Talk:Baron Ponsonby
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Adding "of Imokilly"
- 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)
I've copied the following string to here from the user talk pages of Phoe & Proteus to make sense of the subsequent discussion. Christina Kaye
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 a version of their letters patent - hanging in a 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 a version of their letters patent - hanging in a corridor. Happily they agree with both Debrett's & the LG! Christina Kaye 17:17, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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) ~~
- 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)
- (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)
- 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? 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)
- 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)
- 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? How is it done today? Can anyone add any insights? Christina Kaye 15:58, 21 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)
- 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)
- I recently came across the following examples, which might be considered evidence of the Gazettes misreporting tds. The London Gazette 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. Editors might feel that because these examples relate to resurrected writ peerages, they shed no further light on the reporting of tds in new letters patent. I'd make the point, though, that these are much more than everyday references to peerages, and the gazettes should be expected to get them right. Christina Kaye 09:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- As we discussed in relation to the Barony of Grey (of Codnor), the issue of territorial designations (if they can really be called that with these peerages) is a lot more complicated regarding peerages by writ. The Gazette can't really be expected to get them right when there isn't an absolutely "right" title to get. Proteus (Talk) 18:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
