Talk:Isobel Barnett
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||
 |
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. |
[edit] "Lady Isobel Barnett" changed to "Isobel Lady Barnett"
Why this change? She's always known as "Lady Isobel Barnett". Flapdragon 01:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
(no answer from 86.139.190.190)
The style "Isobel Lady Barnett" may or may not be technically correct, but that's not really what matters, is it? The fact is she was always known as "Lady Isobel Barnett", as a Google search attests (one solitary hit for "Isobel Lady Barnett"). If the anonymous editor wishes to add something explaining that she was strictly speaking wrong to style herself thus, then fine, but please stop changing her name to one she never used and which was never used about her. Flapdragon 13:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
(still no answer from the anon editor so left message on his/her Talk page)
[edit] The Guardian is wrong
The style "Isobel, Lady Barnett" is quite wrong. This implies that her father was an earl, marquis or duke, and is a mere courtesy title (the daughter of a Baron or Viscount is styled "The Honourable"). The correct style is "Lady Isobel Barnett", which she herself used quite correctly throughout.
In the case of Diana, Lady Spencer (before she was married), to have styled her as the press did, as 'Lady Diana Spencer', actually elevated her to a privilege that she had not earned, so no doubt, she didn't much mind! In this instance, you have demoted Isobel Barnett, which seems a bit unfair, as no one else is doing it to the poor soul.
You had best ask the Guardian why they employ people who write about things of which they know little. (Actually that would mean that most papers would be empty!).
