User talk:Christina Kaye

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Lord Hume of Berwick

What is your authority for changing the spelling of Lord Home of Berwick to Lord Hume of Berwick? Home is pronounced Hume. I look forward to hearing from you because it says "Earl of Dunbar and Lord Home of Berwick" on his tomb. David Lauder 17:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised it should be spelled 'Home' on his tomb. The name, of course, was spelled several ways, in different documents throughout this period... but Lord Hume of Berwick has become an accepted norm. My authority for this is Debrett's Peerage & Baronetage, Charles Kidd & David Williamson, editors, (2003), p.808. Christina Kaye 18:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I note your comment transferred to my Talk Page. Spellings at that time varied depending who was writing it down, but there is no doubt whatever that the surname was Home, and it seems incomprehensible to me, at least, that his title would be spelt otherwise in a formal document as late as then, and that is not what the learned Reverend J. Kirk, MC, CF., says in his treatise on George Home, Earl of Dunbar (1918). What is Lord Home's source on this? I shall consult Debretts but my understanding was that the Patent was to male heirs of the body with the Berwick title. Are you saying that is incorrect? David Lauder 18:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
With regard the spelling of Home/Hume, the name was being spelled variously at this time, by various members of the family - and even by the same person. There are countless examples of this in the muniment room at The Hirsel, where I have spent many hours. Let us not forget that spellings did not become fixed until much later on. There is the famous example of Shakespeare signing his name in two different ways in the same document.... But I'm sure you know all this.
With regard to the letters patent, this is a complex issue. I correspondeded with the the Lord Lyon King of Arms about this some years ago. We cannot be sure whether the lordship was created in the English or Scottish peerage, because it belongs to a group of four or five peerages created right at the beginning of James VI/I's reign in England, for which the legal situation is confused. It apparently had a remainder allowing it to pass through the female line, and thereby came to the Earls of Home through the marriage of Lady Anne Home to Sir James Home of Whitrigg, parents of the 3rd Earl of Home. I believe that Dugdale maintained that it had a very unusual remainder allowing the succession to be governed by nomination, although on this point again the surviving historical sources conflict. Hope this helps. Christina Kaye 19:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but I'd be surprised if the Privileges Committee could not tell us whether it is an English or Scottish peerage. Berwick was in England. I think it would have been very controversial if it had been in the Scottish Peerage as it would have been seen by English zealots as a de facto Scottish claim to Berwick and there would have been uproar. Wood clearly thinks it is English as does Revd Kirk. I knew of his daughters but how is it they never used the title after their father died? David Lauder 19:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently he was gazetted "Baron Home of Berwick". That would indicate an English peerage as we don't have patented barons in Scotland, only Lords of Parliament. Over to you. David Lauder 19:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on this? I thought that the London Gazette began post-Restoration, and that therefore he wouldn't have been gazetted at all. Christina Kaye

Both Burkes and Francis Leeson spell the title as Baron Hume of Berwick but both state it is extinct. David Lauder 20:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Nomination would not be a lawful remainder to an English title Alci12 14:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree. Unfortunately I do not possess a copy of Dugdale. That said, the best authorities usually cite him as a competent English authority and it therefore seems odd they don't mention this. Unless someone comes up with clear accessible sources which cite that an early 17th century English barony could pass through the female line I remain unconvinced. I have seen several documents in the archives referring to his daughters after his death, and none of them are referred to as 'Baroness' Home/Hume. David Lauder 16:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well the barony of Lucas (called 'of Crudwell') is uniquely to 'heirs general without division' but that's got a nice shiny patent to say so. There are the odd barony by writ and one earldom to heirs general but they would have fallen into abeyance between the daughters and needed termination by the sovereign which would again be recorded in the LG. Other than that there are a few examples of the heirs male of specific daughters but again this is an exception and mentioned in the patent. Nothing changes my opinion that nomination would not be lawful nor without the patent and a clear special remainder can we assume anything but a default in the English peerage. Scottish rules are certainly different but heirs general is not the default there either. I would certainly want good sources to assume anything but standard remainders in either peerage. Alci12 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
        • The problem we have is that wiki requires verifiability not truth. Playing the quick check game Burkes omits the title in dispute. While I trust no one source to be accurate for any and every source that disputes something it is important that the evidence for inclusion be that much stronger. By default wiki, as a matter of policy, requires proof of verifiability for inclusion not proof of falsehood for the removal of information. While the correspondence with Lyon would no doubt be interesting there are two obvious problems. Even if you sent me the information and it convinced me that would not help any and every other wiki editor 'trust' the information as it would merely me my opinion added to yours and still unverifiable. Now obviously depending on the nature of the correspondence you may be able to put it online on a website or some such to aid other editors. However it is the HoL not Lyon's who decide on peerage succession so unless the contents are such as to give us a verifiable source I'm not sure it helps. Btw There would be no need to create the 1875 barony if he already held an English title, he would not have needed it to sit. Alci12 12:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I presume you are responding to Christina Kaye, not me. I am not satisfied with Christina Kaye's assertions on this at all. Hume of Berwick is clearly an English barony. And it is extinct. It is not mentioned in Edmund Lodge's 1858 Peerage (he was Norroy King of Arms); Burke's Family Index (London 1976) cites it as "Dormant and Extinct". The Lord Lyon would not pronounce on an English baronage. David Lauder 13:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes just added an extra indent. As to LL nothing stops him having an opinion obviously and what he says may well be very interesting especially were he to argue it a Scottish title. I still don't think the this would be a source absent a formal recognition but information is never a bad thing. Alci12 15:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The onus would seem to be on you &mdash David; you're the one who changed it, I merely reverted you. You don't seem to have provided any evidence at all (and your statement of Apparently he was gazetted "Baron Home of Berwick". now seems to have become a rather categorical He was gazetted an English Baron. without any intervening change in the evidence you've provided). And Berwick-upon-Tweed may be in England, but the County of Berwick (which, according to his article, is where his family were from) is in Scotland. Proteus (Talk) 15:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I felt I changed it to represent what is properly known. "Apparently" is a manner of speech, not a doubt. I'll have to dig out my original sources for you again. The general understanding is that the title referred to Berwick, not Berwickshire. He built a small palace in Berwick, currently something of a cause celebré amongst the local historians there. David Lauder 16:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, the source can't be considered credible as regards peerage matters, as it also posits what has already been pointed out to be an impossibility: an English peerage with a nomination clause. Either the peerage was English or it had that remainder — it can't be both. (I obviously agree, however, that in any event it's extinct.) There's another problem with him being an English peer, as well: the Lords Journal for that period is online and I can find no instance of him sitting in the English House of Lords, which would be unusual to say the least had he been created an English peer. Proteus (Talk) 23:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The source I have provided is all we have at the moment. Also, a great many peers never went to parliament. But I will try and find out more. David Lauder 08:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I think perhaps I ought to make my position clear. I don't believe that any English peerage could lawfully have a nomination remainder, in that there being no precedence for such I think the CfP would have thrown that out as they did wrt to creations with specific precedence and Wensleydale over the 'remainder' and certain others over shifting remainders. I don't think I'd quite go as far as to say it couldn't have been included in the LP, just that if it had I don't think based on the above precedents it would have not been ruled unlawful. Alci12 16:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't misunderstand me. I have no particular interest in Lord Hume/Home. I merely wrote up info I had found and gave the sources. I felt that unsourced assertions and opinion should not be up on the article page. This afternoon I found another reference, by William Anderson (The Scottish Nation, Edinburgh, 1867, volume IV, p.75), where he states in a large section on page 75: "Dunbar, Earl of, a title in the Scottish peerage, revived in the person of George Home, third son of Alexander Home of Manderston.......In 1603 he attended King James to London on his accession to the English throne, and on 7th July 1604 was sworn a Privy Councillor of England, and created a Peer of that kingdom by the title of Baron Home of Berwick. David Lauder 18:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sorry

Okay and sorry--St.daniel 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] "Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly", or "Baron Ponsonby"

  • Burkes Peerage (106th edition available online at [1]) and The Complete Peerage both give Ponsonby's title as 'Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly', and not as some editors prefer, 'Baron Ponsonby, of Imokilly'. The House of Lords Journal, available online, also uses this as his title. At the time the peerage's creation in 1806 there was another Baron Ponsonby around, namely Baron Ponsonby of Sysonby, the GB title under which his cousin the Earl of Bessborough (an Irish earldom) sat in the House of Lords. Christina Kaye 17:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This string copied to this page from the talk pages of Proteus & Phoe
Hi (Proteus), I am sorry but I have a case once more which makes your stepping in necessary (see Special:Contributions/Christina Kaye). How I wrote at Talk:John Ponsonby, 1st Viscount Ponsonby of Imokilly, the LG states the viscountcy as Ponsonby, of Imokilly and not Ponsonby of Imokilly. However I haven't found an entry concerning the barony, so do you know whether her statement at Talk:William Ponsonby, 1st Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly is right? Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 08:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ~~
No problem; it's not. The LG for 8th March 1806 says: The King has been pleased to grant the Dignity of a Baron of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the Right Honorable William Brabazon Ponsonby, and the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten, by the Name, Style, and Title of Baron Ponsonby, of Imokilly, in the County of Cork. Burke's is renowned for adding territorial designations to titles when they shouldn't. The title is thus the same as the Viscountcy. I'll break the news. Proteus (Talk) 09:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like there are several disamb pages for the barony an what not that she's also changed. Alci12 10:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
They should be fine now. Thanks for the heads up. Proteus (Talk) 11:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Proteus, we all know that Burke’s is often inaccurate. But the point is Burke’s is not alone – most of the reliable published sources I can find use the name “Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly”. The London Gazette cannot, I'm afraid, be considered reliable in this instance. Not only does it state on its own website that "this archive is historic and cannot be assumed to be reliable in a current context", but it also sometimes uses the form "Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly" - e.g. on 4 September 1855 [2]. I think it is important for editors to reach a consensus about which sources carry most weight. I would have thought one of the most reliable published sources in this instance is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. It states: “Ponsonby, William Brabazon, first Baron Ponsonby (1744–1806)… was raised swiftly to the British peerage on 13 March 1806 as Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly”. [3]. Another source is the UK Government’s “National Register of Archives”, which indexes “Ponsonby, William Brabazon (1744-1806) 1st Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly” [4]. I would also refer editors to the House of Lords Journal. Early volumes of this are not available online, as far as I know, but Volume 63 (1 November 1830) is available at [5]. It refers to “Lord Ponsonby of Imokilly” (although obviously this is in relation to the 2nd Baron). I would also once again draw editors’ attention to the fact that the Earls of Bessborough sat in the GB & UK parliaments as Baron Ponsonby of Sysonby, as their other more senior titles were Irish and did not entitle them to an automatic seat. Might this explain the currency of this form of title? In summary, I think a sensible position would be to reinstate the disambiguation page for Baron Ponsonby, which somebody deleted, since there are inarguably a lot of Barons Ponsonby of various forms around. I do ask that editors do not undertake further edit reverts on this subject until a consensus has been achieved about the best sources to follow. Christina Kaye 21:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • This is utterly ridiculous. First of all, don't do cut-and-paste moves. Secondly, don't invite discussion and then immediately unilaterally change everything. It just annoys everyone. Thirdly, I can't accept any of the sources you've provided as anywhere near authoritative. As I'm sure everyone else here can confirm, the business of the exact nature of a peerage (title + territorial designation) is a highly technical matter that's definitely beyond the understanding of biographical dictionaries. I could find you dozens if not hundreds of mistaken titles in such works. (Indeed, just in the bit you've cited we have someone being created "Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly" even though it's just been stated they were "first Baron Ponsonby".) The HOL journal is not quite as awful a source, but is also often mistaken in such matters. Ultimately, the most authoritative source is the letters patent creating the peerage. We don't have them, and they're not readily available, so the next best thing is the LG's reporting of the issuing of those letters patent, which copies the title from them. It doesn't get any better than that, I'm afraid. And yes, there was (and still is) another Barony of Ponsonby (which I should point out is also simply Baron Ponsonby (the title being "Baron Ponsonby, of Sysonby in the County of Leicester"), and not Baron Ponsonby of Sysonby), but such a duplication of titles is hardly unknown, especially when creations are in the same family (cf the Barony and Viscountcy of Churchill, as well as the Barony, Viscountcy and Earldom of Spencer, all created even though the Dukes of Marlborough are also Barons Spencer and Barons Churchill). The fact that the Earls of Bessborough sat as Barons Ponsonby might explain why the HOL was so keen to stick the territorial designation on incorrectly, but it certainly doesn't serve to cancel out the clear indication of the title in the LG. Proteus (Talk) 11:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I broadly agree with Proteus here. The LG is the more authoritative source than any of the others provided. LG where it is mistaken is pretty swiftly corrected, where the mistake matters, in a supplemental. If the title announcement was wrong it would have been so corrected but there is no correction I can find. Various sources for actually pretty understandable reasons often ad the td into the title for disambiguation - eg both baronies of Strange with one almost always called 'of knokin' yet without basis. To Proteus's examples the Earldom and Viscountcy of Windsor are held by M.Bute & C.Plymouth, and D.Abercorn is M.Hamilton cf D.Hamilton. For higher titles it doesn't matter much as they fudge around the issue as they usual have spares. As to sitting in the house, other than at summons, the title by which you sit is not an issue, you are addressed by your highest title (or courtesy title). This should probably all stay at one location as this thread is going to become very hard to follow Alci12 13:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Utterly ridiculous? Okay. The problem is while The London Gazette is generally an accurate source, in this matter it is not much help as it makes frequent references both to 'Ponsonby, of Imokilly' and to 'Ponsonby of Imokilly'. I would draw editors’ attention to the following detailed passage in the LG in particular: "The Queen, taking into Her royal consideration that, upon the decease of John, Viscount and Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, which happened in the month of February last, that the dignity of Viscount Ponsonby became extinct, but the dignity of Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly devolved upon William, now Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly... etc." [6]. Because the LG is contradictory time and again with relation to this title we need other and better sources. I have checked all the standard reference books on peerages, including The Complete Peerage, Burke's Peerage (and Extinct Peerage), and Debrett's. Unlike biographical dictionaries (according to Proteus) these publications obviously do understand the technicalities of peerages with regard to territorial designations. All these sources record the title as 'Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly, Co. Cork'. I'm perfectly alive to the possibility that they may be wrong, but they are not usually all wrong at the same time, and until someone produces solid evidence of this, they should be considered accurate. For all of their imperfections Burke's and Debrett's have been through hundreds of editions, and have been 'peer reviewed' - literally - with peers and their close relatives being invited to comment on the accuracy of text before publication. Peers generally do have copies of their own letters patent (at least for more recent creations) and so you really would expect a detail of this sort to be accurate. I would love to know the answer to this, and Proteus may be right – but in the absence of another non-contradictory source we should stick with the nomenclature used by the peerage publications. Christina Kaye 16:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • With regard the Barony of Ponsonby of Sysonby, the main peerage sources again disagree with Proteus. Debrett's (Debrett's Peerage & Baronetage, ed. Charles Kidd & David Williamson. (2003). London, Macmillan, p.150) states in the heading of the article on the Earl of Bessborough that he sat in the House of Lords as "Baron Ponsonby of Sysonby (GB 1749)". Using the same arguments as above it would be extremely surprising if the actual heading of a Debrett's article was wrong, as it is not some obscure historical detail. I agree with Alci that the GB title was not often used in the Lords, but nonetheless it was used in a summons to Parliament, as well as on other occasions, and it would certainly have had enormous significance to the holder. Christina Kaye 16:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Lastly, even if we cannot agree on the above, we still need to reinstate the disambiguation page for Baron Ponsonby. There are three titles to which this might refer (including Baron Ponsonby of Shulbrede), and a large number of individuals. It is simply not fair to somebody carrying out a Wikipedia search not to explain this adequately. I also agree with Alci that this discussion thread should be in on one place - I suggest the discussion page of Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly. If anyone has something new to add can they just add a note on our user pages to say so. Christina Kaye 16:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • (a) The LG is an accurate source when reporting peerage creations. It can be just as mistaken as everything else the rest of the time. (b) Burke's obviously doesn't understand TDs, because it's always getting them wrong (mainly because it copies the CP, which also gets them wrong). And peers can very often be mistaken as to their titles; as I believe I've pointed out before, they are no more experts on peerages simply by virtue of having them than I am a mechanical engineer simply because I own a car. (c) There are other sources that say it's simply Baron Ponsonby, including Cracroft's Peerage, which is far more reliable with regard to TDs than the others (because it's written by someone who actually understands them). And, to use your previous argument reversed, there would be no reason for it to be Ponsonby of Sysonby, as there was no existing Ponsonby title to confuse it with. (d) If two titles are the same we put them on the same page, we don't disambiguate them (especially not by conflating title and TD). cf Earl of Mar and Earl of Arran, for instance. (e) Why does this page exist? Discussions shouldn't be happening on the talk pages of redirects. Proteus (Talk) 18:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Nice to see you didn't even bother replying, you just did your revert again and requested the page be protected whilst it was on your version. Even if you had a valid point in all this, you've approached the issue so ridiculously and managed to annoy everyone so much that your arguments (such as they are) are likely to be ignored, and you dismissed as unhelpful and pig-headed. Proteus (Talk) 19:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually I was in the process of replying when this message came in. If you continue to to disregard WP:NPA you will be blocked. Dealing with your points in order. (A) You have repeatedly made the point that the LG is more accurate than peerage publications. But so far the only evidence you have offered for this is a circular argument - Burke's, Debrett's & the Complete Peerage, must be wrong because the London Gazette is right. (B) The editors of Burke's and of the Complete Peerage have included some of the most distinguished names in peerage research, and your unsubstantiated claim that they don't understand territorial designations could do with expansion. With regard to the holders of titles not knowing about them, while some peers may not, the ones that I know most certainly do, and the balance of probability remains that enough peers from successive generations have participated in the compilation of Debrett's to ensure its relative accuracy. We can at least agree that the letters patent are the only reliable source for peerage designations. (C) Cracroft is not as reliable a source (according to the definition at Wikipedia:Reliable sources) as say, Debrett's and Burke's, which have been through hundreds of editions, and been subject to scrutiny by thousands of genealogists as well as by the families they represent. Cracroft, was first published online only six years ago, and draws heavily on Debrett's. It does not contact the families of peers [7]. I note that you have often championed Cracroft as a source. Are you affiliated to the publication in some way? If so you should make your position clear. (D) If two titles are the same Wikipedia editors group them together. We are, of course, discussing whether they are in fact the same, or just similar enough to require disambiguation. (E) Why is this discussion happening on a talk page of a redirect? Er, possibly because you deleted all my content, as can be seen here. [8]. Toodlepip, Christina Kaye 19:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
        • You asked me for feedback re the above. It's not my field and is rather specialised. I suggest working with other users, who seem to favour the route which you don't. The best thing might be to leave it for a couple of months or so, get more experience and then have another look. I might mention that when two sources clash, there is room for pointing this out in the article. Tyrenius 03:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Well fwiw I can't say I like the situation where we have the LG -v- much of the peerage press. It's not good for convincing sourcing though perhaps not unusual, even when Burkes and the LG agree say over an unusual title forms that that is not the form necessarily used in the parliamentary journal etc. In note you say " (Cracrofts) does not contact the families of peers" You base that on what? I believe the opposite has been stated. Not that apart from for marriages births and such like I necessarily think peers are sure to be an accurate source. I can't see a reason against a disam page though I can obviously see how what is said and how the title form is given on said page would be a matter of controversy. If we can all try to keep things friendly here as we try to work though this it would be good. Alci12 11:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Friendly would be good. Just in answer to Alci12's Cracrofts question. Not very academic I'm afraid, but my husband is in remainder to several peerages. He has often been contacted by Debrett's and Burke's about an article's accuracy. Cracrofts have never contacted him or his family.... And yes they do have versions of some of their more recent letters patent - hanging in a back corridor. Happily they agree with both Debrett's & the LG! Christina Kaye 17:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
            • I think perhaps I was not quite exact enough; the statement I saw was that all peers were written to not their families and that statement many years ago. I assume that is still the case though I have no knowledge to that fact. I've seen LPs in some odd places, whatever amuses I suppose. Alci12 18:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
              • I did check with my husband's uncle, a peer, before writing the above and he has not been contacted by Cracroft either. I have had a look on the publication's website, but it doesn't shed any more light on this I'm afraid. Christina Kaye 20:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
                • Well bar asking PCB himself I don't know the answer. Alci12 22:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Christina, thank you for alerting me and others to this discussion. I was in fact already well aware of it as I am sure are most of the others you contacted without knowing how we would respond. My reaction to the discussion is that Proteus can be incredibly abrupt but he has a habit of being right. I think you are ignoring the outcome of the discussion to date and should not be reverting without paying great heed to what is being said. Alci12 is also very knowledgeable. - Kittybrewster 20:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks for joining in. I think its a bit unfair to say that I'm ignoring the outcome of discussion. I haven't undone any reversions since I invited you and and others to try and help sort this out. Christina Kaye 17:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't want to be unfair. It is true that you have not changed anything since (at your request and after you amended it) the page was fully protected. My point is that discussion is the way forward. And you clearly have a great contribution to make. ;) - Kittybrewster 17:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Like Kittybrewster, I too had seen the discussion was happening and I agree that Protues is normally right on such matters. My own opinion is that it seems impossible to determine one way or the other for certain without looking at the actual letters patent that created it. --Berks105 12:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I have just moved this TalkPage so it is at the same place as the main article. I did not move to reflect my view on this matter. --Berks105 14:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • An original document of the time in question is a primary source and as such the LG is more meaningfully than the sceondary sources Burke's, Cracroft's, Debrett's or the Complete Peerage, which base partly on each other, which were processed in the course of the years and which are obviously sometimes faulty, too. So in my opinion there is no question by what we should go after.
        A disambiguation page is unnecessary, since firstly we have redirects and secondly the see also section gives information about similar titles. By the way at controversial moves we have a certain procedure, see Wikipedia:Requested Moves - they shouldn't be done without consensus. ~~ Phoe talk 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC) ~~
  • Debrett's Peerage for 1812 uses a comma in every mention for both "Baron Ponsonby, of Sysonby" and "Baron Ponsonby, of Imokilly." That is, all of the relevant articles include a comma before "of." If other period resources would be helpful I can look these up in my personal library for 1811, 1818, 1828, and later years. Regarding the London Gazette, I think the original point that Proteus was trying to make about its reliability as a source is regarding only the first publication of the announcement of the creation of a peerage, i.e., the article in the LG that is closest in time to the actual creation of the letters patent. What the LG may have reported about the same peerage 40 years later is not as reliable as the first because it is less likely that the writer of the article/report was able to access the original letters patent to reference while writing it. The LG report of the creation of the peerage is the closest thing publicly accessible to the original letters patent for any peerage, and thus is the most reliable source we have. (N.B. Phoe posted while I was writing this, and I'm glad to see that we seem to be on the same page.) Laura1822 16:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • This pretty much sums up my feeling. I just can't see the announcement of the creation being wrong (or not corrected) as the LP would have been checked . I can though quite see someone decades later (especially where using the td for disambiguation has become common) making a mistake. That Debrett's Peerage for 1812 agrees with the LG seems pretty strong evidence of original intent and usage. Alci12 18:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • What Laura1822's constructive contribution seems to point to that conventional usage changed from the early to later editions, at least with regard to Debrett's. If this is the case, when did this occur and why? Can the early editions be considered reliable sources? I have never been able to accept Proteus's claim that the editors of Burke's (whose number included a Garter and several other Kings of Arms) couldn't understand territorial designations because they are too technical (I'll bet Sir Bernard's son understood them by the age of 7) as they are straightforward enough. It also seems extremely implausible that the early editors did not consult letters patent wherever possible, instead of just (mis)copying Gazette entries as has been suggested - not just because they were men of serious scholarship, but because the remainder information in lps was not always gazetted. Other factors must be at play. There is one other question that I would like to try and clear up. How accurate a source should the LG be considered with relation to peerage creations? I accept the logic of the argument that gazetting of a title's creation is likely to be subject to greater scrutiny than other LG entries, but it is there any actual evidence of this happening? For example, does anyone know of any supplementary corrections relating to misplaced td commas, as this would be pretty compelling in laying this to rest? Christina Kaye 18:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
        • That the LG makes 'general' corrections is easy to show eg [9] finding a correction for a peerage - those being rarer things - could be harder. [Ed. Nice finds Proteus] As more general point I never underestimate the ability of eminent people to decide to 'fix' or arrange things they consider broken or wrong by substituting preference in place of fact. You only have to look at some of the old CforPrivilages/Lyon's barking decisions. I'm not sure I follow your remainder remarks as they are generally, if not always, specified in the LG somewhat period dependant. A whole set of interesting questions you pose, perhaps not all with easy answers. Alci12 22:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
        • For corrections to peerages (though not, it must be admitted, to commas): Baron Portchester (now spelt Baron Porchester, and held by the Earl of Carnarvon), change of the TD from "in the County of Southampton"[10] to "of Highclere in the County of Southampton"[11]; and (a change of an entire peerage) Viscount Mahon, in the Island of Minorca[12] to Viscount Stanhope, of Mahon in the Island of Minorca[13] (now held by the Earl of Harrington). They certainly aren't averse to correcting themselves. Proteus (Talk) 01:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Indeed they are not averse to correcting themselves - and these examples (and many others) illustrate how often they needed to. Can anyone find and instance of them correcting a comma, because that is really the issue here? These examples also cast doubt on another of Proteus's pronouncements, that LG 'copies the title' from the letters patent themselves. Changes such as these are not errors of transcription. How then did the LG obtain its information? The palace? The Lord Chancellor's Department? How is it done today? Can anyone add any insights? Christina Kaye 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
            • You asked for evidence of corrections to prove they do make corrections where errors are found and now, having been provided with such, you criticise them for having made the errors to need the corrections! Rather a damned if they do and damned if they don't argument. Alci12 17:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Come on now, don't misrepresent what I said. I asked for examples of a certain kind of correction, and these haven't yet been provided. Furthermore, you can't blame me if the logic points in a certain direction. And what about Proteus's assertions A) that peerage editors do not understand tds and B) that the LG copies gazette entries? Anyone can see they are just polemic, and yet he seems to have based his whole argument on them. About time he justified these statements, I'd say. Christina Kaye 10:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I recently came across the following example, which might suggest the London and Edinburgh Gazettes are sometimes unreliable with regard to territorial designations. The LG of 11 December 1832 announced the summoning to parliament by writ of 'Baron Howland, of Streatham'; 'Baron Paget, of Beaudesert'; 'Baron Grey, of Groby'; and 'Baron Stanley, of Bickerstaffe'. [14]. The Edinburgh edition, dated three days later, gives the peerages as 'Baron Howland of Streatham', 'Baron Paget of Beaudesert', 'Baron Grey of Groby', and 'Baron Stanley of Bickerstaffe'. [15]. I can't find any record of either publication later correcting these entries. Christina Kaye 14:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Baron Ponsonby

Sorry for the late reply, I didn't notice your message for a while. I have no opinion on the matter. However, rereading Wikipedia:Protection policy, it states that a user should not request an admin to protect a certain revision of a page, so I reverted myself. I apologize for reverting your changes. –Llama mantalkcontribs 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, I suggest you bring this dispute to WP:AN or WP:3O. –Llama mantalkcontribs 23:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
...or WP:RFC. –Llama mantalkcontribs 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fix Refs

Do you think the this was really the best way to fix a need for a disambiguation?

I know some editors fear the red-links — they don't see it as opportunity to expand the wikipedia. If you thought Matthew Darby, the Seton Hall law student didn't merit a wikilink, presumably you would have removed the wikilinks from the other six law students...

Anyhow, I thought this was a better way to address the problem that a new article was created two weeks ago, for a homonym of Matthew Darby, the law student.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 05:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. You changed a redirection to one homonym of the law student to a new article about another homonym. I still disagree with how you addressed the need for disambiguation.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 05:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move

I've done it for you. Please remember in the future to use {{db-move}} instead of {{db-author}} if you are requesting a page to be deleted for moving purposes. Cheers, happy editing :-) --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 10:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyril Alington

Cyril Alington was an eighth great-grandson in a direct male line from Sir Giles Alington of Horseheath, KB. Do you think describing his direct ancestor as "remote" is appropriate? I mean, would you describe the 1st Lord Home as Alec's "remote ancestor"? David Lauder 08:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I think what I was trying to convey is that he was some way removed from the Alington main line. It is fair to say that a gap of eleven generations and four hundred years is remote - though I'm sure we could come up with a better wording. I did consider writing 'collaterally descended', but thought that 'remotely' would be more widely understood. The Home example is an interesting one since eight generations separated the 3rd Earl of Home from his ancestor the 1st Lord Home - and he therefore inherited the title from a seventh cousin, give or take a remove. But back to your analogy - Douglas-Home was also legitimately descended from Henry VII, and, yes, I would describe his connection to this monarch as remote. Christina Kaye 10:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Cyril is 10th generation from Sir Giles (d.1522) his DIRECT ancestor in the male line. The point I made is that he is no more "remote" from his direct male ancestor than Sir Alec Douglas-Home is from his. I ask again: would you say Alec was "remote" from his forebears, or not? David Lauder 15:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Eh? Yes, of course Alec Home was 'remotely' descended from the 1st Lord Home. Remote simply means 'far removed in place or time', and by most people's standards 500 years fits that bill. I do not mean to suggest that Cyril was not directly descended from old Horseheath, just that a lot of years separated them. Do you not agree that you are remotely but directly descended from Adam? Christina Kaye 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
        • It is wording that genealogists at least do not use. When we are speaking about famous families it is unusual to describe their direct ancestors as "remote". That would usually be used with lesser families from whom one is descended through a more indirect line: i.e: man/woman/woman/man/man/woman, if you get my drift. David Lauder 10:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I get your drift, but you are wrong I'm afraid. Genealogists constantly talk about remote ancestry and remote descent with regard to male lines, and do not confine their use of the word to distaff descent. I'm sure I could fish out hundreds of examples, but I'll start with just one from Sir Bernard, here [2]. Christina Kaye 13:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm not wrong. 1000 years is remote. 1500 AD is not. You show a lack of good faith and civility in accusing others of being wrong (and therefore you right). David Lauder 15:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

With all due respect to this statement on your newly-created User page: I've been an editor since June 2006 and opened this page in January 2007 could you point us to the pre-2007 edits please. David Lauder 15:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Temper temper! Christina Kaye 15:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blank page

Heja, please don't leave blank pages (see also Wikipedia:No blank pages). Thanks and greetings ~~ Phoe talk 15:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ~~

  • Hi Phoe, I left a blank page here in order to follow General Criteria #7 at WP:SPEEDY, which states that if the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. I'll use a template in future, though. Christina Kaye 15:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Using a template is generally a better idea, since of course not everybody can know why somebody has blanked an article (in many cases, unfortunately, it is simply vandalism). With a template, in addition, an admin gets aware of the page much faster.
Concerning exactly this page (John de Beauchamp, 1st Baron Beauchamp of Powick), I would say that a deletion is not necessary. Redirects are cheap and if they are not too abnormal at all, there is always the possibility that they help a user to find, what he/she has searched for. ~~ Phoe talk 16:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ~~

[edit] Baron Grey of Codnor

What were your sources for the following statement?

The Barony, though simply "Grey", is often termed "Grey of Codnor" or "Grey (of Codnor)" to distinguish it from the other Grey Baronies throughout history and from the extant Earldom of Grey, though it should be noted that the holder is always styled simply The Right Honourable Lord Grey

You have often argued forcibly, notably here [16], that the London Gazette is the only available source that can be relied upon to get territorial designations right. It gives the title as 'Baron Grey of Codnor', as can be seen here [17]. Should the Grey article therefore be amended? Christina Kaye 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • As I believe has been pointed out on other occasions, the LG is reliable when reporting the creation of a peerage (as it has access to the letters patent). On other occasions it can be as mistaken as the rest of them, and as for the creation of this peerage, unfortunately the LG doesn't exist for the year 1397... Proteus (Talk) 00:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • In this instance, the LG was reporting a new writ of summons issued when the barony was called out of abeyance in 1989. The situation is surely therefore analagous to reporting on a new creation by letters patent - as in either case the document signed by the monarch becomes definitive with regard to title, doesn't it? Can you shed any light on this? I don't want to harp on about this, but a clear understanding of the strengths and limitations of the gazettes would be extremely helpful. In answering, I would be grateful if you could share your sources for your statement at the top of this section. Thanks. Christina Kaye 13:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • As to the usage, I'm going mainly by Burke's, which calls Lord Grey "THE 6TH LORD (BARON) GREY (of Codnor, Derbys)" and his style at the beginning of his address "The Rt Hon The Lord Grey DL" [6]. The problem with definitive answers on this particular issue is that the Barony of Grey was created by writ, and so doesn't have an exact form specified by letters patent, but all baronies by writ are essentially "Lord X" rather than "Lord X of Y", because being summoned as "Ricardus de Grey de Codnor" made someone "Lord Grey" rather than "Lord Grey of Codnor" (it meant "Richard de Grey from Codnor" rather than intending to add anything to a title). Occasionally the "of Y" bit has been added through custom and usage (as with Willoughby de Eresby and Willoughby de Broke, which are both technically simply Willoughby (and if one became extinct the holder of the other would be free to drop their distinguisher)), but that simply hasn't happened with Grey. Proteus (Talk) 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks for clearing up the sourcing. I must admit to raising a wry eyebrow at your citing Burke's, given your earlier comments about its unreliability with regard to tds. Nevermind, that's water under the bridge. Back to the matter in hand... if Charles Cornwall-Legh was summoned to Parliament by writ as 'Lord Grey of Codnor' in 1989, wouldn't this provide evidence that the accepted form of the title should now be written in this form, particularly if custom and usage can be considered determining factors as per your Willoughby example? Wouldn't it also seem to contradict the statement"the holder is always styled simply The Rt Hon. Lord Grey", at least as far as the Lord Chancellor's Department is concerned? Christina Kaye 22:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Rather bafflingly, Burke's gets TDs wrong when writing out peerages yet manages to miss them off when writing forms of address. Thus they call Lord Dufferin "The Rt Hon The Lord Dufferin and Claneboye" whilst saying he's "THE 11TH BARON DUFFERIN AND CLANEBOYE OF BALLYLEIDY AND KILLYLEAGH , Co Down, and a Baronet" [18]. As for the writ summoning Lord Grey to Parliament, writs like that generally don't set out the title how letters patent set it out, and it's entirely possible the LG (or, indeed, Parliament) got it wrong, but that doesn't change the title. Proteus (Talk) 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
            • In summary.... the barony follows a different rationale from other comparable peerages. We have agreed that writ creations are mutable - the Willoughby examples show that the exact form of titles do change over time through custom and usage. We would expect this peerage to have done the same, given the existence of many other Grey peerages, but for some unexplained reason it hasn't. I think we'll just have to leave it there until someone comes up with a source weightier than Burke. The Committee of Privilege's ruling on the abeyance might be a good starting point. May I suggest that for now we change the wording of the article to something like this:
The Barony, though technically simply Grey as it was created by writ, is often termed "Grey of Codnor" or "Grey (of Codnor)" to distinguish it from the other Grey Baronies throughout history and from the extant Earldom of Grey; though it should be noted that the holder is always by convention styled simply as 'The Right Honourable Lord Grey. Christina Kaye 08:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I'll copy this string to the Grey of Codnor page in the hope that it may elicit some answers. 08:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. Proteus (Talk) 10:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing comments on a Talk Page

You are not supposed to interfere (other than correcting spelling errors) with comments posted on Talk Pages as you have so drastically done here. David Lauder 15:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The 'drastic interference' you're complaining about amounts to some changes to paragraph formatting for the sake of consistency and the copying-in of some posts from other talk pages to make sense of the discussion thread. I've made no alterations to other people's posts. Christina Kaye 10:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/r/User_talk%7EChristina_Kaye_f3ff.html"