User talk:Proteus/Archive 15

Lady Diana Cooper

I'm puzzled [1] and you are the expert. Giano (talk) 09:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviating "The Right Honourable"

I think we should solve this conclusively. A number of times, I've changed articles that used the abbreviation "Rt Hon." to either "Rt Hon" or "Rt. Hon." only to see them very promptly reverted by you. You've explained a few times that, in British usage, a full stop is used after a proper abbreviation, like "St." for "stumped" in Cricket, but no full stop is used after contractions, like "St" for "Saint". I accept the sense and truth of this fully. However, I believe the abbreviation of "Right Honourable" is an exception to the rule. I haven't been able to find a single Peer or Privy Counsellor in the United Kingdom or elsewhere who uses "The Rt Hon." in self-description. It seems that, as a rule, more recent or left-wing documents and people, like the Prime Minister use "The Rt Hon" and older or more conservative documents and people like The Winston Churchill Society of British Columbia use "The Rt. Hon.". There are more examples of these usages by media organisations and public figures at the homepage of the Cabinet, the Shadow Cabinet, Charles Kennedy, on a biographical feature by the BBC, on a historical piece by the BBC, on an awards page by the Guardian newspaper, in a transcript on a government webpage, and in an open letter sent out by the Medact charity. These are only a few, of course. Unless you have some very concrete, authoritative source indicating directly that these usages are categorically wrong and that "Rt Hon." is the only correct way to abbreviate "Right Honourable", I suggest we change the relevant pages over to conform with the two widely-accepted styles and leave them that way. Thank you, -- The_socialist ^talk? 20:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Lord Amelius Beauclerk - illegitimate offspring

Dear Proteus
User:Craigy144 pointed me in your direction, and suggested that I ask you whether you can confirm the existance of an illegimate son of Lord Amelius Beauclerk (23 May 1771 – 10 December 1846). This, as well as ThePeerage.com, show him to be Charles Frederick Augustus de Vere Beauclerk, but this isn't my field, I would really welcome an expert opinion, and I understand you have access to Burke's. Thanks in advance
Shem (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Post-nominal Bt. not for peers?

Dear Proteus,

A while ago you made the revision 0:04, 27 January 2006 on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage. You wrote as Note 2 in the section "Pages on peers" the following: the post-nominal abbreviation "Bt" for "Baronet" should not be used with peers. This note still exists. Can you expain to me why this is, and show me some official sources on which this is based? I can not find any source on the internet at all which explains this situation.

Thanks and with high regards, Demophon (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things

One thing I just noticed is the discussion about 'Rt Hon.' vs 'Rt. Hon.' or 'Rt Hon'. You are correct. 'Rt Hon.' is, I believe, the correct British abbreviation, though some people would say that it looks more elegant to omit the full point after 'Hon' as well. This is increasingly the practice followed today. But 'Rt' certainly does not need the full point.

I don't quite understand why Lady Helen Taylor's children can't have their own places in the British royal succession boxes. It would be more obviously understandable to the casual viewer. It just looks rather strange as it is. She seems to be succeeded by Lord Freddie Windsor and then one realises that in fact Freddie succeeds all her children. Can it really not be dealt with in the more obvious way? Otherwise why not have "The Prince of Wales, Prince William of Wales, and Prince Henry of Wales" suceeded by "The Duke of York"?

Also, I am a bit bemused by the "Lady Helen Melons" comment. There are a few reference to this on the internet. I suppose it looks like she has, on the odd occasion, been called that, but I suspect it has more to do with the fact that "Helen" and "Melon" go together quite conveniently. Currently there is a euphemistic explanation that she was so named because she had melon-sized breasts, which she clearly doesn't. By some stretch of the imagination it may be one of those nicknames that somebody earns because they are quite the opposite of what it suggests. But more likely is that some people never quite get over the discovery that women have breasts, and think they are the most fascinating thing to remark upon. Bettany Hughes has expressed annoyance at the fact that her breasts even make their way into reviews of her television documentaries. So surely this was just schoolgirl teasing and/or something picked up on by the lower sort of journalist. It could certainly do with some citations, contextualization, and maybe even comment (while avoiding "original research" of course). Likewise, 'wild child of the Windsor's', which on the internet at least, which is of course not everything, comes up with Wikipedia, a mirror of the article, and something from the Standard.

The succession box is the more important issue, but the melons one rankled.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As for the Melons comment, I didn't mean that I thought you were responsible for placing it on the article, as you seem to think I was suggesting. I just thought I would draw it to your attention as you seemed to have taken an interest in the page. Looking at your contributions it seems that many of your contributions to Wikipedia have been to articles on the aristocracy, the monarchy, the constitution of the United Kingdom, and so on. Similarly, people have asked me for advice on articles to do with the Church of England or the University of Oxford. I thought you might take an interest.

As for the succession box, I do now see the problem: that it is not possible to scroll through the entire succession if some people in the line of succession don't have articles of their own. I wonder if something like this would be easier to understand:

--Oxonian2006 (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Hi Proteus. I've proposed a merger of projects here if you'd like to comment. Thanks, Craigy (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense?

I take great offence to my comment being labeled as nonsense. Way to be civil.

Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Writ of acceleration question

Hi Proteus, with reference to the 7th Marquess of Salisbury, what is the correct style for a peer who has received a writ of acceleration? Hopefully I'm right in thinking courtesy peers don't receive the style "Rt Hon.". How about Lord Cranborne after the writ of acceleration? Was he Rt Hon. by virtue of being Baron Cecil? And in that case, should he be "The Rt Hon. [the] Viscount Cranborne" with or without "the"? It's a little pedantic maybe, but as the titles section is in the article, it may as well be right! Many thanks, JRawle (Talk) 13:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Precedence.

Stop being rude. I did read the talk page, and apart from your assertion that Burke's is dodgy, there's actually no citation supporting your version. So, again.. please provide an actual citation for your version. Until then, the other verions--which is verifiable--should stand. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 14:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"anonymous user"? Please re-read WP:Civil. Thanks. And if you want to make your changes, then cite them on the article, as you well know. Indeed, the warrant you are citing doesn't cover the general circumstance; it covers the very specific circumstance of Fife's children. Stop being so antagonistic. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 14:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Your point? If you want the article to be written the way you want it to be written, you know full well that you need citations that support your case. One LP about a specific situation doesn't, especially when Burke's is widely regarded as being authoritative on such matters. The article stands until you can provide citations which prove that the order of precedence as it is today is how you say it is. Assertions such as "Burke's is dodgy" and "Burke's is stupid" don't really count as cites. You know that as well as I do. End of discussion. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 14:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For the third? Fourth? time: WP:Civil would be of great use to you. So.. Burke's says one thing, Debrett's says another. Both will have to be incorporated into the article, unless it can be proven through another source that one or the other is definitive. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ian Kennedy (lawyer)

Hi Proteus, bowing to knowledge on the naming of the Darzi article. Can you advise on another point? Thanks. Millstream3 (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Lord Darzi of Denham discussion removed

I've left Millstream3 a note about removing messages from others' talk pages. I'll leave it up to you whether you want to restore the discussion! JRawle (Talk) 20:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A question

Do you know why kings on European continent can bear domestic titles, but British monarch can't ?

For example, Queen of Netherlands is also Baroness of Breda(barony lies within Netherlands), but Queen of UK can't bear any substantive title ?

See link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_peer

Siyac (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.208.234.180 (talk)

Non-HRH on the Table of Precedence

Hi Proteus, I haven't been editing for a long time now, but I recently noticed that non-HRH royal relatives have been added back on the table of precedence by user princeofcanada, ie. Peter and Zara Phillips, Lord Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto. I thought that the agreement a few years ago was that they should not be on the table of precedence. I still support this position. Has this position changed? Please advise, thank you. Eddo 15:28, 06 October 2008 (UTC)

Susan Greenfield and Haleh Afshar

To me there is an obvious solecism on these pages which I thought you might like to correct. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston#Article move

I thought you might appreciate being notified of this article move, which is explained at the above talk page. Opera hat (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request

A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Pov

Hi I wanted to discuss with u the anal sex page as I believe it is very Pov and Bias. I want to edit so many things on this page.I see u don't support this page nobody should.Do u agree with me on this? Conductcode (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Heiresses apparent

Hello, Proteus! I have a question and I think I've came to the right place, as you're rumoured to be an expert on peerage :) I'd like to know more about female heirs apparent to lordships, baronies, and earldoms. Let's say that a certain woman is the only child of a man who is the eldest son of a peer. In theory, if her father dies before her grandparent, then she could not be displaced in the order of succession by any possible birth, which would make her heir apparent. I would like to know if something like that actually happened. I've came across the example of Georgiana Maxwell, 27th Baroness de Ros, who was the eldest daughter of the eldest son of the 26th Baroness de Ros. Then I remebered that she was never heiress apparent because she had sisters. So, it's possible for a woman to be heiress apparent even when the succession law prefers males, but could you think of any examples that would confirm this theory? Surtsicna (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I've just found an example: Frances Ward, 6th Baroness Dudley, the only daughter of the eldest son of Edward Sutton, 5th Baron Dudley. However, Frances Ward, 6th Baroness Dudley redirects to the article about her husband and there is little I can find out about her. Surtsicna (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sir_David_Robert_Gilmour,_4th_Baronet

How is he correctly styled? He is not listed on [2]. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)