at pains, isn't he, to distinguish the "matter of right" from the "matter of courtesy... allowed by the usages of society." Anyway, I will be interested to see what you think. Chelseaboy 19:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Titles in passports

Well done for finding that. It's pretty conclusive evidence that the MoS is correct. -- Necrothesp 15:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Lord Lovat

Hello, could you please have a look at Lord Lovat's talk page. There is currently a debate about the naming of the titles because of numbering issues. I am saying that we should go by the Lord's legal numbering, not how his Clan number him. Could you give your opinion? Thanks.--Berks105 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the Lord Lovat matter. I will keep looking to check the article names arent changed. --Berks105 11:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How bizarre. To be honest, if he hasn't seen reason when you and Berks105 have explained it to him as thoroughly as you have, I'd assume he's not going to. Hopefully he'll give up his quest when he realises we're not going to let him push his POV here. Proteus (Talk) 17:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir

No, I entirely agree with you. I was just thinking the same thing myself. -- Necrothesp 18:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Leonard Wolfson, Baron Wolfson

This guy gets a little more confusing since (a) he's a baronet, and (b) he was raised to the peerage as a life baron, actually before his father died and he inherited the baronetcy. It also gets confusing since there's also another Baron Wolfson (David Wolfson) in Lords. Some of these guys just have too many titles. This Wolfson also has a brother named David, but I have no idea if that's the same person as the other baron. Fan1967 17:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Anstruther Baronetcy

I have responded on my talk page - Kittybrewster 23:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Lord Lovat

I may need your help at Lord Lovat again. I think Canaen is pushing is POV again, he's not giving up on the numbering of the Lords, insisting that because apparently the general public refer to them differantly we should account for this. To be honest, I think 99% of the public have never heard of him, so I think this is a strange argument. --Berks105 13:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Fake Order

We could just rewrite it. "The Military Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha of Paternò is a fake Order of Chivalry..." etc. It might be even more helpful than just removing the article to have an easily found source telling people that it's fake so no one is taken in. Proteus (Talk) 12:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I see exactly where you are both coming from. Sounds like a good addition to me. What about if one said "Many people contend that wihout proper authentication and recognition from an internationally accepted source, this is widely regarded as a fake title. Those who have bought one will doubtless disagree." - Kittybrewster 00:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The bloke who said he bought one (Inspectore who began the topic - probably the vendor) has vandalised it out - I have reverted with a minor addition. I need help with this one, I think - Kittybrewster 11:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope

Quite right. Wally 02:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Style/Format Edits

I don't disagree that there is a "general Manual of Style". I disagree that calling people by their titles alone with their proper names, is in it. And I don't break the 3RR rule, contrary to your implication. I did it once, when I didn't know it existed. Wjhonson 15:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Mountbatten

Thanks! I think that paragraph is much better now especially with that MI5 page. Greyfedora 20:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Earl of Ilchester

Our page shows the 9th Earl's brother, Hon. Raymond George Fox-Strangways, succeeding him (listed as heir presumptive), but the Times reports that Raymond's son Robin succeeds as 10th Earl. Did Hon. Raymond die in the past few years? Choess 04:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Lord Herbert

I'm afraid I can't help either way, but in the absence of a source either way the entire issue should probably be ignored. Certainly the "Lord Herbert did NOT" bit is inappropriate. Proteus (Talk) 14:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Kitchener

• Viscount Kitchener of Khartoum and of the Vaal in the Colony of Transvaal, and of Aspall in the County of Suffolk
• Baron Kitchener of Khartoum and of Aspall in the County of Suffolk

But why do they have "and" at the start of the territorial qualification? Usually it would be Baron Kitchener of Khartoum, of Aspall in the County of Suffolk; or Baron Kitchener of Khartoum, of Khartoum and of Aspall in the County of Suffolk.

Does your copy of the London Gazette give the name, style and title of the new viscountcy? JRawle (Talk) 16:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Rt. Hon

I thought we did permit this for the single instance of Privy Counsellors who are not peers and hence do not use postnominal "PC". I could be wrong, though. Choess 14:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Honours system

Feel free to delete or change that paragraph if you like. The opening sentence in particular is misleading as it suggests few KBEs are awarded to British citizens, whereas actually there are up to 845 at any one time. I thought I read that about Tim BL somewhere, but seeing as I don't have a reference, it needn't stay.

What are the criteria for being awarded KBE instead of Knight Bachelor? How about Lord Coe, who received one? I had assumed it was so he could be The Lord Coe KBE, as he can't use "Sir" JRawle (Talk) 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it something to do with the diplomatic list? Berners-Lee's KBE was on the diplomatic list. Can't knights bachelor be included on that list? JRawle (Talk) 14:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea that a number of diplomats get an Order of St Michael and St George - Kittybrewster 15:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comments to that in Jrawle's talk page. Alci12 16:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comprehensive reply! JRawle (Talk) 16:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I knew I'd read this somewhere. See Order of the British Empire#Composition. Does the following need changing?

Although the Order of the British Empire has by far the highest number of members of the British Orders of Chivalry, there are fewer appointments to knighthoods than in other orders. Most Knights Commander are honorary members or British subjects living abroad, with only a handful being residents of the United Kingdom. JRawle (Talk) 21:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there or could there be such a thing as an abeyant baronetcy? - Kittybrewster 08:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject British Royalty

Alci12/Archive 2, WikiProject British Royalty wants you! WikiProject British Royalty is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

DBD 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Lewis Baronets

Replied on my page. Rayment often differs from SCB on territorial designations. I wonder about his source. Fabulous resource but it is of minor concern. - Kittybrewster 14:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

replied on my page. - Kittybrewster 01:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please visit my User page - Baronetcy project 11:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Territorial designations

That page isn't too clear on what it actually means. It'd be interesting to see if there was some form of official act that made such changes (as, of course, occasionally happened even with peerages in Scotland, like the change from "Kinghorne" to "Strathmore and Kinghorne"). Proteus (Talk) 15:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Baron Moynihan

Is it an abeyance that can be "terminated" then? I know it's down here as being dormant, but it doesn't mention what it's called when it stops being dormant! In fact it was the IP user who created the Baron Moynihan page who originally used that term. I then copied it into the article on Colin Moynihan. Please edit the articles once you know the correct terminology. JRawle (Talk) 17:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You certainly terminate an abeyance, the title is legally held by no one but has co-heirs who the sovereign (the CFP) decide between by calling the title out in favour of one claimant. I'm not sure there is any correct phrase for dormant titles, they are held by whomsoever the LP rules say - seeking a writ is the means by which people tend to prove their right but historically and even today many peers have never sought a writ but were/are unquestionably the holder of the title in law and were recognised officially by the state as such. I suppose it comes down to how you define dormant (i) any title whose holder hasn't made out a claim or the more strict and for mine correct that (i) there is assumed to be an heir if only he could be found and his claim made. I'd call the above peerage unclaimed/unproven or disputed rather than dormant as it was a simply dispute between known claimants for a fairly obvious outcome. Alci12 18:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that you can't "terminate" a dormancy. It's also clear that it's not a legal status, it's merely an informal term to show that no one is or was recognised as holding the title during a certain period. I'd be tempted to say "dormant 1991" and "recognised 1997" or something similar. As for why he didn't have to disclaim, I don't believe there's any obligation to leave the Commons until the succession is clear; Lord James Douglas-Hamilton presumably thought he had to in case either he was recognised as a peer just before a crucial vote or the outcome of a vote was challenged due to his potential status as a peer. Proteus (Talk) 15:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Acceptance as a baronet

Now that the House of Lords has been down-graded it is no longer possible for a hereditary peer to take his seat there. So how does he now prove he has become Lord Bloggs? And if he has proven this, would the SCB accept that proof? - Kittybrewster 09:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think some Peers may not see the point in proving their baronetcy which is a pity. I was thinking of someone such as Baron Muskerry which is dormant and not under review. I merely provided an affidavit from a long-term solicitor friend who knew my parents and me. - Kittybrewster 11:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering how some peers seem to have a pretty weak knowledge of their own titles and correct use thereof I wonder if some even know they have a baronetcy. However if there are examples of peers who have proved their claim to the peerage but are not on the baronets roll that would settle the matter of them using cross proof for claims. I thought you had to provide birth/marriage/death + two affis - though I appreciate you case is as simple as they get in terms of proving a claim. Alci12 11:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if it's quite what you are asking, but there is some information about hereditary peers succeeding to their titles (and the fact that it's still dealt with by the House of Lords) here: Talk:Hereditary peer#Two_questions.

Isn't it possible for the succession to a peerage and baronetcy to be different, if they have different remainders, etc? JRawle (Talk) 14:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir Robert Gunning, 1st Baronet

Surely KB rather than KCB? - Kittybrewster 13:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

KBs automatically became GCBs (not KCBs) when the Order of the Bath was expanded. This is now mentioned in the Order of the Bath article, which I recently expanded (see Order of the Bath#Restructuring in 1815). The warrant expanding the Order was published as a supplement to the London Gazette of Jan 3 1815 (and reprinted in The Times on Jan 5). This warrant lists the names of the GCBs and KCBs. Gunning did indeed become a GCB in 1815, and was in fact the most senior Civil GCB. (see also List of Knights Companion of the Order of the Bath.) --Dr pda 13:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. The naval rank should have been Rear Admiral, not Admiral. I've fixed this in Order of the Bath. For your entertainment, the relevant section (Sect 7) reads

The dignity of a Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Military Order of the Bath shall henceforth upon no account be conferred upon any officer in His Majesty's service who shall not have attained the rank of Major-General in the army or Rear Admiral in the navy, except as to the Twelve Knights Grand Crosses [sic] who may be nominated and appointed for civil services --Dr pda 14:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Baronetcy project

I am inclined to go with this, unless there are good reasons not to do so. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies#For_discussion_please - Kittybrewster 18:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Life peers

Thanks, but hard work is exaggerated. :-) Greetings Phoe 17:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Lord King, Baron of Ockham

Yes, it was a thing they were into at one stage. Only a few other examples seem to exist (Lord Braybrooke, Baron of Braybrooke in the County of Northampton; Lord Kenyon, Baron of Gredington in the County of Flint; Lord Vernon, Baron of Kinderton in the County of Chester; and a few others), and there doesn't seem to be any logical reason for the strange format, but they do exist, albeit in rather small numbers, mainly concentrated in the 18th century. Proteus (Talk) 21:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just done it. Proteus (Talk) 11:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly the best explanation I've ever heard for it. I had just assumed, in the absence of any discernable pattern, that they were simply due to historical whim, but your theory definitely makes more sense. Proteus (Talk) 11:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Kennaway Baronets

Hey Alci, I had found following sources [1], [2] and [3], which confirm 'of Escot' as territorial designation. I think the other version is an error and comes from the fact - (how you had written)- that he was in Hyderabad when he became a baronet. Greetings Phoe 14:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the error then was up to me. It seems as if my eyes are getting weaker and weaker. Perhaps I also simply should turn on the light next time. :-) Thanks for correcting me. One time in German: Grüße, Phoe 15:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is Kennaway of Hyderabad, resident of Escot. - Kittybrewster 08:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Attainder of Lord Lovat

Hi Alci, awhile ago you said that it was an act of parliament which restored the title of Lord Lovat in 1854. Do you have access to the text of this act, or know where I could go about finding it? Thanks, File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 07:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 21:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Lady Lovelace

No reason as far as I can see. In fact, I moved it to Ada King, Countess of Lovelace in August 2005, but the move was reverted less than a month later by User:Suruena (no reason given), and it's remained at Ada Lovelace ever since. Proteus (Talk) 17:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Viscount Hanworth

Hello. Regarding the viscountcy of Hanworth, I see that you have named the present holder's nephew Harold William Charles Pollock (b. 1988) as the heir presumptive. Do you have information that the latter's father Richard Charles Standish Pollock (b. 1951) is deceased, as otherwise he should be next in line to the titles. Richard is listed in Who's Who 2003 edition as the heir presumptive, but I don't have access to any later sources. Regards, Tryde 11:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will update the Viscount Hanworth page accordingly. Regards, Tryde 11:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Baron Lucas of Crudwell

Ah, yes that totally makes sense now, I should have known that. Thanks :-) Perhaps that should be added to the writ of acceleration page since it applies to all those (yet few) elder sons of peers that didn't succeed to their father's titles(?) Thanks again, Craigy (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I remember reading somewhere about the precedence set by the Earl of Burlington but couldn't remember where. I presume your quote is from the Hansard here? Craigy (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:MOVE. Craigy (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I thought that an eldest/elder son could in any event, both in Scotland and England, use his father's arms subject to a different helm and adding a label. The same applies to later sons in England but definitely not in Scotland, the English being far more heraldically sloppy than the Scots. - Kittybrewster 18:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No probs

Nah, I knew you wouldn't have been, chap :-). I should have realised at the time anyway. Thanks for noticing though. Craigy (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Duchess of Kendal

All her titles were life peerages (there's a list of pre-AJA-and-LPA life peerages in Cracroft's and both Dukedoms etc. are in it.) Proteus (Talk) 18:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

PC PC

I've never seen it before. It seems rather bizarre to me. I'm removing it. Proteus (Talk) 19:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Duff Baronets

Are the 2 bars between three pheons properly set out? Bruno Vallette did it. He was wondering how should bars and pheons be arranged : like it is here, or two pheons above the two bars close to each other and a pheon under them. Do you know ? - Kittybrewster 09:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert

You Wrote:

Wiki does have a policy about using revert Please try to follow the rules like the rest of us. Alci12 23:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I've offended you. I appreciate your advice to try and follow the rules. I'm not sure if you meant it this way, but the tone of your discussion post seemed more than a bit combative. I'll try to use the word "revert" more carefully from now on.--Eva ^bd 23:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Heraldry re Lyon etc

You Wrote:

Using both college and court or Kings is certainly better than using one of each which just looked indecisive. I've wikified so we have easy access to the sources Alci12 17:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Great work, Alci. Thanks.--Eva ^bd 02:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Douglas Douglas-Hamilton, 14th Duke of Hamilton

Hi Alci, you have removed the prefix "Sir" from the article above, since a peerage title trumps its usage (according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes). But what about a life peerage - would it not be the same here? Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 13:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

How I imagined, thank you for the confirmation. ~~ Phoe _talk 15:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

Sorry people. Peerage certainly trumps a knighthood, but according to Scots and English custom every peer is given knightly status automatically. On all official correspondence to my Grandfather from non familiar intimates, he is addressed as Sir Douglas. As far as the Châtelherault dukedom goes, it was confirmed upon the male heirs of William Douglas-Hamilton, 11th Duke of Hamilton by Napoleon II, which the head of the Douglas-Hamilton's certainly is. This is not POV, this is fact. So please be do not be too offended if I revert some of your edits. Brendandh 19:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't I will only revert them back as you are wrong. Alci12 22:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre discussion. If an heir is awarded a knighthood, he moves from Mr ... to Sir Toby ... If he then inherits a peerage, he becomes Lord ... If a peer is awarded a knighthood he becomes Duke ... KT but nobody calls him Sir Toby. - Kittybrewster 23:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Most authorities maintain that Ns actions were a new creation which would under the law of the time be heirs male and so have become extinct with his death." Well that appears to be truth overtaken by general opinion, the world is flat....hm.

I do not have a clue what an inescution is, but the use of the Escutcheon of France is perfectly valid as the joint arms of Hamilton and the house of Bonaparte were joined by the marriage of Princess Marie, Napoleon's granddaughter (perhaps there should have been a label over the top of the Fleur de Lys for her considered but not verified illegitimacy) and Duke William in 1843, the very same date that Châtelherault was confirmed . That Dukedom was confirmed on Heirs Male and about which I am afraid you seem to have some very shonky information. As to the 'Sir' question, have you consulted Debretts or Who's Who? Manual of style aside, every grade of male British society from King to commoner is refered to as "Sir" in correspondence, and even more especially when one has been given the degree of Knighthood, which the 14th Duke of Hamilton had been given twice over, irrespective of the heriditary chivalry his peerage lent him. Nemo me impune lacessit! Brendandh 23:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Under Scots law of arms Lyon must have registered arms for them to be lawful, the arms registered for Hamilton do not include the escutcheon (fyi Inescutcheon is an escutcheon born within or upon the shield) The Hamilton 'creation' by N was in 1864 and was as I said to heirs male (French Law) not heirs male whatsoever (Scottish). You can't confirm someone to a title which they have no lawful claim in France anymore than you can here. So it was a new creation by default which is now extinct. I strongly suggest you read up about French peerage law as it's not Scottish and will help your understanding. As to sir in correspondance that has nothing to do with knighthood but is standard letter address form. I'm called sir in letters and sometimes in spoken use but it's no sign I have a knighthood. You are confusing totally different things. Alci12 23:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Weeel, lets agree to differ, and that difference should be represented in article form. Fiction to fact, there are letters patent at Lennoxlove house confirming the honour but not the revenue of the French title, the 11th Duke of H did not really need the extra cash as he was the richest man in Scotland at the time. When the 12th Duke of H died he left all his un-entailed possessions to his daughter who then proceeded to marry the Duke of Montrose, which is why Brodick Castle is not part of Hamilton estates today, but was part of the Graham enterprise before its sale to the National trust. All entailed property and title went to the 13th Duke, Alfred, including the nominal Duchy of Châtelherault ( and that is the correct spelling!). Likewise, George Douglas, 1st Earl of Angus inherited his Earldom through Bastardy and the current Duke of H. holds that title. I will still cite Who's who and Debretts as to courtesy naming: I am not talking about article title but the content. On correspondence the Duke of Hamilton is referred to as the "Most Noble and Puissant Prince", now I would agree that that is slightly over the top for an encyclopædic article, but "Sir" is a title of dignity which covers most grades of nobility and certainly this Hamilton. If I were to give the the 14th D of H his full honorific: The Most Honourable and Noble Puissant Prince Group Captain the Duke of Hamilton, Brandon and Châtelherault, Marquess of Douglas and Clydesdale, Earl of Angus, Arran, Lanark and Cambridge, Lord Aven, Innerdale, Machansyre, Polmont, Abernethy and Jedburgh Forest, Baron Dutton, that might seem extreme, but it seems rather frightful to not honour a twice knighted man his earned prefix, (especially in his intro). For example look at the brouhaha as to the naming of British Monarchs, most notably James VI of Scotland and James VII of Scotland, and their status as Kings of England. As to the Earl of Derby, let him prove it in an other arena than Wikipedia. As before Nemo Me Impune Lacessit! Brendandh 00:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Post Scriptum The honour of the Duchy of Châtelherault Was confirmed upon William the 11th Duke of H. by the French Emperor. However the duchy had been held since the time of Regent Arran, the first Duke. It was awarded by Henri II. Since then every Earl of Arran (including the present D. of H.) has held that position no matter what later and illegal republican govrernments of France might say. What aristocracy of the "Ancien régime" survived did so because it was not in France. The late eighteenth and nineteenth century chroniclers did an enormous amount of rewriting of national history. In a quasi-nationalistic fervour, through guilt at the massacre of the revolution, they seemed to have written all foreigners out of the history books. If one were to speak to the Seneschal of mid sixteenth century France today, (fiction admittedly) he would be under no doubt as to who the Duchy pertains. To cap all, the arms of THE Douglas-Hamilton with the arms of France in-Escutcheoned does not fall within the remit of Lyon. It was a transnational alliance of the top drawer and therefore up to the parties involved to decide and later on discussion with Lyon and his French counterpart to matriculate. Brendandh 02:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There are only so many times I can repeat this. Wiki has a style guide for the writing of articles agreed by the users. The guide says knighthoods are not to be included with peers, so it is a simple matter that if you include them they will be removed. If you want to try to get agreement to alter the style guide so you can include what you wish good luck in your efforts.

There no such thing as a transnational authority with the right to overule Scots law of arms. The Hamiltons have Scottish arms which by law much be those registered with Lyon.

Re-read by comments on the remainder of the title. The original French title had a strict remainder which could not see it held by the Hamiltons today. You cannot apply Scottish law to French titles, succession has nothing whatsoever to do with the transmission of the earldom it's solely according to the remainder under French law. The chroniclers nor the republicans altered the remainder of the original title which was to heirs male and female. N's grant was to heirs male (french law) which would have died with him. Alci12 11:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hereditary Peer

The sources I was looking for were for the mode of operation of letters patent and writs of summons (what they confer, limitations, etc.) and the actual text (as there were three big quoted chunks). I see it's been demoted, but it won't do any harm to add the references if you have them. Judging from the above you seem to have an impressive knowledge of heraldy and the nobility, do you mind if I drag you in to some of Emsworth's FARs when they come up? He's got a lot of uncited FAs which include sections on styles and arms, which I normally have trouble finding sources for. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 10:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

1st Speelman Baronet's mother's rank

Your source for the change? Mine was Sir Martin Lindsay of Dowhill's book. - Kittybrewster 22:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is the same rank? - Kittybrewster 15:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)