User talk:Proteus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Watch for Peacocks and extravagance

Theatrical spectacular - Bishonen's own story

Tremble at the crocodiles!

See the flying cupids!

Marvel as Venus ascends into the heavens!

February 3rd 2006
Coming shortly - Read if you dare Restoration spectacular on the main page!

Please note that I reserve the right to remove any comments placed on this page.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

Contents

[edit] Assistance Required

Dear Proteus,

Having accepted the need to put "The Right Honourable" or "The Most Honourable" etc before the names of peers I have spent the past few weeks editing literally hundreds of pages in this manner.

However today someone called Snottygobble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snottygobble) has been reverting all of my edits.

I would be gratefull if you could be of any assistance in this matter. See my list of edits to find what he has been doing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Toryboy)

Thankyou User:Toryboy|User talk:Toryboy

[edit] Category:Peerage

It appears an anon has decided that Category:Peerage is too Anglo-centric and that it should be renamed [1]. Your input would be appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You may be interested that User:Skyring, just back from his one month ban for stalking me, had reinserted the nonsense about royal styles on the Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. [2]

FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duplication

As part of dealing with the new Wikipedia:Duplicated sections list, I've repaired the page duplication on your talk page. Hopefully I didn't screw it up. On a related note, this page is rather large. I'd suggest archiving it. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page moving

Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves if you want to move the Admiral article. -Husnock 18:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Why are you getting nasty? If there are duplicate articles, we should do it by the book. Also take a look at Wikipedia:Civility while you're at it. -Husnock 18:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Drew

I see we've both been reverting User:Michael Drew, who seems intent on mucking around with styles and privy counsellors. He also seems to think that Gladstone was a knight, which of course he wasn't. He doesn't seem willing or interested in talking to us, despite notes on the talk page. I'm beginning to think about an RfC. Mackensen (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ker vs Kerr

Ker is rightful surname. I have done etensive research in the the "Ker" name and yes it appears a Kerr but It's not right, even styles of it being Kerr, Karr, Kar, Carr, & Car are not the true wording, The Lothians & The Roxburghe Borderlanders are Ker's and are Reletives, The Ker family moved around scotland and the surname has been mixed around in the Late 1800's but Ker is the Rightful Surname. My Mainline of Ker Decendentcy is with The Cessford and Duke of Roxburghe. PeterAKer (talk)

[edit] styles

Hi Proteus,

I know you were a strong supporter of the original policy of using a style at the start of royal articles. However I think as a policy it is too divisive and too lacking in consensus to be followed. As long as it continues in its current form article will have indefinite edit wars over them. I am proposing a new approach, that all styles of a monarch, pope etc be listed in an infobox in every article. That way they are prominent and factual but without appearing to be endorsed by usage by Wikipedia. Doing that also would mean that we can broaden the usage of styles by including infoboxes on styles of non-royal heads of state like presidents.

I have designed a couple of infoboxes for debate. (The pages are protected so that the idea can be debated, not the context, first of all. If a consensus supports the idea, then issues of layout and content can be discussed and the boxes turned from discussion points to live pages.) There are specific infoboxes for UK monarchs, Austrian monarchs, popes, presidents, Scottish monarchs and HRHs. I've used a purple banner because it is a suitable royal colour and is also distinctive. They are neutral enough to be factual without appearing to be promotional. I'd very much like your views. I'm going to put them on a couple of user pages and ask for a reaction. There needs to be a calm debate on them this time. We have got to try to achieve some consensus this time. Right now the lack of consensus means that things are a mess with some articles using styles, some articles having none whatsoever. If the infobox solution is agreed, then all articles could have the same standard format. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


Monarchical Styles of
Queen Victoria
Reference style: {{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style: {{{offstyle}}}
Alternative style: {{{altstyle}}}
Styles of
Pope Paul VI
Reference style {{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style {{{offstyle}}}
Religious style {{{relstyle}}}
Posthumous style {{{deathstyle}}}


Monarchical Styles of
 Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary
Reference style {{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style {{{offstyle}}}
Alternative style {{{altstyle}}}
Monarchical Styles of
James V of Scotland
Reference style: {{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style: {{{offstyle}}}
Alternative style: {{{altstyle}}}
Styles of
Mary McAleese,
President of Ireland
Reference style {{{dipstyle}}}
spoken style {{{offstyle}}}
Alternative style {{{altstyle}}}
Styles of
Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall
{{{image}}}
Reference style {{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style {{{offstyle}}}
Alternative style {{{altstyle}}}


Hey, Proteus, sorry to see the message that indicates that you may be pulling back on your activities on Wikipedia. Your skills are needed here. Please don't leave.

Re the above, I've opened a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution. So far a consensus seems to be developing to replace styles in articles with a style box. Given that you were central to the original decision I'd really like to hear your views. A consensus needs to include both sides of the argument and so your contribution would be most welcome. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Substantive title

Hi, I noticed a number of our articles about royalty/nobility used the phrase "substantive title", but we didn't have an article on it. I did a little research on the Web (alas, my otherwise fairly amazing private library is not long on books about royalty/nobility :-), and whipped up a short article to full the void. As I'm not an expert in this area, I'd be grateful if you could take a gander at it and see if it has any howlers, needs any extra material, etc, etc. Thanks! Noel (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

[edit] Prince

Also, if you have time and energy, you might want to take a look at Prince - it's a mess. I cleaned it up a bit, but it still has a long way to go. Noel (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prefices

elements cross-posted

You said ""The Rt Hon." and "Dr(.)" aren't meant to be used together anyway)" - really? Didn't know that. Lots of articles combine several preficies (e.g. ISTR "Professor Admiral Sir Foo Bar" or something similar). Are there any general rules?

Also - you're off? Please don't go! Your fantastic copyediting may not feel substantive, but it's massively appreciated, at the very least by me.

James F. (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, we'll await with baited breath your full-scale return, then. :-)
James F. (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Queen Victoria Surname

Please note that this dialog has been moved to a separate discussion page: Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom/Surname. --StanZegel 19:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Queen's Privy Council for Canada

User:gbambino has reverted four times, breaking the 3R rule. I can't revert him back, or I would be breaking the 3R also- could you do it please? I've also removed the same rubbish he put in the Statute of Westminster 1931 Astrotrain 21:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] vote

This might interest you. Since it seems that it is an unimpeded way by which sockpuppets can attack users and any attempt by users to defend themselves on it put them in the dock, I've proposed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamest edit wars ever. Your observations would be welcome. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 06:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Precedence

Thanks for your explanation. I see also that you've removed the boxes from The Queen and from Camilla. Good idea. I got completely confused when looking at them! Ann Heneghan (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Privy council

Please provide some evidence for your statements. The New Zealand privy council [3], quite clearly is simply called "The Privy Council," as is Canada's [4]. A Google search gives roughly equal results for '"Privy Council" Canada' and '"Privy Council" United Kingdom OR Britain"' with a couple hundred thousand more for New Zealand. The top Google hits for the term "privy Council" are quite a mix, referring to the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and other countries. Moreover, even if it was only Canadians that make the distinction, Wikipedia gets quite a few more hits from Canada than it does from the UK[5].

Moreover every similar institution has a general page, rather than just a redirect to the British one. There is only a British and a Canadian House of Commons, but House of Commons doesn't redirect to British House of Commons. We also have a general articles on topics like Shadow Cabinet, Serjeant-at-Arms, Gazette, Leader of the Opposition, Ministerial responsibility, Speaker of the House of Commons, Black Rod, Official opposition. - SimonP 16:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Coat of Arms

What do you think should be the Coat of Arms displayed on the Scotland page? An edit war has been started by User:Mais oui! who wants to use the old arms of the King of Scotland, rather than the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland. See Talk:Scotland. Astrotrain 21:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

NB — I am going through and disambiguating. The arms Astrotrain linked to above are no longer located at that page; they are now at Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (for use in Scotland). Doops | talk 03:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Members of the Order of Merit

Althought I admit that the wording was the incorrect usage, might I point out that your message was rather rude. Its not that its fundamentally wrong : individuals listed have "received" the Order of Merit. Might I direct you to Wikipedia:Civility so you can learn how to properly write a message.

Furthormore: I am rather agrivated that after I put in hours of work on added articles into this category (I type one handed due to disability) I am rather agrivated that my work no longer apears on the category's history page! - Can I point out that there is a processed involved in renaming and/or deleting a category. Please see wikipedia guidelines for more help Michael Drew 01:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paddy Ashdown

As someone who's not understanding the distinction that you and Silverhorse are making, can you explain on Talk:Paddy Ashdown? --Nlu 23:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


You debated whether Côte d'Ivoire should be referred to by its English language name before. A request has been made to move the page to that location. You might wish to cast a vote at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nursing qualifications

Your edit from List of post-nominal letters read: (remove nursing ones (there's absolutely no way "RN" can be used by a nurse, for a start - it means "Officer in the Royal Navy")). I can assure you that nurses do use the suffix RN in the United Kingdom. Please note the new list of nursing qualifications on the abbove page. 88.111.72.160 20:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. RN is used as registered nurse. I know from experience. My mother was an RN and she was never in the Royal Navy. FearÉIREANN 19:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hey

Welcome back. You might want to keep an eye on Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence. User:DreamGuy is assing around again deleting links he does not want to have, or rather ensuring that only his article is linked to the section on the Jack the Ripper rumours. A second article also discusses the topic in the context of royal myths and legends. He has been trying for months to get the other article deleted so that the only article that covers the topic is his own pet one. Every attempt he has made to get things his way has been met with silence by everyone. Even his merge attempt got a grand total of himself participating. Since all his other attempts have failed he now tries to delete any reference to the other article in the Prince Albert Victor page. FearÉIREANN 19:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

WikiThanks

Thanks for sorting out the riddle about the Earl of Worcester's connection to Worcester park. Small issue, great answer. --Slashme 12:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You might want to keep an eye on Constantine II of Greece. Adam Carr for some reason is determined to rewrite it to push his POV without any pretence at NPOV. I am a bit disappointed in Adam. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re-using life peerage titles

I guess I don't need to tell you I've added that reference as I'm sure you've already seen it! --JRawle 18:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emma Watson

Please explain your edits. The "city, county, country" (or variants) is the pattern of every article I've worked on... RadioKirk 23:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

(a) It's not usual Wikipedia style (I don't know what type of articles you've been working on); (b) it's not the usual way of writing place names in the UK; and (c) it puts pretty irrelevant information in far too prominent a position (where someone was born may be worth mentioning somewhere, but certainly not straight after their name and date of birth, and before any information about who they are or why they are famous). Proteus (Talk) 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I have to respectfully disagree; Wikipedia style or otherwise (and even that varies hugely, Manual or otherwise), classic encyclopedia style leads with born date and place (and, when applicable, died date and place) as seen here. RadioKirk 00:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Proteus (Talk) 00:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
"The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here. Wikipedia articles should heed these rules." Despite the fact that this really means, "we're making this up as we go," I guess I can live with the new convention. However, I would still argue that viewers may find county, state, borough, country, etc., interesting and that it is encyclopedic. RadioKirk 00:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
No one's stopping you adding that information — it merely doesn't go at the very beginning. Proteus (Talk) 00:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Alright... and, thanks for the heads-up. RadioKirk 00:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We = Wikipedia ?

If your going to say we - wikipedia please cite what policy you are refering to. I have never seen a policy on the use of postnominal letters in bio articles and I maintain that the use of academic postnominals for academemics is advisable Michael Drew 20:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The beauty of wikipedia is that practice changes over time. When something is appropriate to a encyclopedia page it should be included. Pearson was Chancellor of Carleton University where he also tought. This makes him an academic. Like I said when I made the edit it wouldn't be appropriate to use academic postnoms on Ben Affleck's page but for Pearson or other academics like (I am using this example just because it comes to mind - I don't actually think his "theories" hold any water)

J. Philippe Rushton, or other academics who have had a profound effect like for example John Kenneth Galbraith it is entirely appropriate.

I dont mean to offend or make wild accusation but it seems like your following me around wikipedia ! Michael Drew 04:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peerage question

I see we have a few articles about peerages like Viscount Whitelaw, which only ever had one holder. Do you think this make sense? Morwen - Talk 18:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. If I spot any more I'll probably just make a category for them and then someone who wants (and knows the subject) can decide whether to shoot them or not. Morwen - Talk 20:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

A vote has been called to rename Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia to Aleksandar Karađorđević. The renamers have at least stopped constant unilateral renaming (at last!). Please come, express your opinion and vote. Slán. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rt Hon

Did you even bother to read my reasons? Don't just revert things without the courtesy of saying why. "Perfectly correct" is an assertion, not an explanation. JackofOz 00:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

An apology is in order. I've now checked out what you say about Rt Hon and PC and it turns out you are entirely correct. Turns out you know something after all! Seriously, I'll chalk this up to experience. And next time you correct me, I'll pay more attention. Thanks. --Irishtimes 13:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've checked in my Debrett's, and it seems that "the Right Honourable" is treated differently from "the Honourable", which I didn't realize. On page 219 there's an example that reads "The Reverend the Hon John Brown", so I assumed the same was true for "the Right Honourable". But on page 220 we have "The Most Reverend and Right Hon the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury/York".

[edit] Date Formats

Proteus, it's not necessary to change the order of day and month in a date, as it will always appear in the preferred format of the reader. Cheers JackofOz 23:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Patronising you, or anybody, is the last thing on my mind, Proteus. I apologise if that was what come through. I was simply trying to be helpful and friendly, in the same way that others have helped me in the past by making useful suggestions about things that I may not have been aware of. Civility is something I try to practise at all times, and I'm not one for holding grudges about past disagreements. Our Wiki-relationship seems to have got off on the wrong foot, but I sincerely hope that it will be a positive and harmonious one despite that.
About Beecham's places of birth and death:
  • You're dead right that the introduction should show the dates, but not the places.
  • However, the Style guide also says the following: "Locations should be included in the biography portion of the body article. For example, "(February 12, 1809 in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England – April 19, 1882 in Downe, Kent, England)" should be separated to "(February 12, 1809–April 19, 1882) ... He was born in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England ... He died in Downe, Kent, England". "
  • By removing the St Helens and London information from Beecham's introduction, but not following through and putting it where it belongs in the main text, you've risked losing that information altogether. Leave it to me, I'll fix it. Cheers JackofOz 00:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi mate,

You may remember the war on styles that was waged some time ago and the eventual compromise reached which meant that styles (Holiness, Majesty, Royal Highness, etc) are no longer used at the start in royalty articles. A series of templates were created to enable users to warn other users who attempt to reinsert styles into articles that that is no longer WP policy. However a user who is trying to get a whole series of templates deleted has nominated them on the WP:TFD for deletion. I am thoroughly fed up having to defend necessary templates from the minority of deletion police on WP who seem to act as a group: one nominates, then the rest all vote to agree with them. All help to defend the necessary templates in the styles series gratefully received. Thanks. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Churchill

Hmm, did you revert back my edit on Churchill? May I ask why? --Anittas 11:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you didn't revert my changes; you just added a hyphen to his name - something I had nothing to do with. Why did you then say that you reverted the article, when in fact, you didn't? Weird... --Anittas 11:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cool. NP. --Anittas 11:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR notice

Please note that you performed three reverts at Glenys Kinnock in 24 hours (hist). That you used the admin rollback button, which is meant to be used against vandalism only, does not help. Please refrain from this kind of actions in the future. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

And please note that while your third revert was a bit different than the other two, they are to be grouped together because each time you undid the removal of the word "Baroness" which seesm to be the key of the dispute. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

Your recent response at Talk:Glenys Kinnock was a tiny bit too strong for my taste. I don't feel inclined to take it further but I just wanted to let you know that some other editors might respond to the same comments by making a complaint. David | Talk 21:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to see you go

I'm sorry to see you go, Proteus. I sympathise completely. We seem to send too much time in here explaining the bleeding obvious to the those who have little grasp of fact but a conviction of their own infallibility. I've spent the last few days debating whether to quit Wikipedia also. Sometimes it feels as though it is not worth the effort anymore. Quality is being destroyed by ignorance, rampant deletionism, and far too many fools. Many of thebest contributors have just given up on the project in frustration. Take care and thanks for all the contributions. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That is no excuse however to use administrator's privileges (like the rollback button) in matters you disagree about. I counted at least 19 admin rollbacks to well-meaning edits by a large chuck of users who do not agree with Proteus's terminology/spelling. That is abuse administrator privileges.
And calling people who disagree with you "idiots" and the like, definitely speaks more about one's own character than that of your opponents.
PS I am an uninvolved party, it was today I stumbled unto this user and never encountered him on Wikipedia. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Jtdirl. I find that my willingness to edit here comes and goes depending on my mood. Lately I've just kept my head down and edited minor politicians—stuff where no one gets in your way. I wish you weren't leaving, but I understand why. If you do decide to come back, I trust I'll be here to welcome you. Best regards, Mackensen (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, your sentiments are much appreciated (FearÉIREANN and Mackensen, not Oleg Alexandrov, obviously...). I've had a nice break (my departures never seem to last very long), and luckily my life is a lot less stressed now than it was earlier this year, so hopefully I should be primed and ready to go (and hopefully be a bit more understanding). I've been thinking long and hard about why I get so frustrated, and I've come up with something on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage which I hope could make all our lives easier. Proteus (Talk) 19:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

Apology accepted, Proteus. Thanks for making the effort. Cheers JackofOz 20:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No hard feelings

Thanks for leaving the message on my talk page - absolutely no hard feelings, and I'm glad you're back. I do appreciate all the work you've done on peerage pages. David | Talk 21:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Owen – territorial qualification

Proteus, you seem to be quite an authority on peerages. Unfortunately I've forgotten the question I wanted to ask, so for the moment how about this one?

Yesterday I changed the page on Lord Owen as someone had his title as Baron Owen of the City of Plymouth (which is actually what they call him at Liverpool University). I was wondering what the correct territorial qualification (after the comma) is. In the List of Life Peerages is says "of the City of Plymouth", but don't they usually list a county? I know Plymouth is a UA now, but in 1992 it would surely have been, "of Plymouth in the County of Devon." Is this an error that's crept in because of Liverpool University? JRawle 13:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help please!!!

Hi Proteus - I know you know a lot about these things - could you help? There's some ambiguity over Diana, Princess of Wales's Scottish titles after divorce - it's under the Diana, Princess of Wales talk page under Confusion over titles and brief querie (Princess Charles, the Duchess of Rothesay - Princess Diana, the Duchess of Rothesay). Thanks!

[edit] Prince Albert Victor

Can you please help with question over dukedom on Prince Albert Victor talkpage.

[edit] Katherine FitzGerald, Countess of Desmond

If you say that the title Lady Desmond is correct, I don't argue - but she was known in her day as the Old Countess, and is referred to as such in Irish history books. I don't know what the distinction is and, after a look at your talk page, am happy to defer to you, my liege. I wonder what your view is on the title itself? In reverting my changes to restore those formalities, you've removed significant improvements to the article. Why not just leave me a message, rather than execute a reflex revert? Substance trumps form.--shtove 19:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't received your reply, so I've reverted to my substantial edits, but deleted countess/Lady Desmond and replaced the terms with her married name Fitzgerald. Please don't change without discussion. I wonder if English peerage rules are appropriate to this subject - perhaps you'll have a view on other 16thC. Irish titles? The Fitzgerald dynasty in Munster had odd hereditary titles: White/Red/Green Knights, Seneschal of Imokilly etc. - a chivalric law unto themselves, until tamed by savage stroking.--shtove 02:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply - it makes sense and has cleared up the point. I'll be glad to reinsert Lady Desmond - I changed it without realising it was your edit, thinking it was something I'd originally inserted a few weeks ago. It's not a good idea to keep on editing when the eyeballs need a rest. On Fitzgerald - it is simply the more common usage, although, if the O-s and Mac-s surnames are a precedent, the capital G should be commonly retained. I still wonder about the odd hereditary titles in Ireland - no doubt the Irish peerage originated from English forms, but a distinct practice did emerge in the 15thC. (probably owing to estrangement from England following the Black Death and extending through the Wars of the Roses), and I'm not sure it was ever entirely corrected after the Tudor conquest. After all, the hereditary Knight of the Glin is still swanning around Limerick.--shtove 18:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emperor of India

Hi Proteus, please can you help with the question under Talk:Emperor of India about the Royal cipher "R.I" not being used for consorts. Many thanks!

[edit] Prince Charles

... and please also the "Earldoms" discussion on Prince Charles's talk page ... sorry to hassle you but you know an awful lot!

[edit] George V succession box

Hi Proteus, could you please take a look at the succession box for George V? I tried to change it (explanation on Talk page of that article) but got lost as I don't know how these things work. Also MANY thanks for your help on Albert Victor, Emperor of India and Prince Charles questions quoted earlier... where DO you get the information?!

[edit] Prince Peter of Yugoslavia

I would like to know your opinion on Prince Peter of Yugoslavia being a prince - is he? Cooldoug111 argues he is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29 but I argue he isn't since the monarchy has been abolished in Yugoslavia and theyre only styled by courtesy. Whats your view? Many thanks.

[edit] WP:AN

Hi, Proteus. I've just mentioned your recent reverts of the ducal pages on WP:AN, here. I thought I ought to let you know so you can respond if you wish. Bishonen | talk 19:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Most Noble

For anyone interested in defining future policy on this subject in a definitive way I have instigated a debate here at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#The Most Noble Giano | talk 10:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to second that it would be helpful if you weighed in on the debate there. Mackensen (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

Kindly advise why you keep inserting "The" in the title of the Queen Mother prior to her marriage. She was the daughter of a baron, the lowest rank of the peerage, and surely plain "Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon." Masalai 08:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea where you got the idea that she was the daughter of a baron — her father was the 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, which the article quite clearly states. The correct style is "The Lady", and it's hardly my fault if you don't know that. Proteus (Talk) 09:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right, Proteus, but do you have a reference for that? I didn't know children of peers entitled to Lord or Lady in front of their name used The. But I suppose it's consistent with The Honourable, and with oldest sons who use one of their father's titles. This page from the DCA doesn't say specifically, but seems to imply "The" shouldn't be used in this case [6]. --JRawle 12:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It's in Debrett's Correct Form. (And you can't pay any attention to what the Government says. They haven't a clue.) Proteus (Talk) 12:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't the Earl of Strathmore in 1900 when she was born. That is the operative date. Masalai 13:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Check the link in the article to the Wikipedia item on the Earl of Strathmore. And try to remain civil. Masalai 13:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

(a) Why on Earth would it be the "operative date"? (b) He still wasn't a baron. (c) If she were the daughter of a baron she wouldn't have "Lady" before her name at all, regardless of whether you think it should have a definite article or not. (d) Please go and read up on the Peerage before lecturing me. Proteus (Talk) 13:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Make your mind up!

I thought you were insisting Most noble had to stay in - somewhere - and changes be explained? I'll leave you to implement the changes. Giano | talk 19:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

    • I just want to see the peerage looking creditable, and to achieve that there has to be some huge changes - we shall have to think where we go from here. The anti-monarchists here and their like are not going to look at the daft stubby peerage pages for much longer and say nothing - so those of you who want to see a reasonable balance are going to have to compromise - I suspect that will be dispense with the non-notable to save the rest (i.e. those who at least made it to be local Lord lieutenant or won a couple of medals) or else expand those non informative pages away from hatches, matches and despatches and find something notable to say about them. The British peerage, deprived of the House of Lords are now the same as any of the nobility of Europe, save for the fact their breeding is often a lot less noble. Do not blame other wikipedia editors blame the British elected government. Giano | talk 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well then put in the article . He took his seat in the House of Lord on 32nd Jan. 1895, and in his maiden speech said....................... If the subject did not ever speak then I think one has to consider...........well I'm sure you know the answer. I strongly feel, the writing is on the wall if you and the peerage brigade do not, wake up, meet the others half way at least you'll loose. The time to create a page is when there is sufficient information to fill a page. Take for instance Andrew Bedford's page, he has achieved a number of things been a successful blood-stock agent, overcome a terrific accident, runs one of Britain's biggest wildlife and "Stately Homes" businesses, and what does the article say - just his blood line and a vulgar mention of the rich list. Not impressive is it? Can you see where I am coming from? I don't greatly care if these people have articles or not, but quite a lot of people here would like to see them gone - so it's wake up time. Giano | talk 21:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted edits to Tony Blair

Hi. Could you tell me why you reverted my edits? Thanks. Jombo 01:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Gosford house

Good morning. I wonder if you could assist.

I was working through the list of articles needing wikification and came across Gosford house. I have edited it. However, at least two other articles link to Gosford House which ought to be the name of the article. Currently the link to Gosford House leads nowhere.

How do I change the name of the article to Gosford House? Avalon 22:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Avalon 23:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Baron O'Neill of the Maine, of Ahoghill in the County of Antrim."

Dude, I appreciate you reverting my edit at Terence O'Neill presumably on the basis that this is his full formal title; I mistakenly thought the article displayed just a simple geographical nomenclature mistake. "The County of Antrim" - it sounds so odd it makes me chuckle! Oh well, thanks for the correction! Brian 20:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Washington University

Hello, I'm trying (again) to get The George Washington University moved to George Washington University. Since you weighed in on this when it came up last year, I thought you might like to weigh in again. john k 23:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disclaimed peerages and courtesy titles

It's slightly irrelevant to Wikipedia, but I'm sure you'll know the answer. When a hereditary peer disclaims his peerage, he "loses all titles, rights and privileges associated with the peerage; if he is a married man, so does his wife." But what about his children? Are they still styled The Honourable? This occurred to me when I read about the Earl of Durham. He improperly calls himself "Viscount Lambton", so his son has to use the title Lord Durham instead. But if his father lost all his titles, how can the son use one of them as a courtesy title? Thanks, JRawle 23:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Also connected to courtesy titles, I noticed yesterday the article of an heir apparent which had succession boxes for his courtesy title (it was Viscount something) with his father as the previous holder. Surely we don't normally do this, as the heir doesn't actually hold the title in his own right. Unfortunately I can't remember what the title was now... JRawle (Talk) 10:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
If I find it again, or any others, I'll be sure to remove it! Thanks, JRawle (Talk) 11:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Found it, and someone's already beaten me to it! [7] JRawle (Talk) 12:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Right Honourable

hey, i've noticed you've been changing back edits i made to all the articles on british Prime Ministers listing the appropriate shortening of their title as "Rt Hon". If you'll check [8] and [9] you'll see plenty of others styling themselves this way.... Cheers, Thesocialistesq 07:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Countess of Swinton

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

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

The Earl of Snowdon is referred to as The Earl of Snowdon in Hansard and on the House of Lords website. [10] On the other hand, Susan, Countess of Swinton is referred to as Baroness Masham of Ilton there. [11] [12] A good example of this is in Hansard here: [13]

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

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

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

[edit] The Prince of Wales

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

[edit] Noel-Byron

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

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

[edit] Styles

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

[edit] Help

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

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

[edit] Your input is needed

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

[edit] Most Noble

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

However, and this is where it gets messy, I'm growing increasing convinced that the entry is not right or at least not right in all time frames or perhaps even that it needs acknowledgement that the styles vary a great deal. We say that a Duke is Most High, Potent, and Noble Prince. If you look at [[14]] there is certainly slightly more leeway with differing versions. It seems C13-C15 almost anything went. Now [[15]] ought to be correct as its the central chancery of the orders of knighthood but I can still find variances. For instance the Duke of Wellington at his funeral was called by Garter "Most High, Mighty, and Most Noble Prince. This is halfway between the style of a Duke (The Most High, Potent and Noble Prince) and a Uk Prince (The Most High, Most Mighty and Illustrious Prince). Now this could I suppose be a deliberate decision as the Duke was a Prince in the Netherlands. However either way it seems wiki is either inaccurate or insufficiently clear. I'm not certain what the right answer is but I think we do need to try to decide on what it is! - Sorry for a long message!Alci12 12:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Hi,

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

Best,

Primetime 21:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Nicholas Hervey

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

[edit] Duke of Aubigny

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Casey

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

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

[edit] Post-nominal letter order

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

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

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

[edit] Revert of Prince of Wales

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

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

[edit] Titles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Source

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

Ah well Patrick Cracroft-Brennan will be pleased :) No that's good I just didn't want us assuming we were confirming each other when we weren't :) Alci12 10:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Does Cracrofts have anything on Fuedal barons as I'm somewhat uncomfortable about Forms_of_Address_in_the_United_Kingdom I've never seen an offical modern document ie governmental or royal using those forms of address. What I have seen is the various feudal baron associations, which are full of a lot of ppl who had large cheque books, pushing the much hon style for all it's worth. I'm dubious that we appear to be endorsing something that's of shaky foundationAlci12 11:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "Canadian Royal Family"

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

[edit] Knights of St John etc

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

[edit] Lady Byron

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

As it happens, I have read both. I have also read Wikipedia:naming conventions (names and titles), and discussed it at some length; I am endeavouring to follow them, as best my light and sources permit.
These, however, are guidelines and a project page. None of them grant a privilege against treating a fellow editor with common courtesy, as far as I can see.

[edit] WP:RFCU

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

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

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

[edit] Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

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

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

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

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

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Name sorting

Hello,

Regarding your latest edits.

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

Michael David 21:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
No it doesn't what? Michael David 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello again,
Please direct me to the Section of the MoS, which instructs me to alphabetize a person by their title rather than by their last proper name. Until you can I will proceed as I have.
Michael David 22:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Hello again,
I went, as was suggested by another, to the section of the MoS regarding the sorting of names in Categories. The paragraph regarding the British Peerage was added by User:Docu just 14 days ago, and apparently without discussion.
I went to the MoS page and found this at the top: “The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here. Wikipedia articles should heed these rules. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.” I found no such discussion regarding this change. There is a problem here.
Regards,
Michael David 11:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
If you insist on dealing with this issue in such an autocratic manner - there is still most certainly a problem! It is time to include some others in this discussion. Michael David 13:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heraldry Portal?

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

[edit] Honorific prefixes for children of an heir apparent?

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

[edit] Johns Balliol

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

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

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

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

[edit] Notability of John 5th Balliol

And while I am at it, I request you to comment upon the following argument: The guy (father of king John) has so little notability that his article is destined to be a stub into eternity. Waimea 08:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
(a) If that were the case, what would be the problem? Do stubs disrupt the fabric of the universe or something? (b) He's the founder of an Oxford college, which makes him far more notable than thousands of people with articles. Proteus (Talk) 08:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Do I read correctly that you actually accept that there can be stubs which do not have any viability to grow into proper articles? Interesting view. Are you certain that you are working towards building an encyclopedia, not a dictionary? Waimea 14:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In order: Yes (though I do not accept that this is the case here) and yes, thanks. Proteus (Talk) 16:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shrewsbury

Are you sure that is how it is pronounced? Locals, IME, call it "Shrews-bury". -- ALoan (Talk) 15:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, wouldn't something like IPA be a better choice for pronunciation hints? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table of rules for peers

Hi Proteus - I was just wondering, I saw a table on wikipedia sometime telling of the rules of designations for peers, e.g. showing a Duke is almost always a territorial designation, a Marquess too but showing exceptions, showing how an earl can be either of territory or family name - do you know where this table is?

Also, I was just wondering, where do all these names of terriotorial designations come from? It seems that all the dukedoms are names of counties etc, why is this not true for all of them? E.g. the Dukes of Northumberland, Edinburgh, but then Dukes of Grafton & Clarence. Is it possible for a dukedom to be named after a family? How come so many earldoms used up big territorial designations (eg Earl of Hertford, Earl of Warwick, Earl of Kent) when some eg Earl Spencer didn't even have a placename - does this mean anything? Are there any rules for deciding territorial designations of peerages?

You might be interested to know that I went round Hardwick Hall a year ago, and the guide was telling us the history of the dukes of Devonshire. He said (and I haven't heard this anywhere else) that James I (I think) created the Earldom (as it originally was) of Devon for the family, not realising there already existed an earldom of Devon, so they stuck the "shire" prefix onto it to make it different. I wonder, why do no other titles have the shire suffix?

Do you know, was the Dukedom of Wharton a placename or named after the family?

Also, does the Dowager peerage system work with courtesy titles? Eg Kathleen Kennedy was Marchioness of Hartington, then her husband who held the courtesy title died - since his younger brother Andrew was the new Marquess of Hartington and his wife the new Marchioness, what was Kathleen styled as? Could she have been styled as Dowager Marchioness of Hartington?, or was she Kathleen, Marchioness of Hartington (and if so, presumably took the same status as a widow of a peer?)

Finally, I'm a great admirer of your work on wikipedia - do you write outside wikipedia also? If so I would like to read your work, you are certainly the most informed person about peerage and royalty here! --130.88.188.14 17:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of billionaires (2006)

The Lord Thomson of Fleet? What is wrong with his first and last name? All of the other billionaires are listed as first and last name. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

None of the other billionaires have titles. I would have thought that was obvious. Proteus (Talk) 17:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Although I'll admit you are probably 100% correct, it's not by any means obvious. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feudal Baronies - Again!

If you look at Category:Baronies we have two (at least) Feudal Scottish baronies that have been bought and appear to be being (were I to take a guess) promoted by their owners. Baron_of_Fulwood & Barony_of_Barrichbeyan the latter of which contains the usual rubbish "it was open to be claimed by anyone in the succession by the Scottish law of positive prescription, which entitles ownership of the title to anyone who successfully holds the title and enjoys its rights for a period of ten years."

I think we need to sort out what we do here. Mixing genuine peerages under the catagory baronies with real or fake fudal titles is just awful but how to handle. I'll copy this to Choess though we may need to move to a proper discussion page. I would appreciate any thoughts as to how we handle this. Alci12 14:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I did consider deletion - particularly for the second page (Barrichbeyan) where they have simply assumed the title based on a false notion of Scots' law. However the former is potentially more tricky. If they have bought that title and it is recognised by the Lord Lyon then it does exist.[16] The question then if does having a Scottish fudal title make an article notable on its own in the way we say it does for peerages. My general view is probably not - I don't know much about how much we need to find a consensus before proposing Afd which is why I ran this by you. Searching I now find in the history Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Baron of Fulwood in 2005. Can we re-propose?Alci12 16:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Certainly if forced to keep the article - I fail to see how it survived before as not very notable, it's written in part by the subject who isn't notable and has no citations to support anything said - we need to prevent confusion with genuine baronies which is why I was concerned to see the entries I gave you on the cat. baronies. If they have to stay they should be moved to a cat feudal baronies. Certainly I think they should be remove from the former as it suggests equiv. levelsAlci12 18:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British order of precedence

The Order of Precedence in England and Wales page states it is only up-to-date as of October 2004- an obvious error, as the Duchess of Cornwall is included. How up-to-date is the list? The date should be changed, and you seemed like someone who would want to know. TysK 06:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baroness Howe

For goodness sake please realise that whether or not it is technically correct (and I do not agree with you on this point), there comes a time when common sense trumps both consistency and strict adherence to rules. David | Talk 12:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've tried warning you subtly but you did not respond. I will now say openly that your personal attacks are breaking Wikipedia policy and are souring the atmosphere. Please also desist from the suggestion that only you know about the Peerage, which is untrue.
I did not mention accuracy. I said "strict adherence to rules". It seems to me common sense that Baroness Howe is known principally by a title awarded to her in her own right rather than one which devolved upon her by marriage. There is also the issue of precedence, given that the holder of a Life Barony is higher in precedence than the wife of a Life Baron. Finally (for now), do you want to do a search for any other source not derived from Wikipedia which refers to "Baroness Howe of Aberavon"? David | Talk 12:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duke of Lancaster

I noted your edits to the Duke of Lancaster and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom pages, wherein you note that the sovereign is not called the Duke of Lancaster. Yet, from the Duchy of Lancaster site, one reads this:

Founded in the 13th century, the Duchy of Lancaster is a unique portfolio of land, property and assets held in trust for the Sovereign in his or her role as Duke of Lancaster.

How can one be x without being called x? Is there some verification for your claim? Just curious. Fishhead64 18:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Also from the Duchy of Lancaster website's Q & A page:

Question: Why is Her Majesty The Queen referred to as the Duke of Lancaster and not the Duchess of Lancaster?
Answer: Historically, Queen Victoria considered that the title 'Duke' was the proper title for the holder of a Dukedom whether man or woman, that of Duchess being a courtesy title for the consort of a Duke. Today, Her Majesty The Queen is sometimes referred to as the Duke of Lancaster. However, the use of the title is considered to be dependent upon the pleasure of the reigning monarch and is not used on official or formal documents or on occasions. Fishhead64 18:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Technically the Queen is Duke of Lancaster since she holds the Duchy - however, no sovereign can hold a peerage honour since they themselves are the fount of peerage dignitaries. However, she is toasted as The Queen, Duke of Lancaster upon occasions in Lancashire - but this is tradition rather than fact.--130.88.243.192 11:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

She's not Duke of Lancaster, technically or otherwise. Proteus (Talk) 12:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah - it seems that this is already being discussed. It seems that the alt.talk.royalty faq [17] disagrees with you. Hope this satisfies you. Sorry. Noisy | Talk 14:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. And there's no need to be sorry, you're hardly the only one producing incorrect links. Proteus (Talk) 15:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected - she's not the Duke of Lancaster since that title merged into the crown centuries ago, the sovereign cannot hold a peerage. She's only toasted as such in Lancashire (don't know why), perhaps because she fills the role were she Duke of Lancaster?--130.88.243.179 18:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's just tradition, really. She's toasted as "The Queen, Our Duke" in the Channel Islands with a similar lack of legal basis. Proteus (Talk) 18:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sighs I've tried knocking some sense into the Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom article but I'm not getting very far. I'm not sure where we go with this.Alci12 14:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguating baronetcies

I seem to recall you've opined against using the territorial designations to distinguish baronets. How would you recommend, I go about disambiguating, e.g., Sir Richard Browne, 1st Baronet, representing three individuals? Choess 22:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note new page Browne Baronets - Kittybrewster 22:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord/Lady Justice

I noted your comments on Talk:Mary_Arden_(judge) but looking at the reference to her on her husband's page we refer to her as Lady Justice. I haven't edited it until I'm clear how we handle it as I can see perfectly good reason's for both solutions.Alci12 17:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armagh (disambiguation)

You moved Armagh, County Armagh to Armagh. Can you revive the old Armagh page, which was a disambiguation page, and move that to Armagh (disambiguation)? Once you have done that, could you please add a link to Armagh, Quebec, a municipality in Canada, to the disambiguation page? TruthbringerToronto 04:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People aren't baptised "Sir"

Sir is a title, like "Doctor" or "professor". It is not the first name of people you are trying to say it is! See WP:MOS — Dunc|☺ 22:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you wrote the MOS did you? You seem awfully insistant that some people's first names are "Sir". — Dunc|☺ 23:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hi

Hi Proteus, I was wondering if you could poss answer my questions on this page under "Table of Rules for peers", thanks.

Also, things are getting a bit heated on Elizabeth II's talk page about Duke of Lancaster ....

I was thinking "I thought I did...", but looking at the history of this page it seems you're on a dynamic IP, so they're on a pretty random user talk page (here). I'll paste the contents here, anyway: Proteus (Talk) 18:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titles

(Cross-posted from my talk page)

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

It'd be a very unusual situation, as in the vast, vast majority of cases all titles go to the eldest son, but in the case you lay out I'd imagine the 1st Duke's widow would become either "The Dowager Duchess of London and Islington" or "Sarah, Duchess of London and Islington" (the choice, as with all widows of peers, would be hers, and down to which form she preferred). The reason I'd say this is that Dukes and Duchesses with more than one title are generally known only by the first in informal situations (so the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry is generally just called "the Duke of Buccleuch"), and so if she kept her former style both her and her eldest son's wife would be known generally as "the Duchess of London", which wouldn't really be acceptable.

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

Indeed it would. Courtesy peerages are only held by heirs apparent, and it's just coincidence that eldest sons are almost always the heir apparent and so have courtesy peerages. The eldest son in this case would be "Lord John Smith". Likewise, if the titles were as such in your first example, both eldest and second sons would have courtesy peerages (the eldest getting the highest peerage other than the Dukedom of London coming to him and the second getting the highest peerage other than the Dukedom of Islington coming to him). A real-life example of this is found with the sons of the 3rd Marquess of Londonderry: Londonderry was created Earl Vane and Viscount Seaham with remainder to his heirs male by his second wife (his first son was his only son by his first wife). Before Londonderry's death his eldest son was known as Viscount Castlereagh as heir apparent to the Marquessate whilst his second son was known as Viscount Seaham as heir apparent to the Earldom.

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

Well they're not "taken", as such, as they're never used to describe the actual peer except in peerage reference works. The actual peer continues to hold all his peerages, and the courtesy peers merely use them as if they held them (they might almost be called "spare peerages" that the peer doesn't need and so lets his heirs pretend they hold them).

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

Yes, they are, but they're never referred to as such because "Prince" and "Princess" are considered to be rather akin to courtesy titles: they're used by those with nothing else, but nowhere near as grand as even the lowest actual peerage (though higher, of course, than courtesy peerages). It's the same reason that members of the Royal Family are created peers — it's nice to be a Prince, obviously, but nothing beats holding a peerage.

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

Courtesy titles are really only there to give heirs something to call themselves that shows their status. As actual peers have actual titles, they don't need lesser courtesy peerages and so generally just ignore them.

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

Yes, though usually only as a historical accident rather than through design. There is currently a Duke of Sutherland as well as a Countess of Sutherland (the two titles were once held by the same people, but have since separated because only one can descend through the female line), and there are various other examples, mainly of subsidiary titles.

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

No, they're just ordinary untitled people.

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

Well she was always "Princess Henry" as the wife of Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, so she was really a Princess all along. As to why she was "Princess Alice": when her husband died, she would in normal practice have become "HRH The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester". However, this didn't suit her very much, and so she asked if she could be "Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester" in the same way as her sister-in-law, Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, who was styled as such because she was born a Princess (not of the UK). The Queen bent the rules and agreed, and so she was styled in that way.

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

Peers generally don't use their lesser titles themselves, so he's really only following standard practice with the Earldoms, but as regards the Princedom of Scotland I think our article on it probably explains more clearly than I could.

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

Sorry, can't help you with this. The Queen-Empress Consorts don't seem to have had the same status as their husbands, however: the King-Emperors (and Queen-Empresses Regnant) signed "Name RI" ("Name King/Queen Emperor/Empress") but their wives only signed "Name R" ("Name Queen").

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

Because his father's generally called the Duke of Richmond and Gordon: the Scottish Dukedom is missed out and so they also miss out the Scottish courtesy Earldom.

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

It depends in what sense: he's called "the Earl of Somewhere" so he's obviously nominally an Earl (he's not a Viscount or a Marquess, for instance), but he's not actually an Earl in the sense of "someone who holds an Earldom".

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

She's only referred to as Duke of Lancaster by tradition, rather than by law. And she is, technically, Duchess of Edinburgh, but of course a monarch would have no need to use such a title.

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

Most probably, though she wouldn't have been known as that, just as all Royal peeresses are just "HRH The Duchess of Camelot" rather than "HRH The Princess Lancelot, Duchess of Camelot".

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

He'd just be "The Hon. John Smith". Heirs of courtesy peers follow the same rules as heirs of actual peers: they can only have courtesy peerages if their fathers are courtesy Earls or Marquesses, not Viscounts or Barons, and they have to have a lower grade of peerage than their fathers.

Sorry there are so many questions here ... it would be great if you could help!

No problem, hope I've been of assistance. Proteus (Talk) 21:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with everything that Proteus has said though I'd add perhaps that sons of younger sons of peers do by a less formal tradition use EsquireAlci12 10:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honorific reverts

Hi. You seem to be reverting rather a lot of changes wrt MOS:Honorific prefixes. Any particular reason for this ? Frelke 12:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I notice you mentioned something in an earlier edit summary. But sorry, I can't find anything about the use of honorifics in Infoboxes. Can you please reference this item for me pls. Ta. Frelke 17:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you will find that the wording is actually "... shall not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper...." This infers that they can be discussed (i.e. "He became a Rt. Hon when he was made Lord Mayor") but should not be used elsewhere. If you read Wikipedia:Captions you will see that captions (which is what we are discussing) are treated as, and expected to be, full sentences that add to the encyclopaedic content of the article. Thus they are "inline". Frelke 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
So you accept that it does infer that ? Can you provide a reference to those discussions? It seems to me from reading Talk:MOS:Honorific prefixes that you were in a real minority on this and pushing the boundaries of reason. You obviously belive wholeheartedly in the use of such honorifics and you are entitled to do so but, please dont 'imply you wrote the rules, which is what I infer from your comment. Frelke 18:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ordinals

I wasn't going to post this as you had a wikibreak listed but as you popped into the trimble page I though perhaps you may be able to offer some advice. See Talk:Lord_Lovat and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage. Now I think Canæn's argument is...'not good' but I think he is probably acting in good faith even if he is causing a problem . I'm slightly reluctant to edit Clan Fraser to correct the details he has changed there (16->18th Lord Lovat again) as in all likelyhood I can see a revert war especially if his 'braveheart' reasoning finds favour there but his changes can't stand. He is pushing a clan POV and renaming pages as a consequence but I'm not sure what I should do really.

Obviously you have exams so don't worry about this it'll still be there afterwards Alci12 16:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Territorial designations

You removed territorial designations saying this is an incorrect way to disamibiguate Baronets. I wonder what your authority is for that statement. Is that not what territorial designations are for? Somebody else suggested territorial designations are somehow "not official" and I think they cited you. Is that something you believe and if so why? - Kittybrewster 18:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 23:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guettarda

I see you've joined this thread. I can't see this can go anywhere as he's an admin and simply cites his viewpoint as NPOV. Would this be better sent to dispute resolution of some sort. Alci12 16:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Lovat

You may wish to look at the Lord Lovat page again. I think Canaen is pushing is POV again, he's not giving up on the numbering of the Lords, insisting that because apparently the general public refer to them differantly we should account for this. To be honest, I think 99% of the public have never heard of him, so I think this is a strange argument. --Berks105 13:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

The page Order_of_the_Collar_of_Saint_Agatha is as far as I can see a fake order - I was going to puts tags disputing it on but I'm not sure what - it's not {fact} as thats about sources I think ... it's been sent to afd but clearly the ppl there didn't relise it was fake... see [18] or [19] for the 'order'. What do I do, submit afd again or tag it - if so with what tag? Alci12 17:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset

Please be aware that you may be breaking the three revert rule if you make any more reverts to the above page. If these reverts are over a dispute, then I would suggest that you take this issue to mediation. Thanks Abcdefghijklm 13:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford

Please be aware that you may be breaking the three revert rule if you make any more reverts to the above page. If these reverts are over a dispute, then I would suggest that you take this issue to mediation. Thanks Abcdefghijklm 13:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI=

Just had a look at WJohnsons history, it appears he has been blocked before for breaking the 3-R-R. Just so you know, I believe your edits are right (which is why I reverted one of the pages to your edit) and conform to standard stylings of the peerage. I will not get involved with this as a mediator, or otherwise, but I will keep an eye on the article to make sure he does not break the 3-R-R again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abcdefghijklm (talk • contribs) 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A rule that I was not aware of before I broke it. And this is not standard styling for the peerage. I have in front of me the Complete Peerage which is the authoritative book on the subject and not one single time do they simply call something 'Lord' this or that. They always use the person's given name. I can also cite you a few thousand examples from the Patent Rolls if you want. Wjhonson 23:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Imbros and Tenedos

There is a new move request here; you may be interested in it. Septentrionalis 18:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mandela

Hi, I noticed you restored Mandela's post-nominals, which I had removed after they were introduced without comment by an anonymous editor. The "problem" of Mandela's hundreds of awards had been previously discussed and addressed by opening a separate page listing them. I wondered about your comment about the convention being to include post-nominals, and I think it's worth discussing, if you're willing. I found a WP policy that "Post-nominals should not be used for non-Commonwealth or former British Empire citizens as their use outside a Commonwealth context are extremely rare." Although the converse is that "post-nominals should be used for Commonwealth citizens", this isn't actually stated, and what is stated does at least establish the idea of exceptions to the practice of using post-nominals in areas where they are rarely used. I would argue that they should not be included for Mandela, as they are rarely used in South Africa, they are all foreign honours (a Canadian honour, for instance, is of minor relevance), their usage for Mandela is somewhat inappropriate given his symbolic status as a post-Colonial leader, and that Mandela is a sufficiently prominent individual to make an exception to a convention in his case. It's not hard to see why they would not be commonly used in South Africa, given South Africa's past status as a pariah nation outside the Commonwealth, and the desire to separate itself from a colonial past. Are you open to discussing this? Zaian 19:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baronesses, Ladies, etc.

Hi Proteus,

Just noticed your recent edits. I agree that Joan Walmsley is Baroness Thomas of Gresford (as you can see, that's what I'd put originally - I did leave the user a message to explain it). I'm not sure about "and" to link two titles - is that standard? And should it be bold?

Onto my main point: while I fully agree with you that she and Lady Gretton are baronesses, I'm uncomfortable with "Baroness" being used for the page title when it's the wife of a peer. Equally, I don't like "Baron" used for life peers. I am talking about the page title, not the introductory text, which should definitely be Baron or Baroness.

The Wikipedia naming convention is to "use the most common form of the name used in English". I can't see that Baron and Baroness fit in with that, as they are never used in English. The opening line is different as that should be the subject's full name, which can include Baron or Baroness. Sometime I intend to open a discussion about this somewhere (WP:PEER) – that's not to say the policy will change, as there are some difficult issues, not the least hereditary barons.

Final point: the usual form outside Wikipedia would be Jennifer Ann, Lady Gretton, while on Wikipedia we include the surname. Fair enough. So why don't we do the same thing for wives of knights, e.g. Elspeth Mary Campbell, Lady Campbell? Or alternatively, just leave the Lady part out altogether. JRawle (Talk) 12:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earl of Leicester (of Holkham)

I'm also surprised to see those edits. I always thought the title of the current earl is Earl of Leicester of Holkham, as the Earldom of Leicester still existed when it was created. Surely missing the "of Holkham" bit of is as bad as life peers who miss the "of Somewhere" part of their title off (remembering the clash between Baroness Young and Baroness Young of Old Scone!)

In any case, the text of the Earl of Leicester page needs looking at as it still mentions Earl of Leicester of Holkham. JRawle (Talk) 12:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How were they able to recreate the title when it still existed? Was there a special Act of Parliament (as with the Eardom of Mar)? JRawle (Talk) 13:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plural of Lord Lieutenant?

Thanks for your input. While we're on the subject, how about Lord Lieutenant? When I was looking up Lord Mayor, I saw the Times Style Guide mentions the Association of Lord-Lieutenants, and says that's the correct plural, and that it should be hyphenated. JRawle (Talk) 16:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And I guess the same applies to Lord Provost: there are a couple of "Lists of Lords Provost" I spotted just as I received your message! JRawle (Talk) 16:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of precedence

It seems that succession boxes are now divided into sections according to the type of title (Parliament of the UK, Peerage of Scotland, etc.) Some bio articles have "Order of precedence", but what sort of heading should it go under? It's not a peerage title, it's not an honorary title. See Robert Lindsay, 29th Earl of Crawford for an example and Template:S-start/Instructions for a current list of headings. Perhaps we need a "Miscellaneous" heading or something similar, but I thought maybe you can come up with better terminology. JRawle (Talk) 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earl of Derby

First of all, not the hole you removed, was incorrect. Secondly please would you look Baron Stanley and [20], [21] for the former Barony of Stanley, I mentioned. The baronetcy of Bickerstaffe Hall was created for the 11th Earl, look here [22]. The rest of the titles was an error. I'v got them from [23] and confused the term "Stanley Family" with "Earl of Derby". Thanks. I hope you will use some of the things, I searched, to restore the parts I wasn't wrong. Phoe 13:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David John Seyfried-Herbert, 19th Baron Herbert

I don't suppose any of your sources can clarifty this entry. I had understood it that he tried to bring the Berkeley and the barony Botetourt out with Herbert but he was opposed/contested by Mrs Cope and Mrs Peyronel so the matter was left to drop. Anon user has just edited to it never being attempted. Wondered if you know any more on this awkward one. Alci12 13:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener

I looked at the websites to check the date of the Viscountcy, but I found Leigh Rayment says: "Created Baron Kitchener... Viscount Kitchener... Baron Denton, Viscount Brome and Earl Kitchener of Khartoum 27 Jul 1914". And Cracroft's says, "Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome (3rd), Henry Herbert Kitchener". Both sites suggest the Earldom has a placename in the title, but I don't see why it should have, and I know it doesn't as you've edited the page before. So why are they wrong? JRawle (Talk) 23:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Earl Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome in the County of Kent
  • Viscount Broome of Broome in the County of Kent
  • Baron Denton of Denton in the County of Kent
  • Viscount Kitchener of Khartoum and of the Vaal in the Colony of Transvaal, and of Aspall in the County of Suffolk
  • Baron Kitchener of Khartoum and of Aspall in the County of Suffolk
My source lists it like that. The London Gazette copy of the LP for the viscountcy certainly confirms the barony title format "The KING has been pleased to direct Letters Patent to be passed under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,granting the dignity of a Viscount of the said United Kingdom unto Horatio Herbert, Lord Kitchener of Khartoum". I think we do have an error in our entry. If the latter two are both correct then the similarity to the earldom's patent would be the source of the confusion elsewhere Alci12 16:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Privy Council

Hoping to rationalize our current categories, I've run into a problem of nomenclature. Obviously, the Privy Council was, from 1707 to 1801, the "Privy Council of Great Britain". Since there was a separate Privy Council of Ireland, was it still styled so after 1801, or did it become the "Privy Council of the United Kingdom?" Choess 22:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. So Their Majesties have or had divers Privy Councils, as one for Northern Ireland, Ireland, and Canada. But right of judicial appeal has always lain, even from dominions with their own Privy Council, such as Canada (that's abolished now, but you get the point), to the chief and principal Privy Council. Is this council "HM Honourable Privy Council of Great Britain" (the principal realm of her dominions), in contradistinction to the other Privy Councils, or does it lack a territorial appellation entirely? Choess 15:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I propose that Category:Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom be renamed Category:Members of the Privy Council and that this go on CfD. - Kittybrewster 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Having browsed around a little, I'm not sure that any of the Privy Councils, except perhaps that of Canada, has a definitive, fixed style of territorial appellation: e.g., letters patent from Lord Lyon in 1631 refer simply to "[HM] Most Honourable Privy Council in this Kingdom" (Scotland). Nonetheless, I think I would keep "Members of the Privy Council of Scotland" as a subcategory and add "Members of the Privy Council of Ireland" and "Current members of the Privy Council"; "Members of the Privy Council of England" could be kept as a subcategory or merged into the parent, as you please. It may not hew exactly to the formal style, but it seems like the best way of demarcating the Scotch and Irish counsels as separate bodies. Choess 20:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FitzAlan

Heia, because I've seen that you capitalised the "A" in FitzAlan in various articles, I would like to ask you, if the same should be done on Baron Fitzmaurice and Earl of Upper Ossory, respectively with the names Fitzmaurice and Fitzpatrick. Thanks ... Phoe 14:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lady and The Honourable

Since when have the daughters of British aristocrats been entitled to use Lady and The Honourable ? - Kittybrewster 14:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord John Philip Sackville

This man is frequently referred to in cricket sources, including some that are contemporary, as above. I suppose the Philip is there to avoid confusion with his son John Frederick who became the famous 3rd Duke of Dorset.

I have used the above title in the cricket article about Sackville because of those sources.

If you have alternative sources, perhaps in the Debretts or whatever, that conclude he should be called Lord John Sackville only, could you please quote them so I can consider it further. It may be that a disambiguation page will be necessary.

Incidentally, I notice that the edit in August was performed by you wherein the article opens with "The Lord John Philip Sackville", which indicates that you regard that his correct title. I am therefore surprised that you want to exclude "Philip" from the article title. Please give a rationale.

Regards --BlackJack | talk page 11:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


Please give a rationale for changing the title of the article. Please also do so objectively and constructively. --BlackJack | talk page 11:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
And the sources listed in the article itself? Admittedly all these are secondary sources but they tend to include direct quotes from contemporary and primary sources. They are certainly more credible sources than the USA version of cricinfo, for example. The primary sources tend to use a mixture of nomenclatures depending on context and these range from "Lord John Philip Sackville" to "Lord John P. Sackville" to "Lord Sackville" to "Mr Sackville" to "Sackville". Interestingly, I cannot see "Lord John Sackville" but I admit I have only done a quick scan just now.
You have still not said why you changed the opening line of the article to "The Lord John Philip Sackville": please explain.
Your view that middle names are not used in titles is incorrect. There are nowadays a number of actors, footballers and the like who use their middle names: José Antonio Reyes, Sarah Jessica Parker, etc. so are their article titles incorrect? --BlackJack | talk page 12:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Where have you given a rationale for the opening line? What do you have to say about the credibility of the sources quoted in the article itself? Your inference re middle names is that they should not be used in your opinion, however you may try to claim you are being misquoted. Would you please provide an objective rationale for your actions re title changes and answer the questions put to you. I have not been rude or condescending, I am merely trying to find out if you have evidence about this man's name that overrides the primary sources I have seen or if ther is an actual Wikipedia policy around titles that I might not know of. Would you please therefore give me a full answer and outline your reasons. --BlackJack | talk page 12:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the sources you have quoted is seriously flawed. This is Sacred texts which states:
"Kent was one of the earliest counties where the game throve under the lead of Lord John Sackville. In 1746 a match was played on the Artillery Ground, London, by Kent against All England, eleven a side, when the latter won by two wickets. A newspaper advertisement announced a match on the same ground on July 24th, 1749, between five of the Addington Club and an All England five. The advertisement gave the names of the players, and thus concluded: "N.B.--The last match, which was play’d on Monday the 10th instant, was won by All England, notwithstanding it was eight to one on Addington in the playing."
First, the game in Kent "throve" for over a century before Sackville was born. Second, the match it is talking about took place in 1744, not 1746, and the result was a win by one wicket, not two wickets. The five a side game it quotes did at least take place but that was hardly a major fixture. I have read the rest of the article too and it contains serious factual errors. Wikipedia requires sources but they are to be credible and preferably primary, such as those quoted in the article. --BlackJack | talk page 12:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


You win. I've decided to concede the point after looking at the book by Timothy J McCann about Sussex cricket (Sackville was a Kent man) which surprisingly has numerous references to Sackville and all directly quoting contemporary sources. You will be pleased to know they all say "Lord John Sackville" and there are enough to form a majority over the alternative versions so I'll accept that he should be called John only with perhaps a reference to his full name in the body of the article. --BlackJack | talk page 14:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Durin

You may want to keep an eye out for a User:Durin. He's another of these self-proclaimed experts on copyright law (and like most of them hasn't a clue). He is now deleting images from royalty templates such as {{House of Oldenburg (Glucksburg-Greece)}}. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I haven't proclaimed myself as an expert in any law, much less copyright law. What I did was entirely proper and within Wikipedia policy; the image had no source, no license, and was merely tagged as {{coatofarms}}, leaving its status in limbo and the best interpretation of it as fair use. It was properly removed per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. The uploader has been informed, and indeed has quite a number of other images that suffer from the same problems. The uploader, despite extensive experience, has frequently made erors in tagging of images, as can be seen by a review of his talk page and archives. I've asked him to look into all of his image uploads for similar problems. All the best, --Durin 17:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it is now open season on these templates. All the British templates, having had their images removed, are now being proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 21 (not by Durin, BTW, in case that impression is given). No wonder people leave this project in frustration. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Province of Maryland

Need your help. Please share your knowledge and/or resources on aristocratic conventions. Hasbro 17:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Province of Maryland

(N.B. I added a new section from the top of the page without noticing that Hasbro was already here.) Hello Proteus. User:Hasbro has been making a bit of a noise over at Talk:Province of Maryland and appears to assume that editors who are asking for verifiable citations to reliable sources are part of some cabal with an anti-Irish agenda. He has mentioned you [24] as an editor he apparently has some respect for. Perhaps you could drop by and help sort out fact from heated rhetoric. I've no special knowledge or interest in the subject, I only noticed an unsourced edit that seemed a little odd to me. older ≠ wiser 17:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's merely a matter of naivete coloured by Anglophilia and/or United Irish nationalism, which have sadly distorted the nature of Englishmen as Irish aristocrats and the special case of one such Irish peer of English ancestry who founded American colonies. My opponents, like the one above, would like to erase all Irish connections to the Catholic nature of these palatine lords and remake it as a completely unrelated English issue. One must wonder if it is worth it to the Irish purists to remove any and all contributions Englishmen have had in "coopting" Irish identity by "going native" or becoming "more Irish than the Irish themselves". I never claimed the Calverts were ancestrally, but only politically, religiously and governmentally Irish. They embraced Irish culture as it has been known to the world. Please do not allow revisionism to swamp an historical topic such as this, which is a rare gem. Hasbro 17:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I am coming at this from a generic and populist/majoritarian "social movement" perspective (e.g. British and Protestant vs Irish and Catholic), while my opponents have an individual perspective about the interplay of the Calverts. I think that the background political events make it possible to broadly group the Calverts with the Irish and Catholic side. Hasbro 21:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice on UK peerage article title

Hi, Mackensen suggested that I run the following issue past you:

Hi, thanks for your past help on the peerage. What do you think is the correct Wikipedia article title for John Butler, styled 12th Baron Dunboyne? What is all this styled business in any case and is there/ do we need an article about it?Cutler 12:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, assuming we're talking about the eighteenth-century bishop, he should be at John Butler, 12th Baron Dunboyne. I'm not sure why a source would say he's "styled"–it wasn't a courtesy title or anything like that. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - it is the bishop - Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says styled. Cutler 10:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"The title of Dunboyne had been forfeited by James, fourth Baron Dunboyne, for his implication in the Irish rising of 1641; he was outlawed, yet the title continued to be used and the estates were retained by the family." ODNB. Does that change your view on the article title? Cutler 10:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That's interesting. I think we'd probably still put it there, but I'd ask Proteus for his opinion as well. Mackensen (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

- Cutler 11:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter and Zara

Thanks for the answer. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patronage Secretary

I notice that the 1911 EB frequently uses the term; is it in any sense "official", or simply a convenient tag for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury? Choess 04:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baronetcys

I assumed changes weren't allowed (though when you think about it there is no reason as it's not like a peerage that needs a act of parliament to change it. Bts can be stripped of their title just like a knight) but I've seen a few things where odd things have happened. It could be down to the use of name designation -v- title designation but scottish titles as a whole are somewhat of an oddity [25] Alci12 11:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't, but as I said I believe that there is no legal need for an act to change a baronetcy - only peerage case law has been deemed to require changes in that area to be by act of p. If peerage law and baronetcy law were the same then you'd need an act for extinguishing a btcy and you don't. That link may be talking about a TD seperate from the title but the way it's written it certainly reads as though the btcy itself was altered. Frankly it's such an obscure area it's very hard to find sources to discuss it in the detail needed to claify such matters Alci12 16:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbering UK Prime Ministers

"Prime Ministers

British office-holders are not sequentially numbered. That's an American custom never used in the UK."

Citation? I've noticed a few of them numbered (Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair), but don't want to remove those without a citation in the edit summaries and/or talk pages. TransUtopian 15:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping for a source mentioning the United States numbering political office holders and the UK not, but I'll link to your mention on my talk page if I come across such in the future. A good thing I noticed your note, because I briefly considered numbering them in a column of List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom before I realized it would be a considerable job. (I would've proposed it on the talk page before undertaking it, but still a good thing.) TransUtopian 15:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's a general problem on wiki that because the majority of users come from countries (mainly the US) where such things are numbered, that it is just not considered that this might not be the case elsewhere. We have the same problem with parliaments being numbered another constitutionally strange notion. In both instances the numbering becomes a farce as it's next to impossible to establish the exact numbers or even perhaps agree on a definition of how to try. Perhaps the talk page needs an explanation of why the numbering has been removed though so it doesn't return. Alci12 19:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The talk page of the List of UK PMs, you mean? Agreed. Plus a commented out part prominently on the actual page. Adding such notes to the talk & a commented out part to the last 3 PMs' articles might also help too, since they're often accessed. TransUtopian 04:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Earl of Warwick

Hey Proteus, the article about George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence says that he was Earl of Warwick jure uxoris throught his wife Isabel ... and some sources in the net state the same [26] (I quote: "March 1472 was created by right of his wife earl of Warwick and Salisbury". [27] lists him as Earl of Warwick and [28] gives him his own creation. Perhaps you are able to find out what of this is right. Greetings ... Phoe 16:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colin_Moynihan Baron_Moynihan

Do you perhaps have any more details on this. I don't like the article for reasons I gave User talk:JRawle essentially you can't or rather don't terminate a 'dormancy' it's just a description of the status of the title but the title when proved or a writ granted is legally considered to have been held from the moment of the previous peers death. However that all said there must be more to this claim than [29] suggests because otherwise I can't see why Moynihan wasn't forced to resign his seat or disclaim his title (as the Earl of Selkirk had to in '94 ) even before the disputed claim was ajudicated upon. Alci12 16:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Borlase Warren and Walter Butler, Marquess of Ormonde

I reverted your moves of the above articles. In the first case I believe the subject is far better known by his name the form you chose. In the second case, being the only Walter Butler, Marquess of Ormonde on WP, the disambiguating numeral 1st was unnecessary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies

Please would you resolve and determine queries 5, 6 and 7. - Kittybrewster 12:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Howard of Effingham

Thank you, Proteus, for doing this. The original title 'Lady Effingham' was incorrect. Her step-mother-in-law, Madeline, Countess of Effingham, could be addressed as "Lady Effingham", but not the wife of the eldest son of the the Earl of Effingham. She was "Lady Howard of Effingham", to show that she was not the wife of a peer, but the wife of his eldest son, who had the courtesy title of "Lord Howard of Effingham". Thank you, again, Proteus.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manci_Howard%2C_Lady_Howard_of_Effingham"

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage

I've noticed you've done some editing on the page above. Nice work. Just letting you know that a project page like that needs members to avoid potentially being counted as rejected and/or deleted. You might want to add yourself to a membership list on the page. Badbilltucker 17:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "please see WikiProject Peerage- full titles should be used"

Re: Lady Mountbatten. Where is this WikiProject Peerage? To refer to peers by their full title at every single mention during an article would ludicrously overload substantive discussion with guff. It would be equivalent to insisting on referring to the Queen at every single mention as Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. The Law Reports certainly don't refer to the law lords by their full titles at every reference. Pending a sensible response I am changing the subsequent references after the initial "Countess Mountbatten of Burma" to "Lady Mountbatten," which surely cannot be controversial. She was, in any event, an extremely no-nonsense sort of woman, a staunch Labour Party supporter; such nonsense would have curled her hair. You may note, by comparison, the facts that (a) her daughter, the current Countess Mountbatten of Burma, prefers to be called "Lady Patricia" by the officers and enlisted men of her regiment, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, in deference to her aunt, Princess Patricia of Connaught for whom it was named and who was Lady Mountbatten's predecessor as colonel-in-chief and who indeed on marrying a commoner decided no longer to be referred to as Princess Patricia, much less Princess Patricia of Connaught, but as Lady Patricia Ramsay; and (b) The present Lady Mountbatten's husband, Baron Brabourne, always used "John Brabourne" as his professional designation. Masalai 08:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Further: You should consult the unofficial biography of Mountbatten by Philip Hough and the official biography by Philip Ziegler as well as the biography of Lady Mountbatten by Janet Morgan (all referred to in the "References" section of the article on Lady Mountbatten): the formal "of Burma" only occurs in initial references; thereafter the demands of readable prose obviate it. So should the Wikipedia article.Masalai 08:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you TRYING to make it impossible to refer to members of the peerage in ordinary academic or encyclopedic discourse? An article on Lady Mountbatten which consistently refers to her by her full title is unlikely to be read: one becomes fed up with the repeated guff. "The Countess Mountbatten of Burma" is appropriate on first mention. Thereafter "Countess Mountbatten" or "Lady Mountbatten" is appropriate. Masalai 09:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Mountbatten

"Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage. And your rant on my talk page is utterly absurd, and doesn't deserve a "sensible response". Proteus (Talk) 09:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Masalai"

This is a "rant"? My dear woman, you obviously have very little experience of ranting if you consider my entirely polite suggestion as to the readability of this article a "rant"! I think that we have perhaps met before, also in the context of gratuitous unpleasantness on your part. Please believe me, dear lady, I only seek the betterment of articles such as this. Referring to Lady Mountbatten as "The Countess Mountbatten of Burma" at every single mention in a biographical article does not make it readable for those who consult an encyclopedia article. Please read my observations above. I hope you do not consider me ungallant as to your feminine sensibilities (I presume that you are a woman of a certain age, and I defer to your delicacy) but it is surely in the interests of the Wikipedia project that we observe academic protocols: Lady Mountbatten was a woman of historical interest and students of history should not be put off interest in her by a fussy reiteration at every mention of her full formal title. Again, my deference to your elderly and feminine sensibilities, which I certainly do not mean to offend.Masalai 10:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Madam,

You appear to be making unilateral changes to this article while declining to engage in any discussion of them. I am perplexed at your characterisation of my surely entirely reasonable observations -- I have taken care to be extremely solicitous of your presumably elderly feminine sensibilities, and I cannot imagine how you can characterise my observations as a "rant" --


As a "rant?" Surely, Madam, you must justify such a characterisation.

Could you perhaps endeavour to engage in discussion of these and other issues without descending to obloquy? I have been taking great pains to respect your presumably elderly and feminine sensibilities and one might hope that you could extend the same courtesy to those who wish to bring a disinterested academic sensibility to the article. Kind regards.Masalai 10:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Madam,

Please consider what you mean by "ranting." I have engaged in studiously polite conversation with you and you have responded with unwonted acrimony. Surely, dear Madam, we need not communicate on this basis. To disagree with you, ma'am, is not, surely, necessarily to "rant." It is possible to engage civilly. But are you not, perhaps, somewhat trading on your status as an elderly lady in insisting that rather more than ordinary civility is due you? Masalai 10:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Old woman"

Dear Madam, I certainly have never called you an "old woman." I and others have attempted to defer to or join issue with your preoccupations with English royal and noble titles (at the expense of clarity and in defiance of common usage) as politely as possible, and indeed as anyone deserves, but only to be met with extreme discourtesy on your part. Alas, it does not seem possible to engage in polite discussion as you always seem to trade on your gender and age and to exploit the inclination of others to be deferential to ladies of certain years. May one propose a compromise as to your insistence that full ceremonial titles be used at every single mention of an ennobled person in an article: namely that one use defining terms as in legal documents (ie "Countess Mountbatten of Burma ('Lady Mountbatten')"). Alas, dear lady, and with the greatest of respect, on the basis of past experience with you (only confirmed by recent observations on your part) one cannot hope for a civil response from you: it can only be expected that you will respond as, alas, usual, with extreme rudeness. So be it. I shall proceed to make these minor changes in the article on Lady Mountbatten so that editors other than yourself can get on with matters of substance. I am sorry dear lady, that you are obviously bound to take offence but the sensibilities of -- be it said -- not very courteous ladies of certain years cannot hold to ransom the imperative of clarity in English prose. Masalai 21:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"I still have absolutely no idea what on Earth you're talking about, or why you persist in addressing me as "Dear Madam". I suggest you seek psychiatric help." Only trying to be polite, ma'am. The attempt to engage in polite discourse with you is fraught with peril, as others who have crossed you have discovered; I am attempting to avoid unpleasantness by treating you in the present and all other discussion with the deference that ladies of a certain age who are intensely preoccupied with matters of form in the English peerage may be expected to demand. But please, dear lady, do try to reciprocate. Masalai 21:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Oh, and you're not 'meeting me half way' by inserting '("Lady Mountbatten")' — I object not due to lack of clarity but due to lack of accuracy." With all respect due to your age and gender, ma'am, this has been the convention in legal drafting for the better part of a half-century. To "define" a term and thereafter use it as defined in a document is not inaccurate. Dear lady, I am labouring mightily to engage with you civilly, but surely you must be aware of the extent to which you trade on your age and gender. These things work both ways, you know. Masalai 22:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commas

I don't like commas, which aren't necessary, especially in between abbreviated honours, eg, KG, MBE, etc, etc, and don't find that there is any policy, which requires that they be there. They look ugly. David | Talk 17:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Robert Hart

I was working on the article Chinese Maritime Customs Service and I noticed that you have moved the article on Robert Hart (China) to Sir Robert Hart, 1st Baronet. Unfortunately, we now have an undesirable double redirect to an empty page. I recall that there was actually some content in the orginal article and I wonder if you could restore the orginal contents, please?--Niohe 00:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Gordon, Baron Gordon of Drumearn

Heho, I'm currently going through the existing life peers and add their full titles, where they are'nt still available. Sorry that I haven't paid attention to the unusual feature of his title and thanks for your correction of my error. Greetings Phoe 22:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emma Hamilton

Sir John Mills is known as Sir John Mills. However, our article is under John Mills. Why do you think an exception should be made for Lady Hamilton? It is never our policy to add "Sir" to the titles of articles about knights, so what exactly is the logic of adding "Lady" to articles about their wives? In any case, she is not known as "Emma, Lady Hamilton". She is commonly known either as "Lady Hamilton" or "Emma Hamilton". -- Necrothesp 19:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Although she is most commonly known as Lady Hamilton she is also well-known as Emma Hamilton. I would think that was a better-known name than Emma, Lady Hamilton, a name by which she is never commonly known. -- Necrothesp 21:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

But my point is that the general idea is NOT that if a title is usually used this should be reflected in the article title. Many (if not the majority of) knights and dames generally use their titles, but we do not ever use "Sir" or "Dame" in article titles except as a disambiguator. Emma Hamilton's husband was commonly known as Sir William Hamilton, but is our article under that title? No, it's under William Hamilton (diplomat). I really don't see why there should be an exception for Emma Hamilton, particularly as the title wasn't even one she had in her own right, but simply because of her marriage. -- Necrothesp 13:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Having read the appropriate section in the naming conventions, I see you're correct about the convention, so I'm happy to let the article title stand. However, I still dislike the inconsistency. As an aside and out of interest, I'm an archivist by profession, and I would note that British archival convention is to omit courtesy titles acquired by women by marriage when listing their names:

"A woman who gains a title only by marriage should be described in the qualifier as wife of her husband’s title, not as Duchess, Countess etc.

[e.g.] Russell | Diana | 1710-1735 | 1st wife of 4th Duke of Bedford"

(National Council on Archives, Rules for the Construction of Personal, Place and Corporate Names)

-- Necrothesp 15:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator who is causing chaos

Special:Contributions/Icairns is opposed to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage#Location_2 - Kittybrewster 10:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baron Garbett of Tongham

Hi, do you know something about the kind of his peerage? I don't find him neither as life peer nor as hereditary peer, but starting out from the fact that he died in 1955 while the life peerages act was in 1958, it should be the second. Phoe 14:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

According to this, he died before the peerage was gazetted. In this case, I don't think it should be included in the opening line of the article, but of course it should be mentioned later on. As you say, it was before the Life Peerage Act, so it was a hereditary peerage, so if it were included in the opening, should read 1st Baron Garbett of Tongham. JRawle (Talk) 15:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
On 16th October the archive of the London Gazette will open again (it's out or of order at the moment, cause of technical problems). I will look then, whether I can find something there about his peerage's date and territorial designation. Perhaps I will be lucky. Phoe 10:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming of courtesy barons

Which form is correct, or preferable: "John X, Baron Y" or "John X, Lord Y"? Yours, Choess 22:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baronetcy project

I am inclined to go with this, unless there are good reasons not to do so. [[30]] - Kittybrewster 18:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baron Lexinton or Baron Lexington?

Which is correct? I've seen both in fairly reputable sources. (The part of The English Peerage (1790) on extinct peerages is online and uses "Lexington"; Rayment uses "Lexinton"; Lundy, referencing TCP, uses "Lexinton".) Thanks, Choess 04:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gordon Hewart, 1st Viscount Hewart

Heho, was his barony not hereditary instead for life? Greetings Phoe 17:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

How I imagined. Many thanks Phoe 19:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord King

I see your edit on Lord Lovelace. Seems very odd to be Lord King, Baron of Ockham. Alci12 17:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh well they did have these fads from time to time, however the other examples you cite are not reflected in their articles only on the Lovelace page. Presumably I need to change them. Alci12 08:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah fine was happy to do it myself but wasn't sure if they had been left for a reason. Looking at the dates for those titles they are all at peaks of anti French feeling which my be part of the explanation. The use of Lord not baron generally has often been put down to not wanting to sound French. Alci12 11:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. What of Lord Hamilton, Baron of Strabane (presently at Baron Hamilton of Strabane; feel free to move it), Peerage of Ireland, 1617? Choess 13:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patricia Routledge

Thanks for your help on the Patricia Routledge page. Unfortuntley User:SFTVLGUY2 still believes himself to be right, despite the guidelies shown to him. He is also claiming that you, Kittybrewster and myself are the same person. Your help would be appreciated if he continues. Thanks. --Berks105 19:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have been asked to put on my admin hat and try to help you all to resolve this dispute. Please take a look at my suggestions at Talk:Patricia_Routledge#Content_dispute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Kerr etc etc

You know all these tiresome edits will be reverted, so why do you insist on wasting people's time in this way? User:le baron has recently been blocked for this, and so will you be if you persist. Adam 11:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

He was blocked for doing precisely what you're doing. Adam 11:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sockpuppetry?

Hi Proteus, following up on the comments by User:SFTVLGUY2, I have made some suggestions at Talk:Patricia Routledge#sockpuppetry, which I hope may be helpful to all involved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women with handles

Please would you comment on and/or correct User:Kittybrewster/Sandbox - Kittybrewster 12:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. What should line 2 say? - Kittybrewster 09:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

Following on from the byron rename argument Talk:George_Byron,_6th_Baron_Byron it was mentioned that two of his decendants don't match our rules. Now the second makes sense and I can see a good reason why that's been doen but using the unreliable google test I get identical results for Lady lovelace and ada lovelace so I can't see an obvious reason why that's where it is. Perhaps you can Alci12 16:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help please

- Kittybrewster 09:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Cork vote

There is a new move request and survey regarding Cork. This time it is proposed to move Cork to Cork (city) in order to move Cork (disambiguation) to Cork. You are being informed since you voted in the last Cork survey. See Talk:Cork. --Serge 07:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations for speedy delete

Where do I look for them to add my vote? - Kittybrewster 13:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Normans

Do you know about the Normanen perhaps a little? If yes, could you check once the contributions of User:Burkem so that he can't produce hoaxes? I am not sure whether that what he does is correct or verifiable. Thanks and Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 22:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

No problem and thanks. In the meantime he was blocked first for a month, now permanent, and there is a discussion about his "inheritance", meaning the articles he has created. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 15:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

[edit] Baron Lucas of Crudwell

Hello. I had a discussion with User:Craigy144 regarding the intricate history of the barony of Lucas of Crudwell and user:Kittybrewster suggested I should contact you as you supposedly have access to The Complete Peerage. The question is whether the present baron is the 11th or 12th holder of the title. This depends on whether Anthony Grey, Earl of Harold (son of the second Baron, the first Duke of Kent) should be included in the numbering or not. Lord Harold was summoned to the House of Lords through a writ of acceleration as Lord Lucas of Crudwell, but predeceased his father. Debrett's does not include him in the numbering and lists the present Baron as the 11th Baron (he is also listed as the 11th holder on dodonline.co.uk). Burke's and Cracroft's apparently disagrees and includes Lord Harold in the numbering, and consequently lists the present Baron as the 12th holder. What does Cokayne say on the subject and what are your thoughts? Regards Tryde 19:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I have updated the article on the Baron Lucas of Crudwell accordingly. Regards Tryde 21:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marquess of Bute

Hi, Proteus. I was trying to determine what courtesy title the PM Earl of Bute would have held before his father's death so that I could update his page accordingly. (I'm making a little project of updating PM pages to reflect WikiProject Peerage standards.) I wondered if you would be able to clear up some of the confusion I found surrounding the page for the marquessate. It states that various viscountcies and lordships of parliament were created before the earldom, but the list of holders suggests that the 1st earl was only a baronet before his elevation. How, then, did said viscountcies and lordships merge with the earldom (and eventually the marquessate)? I would be much obliged if you could clear up some of the fogginess with the page. TysK 06:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent work, as always! TysK 18:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baron Glastonbury

We don't seem to cover historic life peerages at all and frankly in many cases I'm not even certain of the class - life/h. But various royal mistresses were created life peers over the centuries but we don't included them in the peerages lists or in the life peerage article. Do we have a definitive source as in the talk page supra I could find discussion but no certainty. Alci12 12:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks wanted some confirmation Alci12 14:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for an article or two

Please would you write two articles, the first setting out when somebody is "Lord Snooks" as compared with "Lord Snooks of Whatnot", and the second setting out the difference between "Snooks of London" and "Snooks, of London". - Kittybrewster 20:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. My grant says "Arbuthnot of Kittybrewster in Our County of the City of Aberdeen Esquire Member of our Most Excellent Order of the British Empire ... etc" (no commas) - Kittybrewster 11:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Philip

I note someone has added PC PC to his post noms (intended to be for Canada and the UK) I can think of plenty of past holders of two PCs (usually Ireland and UK) and none used the double usage. Do you know any different? Alci12 19:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I considered there may be some Canadian patent I'd missed. The only place I've seen two are accademic where historic posts noms or offices are somtimes listed in the form: PC(I) (date) PC (date2) Alci12 19:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mountbatten of Burma

Somebody's trying to get rid of the "of Burma"'s again. See Talk:Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma. Your credibility and powers of persuasions are probably greater than mine; could you advise them? And I sincerely hope you don't get accused of being an elderly woman this time. TysK 21:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, they're gone. I don't have time for edit wars this week as I'm quite busy in real life, so maybe you can do something. And perhaps direct Masalai to past versions of your user page so s/he knows that you're not an elderly woman :). TysK 06:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earl of Egmont

According to Who's Who 2003 edition the heir presumptive to the earldom of Egmont is Donald William Perceval (b 1954), brother of the present Earl. However, he's not listed in Debrett's. Do you have any information on this? Also, according to Debrett's there doesn't seem to be an heir to the Perceval Baronetcy either. Tryde 17:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you have a mo

Any chance you can keep half an eye on the Duke of Châtellerault and the Hamilton Dukedom pages (see my talk) as I can see where this is going. Alci12 11:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All dukes of York are dukes in England ?

Hi Proteus! I've recently created the peerage categories on the french wiki. I have a dispute with an other user about a categorization, so we need an arbitrage from a specialist! :-)

This user has created a new category : "Dukes in England", and has sub-categorize "dukes of York" (<- category) inside. DoY title has been created in the GB and UK peerages too. This user asserts it's incorrect to sub-categorize "DoY" in "dukes in the peerage of England" + "..of GB" + "..of the UK".

In fact, he says that since York is in England, they are/were all "dukes in England". He wants a geographical categorization...

Anyway, it's strange to have 14th century peoples' articles being sub-categorized in "duke in the peerage of UK". Category:Dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom > Category:Dukes of York > Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York

I tend to think that the York part in "duke of York" is just a denomination, and is not anymore geographicaly linked to the town of York.

Can you give me your point of view ? I think you're the specialist i need! Thanks! :) --PurpleHz 15:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right — it would definitely be odd to describe modern Dukes of York as "Dukes in England" simply because York is in England. (To me, "Dukes in England" would just mean "Dukes (of whatever Peerage or nationality) who happen currently to be in England".) Titles normally correspond to places within the geographical area of their Peerage, but not always (the Earl of Mexborough is an Earl in the Peerage of Ireland, but Mexborough is in Yorkshire, for instance), and so it's dangerous to imply too close an automatic connection between country and title. And yes, our categorisation of Dukes is a little odd. I'd take "Category:Dukes of York" out of "Category:Dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom" etc., and put them both in "Category:Dukes" (or "Category:British dukes"). Proteus (Talk) 00:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's very interesting, in fact you just say that this user and I are wrong. "Category:British dukes" seems promising as a sub-cat of "Dukes". Thanks again ! --PurpleHz 01:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earls of Dysart

Hi Proteus, can you please move Earldom of Dysart to Earl of Dysart. I think we should stay consistent. Greetings and thanks. ~~ Phoe talk 07:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC) ~~

I haven't seen the cut and paste move, but only that of Countess of Dysart to Earldom of Dysart. So thanks for your additional work, too. ~~ Phoe talk 09:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC) ~~

[edit] Lauder Baronets

Please contribute to User_talk:David_Lauder#Baronets - Kittybrewster 18:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I was starting to wonder, it seemed straight forward enough to me. The only thing I couldn't find or clarify was the means by which it was cancelled. Novodamus is a regrant of the title with a new of the succession or td or potentially a change of the lands that had been erected into the title (usually for baronies and peerages) It can't cancel a title. Scots law allowed a surrender of a title but that's not what i'd call a cancellation either. Alci12 18:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Well aware of the Scots habit of changing titles by surrender and regrant and understand how that works but it has been bugging me that I can't find the exact process by which cancellations occurs. Alci12 18:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baron Hylton of Hylton

Is this correct? The sources don't seem to agree.Alci12 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well most of the sources were telling me it was wrong but I did find it odd as there was a previous baron that could reasonable be terminated from abeyance that they would re-create the same title, even upon the co-heir to that prevoius title. As it all involved a page move and I hate doing/undoing those I thought I knew a man who could :) Alci12 15:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rennell Rodd, 1st Baron Rennell

Is he not Baron Rennell of Rodd? - Kittybrewster 00:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Heyho :-) It is possible, that Kittybrewster has misunderstood you?. I think the move from Baron Rennell to Baron Rennell of Rodd is wrong - or wasn't his title Baron Rennell, of Rood in the County of Hereford, was it? Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 16:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC) ~~
Aye, thanks for the clarification. If he can't revert the moves, would you do this then please? Thanks again and sorry, that I'm distributing work :-)~~ Phoe talk 17:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC) ~~

[edit] We have a curiosity here

User:Seneschally appears to be some sort of (non-malicious) alter ego for User:Tim Griffin, who's been contributing a great number of articles on the O'Donnells, particularly of Tyrconnell and Ardfert. He's evidently a close relative of Francis Martin O'Donnell, as he's uploaded some family photos of relatives. So far, so good; the articles generally seem to be well-referenced. However, he's also written Vice Great Seneschal of Ireland, which is unreferenced and is essentially a bio of "the current incumbent", who is, bizarrely, not named, but obviously the aforesaid Francis M. O'Donnell. He claims that the position is held in conjunction with that of Hereditary Seneschal of Tyrconnell. Have you ever heard of such a dignity? Choess 02:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/User_talk%7EProteus_c830.html"