Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Article for Deletion: Viscount Cranley

I am aware of this proposal: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rupert Onslow, Viscount Cranley. Readers here may choose to follow up if they are affected by this proposal.- Peter Ellis - Talk 10:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Modern Irish peers

According to Peerage of Ireland, in 1922 the peerage was abolished in the territory of the new Irish Free State, which has jurisdiction over five sixths of Ireland. But we are still showing modern inheritors of the title, most notably the Duke of Leinster and his son, the Earl of Offaly. The infobox shows him in the precedence of the United Kingdom. A Daily Telegraph report (regarding a pretender) refers to documents in the UK department of Constitional affairs. So what exactly is his status in the real world? Should the article be qualified to say that it is a traditional title with no status, like French titles? I'm genuinely curious. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's more or less the same as any peer in the other peerages attached to the UK crown, except that he can't be elected as a representative peer to the House of Lords. (The privilege of peerage is pretty thin on the ground these days.) Given that the UK still includes a large chunk of the island of Ireland, and that the connection of peerages to particular territories has been fairly tenuous for some time anyway, I don't see that Irish peers need to be singled out. (I think the precedence succession boxes are silly and that all we need is the lists, but that's a different problem.) Choess (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the legal status of Irish peerages, a number of the more senior ones also had UK or GB peerages, originally given to provide them with the right to sit in the British House of Lords. Even if their Irish peerages have mere nominal validity in the Republic of Ireland, The Duke of Leinster's viscounty of Leinster is in the Peerage of Great Britain, and the barony of Kildare in the Peerage of the United Kingdom will be regulated as UK peerages. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Military peerages and overseas locations

Would anyone here be able to answer a question I have about military peerages and how they differ from other peerages? The question was prompted when I noticed that several of the generals elevated to the peerage during or after World War I were described as "of" a location where they fought a battle, and these locations are not in the UK, though it seems they had to chose, or be given, a UK location as well. I was wondering if anyone here could expand on that and help with a list of examples - and also say whether it is possible for such a list of military peerages to be comprehensive?

Some examples:

Julian Byng, 1st Viscount Byng of Vimy (named for the Battle of Vimy Ridge)
John French, 1st Earl of Ypres (battles of the Ypres Salient)
Herbert Plumer, 1st Viscount Plumer (of Messines, named for the Battle of Messines)
Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby (of Megiddo, named for the Battle of Megiddo)

I read in a forum that three of the above also had "minor" peerages located in the UK, which seemed to have been required when a primary foreign placename was chosen (though not all generals elevated to the peerage after World War I chose a foreign place name after a battle, most notably Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig). Three of the above were: French of Ypres and of High Lake in the County of Roscommon; Byng of Vimy and of Thorpe-le-Soken, in the County of Essex; Plumer of Messines and of Bilton in the County of York. Not sure what Allenby's minor peerage was.

Moving away from World War I, other examples of military "battle" peerages are (both before and after WWI):

Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts - Roberts of Kandahar (Battle of Kandahar)
Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener - Kitchener of Khartoum (Battle of Omdurman)
Robert Clive, 1st Baron Clive - Clive of Plassey (Battle of Plassey)
Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington - Wellington of Douro (Battle of Douro)
Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington - Wellington of Talavera (Battle of Talavera)
Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis - Alexander of Tunis (Western Desert Campaign)
Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein - Montgomery of Alamein (Second Battle of El Alamein)

One useful source was this one. I also got many of the examples from that forum discussion I mentioned, which I've mislaid the link for. Also, Viscount Allenby and Earl Roberts and Earl Alexander of Tunis and Baron Burnham (and probably some others as well) aren't tagged for this project. I also found Prince of Waterloo, a Dutch honorary title described as a victory title. Bingo! That article has the list I was looking for! Victory title#British Empire. That list has some extra examples, though it is missing some of the examples above. I'd love to create something like List of victory titles in the British peerage if that would be the right name for the list (are they definitely victory titles)? Would it be possible for a list like that to be comprehensive? Entries could be marked by whether they were extinct or not, and when created, and the battles listed, and so on. Could be quite a nice little list. Carcharoth (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your question: "military peerages and how they differ from other peerages"? What you quote as "military peerages"; these are the same as any normal peerage title and treated as every other peerage of the United Kingdom. *point*. The 'only' difference is that name of the peerage title is derived from the battle place where the honoured person performed his heroic battle and was awarded for. UK Peerage titles do not necessary get the name from a place in the UK, sometimes it is outside the UK, but not related to a battle field (India or Burma etc.), and many times it is not a place at all (for example the surname, like Howe, is used as name for the peerage title). Regarding 'Prince of waterloo': on continental Europe there isn't such thing as the 'peerage', only the term 'nobility' is recognized. The Duke of Wellington and his family was ennobled into the Dutch nobility as Jonkvrouw or Jonkheer Wellesley, with the duke as head of the family with the nobility title 'Prince of Waterloo'. Since the name of this title derives from the battle place Waterloo and the duke was ennobled because of his heroic action, it is called a ‘victory title.’ But it is just a normal Dutch nobility title and the family is part of the Dutch nobility. So your distinction that Prince of Waterloo is an honorary title is not correct; it is truly a valid title of nobility, once awarded for honourable actions. Demophon (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so the answer is that military peerages are not different from other peerages. That's fine - I wasn't presuming that my question made any sense, indeed I was hoping people here would be able to tell me if my question was silly! :-) And I see now I got the 'Prince of Waterloo' bit wrong - as you say it is not honorary at all. Having said that, would you be able to explain why two place names are sometimes used in British peerages (eg. Byng of Vimy and of Thorpe-le-Soken, in the County of Essex)? I suspect what I say about "minor" peerages is rubbish. I did read something somewhere about these designations. Ah, here we are: Territorial designation. That article has the answers I was looking for! "[...] Some territorial designations name more than one place [...] In the case of a victory title, at least one term usually refers to the site of the grantee's triumph, usually outside the UK." If that is correct, that answers most of my questions. The only question left is whether it is possibly to definitively say that a peerage is a victory title. It that something that those awarding the peerages would make clear, or is it something that an independent source would have to confirm for it to be included in a list of victory titles? Getting an answer to that would help with the list I've proposed (the redlink above). Carcharoth (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The subject appears to be adequately covered in Victory title. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? The section there on the British Empire says "Many victory titles have been created in the Peerages of Great Britain and the United Kingdom. Examples include..." (my emphasis). The use of "include" implies that some names are missing. And that is indeed the case if you look at the examples I gave above. Plumer, Roberts, Clive and Alexander are all missing from the article victory title. I would add them, but will wait and see if there is a reason for them not being there (if there is a reason, that might be why you said the article adequately covers the subject). If not, the fact that they are missing, makes me wonder if any others are missing, which is why I asked whether it is possible in principle to have a comprehensive list of which peerages in the Peerages of Great Britain and the United Kingdom can be considered victory titles (and who gets to decide what is and isn't a victory title)? It is more the question of comprehensiveness and defining what makes a 'victory title' that I am looking to find answers to, not whether the subject is already adequately covered by what we have (it appears it isn't, as the 'victory title' article appears not have a comprehensive list). Carcharoth (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you discover more titles that aren't listed, add them. I've just added Viscount Barfleur. Opera hat (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be appropropriate to have Category:Victory title to add to the articles on peerages. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Duke of Somerset

John Beaufort, Marquess of Dorset say that Edmund Beaufort, 4th Duke of Somerset is called Edmund Beaufort, 3th Duke of Somerset, but in Edmund Beaufort, 4th Duke of Somerset are no Information about this double title. Is the information right or not? Shoud be there a redirect Edmund Beaufort, 3rd Duke of Somerset to Edmund Beaufort, 4th Duke of Somerset? --Diwas (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No. It was an error. Now sorted. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Boyle Roche

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Boyle Roche/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Names of Wives of Peers in Titles of Articles

I believe the WikiProject rule, "Wives of peers, when the title is used in the article name, should have their married surnames." is unprecented, arbitrary, and that it diverges unreasonably from the usual practice of encyclopedists writing about history.

Wives of titled men are always listed by the maiden names in works of historical reference. That's because the antecedents and connections of women who marry titled noblemen and royals are of great historical and political import, and for this reason, the wives of the nobility and of royalty, too, have always and everywhere been referred to by the name of their father's family, as for example (historically speaking) "Lady Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales", (not "Diana Windsor, Princess of Wales"). Or "Lady Jane Grey, the Nine Days' Queen", instead of "Lady Jane Dudley", which was her married name.)

If the rule should stand, then it should also be applied to royalty, too, and then we would need to change the names listed in the entries for the six wives of King Henry VIII of England from:

1. Catherine of Aragon, Queen of England 2. Anne Boleyn, Queen of England 3. Jane Seymour, Queen of England 4. Anne of Cleves, Queen of England 5. Catherine Howard, Queen of England 6. Catherine Parr, Queen of England

to:

1. Catherine Tudor, Queen of England 2. Anne Tudor, Queen of England 3. Jane Tudor, Queen of England 4. Anne Tudor, Queen of England 5. Catherine Tudor, Queen of England 6. Catherine Tudor, Queen of England

I hope others agree, and that this rule can be changed.

Ivain (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, I'm afraid. For a start, I disagre with your assertion that (for instance) Diana, Princess of Wales is commonly referred to as "Lady Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales". She's sometimes called "Diana, Princess of Wales" and she's sometimes called "Lady Diana Spencer" (ignoring for one minute the usual "Princess Diana" idiocy), but I don't think I've ever seen her referred to by a combination of the two. In addition, you refer to articles on "Catherine of Aragon, Queen of England", etc. This isn't where their articles are located - they're at plain Catherine of Aragon etc. The attitude I have is that maiden names are fine and married names are fine, but a combination of the two is nonsensical (take Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire as an example - she was Lady Georgiana Spencer and she was the Duchess of Devonshire, but not at the same time, and since she was and is generally known as a Duchess, it's the final version of her name that we use.) Proteus (Talk) 11:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am persuaded by Proteus. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. As far as I know, when a woman marries she leaves behind her titles and assumes those of her husband (with a few exceptions, such as when she has higher precedence than her husband or is an heiress). "Lady Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales" is simply an impossible title: when Diana married Prince Charles, not only did she replace "Lady" with the Prince's many titles, but she lost her father's surname as well—indeed, she had no legal surname at all, because Charles doesn't have one either. For that matter, if we follow the old formal style conventions, even the lowly "Mrs" is followed by the husband's name and surname ("Mrs John Smith"), for it is because of the marriage that she bears the style "Mrs" in the first place. Waltham, The Duke of 17:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Edward Stanley, 19th Earl of Derby

I wonder if members here might keep an eye on this page. It seems to have become the mouthpiece of local opposition to some of the Earl's plans. I've removed most of the obvious POV stuff, but I have no doubt it'll be re-added at some point. Parrot of Doom 17:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Sir"

Hi. Disclaimer - I'm not into peerage as a topic per se, so please forgive my obvious ignorance. It's just that I watch the Clement Attlee article and one or two others. I am a bit baffled as an editor seems to have started on a big session of adding "Sir" into articles, so for example Clem was changed in his lead paragraph from Clement Richard Attlee, 1st Earl Attlee to Sir Clement Richard Attlee, 1st Earl Attlee which looked wrong to me. Further, I see that this project page says "Sir" is not used before the name of a peer who is also a knight or a baronet. Now, I am happy to admit to my ignorance, and maybe the other editor knows something I don't, some technical point about the type of peerage or something? I am absolutely not spoiling for a fight here - I like my wikilife quiet and peaceful. But I did wonder if some more experienced and knowledgeable editor than I (that would be the whole community, essentially, then!) would like to take a quick look at this and see if what's going on is wise. Thanks and best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think some one has been going through adding "Sir" to all holders of KG; I think this is incorrect. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peerage and Baronetage/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 54 articles to be referenced, a 1.8% reduction from last week. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Page move of interest

At Talk:Catherine Ashton#Requested move 2, there is discussion potentially of interest to members of this WikiProject. -Rrius (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Slightly out of scope for this WikiProject, but where might I find help?

I've started some work on List of honorary British knights and dames, in particular trying to rework it into a table format, see Talk:List of honorary British knights and dames/Temp table version draft. As a part of the process, I hope to fill in a fair amount of missing information.

While I realize that this WikiProject for Peerage and Baronetage doesn't precisely cover that sort of thing, it's perhaps closely related enough that people here will be interested. I did a search for a more general WikiProject UK Honours or similar, but I was unable to find one. Well, anyway, if anyone has any advice about any of this, I'm all ears.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

List of honorary British knights and dames

Category:Recipients of Honorary British Knighthoods

Category:Honorary Knights Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George

Category:Honorary Knights Commander of the Order of the British Empire Kittybrewster ☎ 20:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals would probably be the best project. David Underdown (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

David, excellent. Thank you, I will go and ask them for help.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about naming conventions

Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Location gives sensible advice for the location of articles on Peers, suggesting our standard format "except in cases where the title is never (or hardly ever) used."

What is the general thinking on newly elevated peers, such as Nat Wei, Baron Wei? Lord Wei was certainly in the press before his elevation (though, unlike some famous peers, he wasn't very very famous before and seems unlikely to become very very famous after) and of course never referred to by his title. Do we move them immediately, except in case they were already very very famous, do we make a judgment call? I ask because I'm thinking of creating some articles on some of the newer peers about whom we don't have an article, or expanding them, and looking through a batch, it is not clear that we are consistent on this point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

To my mind many of these newly ennobled folk were not so famous that they were WP:NOTABLE until they became notable by virtue of becoming members of the legislature. There is a much higher hurdle for a businessman or soldier than there is for a sportsman or actor. Therefore I am inclined to start such articles with the title. Some editors are minded to think that position is elitist, pretentious (which it certainly is not) or snobbish and prefer to omit the title. The fact is that it can be a very useful disambiguator.Kittybrewster ☎ 18:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The long-standing convention, until it was changed with very little discussion, was that we used the title unless the person was "exclusively" known without it. This reserved the class to people like Margaret Thatcher, so it was easy. John Prescott you leave; Nat Wei you move. Then, a group of editors really wanted Baroness Ashton to be at Cathy Ashton because that's how the EU refers to her. Once they realised the naming convention was against them, they decided to change it without publicising they were changing a long established policy. What they left behind was a situation where you have to ask that question and many people have no idea they changed the policy. -Rrius (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems wiser, then, if we change the policy back, and carve out an exception for Baroness Ashton if that's necessary.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The previous "policy" (i.e. guideline) was patently absurd, in that it required that the name be "exclusively" used, which is never the case. Discussion, both at the Ashton page and now at WT:NCROY, seems to show that there is little consensus for any kind of highly restrictive rule of this type (though exactly what there currently is consensus for is not yet apparent - all are invited to join the discussion). --Kotniski (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And it was never taken absolutely literally; but it was a fairly good indication of what we had in mind - it is unusual, and most often either a gaffe or a polemic, to refer to the 3rd Earl Russell or the Earl of Avon. Ideally we should see if the press calls Wei Lord Wei, and if so, how often. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And how often they call him "Baron Wei", if that's what's being proposed. (There seems to be a major misapprehension among some peerage editors that everyone recognizes "Baron" or "Viscount" as a replacement for the familiar "Lord" - of course those editors do, but I don't think readers in general do, regardless of which country they come from.)--Kotniski (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We cannot use Lord as a substitute for both Baron and Viscount without introducing the ambiguities we use full name and title to avoid. Thomas X, 2nd Baron Y and Thomas X, 2nd Viscount Y often both exist; indeed they are not infrequently grandfather and grandson. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't mean we should start using Lord generally; I mean that the argument "he's known as Lord Wei, therefore we increase recognizability by calling him '...Baron Wei' " is not as valid as some peerage buffs seem to think.--Kotniski (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are all getting hot under the collar about little. The orignal question concerns a life peer. For hereditaries we should stick to the convention. In case where the title is not used, it may be appropriate for the article to be at the common name, and the standard format article-title to be a redirect to that. In other cases, it will be vice-versa. We had such a discussion over the author Adam Nicolson some months back. He had inherited a hereditary title Baron Carnock (which he did not intend to use). An editor moved his article to the new title, and some one else (believed to be the subject of the article) reverted it; we accepted his wish: his title appears in the lead but not in the title. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Should we use Lord instead of Baron for life peers (it's usage, and it's unambiguous; they are all Barons, after all)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean literally "Lord" in place of "Baron" - i.e. using titles like "John Smith, Lord Smith"? Or simply "Lord Smith"? (If the first, then I'm not sure it would match any sort of usage; but I'd go with the second, in cases where that name is more recognizable than the personal name itself.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No. That is (not very subtle) sabotage.. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Calm down; it was a question. If there is no consensus, fine; one does wonder: sabotage to what, and how? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The question was fine. The sabotage is not. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What sabotage? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The approval of Lord Smith or John Smith, Lord Smith rather than John Smith, 4th Earl Smith or John Smith, Baron Smith would make a nonsense of the long form which is clear and unambiguous. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In many of the cases we're talking about, "Lord Smith" will be equally unambiguous, and a lot more clear, than the long form.--Kotniski (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The subject here is life peers, so neither 4th nor Earl can arise.
Explosions in defense of the most highly formal style of a peer should really be confined to the actual formal style: John, Baron Smith - which Wikipedia does not now use. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the opening line of articles on peers is fine as it is: a full form of the subject's name. What I've often felt uneasy about is the use of "Baron" in the page title. The convention on Wikipedia is that the first line uses the person's full name, but the title should be in the same form as the person is usually known.

Changing this would present a number of difficulties though, including the need to maintain consistency between hereditary and life peers (it would be a bit ridiculous to have one as Baron and the other Lord). At the time they were alive, all the hereditary holders of a title would have been styled the same: Lord X. So it makes me think the present system of article naming is probably reasonable, especially with redirects from e.g. Lord Falconer of Thoroton and also shortened forms the holder may be (incorrectly) referred to, e.g. Lord Falconer. This works for hereditaries too, as the redirect can go to the best-known holder, or where there is more than one famous holder, to either a disambiguation page, or a "redirect" hatnote, or the peerage's own page as is appropriate.

Photo or infoboxes are helpful in reinforcing the subject's usual form of address.

As for Catherine Ashton, her situation is unusual. She was only notable for being in the Lords, but then moved to a higher-profile job where she chose to be known by her personal name. It's right and proper to make an exception for her article, but this shouldn't change any policies. The current wording at WP:NCPEER looks fine to me. JRawle (Talk) 11:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Her situation is only unusual in that the change was the other way round. For life peers (I think except for law lords, who are nonetheless known as Lord X, never in practice Baron X), it's perfectly normal for the person to be better known by their original personal name than by their title, which by definition they obtain after a life of notable activity.--Kotniski (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is why it is generally advisable to move them according to our naming convention, just as we would move a notable celebrity, who became notable under one name, upon a substantive name change (marriage being but one example) and their beginning to use the new name. We don't wait in such cases for the balance of google hit counts to shift - we use the current name. (And yes, there are plenty of exceptions where people's legal name changes but they continue to go in professional life by a previous name).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read the many arguments on this matter. They can be condensed to this: following what you call "our naming convention" for peers is most definitely not consistent with what we do with any other types of people, whether exceptions or otherwise. With people in general, we name the article according to how the person is best known (sometimes this means how we reasonably expect them to be best known from now on). With life peers (if the "convention" is followed) then people get moved to a name by which they are virtually never known, which isn't a legal name, and which isn't necessarily even recognizable to the general public who well know the person. None of this has anything to do with Google hits - it's about using the "article title" feature in a consistent (and otherwise useful) way across Wikipedia. --Kotniski (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment - name change

I would appreciate comment on the suggested name change on Talk:Gilbert de Clare, 7th Earl of Hertford. Many thanks! Lampman (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Two de jure Earls of Annandale and Hartfell

Would anyone with the relevant expertise like to cast an eye over John Hope-Johnstone (1796–1876) and John Hope-Johnstone (1842–1912)??

I came across the older one (John Hope-Johnstone (1796–1876)) whilst working on Dumfriesshire (UK Parliament constituency) , noticed that the article at that point said that he had remained an MP for 4 years after his death. A bit of checking in Rayment and Craig showed that showed that this remarkable feat was not actually correct, 'cos there were two of them. So I split the second one out to John Hope-Johnstone (1842–1912) and tidied up both articles wrt to their career in the House of Commons, but then noticed that they was both listed in Earl of Annandale and Hartfell as de jure peers.

It looks like both articles could be expanded a little wrt to that the peerage, but I don't have any good sources on Scottish peerages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how we deal with dormant peerages that are subsequently revived (as this one was). The holder was almost certainly blissfully unaware of being entitled. I would have thought that the subject only warranted a passing comment, and I am far from sure that it is appropriate to have a succession box including it. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Baron stubs

re-posted from User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Baron_stubs, in serach of expert input

I've recently been looking into the stub categories for barons, and learned stuff I never knew before: I think I now understand that an English baron may be in the Peerage of England, Peerage of Great Britain or Peerage of the United Kingdom, split by 1707 and 1800. I wonder if it would be helpful to draw attention to those dates in the stub categories? I've added some text to Category:Peerage of the United Kingdom baron stubs and Category:Peerage of England baron stubs. What do you think? Without such advice it's easy for someone like me who isn't and expert on peerages to see "Peerage of England baron stubs" and assume it's the right stub for an English baron!

If you reckon those additions are accurate, helpful, and in the right place/format, I could add similar ones to various other stub categories. PamD (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Pam, you're definitely right to raise the issue, because it's a tangled subject, with no less than five difft sets of peerages in these islands (Ireland, Scotland, England, Great Britain, United Kingdom), and I think it's a great idea to clarify things for readers and editors.

However, the details are rather hard to convey both concisely and accurately, so I think it's important to take care that the much-needed clarification doesn't inadvertently mislead the reader.

For example, many titles created in the Peerage of England are still extant, and likewise of Ireland, Scotland and GB. Your note at Category:Peerage of the United Kingdom baron stubs seems entirely accurate to me, but I'm less sure about Category:Peerage of England baron stubs.

The uncertainty wrt Category:Peerage of England baron stubs is because I don't know whether new titles were created in the Peerage of England after 1707. I do know that some new titles were created in the Peerage of Ireland after 1801, but i dunno if the same thing applies to Scotland, England or GB.

Peerages and baronetcies and so on aren't really one of my areas of interest, and I just try to know enough not to miscategorise or mislabel MPs; the wider subtleties are beyond me. What I know on the subject has almost all been learnt through the good folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, several of whom have an encyclopedic knowledge of the subject.

So what I'll do now is to repost this thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, and seek their advice. I do hope that we can find some way of clarifying things as you suggest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

end of re-posted material

As I understand it, a person has a title in the peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, GB or UK according to when and where the title was created. English and Scottish titles were not created after 1707 and I am surprised to hear that there were Irish ones after 1800. I think we are talking about articles on people, not those on titles; if so, it would be onerous on those applying the stub label to ahve to identify which of the five categories the title belonged to. Furthermore, there are also foreign baronies. Unless there is merit in splitting stubs, it is better to keep them simple, so that they easily get applies correctly. Many Irish peerages were granted as a way of giving an Englishman a title without a seat in the Lords, so that possibly these sinecure peerages continued after 1800: I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorting barons

I can't see anything on the project page which instructs me what the "Default sort" should be for a baron. Looking at Category:Peerage of the United Kingdom baron stubs there are discrepancies: Henry Eaton, 1st Baron Cheylesmore is under "E", though Charles McLaren, 3rd Baron Aberconway is under "A" (and this seems the more common way to sort). Should there be a statement somewhere to indicate the preferred sort key? PamD (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The precise example I'm looking at is Edwin Plowden, Baron Plowden of Plowden (who I hope I've renamed properly, the article having previously been moved by another editor from Edwin Plowden, Baron Plowden to Edwin Plowden): what should his sort key be? I've got him at present at {{DEFAULTSORT:Plowden, Edwin Plowden, Baron Plowden of}}. In this case, almost any variation will get him under "P" for "Plowden" so it's less important, but I wonder what the sort key really should be? I do a lot of stub-sorting, and usually add a sort key where necessary, so it would be good to know the answer to this one! PamD (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that convention has been that categories relating to the title should be sorted by the title, categs related to their life as a commoner should be sorted by their un-ennnobled name, but practice on others has been a bit vague.

So if Joe Snodgrass, 1st Baron Felpersham was in 10 MP categories and was ennobled later in his career, I'd set a DEFAULTSORT of "Snodgrass, Joe" and add a specific sort key to the peerage category. That does leave the sub category sorted inappropriately, which I'm inclined to think is a price worth paying for not having the majority of his categs separately indexed, because ideally we hope that the stub tag will be temporary ... but that view may not be shared by others so it's a good idea to to try to clarify this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Project banner, and project tagging

As far as I can see, this project has no project banner for attaching to articles.

In the case of biographies of individuals, that is clearly un-needed, because {{WPBiography}} has a simple hook to denote that the article is within the scope of this project.

However, there are quite a number of articles which are not strictly biographical, but do fall within the scope of this project: the articles on peerages and a baronetcies (as opposed to those on individual peers or baronets) and those on peerage systems, e.g. Peerage of Ireland and Peerage of England, both of which lack any indication that they are within the scope of this project. I am also unsure to what extent the relevant categories are tagged to indicate the project's involvement.

(This occurred to me when PamD contacted me about the difft peerage categories, and I noticed that the relevant articles had no pointer to this project).

Is there support for creating a project banner template, and applying= it to articles and categories where {{WPBiography}} would be inappropriate? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes please. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll ask an expert to help. I presume that it will be OK to call the template {{WikiProject Peerage}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for help from Happy-melon (talk · contribs), who knows this stuff so well that zie could probably keep on doing when dead. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You may be able to help at the BLP noticeboard

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Use of a reader's blog post as a source in a BLP (climate change BLP)

Background: Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has opined in the area of climate change. As a consequence, people in the world at large have tried to identify areas where he has lied about himself and others, in order to thereby undermine his claims about climate change. And, of course, and sadly, people try to embroil the Wikipedia article in this external dispute.

There is an issue relating to Monckton's peerage that has arisen, which hasn't, as far as can be determined, been properly analyzed and documented by identifiable people with recognizable credentials in the field. Please contribute to the discussion on the BLP noticeboard if you can (a) identify where reliable sources on this matter can be found, or (b) suggest a way of dealing with this that is in accordance with our content policies. Uncle G (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the key question where this board might be able to lend expertise is in the question of whether it is appropriate for Lord Monckton to have ever referred to himself as a "member of the House of Lords" (perhaps not, since he is a hereditary Viscount who became so only after the reform of the Lords, and he's not ever been elected by the other hereditary peers to sit) and - perhaps more important - whether that terminological dispute is noteworthy for his biography.

Our understanding, although the sourcing may be weak, is that he has called himself a member, though without the right to vote or sit in the Lords. That is, as far as I can tell, he never has claimed other than what is factual, save for the terminological question of whether he is a member without the right to vote or sit, or a non-member. The substantive issue is not in question.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I can not find any reliable source which supports Monckton's contention that he is a member of the House of Lords; he does not qualify for membership under their own definition but has sought to be included in the list of members by their definition and has not been elected. More relevant is that he has claimed to be a member of the UK legislature for which there is no ghost of an argument or reliable source. The latter bears heavily on his credibility and I believe there is no BLP case for excluding them. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Lord Monkton is a peer of the realm, but not a member of the House of Lords: only about 90 hereditary peers are now members (since the 1999 reform). He only inherited his title in 2006, and could thus only sit if elected as one of the 90. Whatever he may "claim" as to his status. I consider that we should only allow the term "membership" to apply to those who have the right to sit and vote there; and he does not. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
When discussing a different issue with a legal academic, he introduced me to a piece of specialist legal terminology used to describe claims such as Monckton's: "crap".
See Section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999: "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage."
It could not be clearer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Question on naming conventions - but not ours! :-)

You'll all be relieved to know that this is not a question about our own naming conventions, but something I've notice a few times on the parliament.uk website.

On this list of new members in the Lords some are named as "Rt Hon." and some are not. Why is that?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Presumably those listed as "Rt Hon." are Privy Counsellors - but of course all Barons, Viscounts and Earls are Rt Hon. by virtue of their peerage anyway. The correct distinction would be to put "PC" after their name. Opera hat (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A spot check of the names on the list suggests that you are correct. Is there a convenient list anywhere of Privy Counsellors?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look as though I am correct. Lord Younger is described as "Rt Hon. the Viscount Younger of Leckie" in that list though not a PC - while immediately after him The Right Honourable the Earl of Clancarty is listed merely as "Viscount Clancarty". This prompted me to wonder, on a different subject, whether Irish peers sitting by right of UK peerages wear/wore parliamentary robes according to their actual degree (in this case, Earl) or that by which they hold their seat (in this case, Viscount). Opera hat (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

peers are treated, referred to and wear the robes of their highest title in whichever peerage. Except as I remember two circumstances when they use the title that give them their seat - when signing the roll of parliament to take their seat and when mentioned in the rolls. see [1] You can see the peers with titles in brackets showing the title by which they sit in the Lords. Garlicplanting (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Answered my own question: List of current members of the British Privy Council--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Many peers of the highest ranks are appointed PC almost as a matter of course, but they only become Rt Hon if so appointed. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

See The Right Honourable; the lesser ranks of peers are automatically entitled to the style "Rt. Hon.," although I doubt you see it much of anywhere outside the Gazette these days. Choess (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at that list, most of the privy counsellors are former MPs, and most of the former MPs are privy counsellors. That's unsurprising, because it's the more senior MPs (senior ministers and opposition spokespersons) who become privy counsellors ... and those are the people most likely to be ennobled when they leave the Commons. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Prescriptive barony

This page is a mess. I'm concerned that it may contain longstanding errors of fact which may be used by unscrupulous people involved in the trade in highly questionable "titles". I just now made an edit to remove a very questionable line that suggested that whether or not purchasers of Scottish manorial baronies are peers is "in dispute" - when of course, it is not at all in dispute by any reputable authorities.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

On reading the article there are several matters that I consider questionable, but they are matters of Scottish and Irish practice of which I know little.

I doubt that Scottish real burdens are like English leasehold, as they are (were) apprently perpetual whereas leasehold is not. They might similar to land subject to a rentcharge.
The paragraph explaining where the Parliament dealing with Scotland was from 1707 to 1999, is unnecessary and should be reduced to one sentence (or less) alluding to the creation of the new Scottish Parliament.
I doubt the explanation given of the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 on feudal baronies as becoming baronies by writ. The rightto sit in the English House of Lords depended (both before 1660 and after) on an ancestor having received a writ of summons as a baron or having been created a peer by patent. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter essentially there were a number of older 'peerages' and peers with lesser titles whose status was certainly or believed might be feudal in origin but had become parliamentary peers with normal summons and the wording in the act was such to ensure that those peers who had sat in the lords did not lose such a right by accident or misinterpretation of the act. (hense the language of clause X: "this Act nor any thing therein contained shall infringe or hurt any Title of Honour Feudall or other by which any Person hath or may have right to sitt in the Lords of Parliament as to his or their Title of Honour or sitting in Parliament)" Garlicplanting (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC).

I know far less than you do. I wonder where we might find someone to assist us.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Info boxes in peerage articles

"Infobox peerage title" has been added to a number of peerage articles, such as Baron Birdwood and Baron Aberdare. This has not been discussed and I thought I'd raise the issue here. In my opinion they don't contribute much to the articles. Info boxes are used to summarize long articles; peerage articles (like the ones on the Birdwood and Aberdare baronies) are often very short and contain only basic information so there is no need to summarize them. The only information the info boxes contain that is lacking in the text, is the remainder to the peerage. However, it has been custom not to mention the remainder unless it was not the normal remainder to male heirs. Tryde (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I like it as I think it looks nice. That's not a very strong reason, I know. Digging a bit deeper, I can say that it allows me to see the information I am looking for at a quick glance. (For me, this is often curiosity about who is the current holder.) But I'm not a stickler either way.

In a related matter, I've been adding more of the current members of the House of Lords to my watchlist (I now have surnames A-H watchlisted and will eventually get to all of them I think) and I've been noticing a lot of inconsistency. Many have no infobox at all, and some have Infobox Peer and some have Infoxbox Person and many have no infobox. I believe there are other variants as well. In some cases this may be a necessity, given the varied careers of the Lords. But I think right now it's just happenstance and historical accident.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"happenstance and historical accident" pretty good summary of the British peerage overall! David Underdown (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think they look terrible... The Birdwood and Aberdare articles are a mess now. We also have the problem with subsidiary titles that may have different remainders to the substantive title, such as the viscountcy of Jellicoe. I think the info boxes should go. Tryde (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

How are they a mess? I tend to like them for, I think, more or less the same reasons Jimbo does. I'm not sure we ultimately get anywhere if the dispute is between "I think it looks nice" and "I think they look terrible." The issue of subsidiary titles with different remainders is worth thinking about, though. john k (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with other comments above that infoboxes add to articles by allowing the user to see the most important information on an article at a glance. They are widely used across Wikipedia now in articles on all manner of subjects and especially aid in reading article content on small devices such as iPhones, also as highlighted by Jimbo they help to bringing some consistency to articles on peerages. I also agree with Jimbo and John K that they enhance the look of articles rather than detracting from them, although this is a secondary consideration. We can easily omit details from infoboxes that are deemed problematic, having said that any complex issues surrounding subsidiary titles with different remainders would surely be detailed in the body text of the article itself?Oxenhillshaw (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see why we need info boxes for extremely short articles like Baron Birdwood (and most peerage articles). The information is readily available in the short body of text. And the Birdwood article looks a mess with a large gap between the main body of text and the list of holders below and the photograph looking lost down at the bottom of the page. The territorial designation has also for some reason been italicized. I don't "own" peerage articles but I have put in enormous work in expanding them and making them look uniform, and am therefore naturally a bit wary of any major changes to them. But if there is consensus over introducing info boxes I will of course bow to pressure from the community. If we agree that info boxes should be introduced, I think the layout needs to be improved. Oxenhillshaw has made good work in downloading coats of armour, these should be made larger, as it is now it is virtually impossible to see what they actually portray. The blue colour also needs to be changed, perhaps into light blue. Tryde (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite a few articles about peerage titles are long. Having an infobox in articles such as Duke of Hamilton can't hurt. If there is a problem with an individual article, shouldn't it be discussed at the talk page of that article? I created the infobox because I found many peerage-related articles a bit messy or even lacking information. Few articles mentioned the date of the creation of the title, so I had to search for the date whenever I wanted to add the infobox. Few articles mentioned the creator of the title, i.e. the monarch who granted it. A reader shouldn't have to guess who created the title or go through several articles to find that out. And what's wrong with clearly stating who can inherit the title? A vast majority of our readers would not know that most titles pass only to heirs male. I don't mind changing the look of the infobox if that's a problem. Surtsicna (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I am not a great fan of infoboxes, particularly when they contain excessive information or repeat information in succession box. The probelm of their leading to the presence of excessive white space is a widespread one that needs to be dealt with in a wider context than that of this project. The issue concerns the relationship between templates and photos on the one hand and headings on the other. I have on occasions tried to sort this out by relocating photos, but this is fiddly to so. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it has to be noted that the length of the infoboxes depends on the presence or not of coats of arms, which is far from universal in our articles on peerage titles. That said, I also wonder to what extent the presence of coats of arms influences the opinions of editors regarding their appearance. I tend to find infoboxes lacking images a bit odd. Waltham, The Duke of 14:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it clear that we'd love to have a picture and coat of arms for all of them. I wonder if we might think about a specific project to try to make that happen. I'm happy to lend my name to a letter to the House of Lords asking for their assistance in this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your sentiment, Mr Wales, although I imagine the College of Arms would be of greater assistance than the House of Lords in this case. (Unless you are talking about photographs of the current holders of the titles? By "images" I was referring to any images, in this case of coats of arms.)

At any rate, I understand there are copyright limitations pertaining to existing images of coats of arms (unless they are old enough to have passed into the public domain, such as this), and that it is preferable to create new (ideally vector) images of the shields based on the blazons, which are already known in most cases. Others know better than me about these things, but I observe that the coats of arms in the Birdwood and Aberdare examples above have been created and released into the public domain by Oxenhillshaw, who appears to have been rather busy lately. Waltham, The Duke of 21:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Editing multiple articles

Phoebus de Lusignan (talk · contribs)

Problems with sourcing and accuracy have been suggested with respect to these edits. Attention from project participants is needed, even if it is only to impress upon the the editor the necessity of citing sources, given our past experience in this area. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked him for 3 hours, since he wasn't willing to stop and discuss what he was doing. But the subject definitely needs further discussion; if it's just a case of a highly-efficient editor making reasonable edits, I don't want to put too many roadblocks in his way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Phoebus de Lusignan has made numerous edits to articles on peers, adding all the titles a peer held in the lead (in bold text). In the article on for instance the 5th Duke of Buccleuch this amounts to 14 titles with the numerals. I can't see how this would benefit the encyclopedia in any way. The focus in an article should be on what the person did, not what titles he or she held. User:Phoebus de Lusignan is also obviously a very experienced Wikipedia-editor that came here with a very special agenda, and made no effort to discuss the matter before making hundreds of edits. Tryde (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Experienced indeed! DrKiernan identified him as a sockpuppet of User:G.-M. Cupertino, and he has been blocked indef. Any volunteers for the clean-up? Favonian (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I came across this user at Samantha Cameron. (Apparently her descent from Charles II makes her "a niece of Henry VIII".) I notice this user has added the title "Sir" to the names of holders of knighthoods and baronetcies, including peers, electors and even a prince. I'm fairly sure that isn't right but before I remove any more, can anyone confirm this? Thanks. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding "Sir" would definitely be wrong for princes, but I don't see why it would be wrong for peers. Burke's does it. Opera hat (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It does? Because I've been under the impression that Rt Hon. and higher styles trump Sir unless the subject is a commoner and Privy Counsellor, in which case they may be used side by side. Now, if only I could find a source for that... Waltham, The Duke of 15:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

My copy of Titles and Forms of Addresses says "Knights or Dames who have no other title... are addressed as Sir or Lady", which seemed to imply that peers are no addressed in that way (one of the examples given is "The Duke of Middlesex, KG"). Though I don't know whether that makes it incorrect for a peer or merely unnecessary, I am certain it's extremely unusual.--188.221.105.68 (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course a peer would not be addressed as "Sir". But if he holds a knighthood or baronetcy I don't see why he should be denied the style appertaining thereto in circumstances where his name is given in full (for example, at the start of an encyclopaedia article). Opera hat (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

What does Debrett's do? Cokayne? john k (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The page on knights' styles from the Debrett's website opens with "the dignity of knighthood carries the prefix of 'Sir' " and later says that "a peer who receives a knighthood of an order of chivalry adds the appropriate letters of order after his name, for example: the Viscount Angmering, KCVO". It is reasonable to assume that there isn't a different rule for a knight who is later elevated to the peerage (knights bachelor included).

It seems this is where I got that general impression; I remember reading those pages when they first became available. Waltham, The Duke of 12:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Royal Warrants/Charters, Acts of Parliament and English grants of arms certainly don't use "Sir" for peers which seems as authoritative source as we can get.Garlicplanting (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I had noticed some of these edits being reverted. I think some of the reverters may have gone a little too far. This applies to the first holders of titles, who proviously held a lower one. I do not think that Rt Hon and Sir cannot be used together: Rt Hon is an honorific not a title. However, "Sir" is not used for a person holding a peerage, becasue the peerage is a higher title. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I deliberately avoided reverting where I found that the title was used earlier on. The exception is this diff [2], where the addition of "sir" looked like a guess and there's no evidence of when the holder was knighted. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr King has summed it up excellently. As I've said, Rt Hon and Sir can be used together for knights or baronets who are also Privy Counsellors, e.g. The Right Honourable Sir John Smith, GCB. It is when Sir John is elevated to the peerage, and Sir John Smith is superseded by The Lord Smith of Nowhere, that the incompatibility arises and my previous example becomes The Right Honourable The Lord Smith of Nowhere, GCB, PC. Waltham, The Duke of 11:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Peer

You may be interested in Template talk:Infobox Peer. The infobox is hideous, full of parameters for trivial information and useful but misplaced parameters. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Throughout 2010, many Wikipedia editors have worked hard to halve the number of unreferenced biographical articles (UBLPs) from more than 52,000 in January to under 26,000 now. The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons has assisted in many ways, including helping to setup a bot, which runs daily, compiling lists of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peerage and Baronetage/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 47 articles to be referenced. A list of all projects that are being tracked can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. We've done a lot, but we still have a long way to go. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Peerage categories

User:Surtsicna has made hundreds of edits to categories relating to the British peerage, mainly on 31 August. This has not been properly discussed within the community. What he/she did was to remove Category:Earls in the Peerage of England, Earls in the Peerage of Great Britain and so on, and replacing them with numerous subcategories, such as Category:Earls of Pembroke, and subcategories of subcategories, such as Category:Earls of Pembroke (1138). I don't think this is in the interest of the encyclopedia for a number of reasons. Firstly, the "earls in the peerage of ..." give a good overview of title holders in a certain peerage not to be found anywhere else in the encyclopedia. Secondly, holders of a certain title are already listed in the article on the peerage, see for instance Earl of Pembroke. The new subcategories consequently fill no real purpose. Thirdly, I believe that readers will find it tiresome to navigate between numerous subcategories and subcategories of subcategories. They are more likely to annoy than to be of any help. Fourthly, the original categories have been in place for many years and obviously have the support of the majority of editors to peerage articles. Such sweeping changes should have been thoroughly discussed before implementing them.

What I'm suggesting as a compromise is that the new subcategories are kept. The original broader categories are reinserted into the relevant articles. I have already began this move and have come as far as the subcategory Category:Earls of Rutland. I have found this very tiresome and would like some help here. Tryde (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll find you've frequently been reverted - generally when an article is in a subcateogry it shouldnt' be in the parent category too. I cabn't really see how the categories as they were were particularly useful, there were just too many articles to make them readily navigable. When that happens the standard thing to do is divide them, and by individual peerage title seem the most sensible. Allowing multiple subcats where person holds more than one title allows this to be (potentially) far more useful, as unlike with the lists, someone doesn't have to be to au fait about subsidiary titles to find useful info about their holders. David Underdown (talk)

On second-thoguhts, may be the sub-cats could be regarded as "non-diffusing categories", see WP:DUPCAT, allowign both approaches to be used? David Underdown (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone can be expected to find an Earl of Shaftesbury in Category:Earls in the Peerage of England, as that person would be mixed among 800 other people. How can that be useful? How can anyone argue that it would not be cleaner and more helpful to have c. 10 articles in Category:Earls of X (which is a subcategory of Category:Earls in the Peerage of England) instead of c. 800 articles in Category:Earls in the Peerage of England? Surtsicna (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

A reader doesn't use categories to find a certain person, it uses them to get an overview of people or objects that share the same characteristics, such as a title in a certain peerage. If you want to find a certain Earl of Shaftesbury, you go to the article on that peerage, where there is also an extensive coverage of the title holders and the descent of the title. Can you explain to me what you consider the point in having a category such as Category:Earls of Pembroke and then a subcategory such as Category:Earls of Pembroke (1138), when they are all listed in the article on the peerage (Earl of Pembroke). Tryde (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"A reader doesn't use categories to find a certain person, it uses them to get an overview of people or objects that share the same characteristics." And getting an overview of people that share the same characteristics is much easier if those people are grouped in categories that contain c. 10 articles (all of which are subcategories of a category such as Category:Earls in the Peerage of England). That's the concept of subcategory. Holders of one title obviously shared much more characteristics with holders of the same title than with holders of other titles in the same peerage. One could argue that we should put them all in Category:People, for they all shared human characteristics - which would be crazy, of course. As for Category:Earls of Pembroke and Category:Earls of Pembroke (1138), I have to ask you about Category:English monarchs and Category:Anglo-Saxon monarchs, which exist despite the existence of List of English monarchs. Same for Category:Kings of France, Category:Frankish kings and List of French monarchs, etc. See WP:SUBCAT; should we put all European rivers in Category:Rivers of Europe and delete categories such as Category:Rivers of Albania in order to help the reader "get an overview of people or objects that share the same characteristics"? I have to say it's quite sad that there are users who oppose every change just because it's a change, because "it's been that way for 8 years". Surtsicna (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I must say I wasn't greatly impressed by this idea when it was first suggested, but on further reflection, I think it's the right way to go. Categories as vast as this are generally diffused into smaller categories to make them more manageable and usable, and I really can't think of any sensible way of breaking down the peers except by specific title. (I don't know if we need separate categories per creation of the same title, though.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

When the peers were categorised by peerage you could easily get an overview of them. There is no equivalent of List of French monarchs for peers - we don't have List of earls in the Peerage of England (and I don't we should create such an article). With Surtsicna's system you have to navigate through a hundred or so subcategories and then through a number of subcategories of these subcategories. This when holders of a certain peerage are already listed in the article on the peerage. Some of the new categories will also be seriously undercrowded, see for instance Category:Earls Alexander of Tunis - what is the point of such a category?. And I'm not opposed to change, I just think such massive changes to a system that have been in place for years need to be discussed at length before they are implemented. When a category has been used for five or six years this usually means that it is serving its function and is appreciated by users and readers of the encyclopedia. I can only reiterate the compromise I suggested at first, the original, broader categories will remain intact alongside the new subcategories. Tryde (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is constantly growing. Not only does the number of earls in the Peerage of England grow - the number of Wikipedia's articles about dead earls also continues to grow. Wikipedia does not currently have an article about every earl - but one day, it might (and probably will) have. Five or six years ago, there were much less articles about earls than there are today. Thus, it was acceptable to have them all in Category:Earls in the Peerage of England. The category that contains c. 800 articles as of 2010 should be diffused. If "my system" is going to bring 100 new subcategories, then you should think about what's "your system" offering: 100 groups of people in one overcrowded category. Surtsicna (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually don't think many more articles on peers will be created, instead a cull may be necessary as there are many articles on non-notable peers with only genealogical information. See for instance Edward Harris, 4th Earl of Malmesbury, William Pleydell-Bouverie, 9th Earl of Radnor and George Villiers, 8th Earl of Clarendon. So the system we have now is working fine. Tryde (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are going to propose a mass deletion that would leave the category with 200 articles at most, I still believe that diffusion is neccessary. Surtsicna (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because an article currently only contains genealogical information does not necessarily mean the subject is non-notable. john k (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get that magic number from? What would be your remedy for Category:Members of the Order of the British Empire then? I think the system we have now is fine. In reply to John k: No, but you probably agree on that there are many articles on peers that wouldn't meet the notability criteria. Tryde (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Go to the category and press "next 200". You should be able to do that four times, now that you have reincluded all the Earls into the category regardless of the fact that they are in appropriate subcategories. If there were a remedy for Category:Members of the Order of the British Empire, we would use it. Surtsicna (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It rather depends; one could interpret notability rather broadly to include someone like the 4th Earl of Malmesbury, who has, for example, an entry in Cokayne's Complete Peerage. Does that make him notable? I'm not sure; it doesn't give much more information than our current article: it tells us, additionally, the regiment he served in, but that's about all. Is that significant coverage in reliable sources? I'm not sure. It's a full entry in a reliable source, and, in general, I don't see what harm such an article does. He was also a member of the House of Lords, which many would argue makes him notable. I'm inclined to inclusionism in cases like this, but it wouldn't be a great loss if that article were deleted. john k (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

WE do not need categories for each peerage, becaus the job is done much better by the list articles on each peerage. It is very easy to find the right Earl of Shaftesbury or Arundel, by going to the article on the title in question (and they all now exist). This will quickly show whehter there is an article on the person in question (with a bluelink) or not (redlink). Where there is a redlink, editing will show the preferred form for the potential article, to which there may already be several links. I agree that the Earls category is not particularly useful, but neither is the category by title. A category might possibly be useful where there have been a significant number of holders (though I am far from convinced), but where there have only been one or two holders of the title, the category will just be a wate of space. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Surtsicna, I would personally find it more useful to have an overview of peers in a certain peerage in four of five pages (as is the case now) than having to navigate through a hundred or so subcategories and then subcategories of subcategories. And as Peterkingiron points out above they fill no real purpose when the holders are already listed in the peerage article. Do we really need Category:Earls of Kilmuir, a title that was only held by one person? Now, we don't. This whole thing shows that Wikipedia doesn't really work... You shouldn't be able to make such sweeping changes so easily. It really makes you wonder why you're bothering with Wikipedia. Tryde (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Change is what Wikipedia editing's all about... Assume some good faith, Surtscina's clearly doing something that he believes makes the encyclopedia better. Unfortunately the category system is rather limited in its functionality, so it's often hard to find a solution that pleases everyone. In fact, to be honest, I don't think these particular categories will be much use to anyone, however they're organized - people looking for Earl articles will find them through other routes than by browsing categories. It's probably a lot of fuss about nothing, but I don't see how a reader is helped by being presented with many pages of articles rather than a more compact list of earldoms where he can click on the ones that interest him. (A compromise might be to create subcategories only for those titles which have been held by, say five or more people, and keep the Kilmuir types in the main category - as long as the chosen system is explained on the category page.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course I would never create a category that would contain only one article. Please don't put such words into my mouth. As Kotniski said, such articles would be kept in the main category. Surtsicna (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering why Tryde hasn't stopped his wide-reaching campaign while this discussion is going on; at least four editors have objected to his actions, and yet he still persists. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you did create one with two articles in it, Category:Earls Alexander of Tunis - not exactly in line for the "Wikipedia category of the year award" is it? Kotniski: I'm assuming good faith but Surtsicna appears to be an experienced user that should have known better - this should have been discussed at length before such drastic measures were undertaken. He/she should at least have kept the original categories. I also agree that these categories probably aren't widely used. A reader will use the the peerage article to find a certain peer - not the categories - that's why I can't see that the new categories are of any use. As I have said before the original categories gave a good overview of the holders of titles in a certain peerage that you were not able to find anywhere else in the encyclopedia. In reply to Miesianiacal: I am now restoring the original categories that have been in place for about five years. I'm not removing the new categories added by Surtsicna, there is a major difference. Tryde (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said at your talk page, and as has been pointed out to you here and elsewhere, you are inserting a redundant category, putting articles both in a sub-category and a bigger category the sub-category is already a part of. (You don't even seem to be discerning between articles that are in sub-categories with fifteen pages in them and articles in sub-categories with two pages in them.) That's the point you seem to keep missing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Tryde, you also have the option of nominating hte categories for deletion. If there was consensus for deletion, the categories would be depopulated (and the articles restored to the basic earldom etc cats) by bots, saving you effort. Might get broader input thorugh that process too. Diffusing cateogries when the main cateogry has got large is generally seen as fairly non-controversial. David Underdown (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, it's you who consider them to be redundant. But these are the categories we have used for at least five years. I consider the new categories created by Surtsicna to be redundant and of no particular use. If it was up to me I would have the new categories deleted but as I understand there are differing views here I'm trying to suggest a compromise, even if this means that the peers are members of both a bigger category and a subcategory, which is not ideal. Is this compromise something we can agree on? It's time we found a solution. Tryde (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The new categories are redundant to what, exactly? They are useful - at least for diffusing a useless category into managable and legible subcategories. Whenever someone suggests a change, your main argument seems to be "no, this is how it's been for X years". Wikipedia is not supposed to remain unchanged for five years. It has changed dramatically since 2005, as it now contains hundreds of new articles about earls in the Peerage of England. What worked then simply doesn't work now. Why do we need a category in which one has to click on "next 200" several times before reaching the page that contains the names of the Earls of Westmorland along with the names of more than 150 other men? Surtsicna (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have presented my arguments over and over again. My main argument is this. Say a person watches a film or reads a book and encounters someone named Earl of Westmorland. He or she then wants to know more about this person. She goes to Wikipedia. What is he/she then most likely to do? 99,99% or readers would simply search for Earl of Westmorland and would end up at the article on the peerage with a complete list of holders. I think very few would act in the following way: They would search for Category:Earls in the Peerage of England (most readers unfamiliar to Wikipedia probably doesn't know there is something called categories and many are probably unaware that there is something called the Peerage of England). The chances of a reader getting annoyed with having to go through a couple of pages to reach the earls of Westmorland are very remote. Surtsicna, my advice to you is, if you're looking for a certain peerage or peer, type in the name of that peerage in the search function, don't go through the categories section. By adding hundreds of subcategories, you are making it very hard to get an overview of title holders in a certain peerage. What is the point in that and what is the point in having extremely small categories such as the one with the two earls Alexander of Tunis? I am not opposed to change, of course Wikipedia is evolving. But I can't see how the new subcategories would improve the encyclopedia. Tryde (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What kind of an "overview" does Category:Earls in the Peerage of England present now? Thank you for your advice on finding a certain article, but it's unneccessary. WP:Categorization#What categories should be created says: "Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles." Surtsicna (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In five Wikipedia pages I get an overview of all Earls in the Peerage of England that have Wikipedia articles. I am not able to get this anywhere else on the encyclopedia. I don't have to navigate through perhaps one hundred or more subcategories and subcategories of subcategories to view them. If I'm interested in a certain peerage I go to the article on that peerage. Tryde (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So you believe that, once you are viewing Category:Earls in the Peerage of England, it's easier to click four times on "next 200" and view them in four groups of 200 than click on subcategories and view them in groups of 10-20? Honestly, I can't believe there is this much fuss about process as simple as category diffusion - as if I proposed deletion of Category:Earls in the Peerage of England.Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If I wanted to view them in groups of 10-20 I would use the peerage articles, not the category section. For instance, the article Earl of Kimberley is one thousand times more useful than Category:Earls of Kimberley. To get an easy overview of all earls in the Peerage of England, I would use Category:earls in the Peerage of England. Something that would be much more difficult if your system of subcategories and subcategories of subcategories is implemented. Tryde (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good. So why we don't put all the earls into Category:British earls? Wouldn't that give you a great "overview", since there is no article that contains the names of all British earls that ever lived? Surtsicna (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

My basic feeling on all this is that categories, in general, are pretty much useless. Huge categories are useless, and so are tiny categories. What's the point? When do actual wikipedia users ever use them? john k (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that some one puts up a CFD nomination for a sample dozen of Surtsicna's new categories. We can all vote on that and in a week's time we will have an answer by consensus. This can them be followed up with a mass nomination of all his creations if the sample are deleted. Otherwise this discussion will run on for ever. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems like it will go on forever because Tryde just doesn't seem to comprehend that it's common practice to split large categories into smaller ones. That said, I get the observation that a category with two articles in it is hardly worth its existence. Instead of going through the unwieldy process of AfDs for every sub-category, why don't we just decide now what the minimum population of a sub-category should be? Say, any less than three articles and it should go. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This has become ridiculous. Since I last checked in, the discussion has moved from "Should Surtsicna be able to create a vast number of extra categories that he finds useful?" to "Should Surtsicna be allowed to destroy the existing category setup so that he can do so?" Most of what the back-and-forth above has proved, if anything, is that there are people who find broad, "flat" categories useful, and others who find deep, "jagged" category hierarchies useful. Both types of people exist; de gustibus non disputandem est; and further battering on their merits and demerits isn't going to change anyone's mind or taste.

What I have not seen addressed in the slightest is Peterkingiron's original observation that these categories are completely redundant to the existing articles on peerages. Other than gratifying people's tastes as to the state of the category hierarchy, I don't see what advantage at all is gained by having navigation based on lists of peerages in category space rather than in article space.

That said, I don't think there's actual harm done by Surtscina creating his peerage categories in parallel with the existing ones, provided that they are treated as non-diffusible. (See WP:DUPCAT, which David Underdown linked above—it would have been nice had Miesianical read it before he began issuing obiter dicta on "common practice".) This preserves the existence of both navigation methods and is in conformance with policy and guidelines. Indeed, I think there's a strong argument for making these categories non-diffusible. In the examples given above (subdividing "Rivers of Europe", etc.), the parent category of the diffused subcategory will generally be fairly obvious, e.g., Europe is in France, therefore the "Rivers of France" are among the "Rivers of Europe". "UK MPs 1801–1802" are "Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom", and so on. Quick, what peerage contains "Barons Newborough?" What about "Viscounts Gage"? As soon as the peers have been diffused into Surtscina's categories, it becomes impossible to determine their peerage by a glance at the categories. In addition, breaking up the peers as suggested above, so that some of them are in the higher-level "..in the Peerage of..." categories and some are under the lower-level categories that pertain to their title, is unaesthetic, albeit sanctioned just as non-diffusible categories are (see WP:SUBCAT.) That seems to me to carry as much weight as the (erroneous) insistence that we are obliged to remove the parent category when we subcategorize.

On balance, allowing Surtscina to create non-diffusible categories for titles with a significant number of holders seems like the most reasonable compromise between the two parties. If diffusibility is to be insisted on, I, at least, strongly register my objection and will promote the deletion of his categories through any channel permissible by Wikipedia policy. Choess (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support the compromise proposed by Choess. Tryde (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I will not allow being "allowed" to do anything. If nobody else finds my actions/proposal useful, I will not waste my time. If somebody does find it useful, then I don't need to do it all by myself anyway. In any case, I do not appreciate the lack of assumption of good faith here. If you believe that I am trying to "destroy" something, I see no reason to continue the discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

How do we proceed from here? Tryde (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Görges family

Could someone with knowledge of 'aristocratic English families with Norman origins' take a look at Görges family, please? It may just need improvement but, given the limited contributors and references, I suspect it is a hoax.Cavrdg (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the normal starting point is Loyd's Origins of some Anglo-Norman Families which takes no mention of this family, that I could find. Turning to Keats-Rohan's Domesday People there is no such person under Radulf Gorges, de Gorges, de Meulville, etc. Note also that most "came over with the Conqueror" things are based on things that were later forged long after the Battle of Hastings. The actual number of folks who can be documented to have fought at Hastings is very very small, something like 25 or so. Most of them are very well documented and known. See Companions of William I of England for a small (unsourced) list. The online Oxford Dictionary of National Biography has an interesting article on the companions at here, but you'll need a subscription or a UK library card to access. See ODNB Bio of Thomas Gorges for a total lack of information on his supposed Norman descent. Also Fernando Gorges, who seems to be Thomas' brother. I've never heard of this supposed Norman family, in all my digging amongst Anglo-Norman history. NOr is there any mention in Fleming's Kings and Lords in Conquest England, Green's The Aristocracy of Norman England or Newman's The Anglo-Norman Nobility in the reign of Henry I. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Arthur Gorges does have some rather more reliable sources including this so they're not just a figment of someone's imagination but the chances of anyone having a copy of

The Story of a Family through Eleven Centuries, Illustrated by Portraits and Pedigrees: Being a History of the Family of Gorges. by Raymond Gorges, Frederick Brown; Merrymount Press, 1944. 293 pgs.

to verify anything must be remote.Cavrdg (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually according to World Cat here there's a copy just down the way from me at the University of Illinois. Note there is also a review of the book here, which is also at the U of I. Next time I'm down there, I'll do a looksee. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have come across the name "Gorges" as a gentry family. However, "Görges" is certainly a spelling never used in English. That families came over with the conqueror is often asserted, but, except for the great nobility, very difficult to prove. One option might be to merge the article with that for the extinct Irish peerage, but if too many of those named are remote collaterials, that would not be a good idea. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I would incline towards deleting the article entirely, as being either inadequately sourced for its claims or redundant to other articles. ("What is new is not good, and what is good is not new.") The notable figures in the family seem to have their own articles and the reliable connections between them adequately documented there. The supposed Norman descent and the link to the Görges family of the Continent seem to me suppositious in the extreme, and I am doubtful as to whether the "History of the Family of Gorges" constitutes a reliable source for the European (as opposed to American) descent of the family. (In my experience, American-published genealogies are notorious for deriving connections to European royalty by wishful thinking.) Choess (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

English sources written by family members are rarely better, especially about Norman descents. That this book was published during WWII suggests a lack of contact with archival sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Propose Adding Information About Years Title Held

This is a response to a couple of edits I made to Duke of Beaufort that were reverted by User:Tryde.

Basically, I had edited the page because I think the lists need to be easier to tell who held the title for any given year.

For example, I replaced:

Henry Somerset, 1st Marquess of Worcester (1577–1646), eldest son of the 4th Earl, was a noted Cavalier
Edward Somerset, 2nd Marquess of Worcester (1601–1667), eldest son of the 1st Marquess
Henry Somerset, 3rd Marquess of Worcester (1629–1700) was created Duke of Beaufort in 1682, upon the Restoration

Henry Somerset, Lord Herbert (b. bef. 1660), eldest son of the 3rd Marquess, died in infancy

with

From	To	Marquess of Worcester	Lifespan	Notes
1642	1646	Henry Somerset	(1577–1646)	Eldest son of the 4th Earl, was a noted Cavalier
1646	1667	Edward Somerset	(1601–1667)	Eldest son of the 1st Marquess
1667	1700	Henry Somerset	(1629–1700)	Was created Duke of Beaufort in 1682.
		Henry Somerset	(b. bef. 1660)	Eldest son of the 3rd Marquess, died in infancy. Styled Lord Herbert.

I think that the information about who held the title when should be included on the page about the peerage. For example, if I'm reading and I see a reference to "the Duke of Beaufort" did something in 1669, I should be able to come to the Wikipedia page and be able to figure that out pretty quickly, no? You can figure it out from the information currently on the page, but I think it would be nice if it were more clear. Adam sk (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As you said you can figure it out yourself by looking at the date of death of the predecessor and the date of death of the incumbent. I don't think we need to be clearer. The system we have now is used in thousands of articles and seems to be working well and is in accordance with the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. I also think that the table system you are suggesting is seriously flawed. Firstly, you have left out the title in the list of holders as well as the ordinal. Secondly, an heir apparent is also listed among the holders which will seriously confuse readers. Heirs to peerages are usually included below the list of holders. Tryde (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no objection to the conversion of the lists of holders to tables. I think that the insertion of non-succeeding heirs appraent was my innovation, with the objective of incorporating the holders of courtesy titles into the scheme: these articles are useful as a finding aid enabling one to identify which holder of the title is referred to, and also to identify the eventual title of the holder of a courtesy title. However, I would suggest that only the date of birth, not those of the full lifespan should be given (and without brackets). It is rare for a person to cease to hold a title in their lifetime and this can be satisfactorily dealt with in notes. The cases that I can think of are attainder (where not quickly followed by execution), and (in respect of subsidiary titles only) where the heir apparent was summoned to Parliament by a writ of advancement. The case of the non-succeeding heir, needs to be treated differnetly. I would suggest that the name should be what would be preferred as the article title if we were to have one (and often we will not). The dates columns should contain "d.v.p." (the usual abbreviation), with a rowspan across the two date columns.

Nevertheless, this should not be done piecemeal to one peerage article. It would be necessary to convert all of them to the new style and there are 1000s of them. Adam sk, are you willing to undertake this? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be necessary? A table would probably only be appropriate for titles with several notable holders. For more obscure peerages surely the simple list would remain the best format. Opera hat (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have actually been thinking before about tables for some peerage titles. This conversation has (finally) prompted me to do an example here: User:Opera hat/Dukes of Marlborough. What do people think? Dates of birth aren't on there at the moment, but I must say I quite like the inclusion of all the heirs, which throws up some interesting sidelights - I never knew Winston Churchill was heir-presumptive to the Dukedom for a short while. Opera hat (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I greatly prefer lists to tables for this kind of information, though I don't see any problem with including the "years title held" in the list entries. I can't help noticing, though, as a side issue, that the Duke of Beaufort article has serious problems - it includes off-topic lists of various Earls of Worcester that apparently had nothing to do with any Dukes of Beaufort, they just happened to hold a title which, under a later creation, the Dukes of Beaufort would come to hold. Is this sort of thing common? There really needs to be a separate page for Earl of Worcester, doesn't there?--Kotniski (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There should absolutely be a separate Earl of Worcester article. john k (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer if the simpler lists are retained. I can't see the need to add the years a certain peer held his title, surely the average reader would be able to deduce that from the birth and death dates? While the table produced by Opera Hat must have been a lot of work, I at least find it hard to understand. The question is also, should we really give such detailed information? I will try to have a look at the Earl of Worcester article in the next few days. Tryde (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with you. The table idea seemed good when I was doing it but looking back it's not that far removed from articles like List of consorts of Orléans, which are horrendous as an easily accessible way of viewing information. Opera hat (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree Earl of Worcester should be demerged. However the section on the Somerset earls should remain here; the heading should be given followed by a link to this article. I have no strong view in favour of the tables. Information on the relationship to a predecessor is useful, but needs to be treated as an optional extra. The date of inheritance is easily derived from the death of the predecessor. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Earl of Worcester is now a separate article, with a link to Duke of Beaufort. Tryde (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well done: exactly what I hoped some one would do. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

For your attention

Because I knew there was a wikiproject on this, and not everyone follows RfC, I decided to look this page up to post this: [[3]], an RfC on article titles for peers. siafu (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the RFC to Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions (royalty and nobility)#RfC: United Kingdom Peerage titles -- PBS (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles listed for deletion

John de Sutton V

Uncle G (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Default sorting

Per this discussion, a lot of peers seem to have had defaultsort data added by bots in the past using a hard-and-fast "last word is the surname" rule—thus, for instance, Charles Wood, 3rd Earl of Halifax has "surname=Halifax, firstname=Charles, middlename=Wood 3rd Earl of". As there are far too many to check at once—17,058 articles currently in Category:Nobility of the United Kingdom alone, plus assorted baronets, pre-Union Irish titles, and the whole of the French and German nobility—does anyone have any thoughts? My personal feeling is that cleaning the whole lot up isn't worth the time, unless someone can think of a way to automate it, and people should just fix them as and when they see them. – iridescent 16:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That's intentional, as far as I know. E.g., paper encyclopedias, in my experience, would index peers in precisely that fashion. This is in accordance with the custom (since the "Stuart period", per EB 1911) that peers use their title (or courtesy title) instead of a surname upon assuming it. Choess (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I was clear; the issue is more that it doesn't appear to be consistent how the defaultsort is applied (so for instance Alan Watson, Baron Watson of Richmond is sorted under "Watson" but William Cavendish, 7th Duke of Devonshire is sorted under "Devonshire"). – iridescent 08:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still confused. What would you consider a consistent sorting of the first with respect to the second? Choess (talk) 12:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If Devonshire is under "D", should Richmond not be under "R"? Or am I missing something here (I am decidedly not an expert; UK titles baffle me). – iridescent 20:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Choess is right. Devonshire's title is "Duke of Devonshire". Watson's title is "Lord Watson of Richmond". john k (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

See territorial designation for a more involved explanation, but yes, what John said. Choess (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that it should be D for Devonshire and W for Watson of Richmond who will be commonly referred to as Lord Watson: the territorial designation operates as a sort of disambigation. His title may formally be Baron Watson, Lord of Richmond, but that form would never appear save in the most formal documents; never in day-to-day usage. Furthermore, in most cases Watson will also be his surname, giving another reason for him to appear under W. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

His title is not formally "Baron Watson, Lord of Richmond" as the letters patent make quite clear. It is as written in the article - there have been periods when such forms here used in the patents - the 17th century saw a short use eg Lord King, Baron of Ockham Garlicplanting (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Dictionary of National Biography lists peers under their surnames, not their titles. Except dukes of the blood royal, who are listed under their Christian names. Opera hat (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Certain library catalogues insist on listing peers by surname; as does DNB. However, this can be quite confusing, where a person is always known as Lord Sheffield, but an index insists on listing him by his surname (possibly Holroyd), even though that name appears nowhere on the book. This used to apply to the British Library catalogue, but now that is an Internet-accessible database, the problem no longer arises in practice. The convention is that we defaultsort by title, normally the first word after the degree (Duke, Earl, etc) other than of; we should stick by this, even of bots treat the title as if it was a surname. Nevertheless, if a category relates to the activities of a peer, before he succeeded to the peerage, he should be listed for that category under the name he was then known by. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Question on quality of sources

At the intersection of my interests in BLP quality issues in Wikipedia and the history of the peerage is a set of biographies of unreferenced peers. I recently added to my tools page a link to help find these.

The first one I picked to work on was Adrian Hope, 4th Marquess of Linlithgow. This is the biography of a hereditary peer no longer in the House of Lords about whom there seems to be very little by way of press interest. I quickly noticed a few things:

1. At least some of the biographical information appears to be copied directly from a book: This google search of a long phrase from the article suggests that it comes directly from that book. However, the questionable provenance of the book (Barnes and Noble's website doesn't seem to explain it well) suggests to me that the book is a compilation of Wikipedia entries anyway. :-(

2. Sources for some useful information may include:

Do either of those pass our standards for reliable sourcing for the sort of basic biographical data in the article?

Barring that, I can probably reconstruct a fair amount of it from old press reports although, as I mentioned, the current Marquess is not much in the news.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I rarely work on BLP. "lundy" (The peerage.com) is a large genealogical compilation, quite a lot of which comes from good genealogical sources. I have periodically found errors in it, but that applies to many things classified as WP:RS. In this case he is citing his source as Burke's Peerage - that (though imperfect) is definitely WP:RS. Cracrofts is not known to me. I repeated your search which came up with a synopsis of a family history book. This too is probably a good source, though probably not the best peer-reviewed work. Most of the rest of your sources are probably mirroring the content of Debrett, Burke, or other works on the peerage, or Who's Who. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't find much press wise to add though I can see his entry in the House of Lords Journal 231 (Session 1997-98) which meets our notability requirements Garlicplanting (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My belief, not yet confirmed, is that this book is not a real book but rather a compilation of stuff from Wikipedia. If I'm wrong about that, then our entry is directly plagiarized word for word from that synopsis.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

General Books LLC seems to have an interesting business model that involves scanning books (presumably public domain ones) and republishing them in paperback form. It points to Wikisource as one place to go to help proofread those books. It would be logical to think that they may also publish Wikipedia compilation "books". --Alvestrand (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The "book" is copyrighted 2010; the material in the article was added in 2008, so almost certainly this "book" is a mirror of wikipedia, not plagiarism by a wikipedia user. Cracroft's Peerage is an online publication that seems to have as its mission to be the definitive source on the peerage, replacing Burke's, Debrett's, and Complete Peerage. I've seen it referenced as reliable by knowledgeable usenet posters, if that's worth anything. I imagine it would qualify as a reliable source - probably better than thepeerage.com, although I'd probably go with Burke's, Debrett's, or Cokayne in case of disagreements. john k (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As those books don't always agree with each other John it's not so easy if perhaps more fun! Cracrofts I find very reliable and as a published peerage source I find it perfectly valid as a RS Garlicplanting (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Dunch, 1st Baron Burnell of East Wittenham

Are peerage titles granted by Oliver Cromwell included in article titles? Tryde (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My view is no. The restored monarchy post 1660 did not recognise such titles nor did/does the law. A number of peerages were latter created by Charles II on people who had titles 'created' by Cromwell. Those present no problems though the precedence is dated on the Royal creation/confirmation. On the title you cite there was no royal creation, neither his son nor grandson assumed the title and indeed his son sat as an MP from which he would have been incapable or sitting had he been a peer. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should have a hard and fast rule on this, but should follow reliable sources. A couple of points: obviously, Cromwellian titles that were "inherited" after 1660 are never used, and should never be in article titles. As a general rule, were such titles considered to be heritable when the holder died during the period of the Protectorate? If not, then certainly only direct grantees should even be considered. For those given titles by Cromwell, we should consider what reliable sources do. I think that, in general, reliable sources do not use these titles. If so, we should follow them, but we shouldn't make hard and fast rules, and I don't see how the fact that they aren't considered proper peers doesn't really matter. Scottish lords of session are not peers, but are often referred to as "Lord X." When this is the case, "Lord X" should appear in their article title, regardless of whether they are peers or not. The same should be true of Cromwellian titles, if the person is actually known by them. john k (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Lords of session are somewhat confusing the issue surely - the titles had/have unquestioned official sanction and use. Cromwells 'peerages' had no specific legal authority (parliament authorised a second chamber 'the other house' with life membership *not* the creation of hereditary peerages). None of Cromwell 'peerages' was recognised save where a new creation occurred and no heirs succeeded between the announcement of the members in ~Dec 1657 and the dissolution of the chamber in April '59. Though how you can have succession for an office for life seems contrary to the plain meaning. On the members of the house itself, many though summoned never attended and even where they did it's hard to see that ~1 years use constitutes a style people were known by when whatever dubiously might have existed ceased forever with the restoration. I don't see they are substantially different to the various pretenders/claimants to titles. Even if we accept some people recognised their style history and law doesn't. Garlicplanting (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I found this source:

Cokayne, George Edward, ed. (1912). Complete peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, extant, extict or dormant (Bass to Canning). Vol. 2. London: The St. Catherine Press, ltd. pp. 436, 437.

Cokayne states that the tile "was to [Edmund] and the heirs male of his body" and explains "[Edmund] m., before 1639, Bridget, only da. and h. of Sir Anthony Hungerford, of Down Ampney, co. Gloucester (who d. 1637), by Elizabeth, da. of Sir Thomas Lucy. The fortune of this lady was above £60,000, and she was h. gen. and lineal descendant of Edmund Hungerford, and Margaret (Burnell) his wife, granddaughter and coh. of Hugh, Lord Burnell, and was consequently h. to a moiety of that Barony, which accounts for her husband's creation by that title."

Under footnote d Cokayne notes "In Banks' Baronia Anglica, vol. i, p. 145 (where the descent of Dunch from Burnell, through Hungerford, is fully set out) are some pertinent remarks as to the "vested power in the Sovereign de facto to create honours" under the Act 11 Hen. VII, &c. In the case of the only other Hereditary peerage conferred by the Protector, viz. that of Charles Howard, who by patent, 20 July 1657, was cr. Baron Gilsland and Viscount Howard of Morpeth, the fortunate patentee and noble cat-in-pan was cr., 30 Apr. 1661, by Charles II, not only a Baron and Viscount (as above) but even an Earl, as Earl of Carlisle. The Viscountcy promised by the Protector to Bulstrode Whitelocke appears to have gone no further than the signature, 21 Aug. 1658, to the Bill for the patent. A record has been printed of the attendances of the Members of the other House. Its existence was but brief, viz. from 20 Jan. to 4 Feb. 1658, and from Jan. to Apr. 1659. For a list of the members of this Assembly see vol. iv, Appendix G."

If Cokayne is correct (and he of course only one source) this case is rather unique because it was not like the life peerages that were given for membership of the Other House. From Cokayne's description of the two men that could have used the title "Hungerford Dunch, who never assumed the style of a Baron ... Edmund Dunch, who, likewise, never assumed the style of a Baron ..." it seems that this may have been as the Americans military say "Don't ask, don't tell", so it seems it was never legally tested if the Baronage was legal and with the death of the second Edmund Dunch became a mere historical footnote. -- PBS (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well it's obviously a tricky issue - looking at a number of other sources I can't find this 'barony' at all reflecting an opinion of its 'existence'. On the 'dadt', post '60 the acts of Cromwell were treated as if they had never occurred. If there had been any belief he was or could be aScould have been prevented from taking his seat as an MP by the speaker or by any member (and there were those hostile) forcing this to the privileges committee. I cannot see how it would be possible to recognise a 'title' while simultaneously maintaining as legal fact - which the state did ever after - that all protectorate acts never occurred. I'm not sure therefore to what extent this was testable in any legal way than that demonstrated by his ability to sit as an MP. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The acts of the Commonwealth Parliament were sent into oblivion, but I don't know about Cromwell's use of the Royal Prerogative as a de-facto sovereign: For example the state of war with Spain had to be recognised and terminated by Charles II although of course Charles II had been allied to Spain for part of the war. I always find it best to footnote the discrepancies in the old sources and hope that someone comes up with a modern source that explains it all in detail. Slightly off topic This unreliable source makes interesting reading. -- PBS (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a lot of time for Guy Stair Sainty's writings in general. On the point, domestically you can roll back the legal position to any date relatively straightforwardly but foreign relations are rather different. Other nations irrespective of the restoration may want legal certainty and of course England had made gains so might have an interest in legally binding the present and not wishing the pre-cromwell territorial settlement. For such reasons CII signing the treaty ending the war in 1660 is understandable in terms of international politics rather than an implication of the legal position of Cromwells prior acts or 'creations'.

Ultimately it seems to me that the majority of sources don't recognise such titles so nor should we (title/in-line etc) here but that doesn't stop the article itself mentioning such 'creations' or the circumstances surrounding them. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you and I agree on the most pertinent points, this is just a strange historical footnote but a unique one. One relevant point though is how to disambiguate the page as we have three articles about three men called Edmund Dunch all MPs for Wallingford. I don't like dates as discriminators because they are hard to remember. I'm tempted to go with "Elizabethan", "Roundhead" and "Whig". -- PBS (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is difficult. I also have problems with dates being confusing if you know what someone did or the office they held but not the exact time period. I quite like your descriptors but wonder if MP is also needed. I wonder what others think? Garlicplanting (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Henry Labouchere, 1st Baron Taunton - pronunciation??

User:Kwamikagami just corrected the IPA for this name to the French-standard....but I'm wondering if, given how French names often get mangled in British pronunciation (as do English names too), whether this might not be something like La-BOO-sher instead of Labou-SHARE. Or is it just the same as in French?Skookum1 (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Year of establishment

Would it be wrong to subcategorize Category:Noble jurisdictions by year of establishment? (see Category:Establishments by year for other stuff categorized that way) Dsp13 (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Capital letters

I'm here in the hopes that someone can clarify for me what the policy is regarding capitalisation of the "t" in "the" for both the peerage title and the accompanying prefix; for example, is it "Field Marshal The Right Honourable The Viscount Alexander of Tunis", or is it "Field Marshal the Right Honourable the Viscount Alexander of Tunis", or some variation in between the two? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The second one. I think the rules are different for royals, though, so it's "Vice-Admiral His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales" and "Field-Marshal His Royal Highness The Duke of Kent", though I don't have a source. I keep meaning to get myself a copy of Debrett's Correct Form. Opera hat (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I originally thought the second was correct, too. But, then I saw on this project page the list on content, which shows "The Most Hon. The Marquess of Somewhere", a capital "t" on at least the second "the" (the use of a capital on the first "the" might be only because it's the first word). I'm just having trouble keeping consistency on the biographies of Governors General of Canada who were peers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say "When in doubt, don't capitalize." It's worse to capitalize for no reason than to fail to capitalize out of ignorance of an obscure rule. john k (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Debretts seems to use lower-case for 'the' except where it starts a sentence or on invitations. etc. 'Capt the Earl of'/ 'The Earl of'. Seems much the same on the parliament site though I'm bound to comment that this seems to be quite context specific. It's easy to find monuments, documents and royal charters or acts mentioning peers with 'the' capitalised. The trend seems to add or remove the capitalisation relative the formality of the usage. Though I think your above compromise safe enough for our purposes Garlicplanting (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I've given all the "the"s a lower case "t". We shall see how that is received. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Archibald Kennedy, 4th Marquess of Ailsa

Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If the issue is purely verification, and not notability, then all of the information in question can surely be found in old editions of Burke's, Debrett's, Who's Who, and the like. Much of the information can be found in Cracroft's Peerage, which is online here, but I'm not sure whether we consider that a reliable source or not - I'd say it probably should be, but that Burke's or Debrett's would be better. The only information that would require another source is the postnominals, which would be in Who's Who, certainly. john k (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah , very good. If anybody with true knowledge of the subject (sorry, not me) will add at least one good source we can remove the Unreferenced tag and add a Refimprove or an Inline tag if necessary. Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Barons and Earls of Cornwallis

Hi. Does anybody have any ideas about how the the pages Earl Cornwallis and Baron Cornwallis could be disambiguation in a better way? At present it is quite confusing. Cheers. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fine the way it is now. For the first creation the reader is clearly directed to the Earl Cornwallis article. What do you find confusing about it? Tryde (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Edward Bolton King

Edward Bolton King (1800–1878) was not a peer, but someone of that name was was High Sheriff of Warwickshire in 1830 (gazette ref), and I'm hoping that someone here might be able to check this out.

The ref is solid, but he was only 30 at the time. Is it plausible that a 30-year-old could have been High Sheriff? Or was there another Edward Bolton King who held that post? Hoping that someone with the relevant ref books may be able to help, because I have found little substantial coverage of him. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the date of birth is off by a year, but the "Bolton King" of Burke's Commoners appears to be the same one (HS 1830, MP for Warwick in the year of publication, 1836). A Google search on Umberslade and "Bolton King" will turn up more evidence to support the proposition. Choess (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Article titles

Moved from the "to do" section of the project page:

54 new peers were created on November 19, 2010 so we need to update all those articles and quite likely create some new ones for people who didn't already have one. full list here
- Underway, I can assure you! For individual articles, it might make sense to wait until their titles and dates are known.
  - But to avoid the slightly unpleasant situations that have arisen in the past, can I make an appeal not to rename articles unilaterally (by adding the peerage title after the person's name), but to make move requests in the normal way - recent discussions have shown that there is no general consensus for including peerage titles in article titles as a matter of course. --Kotniski (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    - Agreed. And actually, if they have an article already, it should probably stay where it is for now. If they need a brand new article, it should probably include the peerage title. JRawle (Talk) 20:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    - I do not agree. We should follow our extant guidelines and move them promptly to avoid the kind of chaos that we sometimes have now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      - But we don't have extant guidelines (at least, not such as to say unequivocally what course of action to take in a given situation). Now would probably be a good time to have an RfC on the matter, to try to reach some kind of community consensus. (I've mentioned this matter at the talk page of WP:NCROY.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        I agree with Jimbo, I really don't see the guidelines are problematic with a little common sense. There are a relatively small number of politicians who are instantly and publicly famous and identifiable by their name alone. The vast majority of MPs are not and never have been well known. 90% of the disputes I seem to see are not confusion about the common sense application of the guidelines but rather an argument disagreeing with the guidelines themselves for 'political' rather than practical reasons. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        The vast majority of peers aren't famous under their peerage titles either. And if people are disagreeing with the guidelines (and it's not only for "political" reasons, but often simply out of a desire to see normal Wikipedia article titling practices followed), then that's precisely the reason to tread cautiously and make sure that we are indeed following guidelines that have the support of the community in general (who, by definition, don't attach the same importance to peerages as members of this project do).--Kotniski (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        
        But of course if peers didn't use their titles and names we wouldn't have a problem would we! Comparing them to other categories is somewhat apples and oranges. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        I'm not sure I understand that - there are many categories of articles where two (or more) names are used for the same thing, and the practice of including both in the article title (like "Derry/Londonderry") is generally deprecated (though there might be better reason to take that approach in the case of peers, at least some of them).--Kotniski (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        
        It is not true to say that we do not have extant guidelines - we do, and the guidelines are clear. "Members of the British Peerage, whether hereditary peers or life peers, usually have their articles titled "Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title." Kotinski, I know you don't like this guideline and have failed to have it changed multiple times, but that is not a good reason to be obstructionist here. There are a handful of exceptions, as noted by Garlicpainting, and those are easily dealt with. But the great majority of these peers should have their articles named appropriately as soon as they receive their titles. An ad hoc attempt to change policy through the back door isn't the right way to handle this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        I'm certainly happy to see the guideline followed and articles renamed where appropriate. For a start, any disambiguation should be done using the peerage title and not by parenthesis. However, there is the exception in the guidelines that's open to interpretation:

Some peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names have their articles so titled

Any of the new peers who currently have an article must be notable for activities outside the House of Lords, otherwise they wouldn't have an article in the first place. As they've only just joined the House of Lords, for time time being at least, they must be "almost exclusively known by their personal names". I guess this isn't the way the guideline was intended, though. Taking a long-term view, I concede that the vast majority of them will be known as Lord or Baroness X even outside parliament and so am happy to rename articles as the titles are announced. JRawle (Talk) 15:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

But that is the way the guideline was intended. (Well, somewhere in the middle.) In fact the wording of the guideline is a fudge which doesn't describe current practice correctly and doesn't have consensus support in any case, so it can more or less be ignored. If we have a proper RfC we can hopefully find out what the community's view actually is and thereby reach a decision on what criteria should be applied.--Kotniski (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

How about WP:AT: However, common sense can be applied – if an organization changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change. The same thing should apply when a man changes his name; let us see what they choose to be called (which includes what titles they want; surnames aren't mandatory). These are the New Year's Honours - and they are controversial. We have time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Pmanderson. It is usage after the name change that counts, although it should be pointed out that in the genuine exceptional cases (Baroness Thatcher being a good example]] we rightly or wrongly ignore what they choose to call themselves and what they are called in the press, out of deference to their fame beforehand. And I strongly disagree with Kotniski on both the question of the intent of the current guideline and his perplexing view that it can simply be ignored. The guideline was not intended to prevent the proper name change for new peers, it was intended to deal with a few cases of very famous people who become peers and aren't likely to be known by their title.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, the whole point of the wording of the guideline 'Some peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names' was to deal with those very famous people who are peers and considered never likely to be known other than their name. It wasn't intended to be applied to people who are barely known before or perhaps still after their title but are notable and do have an article. The waiting option seems like an exercise in wasting an inordinate amount of time collecting the first newspaper to refer to a peer by their title. WP:AT actually deals with the point quite well I don't know why I'd not brought it up. Garlicplanting (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

But one newspaper article doesn't mean that the person is going to be known generally by their title from now on. Particularly if the title's "Baron". And very famous people especially are not exclusively known by their personal names (think Thatcher), so the guideline doesn't accord with actual practice, let alone with the principle which Jimbo and PMA are espousing. --Kotniski (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You have rather demonstrated my concerns. The guideline is use of title unless they are so obviously famous that it won't be used. You have just reversed the intent of the guideline to something closer to 'they are all presumed famous and don't need their title unless we demonstrate they not'. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see what being "(obviously) famous" has to do with it. The question is whether they will be better known in the long run by their personal names or by their titles. It's not the absolute level of fame that we should be concerned with, but the relative levels of their fame under different names.--Kotniski (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As we were taking about the renaming of new peers the context seemed clear enough that 'famous' meant 'under their own name alone and likely to stay that way'. I don't see what further I can say we have the guideline lets try to work with it and not refight lost battles Garlicplanting (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

To talk about the "intent of the guideline" is fairly meaningless, since it is worded not with the intention of saying anything (it can't possibly say anything when no consensus has been reached on the matter), but with the intention of being sufficiently nebulous as not to appear grossly unacceptable to anyone. (I find much of the wording of WP's policies and guidelines is like that.) If you believe that it's usage after the name change that counts, then presumably you agree with me that we shouldn't be renaming articles automatically, but waiting to see how usage goes, then making move proposals based on evidence?--Kotniski (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ding dong. I agree with Jimbo, JRawle, Garlic, Septronalis, etc. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

How can you agree with all of them? Some of them are saying that we should call people by what they are actually called, and some that we should "follow the guideline" regardless.--Kotniski (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think what he means is that there is general agreement that most of these articles should be moved in accordance with our longstanding guideline upon announcement of their titles, and that common sense should be used in any cases which are likely to cause problems somehow.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

But doing it through RM has another advantage; it may tend to catch cases like the following:

Alistair Cooke, a veteran of the Conservative research department, and Nick True, a longstanding adviser to Lord Strathclyde, the leader of the Lords, are also ennobled.

Needless to say, this is not Alistair Cooke, who is dead - to begin with; it would not be helpful to move the wrong article. The article for this Cooke should be written and disambiguated, and the peerage is more neutral (if possibly less descriptive) than (hack writer) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I support not cluttering the titles of these articles with extra precision (peerage title information) unless it is necessary to disambiguate the person's name from other uses of that name.
This approach is most in compliance with the general naming criteria stated in policy by using titles that are concise, natural, and recognizable (to those familiar with the topic). It's also consistent with WP:PRECISION (no more precise than is necessary to disambiguate from other uses). We have well thought-out naming policies and guidelines supported by community consensus. Let's use them and follow them consistently for all articles in Wikipedia. Exceptions are one thing, but let's not create or maintain conventions that contradict these policy and guidelines by requiring extra precision in the titles of some categories of articles even when it's not necessary, thus make exceptions unexceptional. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
In my view, the answer to this issue is not difficult:
- An article or redirect should always exist in the full form of the title.
- If an article exists before the creation, or the title does not represent the most common form by which the person is known, it MAY be appropriate for the article to remain without the title, with the title as a redirect. In any event the title should appeat in the lead. This should be determined on a case by case basis.
- If the common name requires a disambiguator, the article should be at the titled fullname with the normal dablinks to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A number of life peers are now up for renaming including Dee Doocey, Fiona Shackleton, James Chichester-Clarke and Susan Kramer. Interesting that three of them are women. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Baron St John of Bletso

There are two identical articles for this peer: Paulet St John, 7th Baron St John of Bletso and Paulet St John, 8th Baron St John of Bletso. I don't know which ordinal is correct, 7th or 8th? Tryde (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Complete Peerage says eighth and is correct.

The 4th Baron was elevated to be Oliver St John, 1st Earl of Bolingbroke, and continued to be Baron St. John, and died in 1646.
His son was also summoned to the Long Parliament as Baron St John of Bletso. This happens sometimes, especially when the father is of a higher grade. He was Baron St. John of Bletso, a peer of Parliament, and the fifth to be so; therefore, even though he died at Edghill in 1643, in his father's lifetime, his article will be Oliver St John, 5th Baron St John of Bletso. (The notable Bolingbroke is a distacnt cousin
There were two more Earls and Barons before that branch ended; the Earldom was extinct and the Barony of St. John of Bletso fell to descendants of the 3rd Baron.

The solution is a redirect, which I will do, and a rewrite. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Succession box changes

Greetings, dear colleagues. We are discussing some changes to the succession-box templates here and we should appreciate the input of any editors who might be interested. More proposals, mostly regarding the update of the (rather neglected) guidelines, will follow soon. Waltham, The Duke of 18:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

And more have indeed followed (concerning the "creation" parameter of {{s-ttl}} and its proposed replacement with a generic "subtitle" parameter which could also be used for baronetcies), and others are to come once these are tackled. Any input is welcome. Waltham, The Duke of 15:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sheffield Baronets

Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and might be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help find one or two good references. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Rawdon, Countess of Moira

This lady's article had been deleted because it was WP:COPYVIO, and I've reconstructed it as a stub but despite looking at the ODNB article and other WP articles I can't get my head around the various titles she held! Some are not in Rayment for the period she may or may not have held them, etc. It would be good if someone who knows and cares about peerages had a look and sorted her out: I've done my bit, and the lead sentence and succession boxes were rescued for me from the deleted version. I think I've mopped up most of the redirects which had been deleted as redirects to the deleted article, but she may well still be a redlink in some other articles where I haven't found her. Over to you. PamD (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Henry Pole, 1st Baron Montacute

Should this be Montagu, as the sources have it? Move discussion at Talk:Henry Pole, 1st Baron Montacute.

Please note that this has long been at 11th Baron Montacute, which I do not understand at all; I thought it best to correct the number and discuss the attested variants. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the early use of names and titles was very loose. It was common up to the late C15 to see the surname/lands/castle/town/county used interchangeably as a title with a wide variety of spellings of each of them. I think that is the situation we have with the Montagu/Montacute issue with parliament seemingly using the latter and the references sources the former. Now the problem is fixing it. The 11th is based on Pole being via his mother the 11 baron of the 1299 creation by writ and in some sources also of 1357. She was restored to the title(s) in 1513 and he summoned in the elder in 1514. There seems to be some dispute about a creation on him in 1529 shown in our article on Baron_Montagu but a House of lords report from 1928 says the claimant "failed to show that there was treated any such Barony of Montacute (1357) or Pole of Montagu (1529) as he alleges" Now it's possible the titles existed but the proof was lacking but at best this makes 1357/1529 doubtful. Garlicplanting (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they're both verifiable spellings. But modern sources use Montagu, because two forms are recorded: Montagu in Norman French, which is what was spoken by the mediaeval nobility; and de Monte Acuto in chronicler's Latin. Montacute is an anachronistic anglicization of the latter, popular in the eighteenth century. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Complete Peerage has documentation that he was "Lord Montagu" in 1514; this was a new creation, not the Kingmaker's Barony of Montagu, since (a) his mother was still alive, (b) the Barony of Montagu was not restored to her, only the Earldom of Salisbury, (c) the inheritance would be a resolution of an abeyance, which concept was not yet invented by 1514 (so that must be George of Clarence's earldom of Salisbury).

Incidentally, if it were the ancient barony, he would be ninth, not eleventh. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You pick your sources and you takes your choice but they are not in agreement cf Burkes/CP/Cracrofts/. That no claim was even attempted to a barony in created in 1514 doesn't to me suggest any belief was placed in it existence since the succession proofs would be the same and there would be nothing to lose by attempting it. I'd be interested in evidence that only the earldom was restored as restoring the blood and reversing the attainder on her brother would seem to have restored everything unless the act specifically excludes them. The 9th/11th issue is partly explained by whether you hold to the position that heirs summoned jure uxoris constitute as do writs of acceleration (where they don't inherit) an increment in the numbering of the holder. Cracrofts certainly goes with the line he was summoned in his mothers barony and with the concept of abeyance pretty rough at the time it may indeed be perfectly unclear if this was a clumsy abeyance termination or a new title. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Writing of abeyance here is an anachronism. The idea of abeyance of titles was invented by the Stuarts a century later, as a way out of a sticky situation (a title which was in dipute between two co-heirs; James IIRC gave the title to the junior co-heir, who had more influence, and created a new title for the senior co-heir). But this does not answer the main argument: the Earldom which could be restored to the estate of George's son was George's title, and George was never Lord Montagu. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The right to the barony derived from her mother not George as she was daughter of Richard Neville Garlicplanting (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

One daughter of Richard Neville; but if your citation is Cracroft's alone, it speaks poorly for them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes she was a co heir. But I think you're trying to make things fit too neatly here. No one at the time of the original peerages by writ intended to create such a thing but we now recognise it. Just as peerages were surrendered when this is now judged unlawful. Many aspects of the peerage are messy or downright contradictory I don't think there is a neat answer to what exactly is going on in this issue unless we can find something cast iron in something like the rulings of the privileges committee to determine in what right he was summoned because the sources as I said are not unanimous. Now of course we can try to move it to the most probable explanation but I think either way we probably need to represent that this is a matter of contention. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Lord Bernard Gordon-Lennox

Hi there! Just hopping over from WP:CRIC. While going through a list of outstanding redlinks for first-class cricketers I came across Lord Bernard Gordon-Lennox here at CricketArchive and thought he might be of interest to your project. Maybe you guys could get the article going with your knowledge on Lords and such! Then I can include details of his only first-class appearance for Middlesex. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Advice on Notability

The article Hugh Grosvenor, Earl Grosvenor has been redirected to Duke of Westminster. The pre-redirect article is shown here. The edit summary that went with the redirection said "non-notable". The pre-redirect version was an unsourced BLP. Is this actually non-notable? If not, could some please add some references? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to clarify something here. I moved the material in the article on Earl Grosvenor to the article Duke of Westminster. I haven't actually removed any material. Tryde (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User Lucy-marie: page moves and edits contrary to guidelines

User:Lucy-marie has been making all sorts of edits and page moves contrary to guidelines and conventions. One of the most ridiculous was to move Thomas Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde to Thomas Galbraith (Born 1960), which is bad for obvious reasons. I've added a requested move to put it back. Other edits include moving Philip Hunt, Baron Hunt of Kings Heath to Philip Hunt, Baron Hunt, which is simply not his correct title. This needs to be nipped in the bud, and we also need to go through Lucy-marie's contribution list and ensure any such edits are undone (which will mean requrested moves where appropriate). JRawle (Talk) 01:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see a little further input before I go ahead and move back, just to make sure I have consensus here, but the moves you've mentioned seem indefensible. I haven't joined in the food fight further up the page because, while I find the current guideline satisfactory, I can understand why people might have some reservation with regards to naming life peers. But carrying on into hereditary peers without a consensus to change the guideline even for life peers is unacceptable. Let's hear from some other people, but unless I'm badly mistaken in my reading of the current feeling, I think I'll be carrying out the moves. Choess (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

We should stick to the conventions unless there is good reason. Lord Strathclyde is notable for being a member of the house of Lords. Lord Hunt's description with his full title is necessary because there is at least one other Lord Hunt, but with a differnet Christian name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Question on Infobox

An ip made two changes to the article on Baroness Greenfield. I reverted one of them, because it is clearly wrong to write "Lady Susan Greenfield, Baroness Greenfield" in the first words of the article.

However, I felt less sure about the other one, in the infobox. I quickly checked several other female members of the House of Lords, and we seem to use 'Baroness' for all of them, which leads me to think that we are going for the formal style here, as opposed to the style preferred by the holder, or as opposed to the style most often used by the press. In this particular case, a cursory look at google news suggests that the press uses either.

The only exception to calling a female member of the Lords at this rank a Baroness on Members of the House of Lords is a sensible one, since Flora Fraser, 21st Lady Saltoun is not a Baroness but rather a Scottish hereditary Lord of Parliament.

In the course of researching this, I notice how poorly we have done so far in terms of getting infoboxes into articles on at least this group of peers.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The essential explanation is this; when life peers were first created female peers were most agitated that they would be confused with and treated as the wives of a hereditary/life peer/Knight. So the House of Lords agreed to call them 'Baroness' rather than 'Lady' there being no other way to distinguish their membership of the house and that use has transferred from the political sphere to the public/press with baroness used widely. Clearly there is an argument for standardisation but unlike male peers its not straightforward. On balance the use of Baroness (where we use Lord for Barons) is probably correct because it can be used less formally than you suppose. I don't feel strongly and others may differ. Garlicplanting (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree - Baroness for female life peers is common usage (alongside Lady); it's a quite different situation from the men, where they are almost never referred to as "Baron ...".--Kotniski (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason to use Baron X for Lord X is to disambiguate the 3rd Baron X from the 3rd Viscount X (often the same family). Whether we use Baron X for life peers is a difficult question; the chief reason to use Baron X rather than Lord X for a life peer is that there is only one order of Barons of the United Kingdom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

DePiep has made a mess of the infobox title of Fiona Shackleton. He says it is snobbish to do it per Harold Wilson etc. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Baroness Cromwell

Might someone with access to the Complete Peerage please be able to check whether Elizabeth Cromwell, 8th Baroness Cromwell did actually succeed her father Vere Essex Cromwell, 4th Earl of Ardglass as Baroness Cromwell, and if so why she wasn't succeeded in turn by her son Edward Southwell (1705–1755)? Thanks. Opera hat (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In brief, she was erroneously recognized as Baroness Cromwell during her lifetime, as George Cromwell, 1st Baron Cromwell, received a writ of summons (not a writ in acceleration) as Baron Cromwell on 28 April 1539; however, he did not sit in the House of Lords until after being created baron by letters patent in 1540, and it is now held that the 1539 writ created no barony to descend to heirs-general. Had such a barony been created, it would have descended to the Southwell Barons de Clifford. Choess (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Choess, baronies by writ are only created when someone without a peerage receives a summons and sits in the house. The summons alone creates nothing. I think she ought to be removed from the list of holders - we could add if it is felt necessary an explanation to how she was referred to in her lifetime. Garlicplanting (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It's worse than that. Complete Peerage denies that a writ was ever issued; Parliament met on 28 April 1539 and no writs were issued on that day - Dugdale made it up. But the subject did call herself Baroness Cromwell in good faith, and walked as a Peeress in the funeral of Queen Mary and the coronation of Queen Anne. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)