Talk:Lord

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Edward Davenport

Removed the mention of Edward Davenport, a man who is claiming to be a peer -- Rowing88 01:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House of Lords?

"In the United Kingdom, a lord is a member of the House of Lords."

Is this correct? I think many people have the title "Lord" without sitting in the House of Lords.

S.


You're right: usage of the style 'Lord' is more complicated, and in fact some lords (dukes, in particular) aren't styled 'Lord'. And of course these days most of the lords no longer have the right to sit in the Lords. There are 'lords of the manor', and they aren't lords, and younger sons of dukes and marquesses called e.g. Lord Peter Wimsey by courtesy, and they aren't lords either. [... Dammit, where is the tilde on my new laptop? Ah, way over there...] Gritchka
Later: I've rearranged this to put the feudal definition on top, and add a bit more about UK peerage, since it's primary and the religious sense is derived from it. In so doing I've deleted a sentence whose import I'm not clear about:
With the relative decline of feudal habits, the use of the word "Lord" in religious contexts has apparently lost prestige connotations and intrinsic meaning(s) for many people.
Well the intrinsic meaning of lord is a feudal patron, and lords spiritual and temporal still have prestige in the UK, as does The Lord in whatever religious context it may be used, so I can't see what the writer was getting at. Add something clearer back if you think you know what it was. Gritchka 13:03 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Two questions

1. If someone is appointed, say, as Lord Chancellor (or Lord President of the Council etc.), can they keep the style "Lord X" after leaving office? 2. Some lords have the style "Lord X of Y". Others don't. What are the rules about that? Can you choose whatever you want?(I know Montgomery was Lord (or Viscount) Montgomery of Alamein - surely that's not where he was from)? If anyone could add answers to these questions to the article it would be helpful.

DSP


1. The holders of those titles are members of the House of Lords anyway, so will have a life peerage. Therefore they have the title Lord X anyway. 2. When someone is given a life peerage, they choose their own title. These days, they mostly choose to use their surname X. Sometimes they choose to include a place name to give Lord X of Y (this is also necessary is there is already a Lord X). The "of Y" is part of their title. It isn't the same as the territorial designation. See Territorial_designation for details.

Note that they don't have to use their surname. Recently, some new peers have chosen to use just place names, e.g. : Tony Banks (Lord Stratford) and Dennis Turner (Lord Bilston). This illustrates why is it incorrect to use the title "Lord" as if it simply replaces Mr, Dr, Sir, etc. "Lord Tony Banks" is clearly wrong. But so is "Baroness Margaret Thatcher" or "Lord Norman Foster" (the latter I see all too frequently in the press). --JRawle 16:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LORD

LORD is also an acronym for Legend Of the Red Dragon and there should be a disambiguation link, or some reference to the other article from this one. This fact is already noted at Lord (disambiguation)... --Camaeron (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laird

"Laird" is not simply a Scottish equivalent of "Lord" even though the words are cognate with each other. A laird is like an English 'lord of the manor'. Scottish marquesses, earls, viscounts and 'lords of Parliament' (equivalent to English Barons) are lords, but not necessarily lairds.GSTQ 04:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I must agree! Laird should have its own page. Redirecting to Lord is gross ignorance. --Camaeron 18:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord in Abrahamic religions

The Lord is a name referring to God, mainly by the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity).

I know that in bibical sources (in the Hebrew Bible), God is also referred to as Melekh (מלך) which means 'king' in Hebrew, is it worth noting that out? The most correct translation of the word Lord to Hebrew is Adon (אדון) which also means a 'master' and the way it is used in Hebrew bibical and generally religious sources is Adonay (אדני) which means 'my lords' (it is essentially the same as a one lord; the plurality in God's name is intentional but refers to one God and not many). - AvihooI

I think the 2nd line in the "Religion" section ("in a religious context, ...") needs attention:

Is it correct to say that Lord refers to Jesus in Judaism and Islam? also is it correct to say that Lord refers to the Holy Spirit in the three Abrahamic religions? 28 March 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.154.43 (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "A wierdo plus the ratio of some africans"

This is nonsense, right? I may have missed something but I think this ought to be changed.

Of course. Next time feel free to be bold. Doops | talk 22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

I have put the section title first: As the word lord is English I thought it fitting that the English (British) meaning came first. --Camaeron 20:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC) . what are you saying about Lord in eastern world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.99.215.55 (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing what so ever. You can add the info yourself if you keep to wiki-guidelines....--Camaeron (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] order???

what is the order of importance in a court? are they the lowest of the low, or does it vary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.13.166 (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you would be so kind as to rephrase your question I should be happy to answer! --Camaeron (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
PS: YOu can sign your edits by typing four tildes"Camaeron (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)" at the end of your edit!

[edit] An English title?

"A Lord is an English title for a person who has power and authority"

The only way this could be accurate is if it redirected to 'English Language', which in turn would be a bit pointless as it is the English Wikipedia.

If a national adjective is required then it should be UK not England, as Lords are appointed in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland in the same way as England. However, even this isn't much better as it doesn't fit in with the other uses of the word, for example, 'The Lord' which is used throughout the English speaking world.

Therefore the 'English' and all other national identifiers should be left out. Donegal92 (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But the title is originally English (from England). I suppose I would settle for British (a quick glance at the other wikipedia's shows both british and english to be used). Do you know of any non-British lords? --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, the peerage of Scotland is separate to that of England, so "English" is correct here. TharkunColl (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I often take a quick peek at the German equivalent of an English wikipedia article: I have noticed that a lot of the time the German version labels more things as English than the English one does! That is because there are so many English speakers that are not English and thus our heritage often gets "lost in translation" (or rather, the opposite!). --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The Peerages of Scotland and England were merged to form the Peerage of Great Britain in 1707, which in turn was merged with the Peerage of Ireland to form the peerage of the UK in 1800, therefore there is only one Peerage, and so English is actually incorrect (see here). To say that it is English in the sense that the word came from England is already implied but an argument can be made, however in that case it should link to English langauge not England. As for non-British Lords: I think most people would disagree that The Lord is British! Donegal92 (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. The peerages of England and Scotland still exist, and most peers belong to either of the two. No new creations were made after 1707, and all new creations were part of a new peerage, that of Great Britain. Similarly, after 1801, a new peerage of the United Kingdom was created. TharkunColl (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
An interesting point, perhaps, but as I say below, not relevant. This article is not "Peerages of England"; it's about the word "Lord", and its use as a title which is not peculiar to England (as you state yourself). So how can "English" as currently used in the first sentence be correct? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The word lord is an English word, indeed comes from Old English. It is as English as you can get. TharkunColl (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the word can be termed as being from England, when the lead itself mentions the Lord Provost of Edinburgh. Whether the peerages are separate in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is totally irrelevant. This article is about the word "Lord", not a history of peerages, and the word "Lord" is used as a title in more than England. What the German Wikipedia says isn't relevant either if it is incorrect. Europeans frequently confuse English with British and vice versa.

If someone can produce evidence that the term was first used in England (in the political entity called England) then I suppose this could be mentioned, but only in a historical context along with the English language etymology. So the term "English" should be removed from the lead sentence. The fact that it is an English language word rather goes without saying, this is an English language encyclopaedia, and where it is used is covered adequately and more accurately later. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article to bring some of the threads together but have left 'English' for now.
I agree entirely with Escape Orbit, there is no need for it using either of its meanings, nor is there a need to put anything in it's place. Donegal92 (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


I suppose we need to ask ourselves, is the article treating of the literal word or the concept? If the latter, then lord is not an exclusively English title; it is pretty well universal in Western Europe.Each nation has its equivalent. And it is, of course, a generic as well as a specfic title. You can talk about 'our lord, the King', 'my lord Duke', 'the Lord Pope'. English and many Commonwealth Anglican and RC bishops are still addressed 'Your lordship.' Ultimately derived from the Roman dominus.

But if you're taling about the literal word L-O-R-D? Of course it's English. Still, that spelling is relatively modern. It was originally lorde and, before that, probably something similar to the Scottish laird.So let's not be too precious about these sort of things.--Gazzster (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, even if the title was first used in the realm of England (which is dubious), it is not now an exclusively English title. It is not now even an exclusively British title (or British and Irish title), for instance the Lord Mayor of Melbourne, the Lord Bishop of Wangaratta.GSTQ (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point! (Who was that masked stranger?!)--Gazzster (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
How about "is an English title that later spread throughout the commonwealth"!? --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No, unless you can prove that the title was first used in England. This is unlikely as it was used long before the country England existed. English language has a longer history than England, which is why an English language link would be correct (but redundant) and an English country link is not. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Englands predecessor states where still "English"! --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The kingdom of Northumbria existed in both what is now England & Scotland and spoke Northumbrian Old English. What makes this predecessor state "English" any more than "Scottish"? It's not nearly as clear cut as you presume and incorrect to use either term other than in describing the language --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You could just as well argue the word "Herr" not to be German as it existed before a German state did! --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
How about 'lord is a title (and form of address) used in English speaking countries'?--Gazzster (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Your own example only goes to prove my point. "Herr" is German language and used in Austria, both currently and historically through shifting national boundaries. It would therefore be incorrect to label it from the German nation alone. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Escape_Orbit's argument about the realm of England is off-point. Gazzster's suggestion is nothing more than a paraphrased linguistic link, which I agree would be redundant on the English-language Wikipedia. In my view, the conclusive point is that the title was used in Scotland as well as England from the time of the Anglo-Saxon invasions, which shows that it is a linguistic link. And quite apart from its use as a title, the concept of "lordship" is not a phenomenon that is now or ever has been peculiar to England. We use the same terms in our history books to describe Continental participants in the feudal system: "lords" and "serfs" and "vassals" and all that. The only reason the title has ceased to be used outside an English-language context is that nowadays English-speakers have become less comfortable about using English words as equivalents of Continental ones. Shakespeare's plays set in Italy (and Denmark, and elsewhere) all use "my lord" and other English-language forms of address where appropriate. The leader should omit any reference to England or the English language.GSTQ (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That is what's rubbish about the English language wikipedia! It would be so much easier if other countries could have their own languages! = ) The German wikipedia has an article on Herr for a German point of view and a separate article on Lord to highlight the English title. It seems a shame that the English wikipedia is inferior in this aspect...--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

English is other countries own language. And this English language Wikipedia has an article on Herr to highlight the German language title. Just like de.wikipedia.org, but in reverse. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
English is their countries language...but their own language? Sounds like political correctness gone rather wrong...why not abolish the term 'English' language altogether then? --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Do Cameron or TharkunColl have any relevant responses to the above statements that explain why the English link should be removed? Can we close this matter? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends which question you mean = ). But I have a question to you? Can you name me a lord whose title does not originate in England (UK) or is not of English (British) origin? --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
No I can't, but I thought we were all agreed on that. "Lord" is an English language word. But this is an English language encyclopaedia, so it is hardly worth mentioning it's an English language word. But "Lord" is not, nor ever has been, purely a word used in England. So a link to England in the first sentence is incorrect and misleading. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you forget that Wikipedia is not a dictionary? --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Have you anything to add that establishes that "Lord" is, or was ever, a word only used in England? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"Lord" is an English word. By definition, there was once a time that the English language and England were coterminous, because England was named after the language, and not the other way round. So yes, there was indeed a time when "lord" was only ever used in England, because there was once a time that the English language was only used in England. TharkunColl (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds pretty obvious to me.--Gazzster (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
But unfortunately you are completely wrong. Please read the Northumbrian Old English and Northumbria articles. Perhaps if you went back to a period prior to that you may find a small part of what became England as the only place speaking an early version of Old English, but to extrapolate that out to the political entity England many centuries later, ignoring all others, is a stretch. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea but I take your word for it. But aren't we being a little pedantic? Old English? Northumbria? All we're saying is that 'lord' is an English word: English English, Irish English, Scots English, Australikan English, Street English, Guatemalan High Northern Expat English If such as thing exists): it's all English, isn't it?--Gazzster (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. There's no problem with what you're saying. The problem was that the first sentence in the article linked to England the country, not English the language. It was identifying it with only one part of the English speaking world for no discernible reason.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha.--Gazzster (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
How about I state that the title 'originates in England' and is now used in other countries, specifically ones that were formerly under English or British influence (Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Australia...). Any objections? --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No, because that is not the case. It originates before England existed and was used in Scotland and Wales before England existed. So how can it be said it originated in England? I'm unclear how you can still insist on trying to do this when you have nothing that states that, despite all the evidence of the history of the English language, "Lord" somehow originated in England prior to its use elsewhere. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
In the British isles then? --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but would this add to the value of the article? The paragraph on the etymology says all this in better detail. Would it not be better adding a section on the use of the word throughout the English speaking world, perhaps noting the influence of the British Empire in spreading its use? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That's precisely what I'm working on! Perhaps I'll send you a draft before I 'go live' so you can check it for any 'mistakes'! --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC) --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to Cameron's question "Can you name a lord whose title does not originate in the U.K.?" how about "THE LORD"? Besides, this article is not solely about the title. There is also a section on feudalism, which is not restricted to the British Isles, as I pointed out above.GSTQ (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If one is to assume you do not mean the 'Lord of Mann', then I must ask you. Do you have any evidence that such a lord exists? = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not exclusively about things that have been proved to exist. Allow me to direct you to the God article for one example.GSTQ (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, well this discussion appears to be over. Unless anybody has anything sensible to add within 48 hours, I'm going to remove the superfluous word "English" from the leader.GSTQ (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Erm...it's already gone!--Cameron (t|p|c) 12:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Placeholder?? Higher titles??

"It is a common misconception that the title 'Lord' is used alone. Lord is actually merely a 'placeholder' for higher titles of the peerage." The "common misconception" needs two citations - one for the proposition that it is a commonly-held view, and one to shew that it is a misconception. I don't even really know what a placeholder is supposed to be, and given the quotation marks (where is it being quoted from?) I'm not sure the original author had any idea either. The second sentence makes no sense anyway. If "Lord" is used to replace "higher titles of the peerage", is the title "Lord" a sixth rank of peer below a Baron?GSTQ (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were an anglophile? Have you ever come across anyone who held the title 'lord'? It is most commonly used by barons...but they are nevertheless titular barons and not 'lords' as such...This among other things has lead people to believe 'lord' to be a separate title which isn't. = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 10:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps you missed the fact that I intended the "sixth rank of peer" question as a rhetorical question. The way you have put it in the article, anybody would think it were. Who are these "people (who) believe 'lord' to be a separate title (separate from what?)". It is a separate title in that it can be used on its own. It is a separate title in that it stands by itself for any of the four lower grades of peerage (as well as being used by way of courtesy by numerous people who do not hold peerages). This is made abundantly clear in the rest of the section without the confusing and misleading gloss at the beginning.GSTQ (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead paragraph

The lead paragraph incorrectly states: In the British Isles, where the title originates. Two problems with this. The reference does not support the claim that the title originates in the British Isles, and later in the article the etymology states that the title originates from Old English. The 2nd problems is that Ireland does not have any titles such as Lord, so the correct term is perhaps "British Islands", or something else. I've changed the lead paragraph to reflect this. --Bardcom (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks Bardcom! --Cameron (t|p|c) 09:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, the lead paragraph presents a summary of this article which is inconsistent with the rest of the article. Is anybody else concerned about this? The Encyclopaedia Britannica reference quoted is really rather inadequate. It doesn't cover half of what this article covers.GSTQ (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem with the article is that the scope of it is not clear and the resulting mix is unsatisfactory. Is it about the word "Lord", or the title "Lord"? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so it should be the latter. The etymology is relevant, but not so much that it should be in the lead. The section on religious "Lords" should be a different article, and this article should be purely "Lord as a title of status/rank" Pinning that down from the start would make for a better lead. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well said escape orbit! Someone could add a sentence about religious contexts etc into the intro...it needn't be much...--Cameron (t|p|c) 14:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be an unjustified distinction being drawn between the word and the title of status or rank. The distinction between an encyclopaedia and a dictionary is the way in which a word is treated as a subject, not as a linguistic phenomenon. This is why the references to Great Britain, the British Isles or England or anywhere else in the leader are misleading and superfluous, especially since they appear to suggest the feudal rank and religious usage are somehow of British origin.GSTQ (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The distinction is needed because the word "Lord" has more than one meaning and this page is trying to cover more than one definition for the word, as if it was a dictionary entry. Each meaning would be better covered in separate articles, as they appear incongruous together in this article. Let the dab page sort out the differences. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the sections of this article on members of the judiciary, lords of the manor, lord mayors, lord chancellors and others should be removed?GSTQ (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, these are all titles of status/rank. I'm suggesting removing the religious section to a separate article. The use of the word in a religious sense has very little to do with use of the word as a title (other than a suggestion of superiority). Once this is done the scope of this article would be better defined and a clearer lead could be written. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it is very tempting to move the religious part out of the article...--Cameron (t|p|c) 11:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. "Little to do with the use of the word as a title"? Why do you think it started being used in a religious context at all? And regarding lord mayors, lord justices &c., if we're going to keep them in the article, then the leader needs to be revised so the reader isn't misled into thinking this article is only about usage of "lord" connected with peerage.GSTQ (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)