User talk:Proteus/Archive 12

Using English

Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with using English instead of foreign terms in articles. A few are trying to "Anglicise" French terms in Wiki articles according to current guidelines but there is some resistance (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement"). Your input would be appreciated here. Thankyou. --Bob 16:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Carnwath

Any chance you could take a look. The above is wrong but I can't correct as I'm not certain of some of the holders. thepeerage has the 2nd Earl as Gavin. Obviously after removing the erroneous 7/8/9th Earls this will change the rest Alci12 14:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alci12 13:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Burley

Hi, could you tell me exactly where you found evidence that the people of Kent rose up in protest of his death.. I have not seen this mentioned anywhere.

81.96.79.131 13:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)S. Farrand[reply]

Peerage guidelines

After noticing your move of Savile Baronets over Marquess of Halifax, I realized our guidelines (Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage#Pages on Peerages) may stand in some need of an overhaul. It currently suggests, among other things, that Earl of Bedford and Duke of Bedford should have separate articles; however, the first redirects to the second. Perhaps some redrafting is in order. (I bring this here because if there's anyone I trust to write an airtight guideline about peerages, it's you.)Choess 04:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vice Great Seneschal of Ireland

In case Vice Great Seneschal of Ireland isn't on your watchlist, I wanted to alert you to some comments I left on the talk page which may be of interest to you. House of Scandal 12:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Newcastle

Hi Proteus-- quick question. Were all the early creations of Duke of Newcastle (all but the recently extinct one) in the form of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, or were some just plain Duke of Newcastle? I know the one held by the PM was -upon-Tyne, but I realized that the earlier ones may not have been, and I figured you'd know. I don't want to have incorrectly relocated a page. Thanks! TysK 01:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Airlie

I've renumbered to remove those previously included who were attainted. Don't suppose your sources give an explanation for the HoL refusal to admit the claim of the younger brother of the 3rd Earl? Alci12 17:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh if the AoP says that then we should revert. Alci12 12:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, we're not obliged to follow what Parliament says I think if we ignore appropriate legal decisions (assuming attainder was reversed in the way cr says) and substitute our own views (even where the former are sometimes wrong) it's tantamount to original research. Alci12 10:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill

Please vote. - Kittybrewster 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Spencer family

TysK said, I should ask you for help. So, are you able to help me with the Spencer family? Or do you know someone who is able? Thank you very much for your help.
VM 18:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking seat

It might interest you; looking for something quite different, I came across this [1] wherein it makes it clear that Milford Haven took his seat in the Lords (July 25, 1917) when his patent for the creation of the titles doesn't pass the great seal until Nov (letter 30th October 1917) [2] Alci12 13:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is a patent and warrant stamp but I don't see lawfully you could stamp the former and refuse the latter. It did cross my mind that, in November realising the mess they had put themselves in, they backdated the entry to the time it was decided to give the peerages to tie up the loose ends. There is precedent to take a seat without LP certainly up to c15 so I suppose it may be unprecedented in modern times it might not be ultra vires. Likewise we see knighthood awards 'backdated' to a time when the recipient was alive for various people who accept the offer but don't live to its announcement. Still a v interesting little find I thought. Alci12 13:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fees went c.ww2 with the influx of 'poor' labour peers who couldn't be expected to afford such things. I seem to remember the King paying for a number of ministers court dress in '46 for a similar reasons.(Many of the old families were both rich and in some cases used the robes of their ancestors; Churchill in 1924 remarks he has his father's robs as chancellor from 1884) I thought about a marquessate by writ myself ;) I can only assume that the letters is misleading or unclear because I don't see how this wouldn't be the case of a new writ creation Alci12 17:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duque de Ciudad Rodrigo

When did the 8th Duke of Wellington succeed as 9th Duque de Ciudad Rodrigo? When his father died in 1972 or 4 years earlier? The site doesn't make that clear.
VM 18:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Loch

Hi Proteus, do you know perhaps whether these edits ([3] and [4] are correct? If they are, we then should not move the articles? Although I have already searched myself, I am unsure, what the result concerns - I have unfortunately found both possibilities namely Baron Loch and Baron Loch of Drylaw. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 11:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Aye, thanks for the "investigation". ~~ Phoe _talk 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ </span[reply]

It is surely, Loch of Drylaw, in the county of Midlothian. See Lord's Journal, 13 Augusti 1895, pages 284 and 285. Furthermore, GEC, not known for its mistakes has it as such, and it remains so, uncorrected, in the 1990s update volume.Rodolph 13:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Ponsonby

Hi, I am sorry but I have a case once more which makes your stepping in necessary (see Special:Contributions/Flozu). How I wrote at Talk:John Ponsonby, 1st Viscount Ponsonby of Imokilly, the LG states the viscountcy as Ponsonby, of Imokilly and not Ponsonby of Imokilly. However I haven't found an entry concerning the barony, so do you know whether her statement at Talk:William Ponsonby, 1st Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly is right? Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 08:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Looks like there are several disamb pages for the barony an what not that she's also changed. Alci12 10:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now back to the fun at talk Stirling (I still can't work out how his posts are within the rules) Do you have any info on the remainder for 'Lord Hume of Berwick'? Alci12 11:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks also of me.

Btw do you have seen this interesting hoax [5]? It seems the alleged Viscount St Pierre is a child prodigy (see [6]) :-). Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 15:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Sadly not that's the GB creation-but thanks for trying. The issue for me comes down to this. If the patent for creation exists then it must be clear from which great seal is used and/or any subsequent summons as to which peerage it was. If the patent was lost before any claim or reality of non standard decent English peerage law assumes heirs male and the case law for Scottish claims before the House of Lords is that if they don't have a remainder, without prior non standard succession, they tend to leave the title dormant.(see Glencairn) Did the daughter or her husband seek to made good the claim to the title or sought summons. Did their son sit in either parliment after his mother's death an before he gained the earldom? Absent that I don't believe the title exists.PS Hmm @ Earl Roberts another loony entry Alci12 16:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query Re: Earl Roberts

May I ask why you reverted my edits, AGAIN. Sorry but its a little frustrating. Why exactly? Do they not conform to the editing standards or something? Thank You. user:mduparte 18:04 13th February 2007 (GMT)

Perhaps you wouldn't have the frustration of having your edits reverted if you contributed productively rather than creating ridiculous hoaxes. Proteus (Talk) 18:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me? user:mduparte 18:04 13th February 2007 (GMT)

Oh don't be stupid. You're not going to fool anyone here. Proteus (Talk) 18:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm sorry but there's being rude, and there's being rude! What do you mean, and could be presume for one second that I'm not a hoaxer here, because I'm not. Perhaps you could just calm down and present a nice balanced arguement. I have every resource with me. Hell! I work here! Martine Duparte 18:22 13th February 2007 (GMT)

Fine, lets work under that presumption. Please provide a link to the announcement of this peerage in the London Gazette. Its online archives go back more than 300 years so it shouldn't be too hard. Proteus (Talk) 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are. The London Gazette - The Earl Roberts Martine Duparte 21:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! You've made my day, seriously. That's the funniest thing I've seen in ages. Bit of a waste of the domain registration fee, though. Proteus (Talk) 23:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look quite right in Firefox. For a three-hour scratch job, though, I have to take my hat off to you, Stefan — it's a pretty good mock-up. Be strong to resist the dark side. Really now, is being a chorister not distinction enough without having to be a courtesy viscount and running an imaginary charity? Choess 01:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is fascinating to see how much work makes somebody to itself to fake an identity for Wikipedia. I think, though, the LG would not be so pleased that somebody copies its web page - perhaps one should give them a small tip :-) . ~~ Phoe _talk 08:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Well the wording is not right but it's not a bad effort. I looked for the whois on the site originally, word to the wise, best to use a hosting company as it really does give to much info away if you use your own details! Alci12 12:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too am lost in admiration - just in case anyone is unaware, the London Gazette is actually gazettes-online.co.uk, and our hoaxer here is hoping no-one notices this one is .org.uk. Sam Blacketer 13:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Hume of Berwick

Thanks, now back to the fun at talk Stirling (I still can't work out how his posts are within the rules) Do you have any info on the remainder for 'Lord Hume of Berwick'? Alci12 11:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The LG Issue 11665 [7] published on the 11 May 1776 says: - The King has also been pleased to grant the Dignity of a Baron of the Kingdom of Great Britain unto the following Gentlemen, and their Heirs Male; viz. Alexander Hume Campbell, .Esq; commonly called Lord Polwarth, by the Name, Stile, and Title of Baron Hume of Berwick. - I hope, this is what you are looking for. ~~ Phoe _talk 15:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Please look at Debretts, a pretty standard modern source - as cited on discussion page. If you're interested I can email you correspondence from the Lord Lyon on this peerage. I can't think how else to reference it.Flozu 20:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your reversion making this a Lordship of the Scottish Parliament. What is your evidence? He was gazetted an English Baron. Berwick is in England. The lists of the Lords of Parliament in Douglas don't have him. How can you make such a reversion without proof? David Lauder 15:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can be certain what should be there at the moment. My feeling is that this being the case and absent sources we should AFD the page in question and move the discussion about this lordship/barony to the earldom talk page. PS Fwiw it looks as though the Official Roll of the Peerage may be available online in the near future. Alci12 15:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. David Lauder 16:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I have dug out the booklet by the Reverend J Kirk, M.C.,C.F., (Minister of Dunbar Parish Church 1913-18) entitled George Home, Earl of Dunbar (published by R & R Clark Ltd., Edinburgh, 1918). Rev.Kirk made something of an intense study of Home. He states (p.6) "in 1599 he was Sheriff of Berwick-upon-Tweed". On page 8 he continues: "on 7 July 1604 he was created an English peer of the realm with the title of Baron Home of Berwick, one of the titles appearing on his monument" (in Dunbar church). "In the charter (Letters Patent) of his peerage he was given the privilege of nominating to the King any kinsman or relation to bear and transmit to his heirs the title of Baron of Berwick, but he never exercised that power. On page 32: "at Berwick-upon-Tweed he had been building what was described as 'a sumptuous and glorious palace' which was due to be finished and opened by a great 'house-heating' on Saint George's Day, April 23, 1611", but he died before then. David Lauder 18:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course neither monuments nor accounts by vicars are exactly 'proof'. Though they tend to suggest that whatever the facts they believed it an English title and that the vicar believed that to be the remainder Alci12 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a published source by a credible author. I have already demonstrated, I believe, that other competent authors believe it extinct. All this argument yet no-one appears to have given credible sources better than mine. David Lauder 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicars are not generally experts on peerage law and so I don't think that source is compelling. The balance of evidence from the usual peerage publications seems to be not strong enough in favour of the title being held (only Debretts has been cited in favour) and that we ought leave it that other than with further evidence that it is not presently held and is probably extinct. Beyond that I remain to be convinced. Alci12 12:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel bound to say that your/my opinion here does not really count. Articles are supposed to be as far as possible sourced. The assertions and opinions in these articles were just that. I provided a very credible source by a learned scholar, who I feel you rather ridicule by referring to him as you have, and Debretts were not "in favour" but rather venturing an opinion. This afternoon I found another,earlier, reference, by William Anderson (The Scottish Nation, Edinburgh, 1867, volume IV), where he states in a large section on page 75: "Dunbar, Earl of, a title in the Scottish peerage, revived in the person of George Home, third son of Alexander Home of Manderston.......In 1603 he attended King James to London on his accession to the English throne, and on 7th July 1604 was sworn a Privy Councillor of England, and created a Peer of that kingdom by the title of Baron Home of Berwick." David Lauder 19:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean do I prefer to see citations from professional peerage sources over people whose expertise in that area is not clear then yes I certainly do and indeed wiki expects us to assess sources. Simply because there is a source(s) does not make it an accurate source (we could all go to the BBC news website now and easily find peers given the wrong title). Though I see no reason not to give the details of the title and its extinction I do feel that as we don't have a primary source establishing the above details that a note should be added to the article explaining that the details are unclear/disputed or some such wording. I don't think the title needs it's own article but can perfectly well be included in the Earldom page alone with the note there.

Can both possibilities not be included with sources and any views. E.g. Critics think ... - Kittybrewster 19:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I would never regard a journalist as a primary source, ever, especially from the BBC. I have, however, provided two good academic sources (more than anyone else has so far provided). Whilst they may not be experts in peerage law, they are both nevertheless highly regarded as scholars, Anderson in particular is a highly regarded biographer. At the moment we have no other sources at all and "disputes" must at least be supported by another verifiable source before they are flagged up on an article page. Otherwise someone's personal opinions are appearing as possible fact without an ounce of credibility. I agree with you that the Berwick peerage should not be on a page of its own but should be merged into the Earldom page. David Lauder 13:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well this article is spread over rather too many pages but I understood Proteus was asserting that Cracrofts called it dormant, Flozu that Debrettes regarded it as extinct. That both (one by calling it dormant ie an heir may exist) the other by their comments of Home's possible claim imply a non standard remainder. So it still seems to me that they are sources in dispute. Alci12 14:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - I didn't cite Debrett's as saying the barony was extinct. On the contrary the 1973 edition says that the barony is held by the Earls of Home. I'm sorry, I haven't got a more up to date version, but no doubt someone can check this Flozu 16:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry trying to re read too quickly I took the Lord Hume of Berwick page on succession as having been all your edit :'Generally regarded as extinct, P. Montague-Smith, editor of Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage' So are you saying the '73 version has it extant, the '79 version (dormant?) but with Home having a claim, or de jure having no made a claim for both? Alci12 16:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you did not say it was extinct. You are arguing to the contrary and, I suggest, wrongly. Lodge does not list the barony in the Earl of Home stable, and Reverend Kirk and Burkes state it is extinct. A claim has not been before the Committee of Privieges for it. So what the then editor of Debretts bases his opinion on heavens only knows. I shall find a copy of that opinion but you originally said it was in the 1979 edition. Which is it? David Lauder 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. I’ll check the edition of Debrett’s next time I’m in the reading room. I’m happy with the consensus as it stands in the article though. And while the question of the remainder is fascinating (to some of us), Wikipedia probably shouldn’t be the place to try and resolve it, as original research would be needed. If anyone wants me to email them the letter I received from Lyon about this, please leave a message on my talk page. The only thing that might need some attention for disambiguation purposes is the Polwarth version of the peerage, as mentioned by Phoe above. I have no sources on this. Proteus? Flozu 19:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly", or "Baron Ponsonby"

Burkes Peerage (106th edition available online at [8]) and The Complete Peerage both give Ponsonby's title as 'Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly', and not as some editors prefer, 'Baron Ponsonby, of Imokilly'. The House of Lords Journal, available online, also uses this as his title. At the time the peerage's creation in 1806 there was another Baron Ponsonby around, namely Baron Ponsonby of Sysonby, the GB title under which his cousin the Earl of Bessborough (an Irish earldom) sat in the House of Lords. Flozu 17:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (Proteus), I am sorry but I have a case once more which makes your stepping in necessary (see Special:Contributions/Flozu). How I wrote at Talk:John Ponsonby, 1st Viscount Ponsonby of Imokilly, the LG states the viscountcy as Ponsonby, of Imokilly and not Ponsonby of Imokilly. However I haven't found an entry concerning the barony, so do you know whether her statement at Talk:William Ponsonby, 1st Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly is right? Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 08:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]
- No problem; it's not. The LG for 8th March 1806 says: The King has been pleased to grant the Dignity of a Baron of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the Right Honorable William Brabazon Ponsonby, and the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten, by the Name, Style, and Title of Baron Ponsonby, of Imokilly, in the County of Cork. Burke's is renowned for adding territorial designations to titles when they shouldn't. The title is thus the same as the Viscountcy. I'll break the news. Proteus (Talk) 09:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like there are several disamb pages for the barony an what not that she's also changed. Alci12 10:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - They should be fine now. Thanks for the heads up. Proteus (Talk) 11:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Proteus, we all know that Burke’s is often inaccurate. But the point is Burke’s is not alone – most of the reliable published sources I can find use the name “Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly”. The London Gazette cannot, I'm afraid, be considered reliable in this instance. Not only does it state on its own website that "this archive is historic and cannot be assumed to be reliable in a current context", but it also sometimes uses the form "Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly" - e.g. on 4 September 1855 [9]. I think it is important for editors to reach a consensus about which sources carry most weight. I would have thought one of the most reliable published sources in this instance is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. It states: “Ponsonby, William Brabazon, first Baron Ponsonby (1744–1806)… was raised swiftly to the British peerage on 13 March 1806 as Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly”. [10]. Another source is the UK Government’s “National Register of Archives”, which indexes “Ponsonby, William Brabazon (1744-1806) 1st Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly” [11]. I would also refer editors to the House of Lords Journal. Early volumes of this are not available online, as far as I know, but Volume 63 (1 November 1830) is available at [12]. It refers to “Lord Ponsonby of Imokilly” (although obviously this is in relation to the 2nd Baron). I would also once again draw editors’ attention to the fact that the Earls of Bessborough sat in the GB & UK parliaments as Baron Ponsonby of Sysonby, as their other more senior titles were Irish and did not entitle them to an automatic seat. Might this explain the currency of this form of title? In summary, I think a sensible position would be to reinstate the disambiguation page for Baron Ponsonby, which somebody deleted, since there are inarguably a lot of Barons Ponsonby of various forms around. I do ask that editors do not undertake further edit reverts on this subject until a consensus has been achieved about the best sources to follow. Flozu 21:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added comments to talk:Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly Flozu 16:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Mackenzie Stuart, Baron Mackenzie-Stuart

Heja, I wonder from which reason you have removed the QC postnominal. He was a Queen's Counsel, wasn't he? Greetings, best wishes and so on :-) ~~ Phoe _talk 16:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Ah, learned again a little... many thanks. ~~ Phoe _talk 16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Style

Hello. Let's sort out this "second v 2nd and Francis Baring v Francis Baring" business. My view is this: Firstly, I've contributed to hundreds of peerage pages on Wikipedia and have used the same system for all. The peerage and the recipient are bolded (if the reader wants to check out the full article on the recipient he can scroll down to where all the holders are listed, we don't need more than one link). Secondly, regarding ordinal numbers I have always used "first" et cetera in preference to "1st" et cetera, mainly because it looks nicer (in my view) but also because I believe this is the preferred style in running text (although I'm not a native speaker of English and certainly no expert). Writing out the full name and title of a peer is of course a totally different thing, I would always prefer John Smith, 1st Baron X, to John Smith, first Baron X.

Furthermore, I'm not a fan of Google being the judge of every argument in the world, but as you brought it up, yes, there are more google hits for "2nd+Baronet" than for "second+Baronet". However, there are more hits for "second+Baron" than for "2nd+Baron". But let's leave that aside. I know you're a highly knowledgeable contributor on these matters and I certainly value your opinion. However, for you to change from "second" to "2nd" in an article is a bit of a waste of your efforts in my opinion just like I'm wasting my efforts in writing this message. We should concentrate our efforts on something more constructive. I hope we can sort this out here. Otherwise, I fell the best way is to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and let others have their say. Regards, Tryde 20:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes, that's probably correct, only the article title should be bolded. However, I would argue that peerage and title pages in general might constitute a special case where the peerage and the recipient are strictly inter-linked and it is therefore logical to have both in bold. I have considered this the best way to highlight the recipient, although I realise it is theoretically against Wikipedia policies. I have nothing in particular against linking the grantee, although then two problems arise 1) there are double links in the artice (in the intro and the list of holders), often separated by only a few lines, which are unnecessary (and I believe against Wikipedia policy) and 2) there would be a lot of red links as many peers don't have articles, and red links are a nuisance.

As for ordinals, I'm a strong opponent the system you're advocating (I don’t know that you mean by "our style"?), mainly because I think it looks terrible but also because I believe there are "rules" that numbers below ten shouldn't be used in running text. However, I guess both versions are ok, so I don’t see why both systems can’t be used. The content is after all the most important.

I’m going to continue using the system where the recipient of a title is bolded. I have seen that user:Phoe has used the same system for some baronetcy pages he has created, so we can have a word with him and see what he thinks. I can also bring up the topic at WikiProject Peerage for a discussion. After all, along with the Iranian nuclear programme and global warming this is a pressing issue that needs to be dealt with... Regards, Tryde 20:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baronets and the use of "PC" instead of Rt. Hon.

In the Northern Ireland Privy Council, am I correct in assuming that it is completely incorrect for a member who is a Baronet (and thus a commoner) to use the postnominals "PC (NI)"? Nobody at Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet seems to think that that is the case, and if I change it again, I'm in violation of 3RR. Thanks in advance for the help. --Ibagli (Talk) 21:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just raised this on Sir Norman's talk page. He is clearly either PC or Rt Hon in line 1. - Kittybrewster 21:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes_No.2. - Kittybrewster 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gillis Baronets

This does not feature in my 1995 Debrett's or in Rayment's list. Is it kosher? - Kittybrewster 23:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you nominate them speedy afd. - Kittybrewster 23:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David G A A Lumsden

Please would you check this article and categories. It looks to me like a vanity page. - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Phillips

I know this must be difficult for you, but would you mind keeping your hands off this article until I have finished it? Paul venter 15:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't "keep my hands off" that article, or any others you've created. Firstly, Template:Underconstruction is intended to prevent edit conflicts whilst a major revamp is underway, not to stifle legitimate edits just because you like a particular article, and I'm going to remove it for that reason. Secondly, the fact that you've created an article doesn't give you the right to decide where it should be and how it should be formatted: such matters are matters of policy and WP usage, and aren't things to be sorted out as the article's being written, and I'm going to revert your edits reverting mine for that reason. I suggest, if you intend on being a constructive editor here, you learn how to interact with people on a reasonable basis, and not act as if you own a particular article, because, I'm sorry to have to tell you, you don't. Proteus (Talk) 00:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I politely asked you to keep your hands off the article while I was busy with it - see above
The Template:Underconstruction was not placed there by me or at my request, but obviously by someone who decided I was being subjected to gratuitous harassment.
Styling your edits as legitimate is presumptuous.
WP policy, to a very large extent, is a matter of interpretation - if you feel that you are the final word on such interpretation, then we obviously have little common ground.
Does being a constructive editor mean doing things your way?
Please look at your discussion (or lack thereof) when you edited the article, and then tell me that your behaviour was reasonable
I don't own the article and have been here long enough to know the conflict that presumed ownership can cause - but neither do you own the article and therefor your summary edit without any discussion makes a mockery of your supposed reasonableness.
If you have any special qualifications that set you above other editors, don't expect them to divine this. Paul venter 06:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady A. Lindsay

Lady Abahai Lady Abdullah Haroon Lady Aberdeen

Lady Aberdeen Bridge

Lady Abigail Masham Lady Ada Lady Agatha Russell Lady Aisin-Gioro Lady Aitchison Hospital Lady Albemarle

Lady Alethea Talbot Lady Alexandra Coke

Lady Alexandra Duff Lady Alexandra Etherington Lady Alice Lady Alice Boyle Lady Alice Christabel Montagu-Douglas-Scott Lady Alice Christabel Montagu Douglas-Scott Lady Alice Egerton Lady Alice McDonnell Lady Alida Brittain

Lady Allen

Lady Allen of Hurtwood Lady Amelia Windsor Lady Amherst's Pheasant Lady Amherst's pheasant Lady Amherst Pheasant Lady Amin Lady Amos Lady And The Tramp Lady Andal Venkatasubbarao MHSS Lady Anelay of Saint Johns Lady Anelay of St. Johns

Lady Anelay of St Johns

Lady Ann's Drive Lady Ann Cummingham Lady Annabel Goldsmith Lady Annabel Vane-Tempest-Stewart Lady Anne Barnard Lady Anne Blunt Lady Anne Brewis Lady Anne Churchill Lady Anne Clifford Lady Anne Farquharson-MacKintosh Lady Anne Finch Conway

Lady Anne Halkett

Lady Anne Horton Lady Anne Hyde

Lady Anne Lambton

Lady Anne Lindsay Lady Anne Mackintosh

Lady Anne Palmer Lady Anne Rhys Lady Anne Stanley Lady Annie Henrietta Yule

Lady Antonia Fraser Lady Aoi

Lady Arabella Seymour

Lady Arabella Stuart Lady Arcana Elestar Lady Arthur Hill

Lady Arwen Lady Ashley Montagu Lady Ashton of Upholland

Lady Astor Lady Audley's Secret Lady Augusta Gregory Lady Augusta Murray

Here are a handful of counter examples I grabbed from the index - there are hundreds more....do have a look - there are obviously lots of titles needing your attention. Have a good day! Paul venter 10:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Grey of Codnor

What were your sources for the following statement?

The Barony, though simply "Grey", is often termed "Grey of Codnor" or "Grey (of Codnor)" to distinguish it from the other Grey Baronies throughout history and from the extant Earldom of Grey, though it should be noted that the holder is always styled simply The Right Honourable Lord Grey

You have often argued forcibly, notably here [13], that the London Gazette is the only available source that can be relied upon to get territorial designations right. It gives the title as 'Baron Grey of Codnor', as can be seen here [14]. Should the Grey article therefore be amended? Flozu 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I believe has been pointed out on other occasions, the LG is reliable when reporting the creation of a peerage (as it has access to the letters patent). On other occasions it can be as mistaken as the rest of them, and as for the creation of this peerage, unfortunately the LG doesn't exist for the year 1397... Proteus (Talk) 00:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In this instance, the LG was reporting a new writ of summons issued when the barony was called out of abeyance in 1989. The situation is surely therefore analagous to reporting on a new creation by letters patent - as in either case the document signed by the monarch becomes definitive with regard to title, doesn't it? Can you shed any light on this? I don't want to harp on about this, but a clear understanding of the strengths and limitations of the gazettes would be extremely helpful. In answering, I would be grateful if you could share your sources for your statement at the top of this section. Thanks. Flozu 13:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As to the usage, I'm going mainly by Burke's, which calls Lord Grey "THE 6TH LORD (BARON) GREY (of Codnor, Derbys)" and his style at the beginning of his address "The Rt Hon The Lord Grey DL" [6]. The problem with definitive answers on this particular issue is that the Barony of Grey was created by writ, and so doesn't have an exact form specified by letters patent, but all baronies by writ are essentially "Lord X" rather than "Lord X of Y", because being summoned as "Ricardus de Grey de Codnor" made someone "Lord Grey" rather than "Lord Grey of Codnor" (it meant "Richard de Grey from Codnor" rather than intending to add anything to a title). Occasionally the "of Y" bit has been added through custom and usage (as with Willoughby de Eresby and Willoughby de Broke, which are both technically simply Willoughby (and if one became extinct the holder of the other would be free to drop their distinguisher)), but that simply hasn't happened with Grey. Proteus (Talk) 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Thanks for clearing up the sourcing. I must admit to raising a wry eyebrow at your citing Burke's, given your earlier comments about its unreliability with regard to tds. Nevermind, that's water under the bridge. Back to the matter in hand... if Charles Cornwall-Legh was summoned to Parliament by writ as 'Lord Grey of Codnor' in 1989, wouldn't this provide strong evidence that the accepted form of the title should now be written in this form, particularly if custom and usage can be considered determining factors as per your Willoughby example? Wouldn't it also seem to contradict the statement"the holder is always styled simply The Rt Hon. Lord Grey", at least as far as the Lord Chancellor's Department is concerned? Flozu 22:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Rather bafflingly, Burke's gets TDs wrong when writing out peerages yet manages to miss them off when writing forms of address. Thus they call Lord Dufferin "The Rt Hon The Lord Dufferin and Claneboye" whilst saying he's "THE 11TH BARON DUFFERIN AND CLANEBOYE OF BALLYLEIDY AND KILLYLEAGH , Co Down, and a Baronet" [15]. As for the writ summoning Lord Grey to Parliament, writs like that generally don't set out the title how letters patent set it out, and it's entirely possible the LG (or, indeed, Parliament) got it wrong, but that doesn't change the title. Proteus (Talk) 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        In summary.... the barony follows a different rationale from other comparable peerages. We have agreed that writ creations are mutable - the Willoughby examples show that the exact form of titles do change over time through custom and usage. We would expect this peerage to have done the same, given the existence of many other Grey peerages, but for some unexplained reason it hasn't. I think we'll just have to leave it there until someone comes up with a source weightier than Burke. The Committee of Privilege's ruling on the abeyance might be a good starting point. May I suggest that for now we change the wording of the article to something like this:

The Barony, though technically simply Grey as it was created by writ, is often termed "Grey of Codnor" or "Grey (of Codnor)" to distinguish it from the other Grey Baronies throughout history and from the extant Earldom of Grey; though it should be noted that the holder is ~~always~~ by convention styled simply as 'The Right Honourable Lord Grey. Flozu 08:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'll copy this string to the Grey of Codnor page in the hope that it may elicit some answers. 08:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Peerage-work-group tag

Please would you check that my latest answer to kingboyk's latest question User_talk:Kingboyk#Baronets_work_group is constructively comprehensive. I am unsure whether e.g. Lords of Parliament should be included. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Representative peers? LPA and AJA means what? - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please opine

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies#Sorting_order They are wholly inconsistent. - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]