User talk:Proteus/Archive 7

Right Honourable

hey, i've noticed you've been changing back edits i made to all the articles on british Prime Ministers listing the appropriate shortening of their title as "Rt Hon". If you'll check [1] and [2] you'll see plenty of others styling themselves this way.... Cheers, Thesocialistesq 07:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countess of Swinton

Hi Proteus, someone has moved this article and I'm not sure I agree with it. I definitely don't agree with the way he's written the titles in the opening line. Please could you have a look at it and advise? Many thanks, JRawle (Talk) 19:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you moved the page. Out of interest, could you explain how to decide the correct title in cases such as this? I think we need a policy on this somewhere. User:Craigy144 has mentioned other similar examples where wives of peers who are also life peers in their own right are listed under their life titles: see my talk page for links. JRawle (Talk) 21:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Earl of Snowdon is referred to as The Earl of Snowdon in Hansard and on the House of Lords website. [3] On the other hand, Susan, Countess of Swinton is referred to as Baroness Masham of Ilton there. [4] [5] A good example of this is in Hansard here: [6]

...the Disabled Living Foundation reports that a disturbing number of people do not know who to approach. The noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned the Audit Commission report, Fully Equipped, published last month.

I know the "of Ilton" is missing, but that's besides the point. The convention seems to be that peers are known by the highest title they hold, even if it doesn't entitle them to a seat in itself. Wives of peers, however, are known by the title they hold in their own right. (Other examples agree with this, such as Baroness Hogg – it'll be interesting to see if her husband is known as Viscount Hailsham, should he be granted a seat in the Lords when he retires from the commmons; similarly with the Marquess of Lothian).

So I'm coming round to the idea that the article should be at Susan Cunliffe-Lister, Baroness Masham of Ilton, as the page title should be the most commonly used name. However, the opening line of the article should definitely be, ...-Lister, Countess of Swinton irrespective of the page title. JRawle (Talk) 12:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Prince of Wales

Hi, could you help me on the question about Prince of Wales/Prince Regents title on Charles, Prince of Wales talk page?

Noel-Byron

I don't think this is correct - see my comments at Talk:George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron. --Calair 23:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the anon who changed it back to 'Noel Byron' while undoing vandalism is not me or, AFAIK, anybody associated with me. Not that I disagree with that edit, but if I were to change it I'd do so under my regular ID. --Calair 22:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Styles

To clarify, styles are omitted at the beginning and put in an infobox? I've been having some trouble in edit wars over Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and need confirmation. Thanks, Yanksta x 17:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Help

If you have a moment any chance you could look at Crimean War and tell me what I should have done re the copright violation. I tried to revert but it turns into an edit war I have reported it to cw violations but should i have added the Copyright pic that clears the whole article?Alci12 12:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's kinda the problem I don't know what I should have done or who to ask...the material that appears copyright is still up (shrugs)Alci12 17:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is needed

Can you have a look here ? User:Mackensen mentioned you as the resident expert on territorial qualifications. The issue is which is the best way to include the territorial qualification (Gilwell) in Robert Baden-Powell's entry. Thanks in advance. --Lou Crazy 03:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most Noble

I was looking at The_Most_Noble and wondering if it really should be merged with something else with a redirect to that as it's a bit weak on its own. Possibly Royal_and_noble_styles#Noble_Styles_in_Britain or Style_(manner_of_address)#In_the_United_Kingdom or even Forms_of_Address_in_the_United_Kingdom#Peers_and_Peeresses As you created the most noble article I thought I'd ask you out of courtesy if you think it might be best moved or merged.

However, and this is where it gets messy, I'm growing increasing convinced that the entry is not right or at least not right in all time frames or perhaps even that it needs acknowledgement that the styles vary a great deal. We say that a Duke is Most High, Potent, and Noble Prince. If you look at [[7]] there is certainly slightly more leeway with differing versions. It seems C13-C15 almost anything went. Now [[8]] ought to be correct as its the central chancery of the orders of knighthood but I can still find variances. For instance the Duke of Wellington at his funeral was called by Garter "Most High, Mighty, and Most Noble Prince. This is halfway between the style of a Duke (The Most High, Potent and Noble Prince) and a Uk Prince (The Most High, Most Mighty and Illustrious Prince). Now this could I suppose be a deliberate decision as the Duke was a Prince in the Netherlands. However either way it seems wiki is either inaccurate or insufficiently clear. I'm not certain what the right answer is but I think we do need to try to decide on what it is! - Sorry for a long message!Alci12 12:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Fox Maule-Ramsay, 11th Earl of Dalhousie

Hi,

I'm removing links to stand-alone years in the article again. The linking of days and years is what allows the dates to change, not the linking of years alone. (See Wikipedia: Manual of Style (links)#Internal links.) Also, we should only link words readers would actually need to have defined. Right now, there's a link to "British Army," but the term does not need to be defined as it's clear that it's the British Army. Too many links cause the links that people might actually click on to go un-noticed.

Best,

Primetime 21:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand it makes people unhappy to find out that they're wrong, but no need to shoot the messenger. I thought that I was doing you a favor by saving your time. I also didn't want to have to keep on reverting your changes indefinitely. So, I didn't want to offend you as I really am just spreading the word about the link thing. (It kind of pisses me off.) Thanks, Primetime 02:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Hervey

Why did you move Nicholas Hervey when an earlier proposal for the move was defeated in Talk:Nicholas Hervey? Homey 02:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Aubigny

Care to explain away your vandalism? The title is well featured on the coat of arms and is on record as at least, an honourific title. We have articles relating to the Jacobite peerage (e.g. Duke of Mar), but they do not face this sort of hostility you have just shown. We have several pages about pretenders, including those throughout Europe. De facto/jure status doesn't matter. IP Address 09:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you know, all one needs to do is make a note about the efficacy concerning the title. This is done with all other similar articles. You get what you give; don't complain. IP Address 09:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we agree, don't go on a revert spree. If you truly cared so much, you would be so bold as to make such adjustments. IP Address 09:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the matter? You aren't editing, so are you discussing this in private and behind my back? You know how well that helps avoid editorial conflict... IP Address 10:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a problem. Just next time, please contact me on my talk page and/or the discussion page. I am more than willing to be reasonable. I hope your day goes swell. IP Address 10:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned this before Proteus, I can't see why any of these fictitious jacobite titles needs anything but a single line comment on the appropriate page. Giving lines of descent gives this nonsense a credibility it doesn't deserve.Alci12 12:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying they are legitimate; they are there for style. IP Address 12:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Style? How does a line of decent for a title that doesn't exist do anything other than give succor to those who wish to believe they are extant and confuse general readers looking for fact. It seems a perfectly valid exercise, in case people are looking for the 'jacobite peerage' to have a link to set the record straight and also a link to specific 'titles' they might look for. Lines of descent is another matter. I can't see we need or ought to do anything more than a say if the title existed it would follow that of the (give link) Earl of Mar for example. There are an ever growing number of false titles about and I fear greatly that wiki will become vulnerable to entries for such titles and few editors will have sufficiently obscure knowledge to sift the wheat from the chaff. I feel we must draw a line in the sand somewhere and hold it.Alci12 13:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casey

Why is a Baron a Lord but a Viscount a Viscount? Adam 00:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. The more I learn about this endless maze of artistocratic titling conventions, the higher my opinion of Robespierre. Anyway, if that is the case, you'll have to go through all the Governor-General of Australia articles, because a number of them have the same error. Adam 10:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-nominal letter order

According to the Department of Constitutional Affairs' style guide, PC is in between the Order of the Thistle and the GCB.

http://www.dca.gov.uk/dept/titles.htm

--Ibagli 15:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of Prince of Wales

I was planning to revert back to the last version by Grouse, that's when the non-NPOV edits began. Please see the talk page, and please let me know your thoughts. It appears User:Cardiff and a number of anon users are making systematic non-NPOV edits to a number of important articles on Wales.

Thank you! Econrad 20:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titles

Hi Proteus, I know you're the authority on these matters so I hope you don't mind a few questions!

A hereditary title can go to any son - right? So if say, The Duke of London & Islington (made up title as an example!) was newly created with Letters patent for the Dukedom of London to go to the eldest son and the second dukedom of Islington to go to the second son... the 1st duke's duchess is The Duchess of London and Islington, right? So if the Duke of London & Islington dies and his sons become The Duke of London & The Duke of Islington respectively, and their wives become the Duchess of London and The Duchess of Islington respectively, DOES the wife of the 1st Duke stay "The Duchess of London & Islington" or become The Dowager Duchess of London & Islington, or e.g. Sarah, Duchess of London & Islington?

If the situation were to happen as above, except the dukedom were to go to the second and third sons, does this mean the eldest son does not get a courtesy earldom as he would if he were the heir?

When a Duke is listed in Burke's peerage, he has all his titles listed, right? E.g. Duke of Devonshire, Marquess of Hartington, Earl of Burlington, Baron Cavendish..... so what are the Duke's heirs known by if their courtesy titles are taken?

Is The Duchess of Cornwall also "The Princess Charles"? and is the countess of Wessex "The Princess Edward"? If so, why are they never referred to as such? Does this make them actual princesses? Surely a princess outranks other peerages?

Why is Prince Charles not known as "Earl of Merioneth" in his titles as the Duke of Edinburgh's son? Similarly, why is Prince William not Lord Greenwich?

Is it possible to have two different forms of the same designation in a title? E.g. Can there be a Duke of Shrewsbury at the same time as there being an Earl of Shrewsbury?

Do the children of a younger son of a duke have a courtesy title? E.g. if Lord Charles so-an-so has children, do they get "The Honourable" prefx?

Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, was not in a position to be styled "Princess Alice" since she was not born royal. Why was she styled as such and was she in any way a princess by marriage or creation?

Why does Prince Charles never use his earldoms or his barony? Or the Princedom of Scotland? (surely that's higher than the dukedom of Rothesay?)

Why did Queen Mary not have a state crown made for her at the Delhi Durbar like George V?

Why is the Earl of March, Darnley & Kinrara often only referred to as "The Earl of March and Kinrara"?

If the heir of a peer holds a courtesy title of say, earl, to say he's not a peer means he's actually not an earl?

If the Queen cannot hold a peerage being the fount of honour, why is she referred to as The Duke of Lancaster? Similarly, isn't she by law Duchess of Edinburgh?

Was The Duchess of Windsor, while not being an HRH, not a Princess? if her husband was The Prince Edward, surely she was "Her Grace The Princess Edward, Duchess of Windsor"?

Say the Duke of Bedford has an heir, the Marquess of Tavistock. Lord Tavistock has an heir, Lord Howland. Lord Howland has an heir... what is he called? The Duke has more than one barony to be used as a courtesy title - does Lord Howland's son just take another barony to become, say, Baron Russell, or does he go a rank below his father and become The Hon. Mr so-and-so?

Sorry there are so many questions here ... it would be great if you could help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.88.188.14 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Source

Where are you getting your confirmation btw - I checked the usual online resources thepeerage + williamC decendants listing + googlegroups. Obviously it's no good if we both used the same :)Alci12 10:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well Patrick Cracroft-Brennan will be pleased :) No that's good I just didn't want us assuming we were confirming each other when we weren't :) Alci12 10:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does Cracrofts have anything on Fuedal barons as I'm somewhat uncomfortable about Forms_of_Address_in_the_United_Kingdom I've never seen an offical modern document ie governmental or royal using those forms of address. What I have seen is the various feudal baron associations, which are full of a lot of ppl who had large cheque books, pushing the much hon style for all it's worth. I'm dubious that we appear to be endorsing something that's of shaky foundationAlci12 11:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Canadian Royal Family"

Any opinions on whether there exists such a thing as a Canadian Royal Family? See Talk:Court Circular Astrotrain 15:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of St John etc

Just editing Patricia_Knatchbull,_2nd_Countess_Mountbatten_of_Burma and she has an entry for DstJ. (the CI is hopefully right I coudn't confirm its order) Now I've always understood it that using Order of St John p-noms outside of order communications was the faux pas akin to speaking the Hon. They just not used and I think perhaps we should remove them but no doubt they exist in other places. Do you think I should raise this at talk_peerage, the talk_MOS might be better but nothing ever seems to get decided there and they seem to struggle with peerage related meterial at the best of times.Alci12 14:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Byron

You edited a paragraph on the names of Anne Isabella Byron, 11th Baroness Wentworth, which was derived from the Complete Peerage. Annabella is a nickname. If we are going to use a common name, Lady Byron would be the most common, and the primary use of that name. Septentrionalis 23:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I have read both. I have also read Wikipedia:naming conventions (names and titles), and discussed it at some length; I am endeavouring to follow them, as best my light and sources permit.

These, however, are guidelines and a project page. None of them grant a privilege against treating a fellow editor with common courtesy, as far as I can see.

WP:RFCU

You may be interested to know that User:Arniep filed a Checkuser request against you, suspecting that Le baron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is your sockpuppet. He's made this allegation elsewhere, as well. Mackensen (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he simply recalled you as one who opposed the removal of honorifics. I reacted as badly as I did because of the implied slur on your honour. I didn't believe it at all, and I don't think anyone else does either. Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look Proteus, I am really sorry and I apologize for upsetting you. What made me think it was you was that Le baron edited Jamie Lee Curtis which we had recently been involved in, and I then started to "see" similarities in your edits that on reflection were really quite weak. It is quite obvious that you are not Le baron from your post on Mackensen's talkpage. I sincerely apologize for coming to the wrong conclusion. Arniep 20:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 10:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name sorting

Hello,

Regarding your latest edits.

The Wiki MoS sort order lists name sorting in this way.

Michael David 21:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't what? Michael David 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

Please direct me to the Section of the MoS, which instructs me to alphabetize a person by their title rather than by their last proper name. Until you can I will proceed as I have.

Michael David 22:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for butting into your discussion. I've left the following reference on Michael's talk page: Wikipedia:Categorization#Category sorting. Thanks, Ian Cairns 03:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

I went, as was suggested by another, to the section of the MoS regarding the sorting of names in Categories. The paragraph regarding the British Peerage was added by User:Docu just 14 days ago, and apparently without discussion.

I went to the MoS page and found this at the top: “The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here. Wikipedia articles should heed these rules. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.” I found no such discussion regarding this change. There is a problem here.

Regards,

Michael David 11:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on dealing with this issue in such an autocratic manner - there is still most certainly a problem! It is time to include some others in this discussion. Michael David 13:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldry Portal?

Hey. I've proposed the creation of an heraldic portal. If you think that such a thing would be helpful, you can voice your support HERE and hopefully we can get the heraldry category items organized better.--E va ^db 13:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honorific prefixes for children of an heir apparent?

If an earl's first son is Viscount So-and-so, are his children The Honourable even though he's only a courtesy peer, so that they have those titles even if their father predeceses his father? I'm thinking specifically of Maurice Macmillan, and I guess it's correct as you've edited the page before. I just wanted to check. JRawle (Talk) 13:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johns Balliol

Could you kindly explain why you (apparently repeatedly) return the 5th feudal lord to the very ambiguate location "John de Balliol". If John de Balliol is mentioned, at least I firstly think it's his son, the king. Therefore I believe it should be at least a dab page, and that the 5th lord need a disambiguate location, for which reason I now moved him to John, 5th feudal lord Balliol. A disambiguate location obviously benefits from that "5th" since that ordinal is a natural and scholarly used infopiece which makes him disambiguate from any other Balliol. If it's not too much a bother to you, I request you no longer try to put him into any ambiguate location. Waimea 08:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's better to have an article at an ambiguous name than an incorrect one. He wasn't a peer, and feudal lords don't have numbers. Any ambiguity is cleared up with a disambiguation notice, like the one I've just put in, not by moving articles to incorrect titles. Proteus (Talk) 08:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that in literature, he is often referred as "5th lord". How would that be an incorrect name here? Waimea 14:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it implies he held some form of title, which he didn't. He merely had a form of feudal tenure. (And people are referred to as all sorts of things in literature, whereas we don't use titles unless they're correct.) Proteus (Talk) 16:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]