Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

A couple of issues

First of all, this page is 68 KB :). But that's a relative non-issue. First of all, I already asked Lord Emsworth, but what do I do with long titles? Eg. John Smith, 5th Duke of London, 4th Marquess of London, 4th Marquess Smith, 3rd Earl of London, 4th Earl of Cambridge, 2nd Earl Grey of Oxford, 5th Viscount Camden of London, 18th Viscount of London, 10th Baron London of London, 11th Baron Smith of Oxford, Knight of the Order of the Garter, Privy Councillor? What I've been doing is condensing into the following: Sir John Smith, 5th Duke of London at the beginning of the article, as Emsworth suggested, then putting that long verbose title somewhere in the middle of the page, like what was done at Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, but now I'm not so sure...

Also, what are the standards for position navboxes:

Preceded by:
The Earl of Wiltshire 		Lord Steward
1551-1553 		Followed by:
The Earl of Arundel

Specifically, what positions warrant a navbox? Right now, I've been doing the obvious (Secretaries of State, Great Officers of State, etc.), but do other positions (Lord Steward, Lord Chamberlain, etc.) warrant a box too? I r teh conf|_|$3d... although I have learned much about peerages writing articles about obscure people with long names :) ugen64 01:23, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I don't believe that it is correct to use "Sir" with peers. As to the positional navigation boxes, it was decided somewhere else (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Government) that the following officials warrant them:

  • Prime Ministers
  • Governors-General/ Viceroys/ Lord Lieutenants of Ireland
  • Chancellors of the Exchequer and of the Duchy of Lancaster
  • Secretaries of State
  • Great Officers of State (incl. Great Officers of Ireland)
  • Postmasters-General
  • Paymasters of the Forces
  • Secretaries at War
  • Attorneys-General
  • Masters-General of Ordnance
  • Commanders-in-Chief of the Forces and Captains-General
  • Chief Secretaries of Ireland
  • Masters of the Mint
  • Treasurers of the Navy
  • Presidents of the Poor Law Board, the Board of Trade, the Local Government Board, the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Education
  • First Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and First Commissioners of Works
  • Leaders of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons
  • Leaders of the main parties
  • Ministers of Health and other important ministers
  • Important judges (Lords Chief Justices, Masters of the Rolls)
  • First Ministers of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland
  • And finally, to answer what you asked: officers of the Royal Household (including Lord Chamberlains, Lord Stewards)

-- Emsworth 02:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I used the Sir mainly to indicate his knighthood, although I suppose The Rt. Hon. would have been more informative in this case... and thanks for that long and informative list of people in the British government :) ugen64 16:15, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Naming Convention for Law Life Peers

I know the convention is for hereditary peers to be given in the form Arthur Brian Culpeper, 4th Duke of Plaza Toro, and that life peers under the Life Peerages Act 1958 are just given their name. What about life peers under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876? I've just compiled a list of them, and there isn't general consistency. Dbiv 11:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, given that they are normally most famous for being Law Lords, I suppose Alfred Denning, Baron Denning would be most apt.
James F. (talk) 12:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
P.S.: Obviously the normal rules about most-commonly-known name still hold for at least the non-titular part (i.e., "James Brian Edward Hutton, Baron Hutton" would be "Brian Hutton, Baron Hutton", as it currently the case.
James F. (talk) 12:06, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Life peers under the 1958 Act are now John Smith, Baron Smith of London anyway (unless they are never known by their peerage, like Harold Wilson or Paddy Ashdown). Proteus (Talk) 12:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Categorizing Peers

Some odd things happen, the way we are categorizing peers right now. For example, at Category:Lord High Admirals, the Dukes of Exeter are listed backwards, because their first names happen to be ordered reversely. The way we have it, John Smith, 1st Baron Smith of London would be Category:Blah|Smith of London, John Smith, 1st Baron; something like Smith of London, 1st Baron, John Smith would work. It would be, unfortunately, a LOT of work if we adopted a new categorization scheme this late in the game... :-\ ugen64 23:06, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I believe it is standard bibliographic practice to use "Title, Forename Surname, xth Rank." The point is that after the title, the first name—not the ordinal—is the important component. -- Emsworth 23:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I think this is right. But I have another point, based on the name of this section. Should we divide the peers category into multiple categories? We could either do it by peerage (Category:Peers of England, Category:Peers of Scotland), by rank (Category:Dukes, Category:Earls), or by both (Category:Dukes of England, Category:Earls of Great Britain)...presumably, peers would be categorized by their highest title, rather than under all titles they held. john k 23:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How would you categorise individuals such as the Dukes of Richmond? -- Emsworth 23:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, if we just have Category:Dukes, I suppose they could go there. If we had it split up by peerage, presumably they'd go in all the places where this is appropriate...on the other hand, we might just put them with their highest rank. Thus, since the Duke of Richmond ranks as a Duke of England, he'd be categorized as such, even though he is also a Duke of Scotland and a Duke of the United Kingdom. john k 23:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been wondering about that for awhile. Category:Great Officers of State was just split, and it would probably be prudent to do the same for Category:Peers.

We could try: Category:Dukes, Category:Marquesses, Category:Earls, Category:Viscounts, Category:Barons, Category:Lords of Parliament, Category:Life Barons (or Life Peers), Category:Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. For good measure, we could add Category:British Princes or Category:Peers of the Blood Royal or some similar category. (Question: how should we deal with suo jure peeresses? The categories proposed do not seem gender-neutral, but Category:Barons and Baronesses and the like seem rather awkward. At the same time, Category:Baronesses would encourage the inclusion of peeresses by marriage. Suo_jure_Baronesses (ctrl-click)">Category:''Suo jure'' Baronesses would accomplish the desired aim, but would be unrecognisable by some.) -- Emsworth 00:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's Category:Peers, not Category:Peers and Peeresses. Honestly, I don't thinkt here's a feasible way to get around the gender problem, without awkwardizing the whole thing. Even if the first Earl of Mornington had been a Countess of Mornington, we'd still put the article there. I think we have to, unfortunately, go with simply "Duke", "Marquess", etc. ugen64 04:00, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

While Category:Marquesses and Category:Earls probably work fine, Category:Dukes, Category:Viscounts (to an extent), and Category:Barons seem ambiguous - Should a Duke of Brunswick or a Duke of Orleans be listed in Category:Dukes, for instance? john k 05:38, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. We could split it into Category:Peerage Dukes, Category:Peerage Marquesses, Category:Peerage Earls, and so on, but that's not a little ugly. I think using the male versions of the terms is fine, personally.
James F. (talk) 14:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think I like Category:Peers of England etc., with each peer going in every Peerage he is in (so someone like the Duke of Richmond and Gordon would be in England, Scotland and the UK), which would also provide an easy way of seeing whether an Irish or Scottish peer had a seat in the British House of Lords. Proteus (Talk) 17:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggest we have, in addition to any other categories as may have been agreed upon, two separate categories for "Life Peers" and "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary" (or "Law Lords"); the rank is always baronial and the Peerage always of the United Kingdom. (I would suggest that life peers not created under the Life Peerages Act or Appellate Jurisdiction Act—eg. William Douglas, Duke of Hamilton—be categorised with hereditary peers.) -- Emsworth 19:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So:

... yes?
James F. (talk) 19:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Would it be better if one uses, "Category:Dukes in the Peerage of Ireland," &c.? Category:Dukes of Ireland might lead to confusion with the Duke of Ireland. (On the other hand, there has only been one person to hold the Dukedom of Ireland—and he was later attainted. So this problem may be quite trivial.) -- Emsworth 20:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like James's suggestion, although I think that Category:Dukes of the United Kingdom Should be both in Category:Peers of the United Kingdom and Category:Dukes, or some such. I don't think the Duke of Ireland issue isn't particularly important (the Dukedom of Ireland was in the Peerage of England, though, right? So the Duke of Ireland was a Duke of England...). I also agree with Emsworth that Life Peers and Lords of Appeal in Ordinary should be their own categories, but I think these should be subcategories of Peers of the UK. I think Dukes of the Blood Royal should be used in addition to whatever the actual peerage category of said individual is. I would also suggest that for someone with titles in various peerages, we should put them in categories for a) their highest peerage; b) their highest peerage in the Peerage of England, Great Britain, or the UK, if different. That is to say, if someone is a Viscount in the Peerage of England and a Marquess in the Peerage of Great Britain (as, for instance, the Marquess of Bath), we should just put them in Category:Marquesses of Great Britain, rather than both that and Category:Viscounts of England...I could be persuaded that, say, the Marquess of Ailsa should also be in Category:Earls of Scotland as well as Category:Marquesses of the United Kingdom, but I'm not really sure about this. john k 23:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm worried that there will be too many categories on some pages (esp. royal peers). To take an extreme example, HRH The Prince of Wales would be: a Duke of the Blood Royal, a Duke of England, a Duke of Scotland, and a UK Prince (if the Principality of Wales is considered a peerage dignity). -- Emsworth 00:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, tons of people have that many categories...I also don't think "UK Princes" is a worthwhile category - although Category:Princes of Wales would likely be worthwhile... john k 02:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd be fine with it either way. Category:Peers has 939 articles at the moment, which is admittedly large, but would these smaller categories be useful for people accessing the encyclopedia (granted, that might be a dangerous question in our line of work)? Also, like John, I'm worried about crowding and confusion. A modern Duke of Hamilton is going to fit numerous cats, and for older ones we have to worry about when titles were created/inherited/attainted ad nauseum. This will be a lot of work. Mackensen 03:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, just making sure I've got everything correct. Earl of Oxford would belong to Category:Earls of England and Category:Earls of the United Kingdom, and Herbert Henry Asquith would now be a member of Category:Earls of the United Kingdom as well. Also, would Lords of Appeal in Ordinary be put in Category:Life Peers (or not, because the only reason they're a life peer is because of the Appelate Jurisdiction Act or whatever)? Additionally, we are putting people in the highest peerage they possess, if I am correct; someone who holds an Earldom in the Peerage of Scotland and a Viscountcy in the Peerage of Great Britain would go in Category:Earls of Scotland and Category:Viscounts of Great Britain, correct? Just clarifying some points... ugen64 02:56, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think that titles, like Earl of Oxford, would not go into these categories - only individual peers, not peerage titles, would go there. As to the rest, I'm not completely sure - it's so complicated. john k 03:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ugen, the category "Life Peers" was meant (at least by me) to include those life peers created under the Life Peerages Act 1958. I would imagine that Law Lords (created under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876) could go in only "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary," and not in "Life Peers."

I believe that, for peers with dignities in multiple peerages, only the highest rank overall could be listed. Thus, the Earl of Shrewsbury would be an English Earl, GB Earl and Irish Earl. But, for instance, the Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair would just be a Scottish Marquess, not also a UK Earl. -- Emsworth 10:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lists of life peers

I see that we now have three separate lists of life peers: List of Life Peerages, List of life baronies, and List of life peers. Each list has varying amounts of information. It seems to me that we ought to consolidate these three lists and come to agreement has to how much information such a list requires. There's little use in a separate status column; except in extremely rare cases the peerage is either extant or extinct. Notes is sufficient for hereditary peers who've gained life peerages or the rare cases where a life peerage is stripped (has that even happened yet, I know Archer kept his)?Since we're really listing people, not titles, I'd prefer a list like so: Mackensen 03:32, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Peer Date of Creation Date of Death Notes
Edward Shackleton, Baron Shackleton 1958 1994  

Update: I've finally noticed List of Law Life Peerages. We now have four lists with much the same information. I'm re-opening the floor for discussion on how to merge all these lists into one. I'd prefer the format above, with day and month eliminated for purposes of brevity and clarity. As for the permanent location of the list, I think List of life baronies would be the most accurate. Mackensen 06:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think Law Lords should be listed separately, as they have been created under the Appellate Jurisdictions Act of 1876, while other life peers were created under the Life Peerages Act of 1958. john k 15:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But I think they could still be listed on the same page, like we do on List of life baronies. Otherwise, I suppose we could keep list of life baronies (although perhaps with the refactoring I suggested), and List of Law Life Peerages. Mackensen 16:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we should keep List of Life Peerages and List of Law Life Peerages and create links to everyone in the "Name" column. (I think LPs are sufficiently commonly created to make exact dates and times of creation useful, and the territorial designations are sometimes useful as well.) Proteus (Talk) 17:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can live with that; could we at least merge either name and title or title and territorial designation? Mackensen 17:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We could merge title and ter. desig., I suppose, as long as we put the latter in italics to make it quite clear that it's not part of the title. (I think merging name and title would present problems with life peerages given to hereditary peers.) Proteus (Talk) 19:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"The" in courtesy titles

To quote from Valentine Heywood's British Titles - The Use and Misuse of the Titles of Peers and Commoners, with Some Historical Notes (published 1951), reproduced in part in Cracroft's Peerage:

The College of Arms, representing the Earl Marshal, I understand, holds that these prefixes [i.e. "The"], whether in full formal style or consisting of the definite article, should be applied only to actual peers and peeresses. But various Lord Chamberlains, when consulted on this point, have ruled that their use is in order not only for the eldest sons of peers who bear courtesy peerage titles, but also for all children or grandchildren of peers entitled to prefix the courtesy style of Lord or Lady to their names. This rule is followed by the Court Circular, an official publication, which you will find referring to "the Lady Herbert" (wife of a peer's eldest son) as being in attendance on the Duchess of Kent, and to "the Lady Constance Milnes-Gaskell" as attending Queen Mary.
But the Earl Marshal - who, it is claimed, is the higher authority in questions of dignity - holds otherwise, vide the Coronation ceremonial issued by him, in which "the" is omitted for all courtesy titles. The Court Circular, it is argued, may be an official publication but it is not the official publication, because those who compile it are not the ultimate authority. "The", maintains the College of Arms, indicates the person who holds the titles, just as you say "The Lord Mayor" or "The Bishop of Norwich". The person who holds the title is the peer, not his son who is only so styled by courtesy.

I'm rather inclined to side with the Court Circular and the Lord Chamberlain of the Household in this matter, but my point is that at the moment we are half way between the two viewpoints, giving "The" to "Lord Firstname"s and "Lady Firstname"s but not to courtesy peers, which strikes me as rather inconsistent. (It also produces some odd-looking results, like "Succeeded by: Marquess of Lorne", which to any but someone familiar with the Peerage would look like a mistake.) I thought that the situation might have changed over the past few decades, but a few months ago the now Lord Lothian was referred to in the Court Circular as "the Earl of Ancram MP", so the present Lord Chamberlain seems to hold the same viewpoint as his predecessors have done for a long time. (The College of Arms's justification seems a little odd, as well, since they seem to have no objection to the definite article prefixed to "Honourable", which is just as much a courtesy title as "Lord Firstname".) I'd quite like for us to change our policy in this matter to include the definite article for everyone, and I'd be interested to hear what everyone else's views on the subject are. Proteus (Talk) 00:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From the more recent Burke's Peerage & Gentry:

The practice has revived in recent years of adding a 'The' to 'Lady' when referring to her in the third person (also to 'Lord' where he is a duke's or marquess's younger son). It emanates from Court Circles but is deprecated by some members of the College of Arms. This is on the understandable grounds that it not only encroaches on the definite article which more properly pertains to a full peer but also implicitly places in an inferior position not just the eldest son and heir of an earl, marquess or duke since he has no 'The' to his courtesy title but a Prince or Princess who is not a child of the sovereign since they too are not accorded a 'The'. But the practice may well commend itself inasmuch as it presumbly has the sanction of the Crown.

Thus, we do not seem to be the only persons who use this seemingly inconsistent rule on the definite article. On the other hand, from [1]:

Our second reservation is in the style advocated for some courtesy titles ~ the use of the definite article as in "The Lady Hermione Basketcase" instead of "Lady Hermione Basketcase". Apparently the Lord Chamberlain's office persists in the former usage, while the College of Arms does not, but there is no authority for the use of such a prefix and it is a pity that the New Burke's Peerage will appear to many to give such authority.

Sadly, there is no consensus on whether "the" should be used only for younger children, or for both eldest sons and other children, or for neither. -- Emsworth 00:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fake and Fictional peerages

We have Screaming Lord Sutch not Screaming Lord Sutch, 3rd Earl of Harrow which is what David Sutch legally changed his name to. However in this case he's best known without the Harrow bit, regardless of what right he has to it but there may be less well known individuals who cause problems.

And amongst fictional peers we have Lord Emsworth (not to be confused with the user by the same name), not Clarence Threepwood, 9th Earl of Emsworth. What standards should we adopt for handling articles about such characters? Timrollpickering 15:21, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I dispute that David Edward Sutch legally changed his name to "Screaming Lord Sutch, 3rd Earl of Harrow". No such name change was ever notified to the London Gazette, and if it was ever made privately by deed poll then that is beside the point as he did not use it on any official document. Unfortunately English law allows a person to use any name they want, so long as it is not for the purposes of fraud. Sutch always contested byelections using the names "Lord David Sutch" (which makes him the younger son of a fictional higher peer, if read literally - and demonstrates why one should not read jokes literally). Personally I would put his article at David Sutch on the grounds that it only encourages them. Unfortunately there is no article on Titus Groan nor Titus Groan, 77th Earl of Gormenghast, neither on Cedric Errol, ?th Earl of Dorincourt. Dbiv 03:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Law Lords

There is a move to rename the article on Lord Denning see:Talk:Alfred Denning, Baron Denning. Is there any guidence on how to name the pages for Law Lords? -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Years of peerages

I had been making some changes to some of the monarchy and peerage pages, changing the succession tables at the bottoms to use Template:Succession box et al, and James F. was wondering whether or not it is appropriate to include the years of the peerage in the succession box. His comment was, "Only slight hitch is that we don't generally use years for inherited offices like peerages and kingdoms," which he then followed by saying, "Having said that, actually, I started converting the kingdom ones to all use years a month ago."

So, is it appropriate to use years for monarchs where available (I think that it is)? If so, is it also appropriate to include years for peerages? --timc | Talk 13:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would think it unnecessary to mention the years in these cases. However, there is no argument against it, per se, unless one suggests that a lot of pages need to be changed! -- Emsworth 14:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have years for Kingdoms/Principality sucession boxes, as they're more of an office than just a title?
Obviously, the seperation breaks down when one goes back too far (to feudal times), but...
And we still split sucession boxes into three groupings - kingdoms, offices, and peerages, yes?
James F. (talk) 14:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that division of succession boxes still exists. -- Emsworth 14:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I must have missed something. What do you mean by a "division of succession boxes"? --timc | Talk 14:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Succession boxes for kingdoms, for peerages, and for offices do not all form one table. Instead, each category is grouped separately. See, for example, Clement Attlee. -- Emsworth 15:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mediaeval Royalty

Currently, most sons of the Plantagenet Kings of England are at their plain names (John of Gaunt, Edmund of Langley, Thomas of Woodstock, etc.), but they're at least some of the time known by their peerages (in this case, Duke of Lancaster, Duke of York and Duke of Gloucester). We then have the grandsons etc., most of whom are at "Name, Rank of Peerage" or "Name, Numeral Rank of Peerage" (with no apparent reason for the difference); Edward of Norwich, 2nd Duke of York, for instance, is at Edward, 2nd Duke of York (with a redirect from Edward, Duke of York), and Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge, is at Richard, Earl of Cambridge. Is this the way we want to do it? I know we don't use numerals for modern Princes, but their peerages don't normally last very long, and Royal peerages in mediaeval times regularly had several holders, so I'd prefer it if we had John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster and Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge, etc., for sons and grandsons, and Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York, when we start to get actual surnames with the great-grandsons of Kings. (This policy would also allow us to put the current Richard, Duke of York and Richard, Duke of York (Prince in the Tower) at Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York and Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York, with a disambig page at Richard, Duke of York, which seems more slick to me than the current situation.) Proteus (Talk) 08:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems that it would be best to name the mediæval Royal peers this way, yes, but I don't doubt that some will complain at our further departure from "most common name", especially for people very commonly known by their plain name, such as John of Gaunt.
James F. (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I would have no problem with this, either. john k 03:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recategorization

Just wanted to let everyone know that, given the absurdly large size of Category:Peers, I've (foolishly?) embarked on a mission to categorize all peers more specifically by rank and type of peerage. Thus, I've created Category:Peers of England, Category:Peers of Scotland, and so forth, as well as Category:British dukes and Category:British marquesses. At the intersection of these, I've created Category:Dukes in the Peerage of Ireland, Category:Marquesses in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and so forth. So far, I've gotten through dukes and marquesses. Any help in the task would be appreciated, though. john k 03:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've asked a relevant question on John's talk page. – ugen64 19:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honorific Prefixes

At the moment, we don't include The Right Honourable etc. for peers. This strikes me as problematic on two fronts:

  1. It's inconsistent with our policy on other honorific prefixes, i.e. "they should be included even when obvious (Popes, Sovereigns, etc.), because they form part of a person's full and formal name".
  2. People keep adding them, especially to life peers who have had them in the past as common members of the Privy Council, and it's very tiresome having to remove them constantly, especially when I can't see any good reason for doing so other than "common practice".

Therefore I'd suggest we include them for all peers. Proteus (Talk) 12:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Including dead peers? I don't particularly care either way, as long as it's defined one way or the other. What about post-nominals? – ugen64 19:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For both honorific prefixes and post-nominals, I'd be inclined to use both for those living in periods when they were used, which is effectively the last few centuries. Lord Nelson was certainly called "The Right Honourable The Lord Viscount Nelson, KB" in his lifetime, so I see no reason not them to use them for at least the 19th and 20th centuries. Certainly I think using them anachronistically is something we should avoid. Proteus (Talk) 21:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. I suppose I'll put prefixes and post-nominals in the appropriate articles as I come across them. – ugen64 23:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about what is being referred to here. The style the Right Honourable is applicable to all Peers up to and including the rank of Earl, whether members of the Privy Council or not. Marquesses are the Most Honourable and Dukes are the Most Noble. This is the reason why manuals of style deprecate the use of the Right Honourable for Peers to denote membership of the Privy Council in favour of the postnominal PC. Is this a proposal to rename all Peers or just those who were at one time Privy Counsellors? David | Talk 14:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All of them. (The proposed policy would also have the effect of educating people that all peers are entitled to such styles, despite the modern tendency of Privy Counsellors to pretend that only they are.) Proteus (Talk) 14:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The proposed policy seems a big improvement on the present inconsistant usages - when is it being decided upon?Alci12
We don't normally have a formal approval process. As it's been here for a while and no one seems to have objected, I suppose it could now be considered an acceptable policy. Proteus (Talk) 11:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
OK. So exactly what format are we agreeing to? Using The Right Honourable each time as opposed to the abbreviated forms that are most common? Format[Style][Forenames][Surnames][Title]
That much I'm happy to edit as I see - however where does that leave use with the bun fight occurring elsewhere about the use of Most Noble [Forenames][Surnames][Dukedom] or His Grace the [Duke of location].
Official Royal patents use only "Most Noble" but that's probably historical. His grace is perhaps more known by readers. Technically we could use both [His Grace, The Most Noble [Forenames][Surnames][Dukedom] as that is still somewhat correct. Obviously I don't want to edit these changes if people are goin to edit them backAlci12
Yes, we always use the full form, so "The Right Honourable" rather than "The Rt Hon.". "His Grace" is only ever used on its own or followed by "The Duke of X", never when the forenames are given, so "The Most Noble" is appropriate for articles on Dukes. "His Grace[,] The Most Noble" is never used. Proteus (Talk) 13:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Well I agree this is preferably though I'm bound to say some Dukes use wrong forms so the issue is never exactly so clear as might be helpful.Alci12

Order of Precedence

Not directly relevant to this WikiProject, but somewhat related: Do we really want succession boxes for the British Order of Precedence? Proteus (Talk) 18:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so; I've stated my reasons here. I'm tempted to start removing them as I encounter them. Mackensen (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Unused Titles

How are we handling those people who have/hold a title (or courtesy title) but don't use it. - I'm not talking aobut disclaimed peerages here. A number of articles have children of peers some with their titles others without. While some may be error others are I think direct lifting from other sources where those who don't use their titles are listed without them.

I add it regardless, and make a note when they prefer not to use it. Thus an article might begin like this: Lord William Peerson (b. 1955), better known as William Peerson...etc. Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. The title should always be used in the full name at the beginning of the article, whether it is generally used or not. It shouldn't be used in the article title if it's never used (unless it's necessary for disambiguation, as it is, for instance, for Douglas Hogg, 3rd Viscount Hailsham, as Douglas Hogg alone could also refer to Douglas Hogg, 1st Viscount Hailsham). Proteus (Talk) 21:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Fine that was my preference. As I say these are usually not big issues as these tend to be people who don't/won't have their own article ie the unheard of daughter of an unheard of peer. She'll never need a article and will only appear on her father's article as one of his children.
This is not a strictly peerage article issue but I can't find a policy on ranks. I've already removed a few unilaterally. E.g. it is just bizarre to have “Lt., The Marquess of [location]”. British custom dictates that only Majors and above use their title after retirement but that policy will no doubt differ in other locations. At the moment I'm removing UK military ranks of retired officers below that rank. I'm tempted to suggest that we should remove all but senior ranks. I.e. Ranks by which people could reasonably be known or associated. E.g. The present Duke of Wellington is a Brigadier and still Colonel-in-Chief of his regiment so that seems reasonable to include. But many retired officers have never used their ranks after retirement and I'm not sure their rank needs to be in the first line and can be included in the biographical details in the body of the article.

Guidelines for article names?

Hi; I apologize if I missed an explanation of this somewhere on the page, but my head started to spin about halfway down. I couldn't find it in the Manual of Style, so I ask here: Is the proper article title Foo Bar, 6th Baz of Qux, or Foo Bar, 6th Baz Qux? Does it depend on which Baz it is? I moved John Gordon, 1st Viscount of Kenmure to John Gordon, 1st Viscount Kenmure because that's the way Britannica did it, before becoming utterly confused, and coming here. Is there some sort of style guideline for article titles that I'm just not finding? grendel|khan 19:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the answer to your question is "yes", because both instances are correct, depending on the title. The viscountcy of Kenmure is in the Peerage of Scotland, and almost all Scottish viscountcies use the preposition "of". No other viscountcies do this. Therefore, he belongs at John Gordon, 1st Viscount of Kenmure. I'm afraid Britannica, if it omitted the "of", is in the wrong (again). Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's incredibly confusing. Okay, thank you guys for cleaning up my unfortunate mess. Britannica did indeed get it wrong. For future reference, is there any Manual of Style I'm missing out on? grendel|khan 20:50, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
That said, it would seem as though the "of" is purely theoretical in terms of actual usage for Scottish Viscounts. Aside from this one instance, basically when baz=viscount, baron, or lord, there's no "of." When baz=Duke, there is an "of." When baz=earl or marquess, there is usually an "of," but not always. john k 20:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
As I understand it only two viscounts actually use the 'of'. This presents us with a difficulty. Wiki articles seem not to include the 'of'. Really I suppose we should rename all such articles to included 'of' and add 'commonly called Viscount [title]' for clairityAlci12

CFD Peerage

As CFD was place on Category:Peerage because of distinct bias towards Britishness, and the fact that Peerage existed and originated in France, there needs to be a revision in the naming scheme of anything purely British in both article and category names to reflect this fact, such as Category:British Peerage. 132.205.44.43 18:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Baron of Fulwood. The article Baron of Fulwood appears to be about someone who bought a Scottish Barony and has written about their ancestors. David | Talk 21:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Australian 'Politicians'

I posted this in the main Peerage talk but tbh I think this may be a better place to sort this out.

We seem to have a problem with the Australian articles. User Adam Carr is removing styles [Rt Hon] or medals [VC] from any person who was involved with Australia. He explains this by objecting to "pompous and grovelling... feudal titles" and that "If British or New Zealand or whatever Wikipedians want to clutter up their articles with ugly titles and acronyms, that's their business. Australian users have decided that we don't want them."

This leaves us in the situation that a British peer who serves as Governor General has styles removed. A British peer who serves as a Canadian or New Zealand GG has them left alone. You can find links at Governor-general_of_Australia Oddly the link page has the full styles that are then removed from most/all of the articles. This breaks all consistency across wiki articles. Can anyone suggest how we solve thisAlci12

Barony of Castel Cicciano - verifiable?

I came across this, and it doesn't look verifiable to me... It says it's based on original research, and generally seems to violate WP:NOT. Assuming I'm right, somebody want to VfD this? JesseW 23:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I entirely agree - I'm not clear why this hasn't been VfD - perhaps Proteus if he passes by will have a look as he's more up on the admin functions.Alci12 11:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Inactive my foot. Anyway, a question arose from Tony Benn: how shall we format a peerage succession box for a peer who has disclaimed his (or her) title? One possibility would be to display the years in which the title was actually held before being disclaimed, but that seems a bit misleading--the title is still associated with Tony Benn, else it wouldn't pass to his eldest son on his death.

Here's how I would envision a complete presentation:

Preceded by Duke of Omnium
1878–1910
Disclaimed (1883) 		Succeeded by

Thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

We could have the dates it was actually held in the middle box and insert the date of death in the "Suceeded by" box — perhaps have a "death date" field in a new succession box template so we can have "Succeeded by (1910): [[Tudor Palliser, 7th Duke of Omnium|Tudor Palliser]]". Proteus (Talk) 21:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Project page

The project page should really have all current practice on peers in Wikipedia, whether currently written down or just unwritten standard practice — prefixes, how to cope with double and multiple titles, how to deal with courtesy titles and courtesy peerages, post-nominal letters, succession boxes in all their formats, formats for disclaimed peers, and that's just a few random things I just came up with. Any ideas on what we should write? Proteus (Talk) 21:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A firm establishment of how peerage succession should be ordered (top - down). Like, in the case of William Joliffe, 1st Baron Hylton, a baronet who is made a baron. Which comes first? Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I like the "highest first" way, as it is at the moment, as titles (unlike offices, which are generally listed chronologically) are generally listed highest first. I would prefer it, however, if the format we used for Baronetcies was:
Preceded by
New creation
 Baron Hylton
1866–1876 		Succeeded by
Baronet
(of Merstham)
1821–1876
Which I think is more attractive and more accurately conveys the nature of a Baronetcy (the territorial bit being largely unimportant). Proteus (Talk) 12:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Especially as after several generations the seat may have changed. Yes, I like that better. Mackensen (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wives of Barons and Baronesses

Could I possibly have some support on Glenys Kinnock (and its [[Talk:Glenys Kinnock|talk page)? User:Dbiv has been insisting that calling Lady Kinnock as the wife of a Baron "Glenys Elizabeth Kinnock, Baroness Kinnock" in the opening is wrong, and has now starting acting absurdly and removing the title completely, along with "The Right Honourable". Proteus (Talk) 17:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be inconsistent with higher degrees of the peerage, but wives of Barons are now invariably referred to as "Lady" while Baronesses in their own right are referred to either as "Lady" or "Baroness" according to their preference. In this particular case, Glenys Kinnock does not use the title "Lady Kinnock", and people are entitled to say how they prefer to be addressed. I believe that forcing a title upon her which she does not use would make the entry ludicrous, and departing from what has become an established mode of address would detract from the value of Wikipedia. I also note that when this issue was last discussed above, the consensus was as I am suggesting here: wives of Barons are Lady, Baronesses in their own right are Baroness. Obviously I would welcome the views of others on this subject. David | Talk 21:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
What about starting the article as Glenys Kinnock, Baroness Kinnock (dates), known commonly as Lady Kinnock. We've got a long-standing practice of noting the correct legal name first, and more common name second. Mackensen (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I would have a problem with that. The fact is that practically no-one refers to the wife of a Baron as a Baroness, and she's not "known commonly as Lady Kinnock", because Glenys Kinnock doesn't use the title. The only hits Google puts up for "Baroness Kinnock" are Wikipedia and its mirrors. David | Talk 22:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Members of the House of Lords

Hi. I've noticed this page appears to have become horribly out of date - see Talk:Members of the House of Lords for more info. I will give it a go updating, but it would be nice if this could be maintained on an ongoing basis - we have a peerage wikiproject and a lot of people editing about peers, so it seems a shame that this list can be allowed to get so out of date. Morwen - Talk 21:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Still need help here. Morwen - Talk 12:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I've written a draft of what I think this project page could say, and I've tried to fit pretty much all our current practice into it, in a hope that, if we codify our practice, as it were, we can stop all the arguments on various discussion pages about all this sort of thing, and just direct people here, which is really where such discussions should be taking place. Comments and alterations/additions would be much appreciated. (We could also do with a shortcut — WP:PEER perhaps?) Proteus (Talk) 19:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No one's commented except Mackensen, so this is really a "bump": I certainly don't want to put it up with only one "aye", but I'm also not all that keen on waiting until 2008. :-) Proteus (Talk) 19:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one's objected, so after discussion with Mackensen I've put it up. Proteus (Talk) 10:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

We need to recast the section on honourifics. We should still have a consistent policy, it just needs to be consistent with the Manual of Style. My own preference would be section (e.g. "Styles from Birth") as found in John Major (though he's not a peer, not yet anyway). Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I was planning on leaving it until the MoS was changed, but I suppose there's no harm in being pre-emptive. I agree that a "styles from birth" section would be good, with the addition of "He is styled The Rt Hon. The Earl of Loamshire." at the beginning of the article (probably only for living peers). Proteus (Talk) 18:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. I thought I'd update the MoS tomorrow. Mackensen (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I've updated it, removing the honorifics and inserting info on "style" sections (and, having done that, I've realised that I still think it looks silly not using the definite article for courtesy peerages). Does it look okay? Proteus (Talk) 20:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Mackensen (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well removing the style per MoS is a must the rest seems ok on first glance the only thing that caught my eye is "Marquess" should always be used, never "Marquis", for the British rank. While I prefer that I'm well aware that it's probably incorrect for Scottish (pre-union) peerages which were invariably created as and continue to use Marquis. Now I guess we could just use marquess but as a bare minimum we'll have to note the usage problem.Alci12 09:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Rayment on TfD

Perfecto has listed Template:Rayment on TfD. This is to my mind ridiculous; Rayment's information is dervied from good sources and therefore naturally checks against them. Moreover, that fact that our articles used him is incontestable (which is why I made the template in the first place). Mackensen (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Peerage pages for peerages with only one holder

There are lots of red links in the List of hereditary baronies. Some of these are because there is no article about the title or its holder(s). But in some cases, the title was only held by one person and then became extinct, for example James Gambier, 1st Baron Gambier. There is no page on Baron Gambier, and there is probably nothing special about this title, and nothing to say about it other than that it was created in 1807 for James Gambier – all of which will be contained in the article about the person.

In cases such as this, where there was only one holder, and nothing else significant about the title, wouldn't it make sense to put a redirect from Baron Gambier to James Gambier, 1st Baron Gambier? This would fix a lot of the red links in pages such as List of hereditary baronies, enabling people to click on the titles and find out about them and the people they were created for.

I don't want to do this without asking people's opinions here, so does anyone have any comments? JRawle 14:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Mackensen (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Succession box headings

User:KuatofKDY has, among other useful devices, contrived "headers" for the different categories of succession boxes. Currently there are four types: Template:s-off for offices of state, Template:s-hon for honorary offices, Template:s-par for legislative office, and Template:s-reg for royal and noble titles. See Template talk:Succession box#Separate tables for an example. "S-reg" has, at present, optimizations for the British peerage: {{s-reg|}} will create a header reading "Regnal Titles" (i.e., sovereign titles), {{s-reg|uk}} will create a header reading "Titles of Nobility", with a link beneath to the Peerage of the United Kingdom. There are also sct, en, and gb options for the other British peerages, and ie for Ireland. I would like to propose that the use of this template be added to the MoS: the choice of en/sct, gb or uk should (IMO) reflect the state of the peerage at the end of the peer's life (so a peer dying in 1802 would have his titles labeled with uk). Irish peerages would be noted separately beneath these peerages, e.g., the Earls of Shrewsbury and Waterford would look like:
{{start}}
{{s-reg|uk}}
{{succession box | title=Earl of Shrewsbury...}}
{{s-reg|ie}}
{{succession box | title=Earl of Waterford...}}
{{end}}


Comments and suggestions for improvement are solicited. Choess 05:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think what we all need to see is an actual working implementation of the new concept. Could you work up, say, Disraeli's succession tables in this format? Mackensen (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
{{start box}}
{{s-off}}
{{succession box | title=[[Leaders of the Conservative Party|Conservative Leader in the Commons]] | before=[[Charles Manners, 6th Duke of Rutland|Marquess of Granby]] | years=1849–1876<br>with '''[[Charles Manners, 6th Duke of Rutland|Marquess of Granby]]'''<br>and '''[[John Charles Herries]]''' to 1851 | after=[[Stafford Northcote, 1st Earl of Iddesleigh|Sir Stafford Northcote, Bt]]}}
{{succession box | title=[[Chancellor of the Exchequer]] | before=[[Charles Wood, 1st Viscount Halifax|Sir Charles Wood]] | after=[[William Ewart Gladstone]] | years=1852}}
{{succession box | title=[[Leader of the House of Commons]] | before=[[John Russell, 1st Earl Russell|The Lord John Russell]] | after=[[John Russell, 1st Earl Russell|The Lord John Russell]] | years=1852}}
{{succession box | title=[[Chancellor of the Exchequer]] | before=[[George Cornewall Lewis|Sir George Lewis, Bt]] | after=[[William Ewart Gladstone]] | years=1858–1859}}
{{succession box | title=[[Leader of the House of Commons]] | before=[[Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston|The Viscount Palmerston]] | after=[[Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston|The Viscount Palmerston]] | years=1858–1859}}
{{succession box two by four to three | title1=[[Chancellor of the Exchequer]] | before1=[[William Ewart Gladstone]] | after1=[[George Ward Hunt]] | years1=1866–1868 | title2=[[Leader of the House of Commons]] | after2=[[William Ewart Gladstone]] | years2=1866–1868 | before2=[[Edward Smith-Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby|The Earl of Derby]] | title3=[[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister of the United Kingdom]] | title4=[[Leaders of the Conservative Party|Leader of the British Conservative Party]] | after3=[[Stafford Henry Northcote, 1st Earl of Iddesleigh|Sir Stafford Northcote, Bt]]<br>'''and '''[[Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury|The Marquess of Salisbury]] | years3=1868 | years4=1868–1881}}
{{succession box one to two | title1=[[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister of the United Kingdom]] | before=[[William Ewart Gladstone]] | after1=[[William Ewart Gladstone]] | years1=1874–1880 | title2=[[Leader of the House of Commons]] | after2=[[Stafford Northcote, 1st Earl of Iddesleigh|Sir Stafford Northcote, Bt]] | years2=1874–1876}}
{{succession box one to two | title1=[[Leader of the House of Lords]] | title2=[[Leaders of the Conservative Party|Conservative Leader in the Lords]] | before=[[Charles Gordon-Lennox, 6th Duke of Richmond|The Duke of Richmond]] | after1=[[Granville George Leveson-Gower, 2nd Earl Granville|The Earl Granville]] | after2=[[Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury|The Marquess of Salisbury]] | years1=1876–1880 | years2=1876–1881}}
{{s-hon}}
{{succession box | title=[[Lord Privy Seal]] | before=[[James Howard Harris, 3rd Earl of Malmesbury|The Earl of Malmesbury]] | after=[[Algernon Percy, 6th Duke of Northumberland|The Duke of Northumberland]] | years=1876–1878}}
{{s-par}}
{{succession box | title=[[Maidstone and The Weald (UK Parliament constituency)|Member for Maidstone]] | before=[[Abraham Robarts]] | after=[[Alexander Beresford-Hope]]<br>[[George Dodd]] | years=1837–1841}}
{{succession box | title=[[Shrewsbury and Atcham (UK Parliament constituency)|Member for Shrewsbury]] | before=[[Richard Jenkins (UK politician)|Richard Jenkins]]<br>[[Robert Slaney]] | after=[[Edward Baldock]]<br>[[Robert Slaney]] | years=1841–1847}}
{{succession box | title=[[Buckinghamshire (UK Parliament constituency)|Member for Buckinghamshire]] | before=[[William Fitzmaurice]]<br>[[Christopher Tower]] | after=[[Thomas Fremantle, 2nd Baron Cottesloe|Thomas Fremantle]] | years=1847–1876}}
{{s-reg|uk}}
{{succession box | before=New creation | title=[[Earl of Beaconsfield]] | after=Title extinct | years=1876–1881}}
{{end box}}

Here you go. I've listed Lord Privy Seal as an honorary office, although I don't know if that was true at this date. I'd actually prefer "Offices of State" and "Honorary Offices" for the first two headings, but that would be easy enough to change. I'm thinking about a change to Template:S-par that would put a link to Parliament of the United Kingdom under "Assembly Seats", analogous to s-reg, but that's up in the air. Choess 19:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Lord Privy Seal, though a sinecure, is still a political office and should be listed as such. This looks interesting; I'll need some time to think (and we'll need everyone else to weigh in on this one). Mackensen (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that political party positions (leader of the conservatives, whatever), and parliamentary positions (Leader of the Commons, leader of the opposition), which are unofficial at this time period, ought to go in their own section. And, as Mackensen says, Lord Privy Seal is a political office, and should go with the others. Honorary positions would be things like Lord Lieutenancies, or Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. john k 21:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Any suggestions on what to call the category (and where to place it in the "stack")? On the question of honorary positions, I have a list in userspace of various offices that are now largely sinecures. (I've crossed out some political ones.) I'd appreciate input there as to about what time they became honorary. Choess 22:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I've made some comments. I think it's clear that Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is a political office (sinecure), but everything else is just conjecture on my part - I'm not certain about it. – ugen64 23:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't like them at all. I don't see anything wrong with the current "separate the boxes" approach, I think the coloured headings are ugly and the wording seems rather strained (a seat in Parliament would never be described in Britain as an "assembly seat", for instance). Proteus (Talk) 10:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The s-par template deserves a switch of its own to display more or less specific variants. Given that an individual could at different times be an MP and an MEP (and perhaps an MSP), it probably shouldn't get more specific than "Seats in Parliament," "Congressional Seats," and so forth. For the rest, de gustibus non disputandum est. Choess 18:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I created a template "s-mil", which could be used for military succession boxes e.g. Hugh Dowding, 1st Baron Dowding. Perhaps it is usefull for some people. Greetings --Phoe 11:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Female suo jure peers with a higher title by marriage

What do we do in such cases? Should the article be under the name of their own peerage or the higher title? How should the rest of the article be formatted (the opening line, etc.)? Some examples:

Is there an official policy on this? JRawle (Talk) 21:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of your examples are awkward others simple. Baroness Hamilton was at no time known by that title so to list her under it simply because she was given it is perverse in the extreme. She should be listed as Duchess of Argyll - her final title. Likewise baroness strange, if I read correctly she never held that title until she had and was known by a higher title. Wiki's peerage article is wrong here claiming she succeeded in 1702 which is not so. She had a living sister and so the title fell into abeyance until her sister died in 1714. She had become a countess in 1706 and a baron's wife in 1714. I doubt therefore she was ever known by the title. WRT the life peers, it seems the logical and practical solution is to use that title they have been known as most widely. Baroness Hogg held her life peerage for 7 years or so before her husbands succession and continues to be know by it in the lords. It seems we should be best advised to list her under her life peerage (redirects from viscountess hailsham if need be) but I would suggest that the title line be: Sarah Hogg, Viscountess Hailsham (dates etc) know as Baroness Hogg as that most closely fits our other formats of including the highest title not every title in the first line.Alci12 17:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess it would make sense to list them under what they're most known as, but in which situation? Baroness Masham of Ilton is known as such in the Lords but it seems from her website that she's the Countess of Swinton at home. Likewise (I can only imagine) for the Baronesses Hogg and Hailsham who are probably known as Viscountesses in their local community. With the current life peeresses with a higher married title, I'm all in favour as listings them as whatever they're known as in their Lords, which I presume is almost always their own title, as most aren't known to a wider audience outside Parliament. As it stands, I'm in favour of listings those peeresses with higher married title in centuries past, with their own title, but I guess it might best to refer to sources to see what they were commonly known as. Craigy (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The best solution might be to name the page after their best known or most used title (after all, Wikipedia pages should use the most common English name), but the opening line of the article should use their highest title. The article will then, of course, explain which titles are held, which they normally use, etc.
I doubt Lady Hogg calls herself Viscountess as Douglas doesn't use his title at all. So it would make no sense to have this in the article's title. (The only reason it's in her husband's page title is to disambiguate between him and his grandfather.) But in my opinion the opening line should still be Sarah Hogg, Viscountess Hailsham. JRawle (Talk) 21:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Well most known in terms of the public at large and those who would be searching for the article. I have no doubt that Baroness masham uses her comital title at home (though if it matters to her she could use it at 'work' it is her choice) but that doesn't change the fact that few if any willbe searching for her under the higher title - redirects for that to the baroness link if need me. As a by the by Douglass does not use his title in parliament but rarely and in formal situations he does appear from time to time - certainly funerals I've seen him listed as such. Oddly he's listed by some parliamentary Cmtees as The Rt Hon. Douglas Hogg, Q.C., MP, Viscount Hailsham which seems a catch all of sorts! For sake of clarity i'd suggest a default assumption by higher title unless we can clearly see that another junior title is principally used. So for the historic examples it's almost certain few if any uses will exist. As to the opening line - Name, highertitle known as lowertitle. Unless they are known by that lower title I see no need for it to be mentioned in the opening paragraph at all, after all we don't mention (except in the body of the article) for peers when they hold a higher title but inherit or are awarded a lower titleAlci12 11:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Baronets Clarification

See [[2]] is this the correct format? only we have this in the article themselves from that thread:

Sir Dalrymple Arbuthnot, CMG, DSO, JP (1 April 1867, India - 31 March 1941) was a British General and the 5th Baronet Arbuthnot of Edinburgh.

Now i'd expect Bt. to be there but it's not. In the listing I'm not sure about having 5th Bt then post noms. Need to have some clear guideAlci12 12:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Rayment

Firstly, let me say that I do not want to delete this, or even stop using it. Template:Rayment is used in over 300 pages, which presents a problem, because the website in question could be considered unreliable by some: it contains intentional errors (copyright traps). I have mentioned this at Template talk:Rayment, which includes a link to [3]. Because of its accessibility and accuracy in most cases, it should probably still be referenced. On the other hand, one way to improve articles would to replace the template with citations to a more reliable source. In other words, it's certainly not a priority, but this seems to an active WikiProject, so I thought that I could bring it up for a broader readership. Ardric47 03:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That's always been a concern but it's been counterbalanced by real need for accessible information. I've always tried to check against other information; when there's a conflict, I trust said information over Rayment. Still, it's usually right. Mackensen (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Dual name situation with non-British title holders

Hello all-

Proteus and some of us are having a bit of a go-round on the proper first name citation over at Jamie Lee Curtis. Proteus in essence has stated that under Wiki Peerage policy, British peers and those who hold courtesy titles due to their relationship with peers are cited under their title at first reference in the article, which means that this actress is referred to at the outset as "The Right Honourable Jamie Lee, Baroness Haden-Guest". Proteus says that under UK law, her title replaced her previous last name, whatever it was, from the moment at which Christopher Guest acceded to the barony in 1996.

This policy obviously seems perfectly reasonable by and large, since in the vast majority of cases holders of British peerage titles are British and live in the UK under UK law. However, in this case, things seem to be more complex. Under US law, a woman must actively fill out paperwork to change her legal name upon marriage -- nothing happens automatically. Some women do not legally change their names, and one of the most common reasons for not doing so would be if their maiden names were well known professionally or indicated a tie to a famous relative (as JLC's last name does to her father, Tony Curtis). I have no idea if JLC legally changed her name to Jamie Lee Curtis Haden-Guest or Jamie Lee Haden-Guest or Jamie Lee Guest or some other variation in 1984 when she and Christopher Guest married, or chose not to change her name at all. However, since then, she has been universally known to the public as Jamie Lee Curtis. I'd like to find out whether JLC legally changed her name in the US, because it seems pertinent to this debate -- so far, no luck on the Internet.

So here's my question. What should Wikipedia policy be on holders of peerage titles who (a) aren't citizens of the UK, (b) don't primarily live in the UK, (c) don't use the peerage title professionally or publicly and (d) have a different legal name under the law of the country that is their primary residence? It seems to me somewhat silly to use their peerage title in the first referent in this case, as it implies that British peerages trump all other aspects of a person's existence and the laws of all other nations. My suggested compromise was "Jamie Lee Curtis (born November 22, 1958), known under British law as The Right Honourable Jamie Lee, Baroness Haden-Guest" which Proteus deemss unacceptably inaccurate. Was wondering about the opinions of other Wikipedia peerage-types. --Jfruh 18:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's not confuse names and titles. As you say, in America it seems likely that she wouldn't change her surname on marriage, so it should remain as Jamie Lee Curtis. The Wikipedia convention is to add the peerage title after a comma, so that makes it Jamie Lee Curtis, Baroness Haden-Guest. This is not the usual form of address for [the wife of] a peer, so isn't supposed to represent how her name is normally used; it's simply the convention on Wikipedia. The part before the comma should be her legal name, so if you can find out whether she took her husband's surname on marriage, you can change it. If we aren't certain, her surname should stay as "Curtis", seeing as this is how she's commonly known. JRawle (Talk) 11:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Baroness Cox

Could someone come over to Talk:Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox and put Hale-Byrne right on the issue of Baroness Cox' title and the correct application of naming policy? He is insisting she is "Baroness Cox of Queensbury". David | Talk 22:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wives of younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses

What's our policy on article titles for the above? I wanted to write an article on Lady Colin Campbell (the former wife of the second son of the 11th Duke of Argyll) but I wasn't sure if it should be listed as such, or as Georgia, Lady Colin Campbell (or maybe something else)? Any suggestions? Craigy (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd put it at Lady Colin Campbell, like Lady Edward FitzGerald. Proteus (Talk) 17:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sounds good. Thanks for the example, Proteus. Craigy (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

After a discussion and vote, page moves have created List of dukes in the peerages of the British Isles and List of dukedoms in the peerages of the British Isles. These don't seem to have been raised here (or noticed), and they have implications for all the other 'List of ...' articles. The moves also have a knock-on effect in the usage of Template:UK Peerages. I have no vested interest in thise Wikiproject, so I thought I'd raise it here for comment. Noisy | Talk 11:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Multiple titles

Hello guys. I happened to wander into the article on benjamin disraeli, and noticed that it never refers to his being Viscount Hughenden. Now, I have seen other articles on peers (like Britannica), which specifically list all his titles in the introduction. But when I added this information on wiki, it has been deleted again. I note one reference on this page suggesting only using the main title in the introductory sentence of an article, but yet permitting use of letters after the name. This strikes be as a little odd, since in general the omitted titles might be more important than a string of accepted abbreviation letters for various decorations.

However also, if people do not want subordinate titles mentioned in the introductory line, where should they go? It strikes me that the exact single place they should get a mention is that first sentence, since they would be part of the persons full formal name. Sandpiper 16:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Often a short paragraph on titles or names falls naturally late in the article; it would clutter the intro (consider, for instance, what it would do with Lord Salisbury). Putting in the alphabet soup at the top does document it (once and briefly). This should probably be limited to Orders of Honour, not the MA or BA. I see you were reverted rather brusquely, which is unfortunate. Septentrionalis 17:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, when a passer by notices something which is missing from a wiki article, yet which other reference works see fit to include, he might reasonably insert it and expect it to remain in the article, at least somewhere. I do not see the deleter having moved it anywhere yet. But also, this does not address the issue that a subordinate title of one individual might technically be superior to the title implied by some abbrevition. Sandpiper 20:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your last comment meant. On Wikipedia we do have separate pages for the titles themself (e.g. Marquess of Salisbury) that list all the subsidiary titles, which sources derived from paper-based encyclopedias might not have. In the latter, it's more important to include those details in the article on a person as it also becomes the article on the peerage itself. On Wikipedia, there's no reason to mention subsidiary titles at all on the person's page, except if discussing courtesy titles they used before succeeding to the peerage, and maybe in the article on the first holder.
The current convention of only listing the main title at the top is a sensible compromise. We are including something about the peerage, but as this isn't a guide to the peerage we shouldn't overdo it – how many people reading Disraeli's article are reading it to find out what titles he had? JRawle (Talk) 22:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I understand that reply, but then that might follow from the multiple confusion. I can not find any article called 'earl of Beaconsfield' which is anything other than a redirect to benjamin disraeli. So as far as I can see, there is nowhere someone can look which would tell them that he has this other title. The convention then would appear to be to delete all refernces to it. Uh, guys...Sandpiper 00:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right, Disraeli was the only Earl of Beaconsfield. In instances such as this, we tend to link the title's page to the holder's. There should be a mention of any subsidiary titles of the earldom in Disraeli's article, but not in the opening sentence!
As Craigy says below, Disraeli's titles were created together. This is usually the case with earldoms, even if the earl doesn't have any sons. Sometimes a viscount may be promoted to earl, but in those cases the title stays the same. For a nice example, see Frederick Marquis, the first Earl of Woolton. He was Baron Woolton, Viscount Woolton then Earl of Woolton. When he gained the earldom, the subsidiary title Viscount Walberton was also created. These titles are detailed on the earldom's separate page – the title was inherited by his son so there has been more than one holder of the title. JRawle (Talk) 10:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
This isn't always the case. The 2nd Viscount Anson was created an Earl as Earl of Lichfield, for instance, not Earl Anson. (And sometimes it even happens when the Viscountcy is territorial, as when the 1st Viscount Lymington was created Earl of Portsmouth, not Earl of Lymington.) Proteus (Talk) 21:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
If it helps, I've included his viscountcy in the last paragraph of the header, Second administration on Disraeli's page. More often than not, second peerages are created at the same time as a higher one to allow the peer's eldest son to have a courtesy title. Disraeli was 72 by this time and without children so I guess his viscountcy wasn't intended for use by a son, but I guess my point is that he was never known as Viscount Hughenden, simply because it was created at the same time as his earldom of Beaconsfield (a higher peerage) and not before. I hope this helps, Sandpiper - Beaconsfield is quite a simple example of explaining a secondary peerage (albeit the lack of a son), but are there others which you're not sure about? Craigy (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Charles Blount, 1st Earl of Devon

Should this be the Earl of Devonshire?

There are three Earldoms involved here:

  1. The Courtenay Earldom, then believed to be extinct in 1556; but found to have been dormant in 1831, because of the wording of its patent. It is now and was then called the Earldom of Devon.
  2. This Earldom, created 1603, extinct 1606; viewed at the time as a recreation of #1, then extinct.
  3. The Cavendish Earldom, created 1618, now called the Earldom of Devonshire, and still borne by the Duke of Devonshire. Also viewed by contemporaries as a recreation.

Since #1 existed (de jure) in 1603, the Complete Peerage lists #2 as the Earl of Devonshire. This seems sensible. Septentrionalis 17:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe both #2 and #3 were (rather conveniently for us) always known as "Earls of Devonshire", even before the Courtenays turned up to throw their spanner in the works, presumably reflecting what the county was known as at that time, so it would certainly make sense to move the article as you suggest. Proteus (Talk) 18:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll move it then, and add a dab header to Duke of Devonshire (making Earl of Devonshire a dab page seems pointless). If anyone wants to argue it should be moved back, it can be. Septentrionalis 18:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Succession box headings

People have been adding Template:s-start to peerage articles. See my comment here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage/Archive_4&oldid=1137369868"