Talk:Janet Young, Baroness Young

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Lady Young was simply "Baroness Young", partly because she was the first life peer with the surname "Young". All subsequent life peers with the same surname (Lord Young of Dartington, Lord Young of Graffham and Lady Young of Old Scone) had to have territorial additions in their peerages, but she didn't. "of Farnworth" was part of the territorial designation (a relic of feudalism) at the end of every barony and viscountcy (the full peerage would have been something like "Baroness Young, of Farnworth in the County of Cheshire"), but was not part of her title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proteus (talk • contribs) 11:55, 16 March 2004 (UTC)

But since she had died, surely future peers could take the title Young? It can be re-created now as it's extinct.

There is also Baroness Young of Hornsey now (I'll add it to the disambiguation, if we still feel it needs to be there). Lord Young of Norwood Green has also been ceated since. Neither took the title without a placename. I recently found a reference to Baroness Young rebuking Baroness Young of Old Scone for calling herself "Baroness Young". Perhaps that could be added to the article. --JRawle 18:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Technically it could be recreated, but current practice is not to recreate extinct surname peerages, but always to make new ones "Surname of X". (And I'd like to see the reference — one of the Earls Howe (whose heirs are styled "Viscount Curzon") was similarly annoyed with Lord Curzon of Kedleston for signing "Curzon".) Proteus (Talk) 18:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Here it is. [1] --JRawle 18:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, does the rule about "surname peerages" only apply to life peers? What about titles such as Earl Nelson, which was created for Nelson's brother after Nelson (who was Viscount Nelson) had died without legitimate children? --JRawle 18:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It applies to both hereditary and life peers, but is really a twentieth century thing (and is pretty silly, if you ask me — they justify it on grounds of "avoiding confusion", but if we can cope with generations of hereditary peers of the same creation all using the same title without getting confused I think we can cope with a couple of similarly-titled non-concurrent life peers). And Nelson's brother had succeeded to one his Baronies of Nelson under a special remainder anyway, so there would have been no problem there. Thanks for the reference, by the way. Proteus (Talk) 19:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't think we really need the disambig notice — we have Baroness Young, which should be enough to avoid any confusion. Proteus (Talk) 19:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)