Talk:Lord Hume of Berwick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Spelling of title

(Thread copied from user talk pages)

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. 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. Christina Kaye 19:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


I'd direct Christina Kaye to the story at Hume Castle on the origin of the Home/Hume difference Brendandh 15:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extant or Extinct? English or Scottish?

(thread copied from user talk pages)

With regard to the letters patent, this is a complex issue. 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
  • Nomination would not be a lawful remainder to an English title Alci12 14:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The LG Issue 11665 [1] published on the 11 May 1776 says: - The King has also been pleased to grant the Dignity of a Baron of the Kingdom of Great Britain unto the following Gentlemen, and their Heirs Male; viz. Alexander Hume Campbell, .Esq; commonly called Lord Polwarth, by the Name, Stile, and Title of Baron Hume of Berwick. - I hope, this is what you are looking for. ~~ Phoe talk 15:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ~~
  • If the patent for creation exists then it must be clear from which great seal is used and/or any writ of summons as to which peerage it was. If the patent was lost before any claim or reality of non standard decent English peerage law assumes heirs male and the case law for Scottish claims before the House of Lords is that if they don't have a remainder, without prior non standard succession, they tend to leave the title dormant.(see Glencairn) Did the daughter or her husband seek to made good the claim to the title or sought summons. Did their son sit in either parliament after his mother's death an before he gained the earldom? I can't find any good source that has this title as held Alci12 16:25, 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)
The thing is that neither Lord Lyon nor Debrett's are legal authorities on such matters, and the fact that they think someone should be entitled to a peerage doesn't automatically make it so. The House of Lords is the only body with authority to decide such matters. To take two other examples, it's pretty much universally accepted that Lord Willoughby de Broke also holds the Barony of Latimer, but the House of Lords hasn't confirmed it and so the title is not used and we mark it as de jure, and likewise everyone knows that Lord Mountgarret is almost certainly the heir to the Earldoms of Ormonde and Ossory and yet the claim hasn't yet been admitted and so he's still a Viscount. To take a more Scottish example (one concerning a subsidiary Lordship of Parliament, no less), the 3rd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos had to go to the House of Lords to confirm his right to the Lordship of Kinloss, and that was a much more straightforward case than this. Proteus (Talk) 23:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Edmund Lodge, Norroy King of Arms does not include it in the titles and creations he lists for the Earl of Home, nor does Burke's Peerage, the mammoth 105th edition of 1970, edited by Peter Townend who was held in very high regard in this field. Burke's Family Index (London 1976) cites it as "Dormant and Extinct". The Lord Lyon would not pronounce on an English baronage. I am entirely unsatisfied with the assertions Christina Kaye makes. David Lauder 13:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your reversion making this a Lordship of the Scottish Parliament. What is your evidence? He was gazetted an English Baron. Berwick is in England. The lists of the Lords of Parliament in Douglas don't have him. How can you make such a reversion without proof? David Lauder 15:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can be certain what should be there at the moment. My feeling is that this being the case and absent sources we should AFD the page in question and move the discussion about this lordship/barony to the earldom talk page. PS Fwiw it looks as though the Official Roll of the Peerage may be available online in the near future. Alci12 15:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. David Lauder 16:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Me again. I have dug out the booklet by the Reverend J Kirk, M.C.,C.F., (Minister of Dunbar Parish Church 1913-18) entitled George Home, Earl of Dunbar (published by R & R Clark Ltd., Edinburgh, 1918). Rev.Kirk made something of an intense study of Home. He states (p.6) "in 1599 he was Sheriff of Berwick-upon-Tweed". On page 8 he continues: "on 7 July 1604 he was created an English peer of the realm with the title of Baron Home of Berwick, one of the titles appearing on his monument" (in Dunbar church). "In the charter (Letters Patent) of his peerage he was given the privilege of nominating to the King any kinsman or relation to bear and transmit to his heirs the title of Baron of Berwick, but he never exercised that power. On page 32: "at Berwick-upon-Tweed he had been building what was described as 'a sumptuous and glorious palace' which was due to be finished and opened by a great 'house-heating' on Saint George's Day, April 23, 1611", but he died before then. David Lauder 18:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course neither monuments nor accounts by vicars are exactly 'proof'. Though they tend to suggest that whatever the facts they believed it an English title and that the vicar believed that to be the remainder Alci12 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a published source by a credible author. I have already demonstrated, I believe, that other competent authors believe it extinct. All this argument yet no-one appears to have given credible sources better than mine. David Lauder 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Vicars are not generally experts on peerage law and so I don't think that source is compelling. The balance of evidence from the usual peerage publications seems to be not strong enough in favour of the title being held (only Debretts has been cited in favour) and that we ought leave it that other than with further evidence that it is not presently held and is probably extinct. Beyond that I remain to be convinced. Alci12 12:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel bound to say that your/my opinion here does not really count. Articles are supposed to be as far as possible sourced. The assertions and opinions in these articles were just that. I provided a very credible source by a learned scholar, who I feel you rather ridicule by referring to him as you have, and Debretts were not "in favour" but rather venturing an opinion. This afternoon I found another,earlier, reference, by William Anderson (The Scottish Nation, Edinburgh, 1867, volume IV), 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 19:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you mean do I prefer to see citations from professional peerage sources over people whose expertise in that area is not clear then yes I certainly do and indeed wiki expects us to assess sources. Simply because there is a source(s) does not make it an accurate source (we could all go to the BBC news website now and easily find peers given the wrong title). Though I see no reason not to give the details of the title and its extinction I do feel that as we don't have a primary source establishing the above details that a note should be added to the article explaining that the details are unclear/disputed or some such wording. I don't think the title needs it's own article but can perfectly well be included in the Earldom page alone with the note there.
Can both possibilities not be included with sources and any views. E.g. Critics think ... - Kittybrewster 19:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Firstly I would never regard a journalist as a primary source, ever, especially from the BBC. I have, however, provided two good academic sources (more than anyone else has so far provided). Whilst they may not be experts in peerage law, they are both nevertheless highly regarded as scholars, Anderson in particular is a highly regarded biographer. At the moment we have no other sources at all and "disputes" must at least be supported by another verifiable source before they are flagged up on an article page. Otherwise someone's personal opinions are appearing as possible fact without an ounce of credibility. I agree with you that the Berwick peerage should not be on a page of its own but should be merged into the Earldom page. David Lauder 13:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Well this article is spread over rather too many pages but I understood Proteus was asserting that Cracrofts called it dormant, Christina that Debrettes regarded it as extinct. That both (one by calling it dormant ie an heir may exist) the other by their comments of Home's possible claim imply a non standard remainder. So it still seems to me that they are sources in dispute. Alci12 14:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Correction - I didn't cite Debrett's as saying the barony was extinct. On the contrary the 1973 edition says that the barony is held by the Earls of Home. I'm sorry, I haven't got a more up to date version, but no doubt someone can check this Christina Kaye 16:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry trying to re read too quickly I took the Lord Hume of Berwick page on succession as having been all your edit :'Generally regarded as extinct, P. Montague-Smith, editor of Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage' So are you saying the '73 version has it extant, the '79 version (dormant?) but with Home having a claim, or de jure having no made a claim for both? Alci12 16:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
No you did not say it was extinct. You are arguing to the contrary and, I suggest, wrongly. Lodge does not list the barony in the Earl of Home stable, and Reverend Kirk and Burkes state it is extinct. A claim has not been before the Committee of Privieges for it. So what the then editor of Debretts bases his opinion on heavens only knows. I shall find a copy of that opinion but you originally said it was in the 1979 edition. Which is it? David Lauder 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi David. I’ll check the edition of Debrett’s next time I’m in the reading room. I’m happy with the consensus as it stands in the article though. And while the question of the remainder is fascinating (to some of us), Wikipedia probably shouldn’t be the place to try and resolve it, as original research would be needed. If anyone wants me to email them the letter I received from Lyon about this, please leave a message on my talk page. The only thing that might need some attention for disambiguation purposes is the Polwarth version of the peerage, as mentioned by Phoe above. I have no sources on this. Proteus? Christina Kaye 19:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to write to Debretts (David Williamson is now dead) to ask if they actually had sight of the Letters Patent otherwise I would find it hard to accept their assertion. It would effectively mean that his eldest daughter had a fundamental right to call herself and be referred to in all legal documents as Baroness or Lady Home of Berwick. But in fact there is not one document - notably her Testament - that I can find that refers to them as such. Merely as his daughters with the honorific 'Lady' because they were daughters of an Earl. In addition, Debretts cannot settle these issues. Did Alec Douglas-Home make a claim in The House for that Peerage to be added to his stable? Because that seems to be what they're saying. Frankly I would treat such a suggestion with disbelief. David Lauder 17:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now had the opportunity of looking at the Debretts quoted here. They cite no verifiable sources so it is clearly just their opinion, both on the Peerage itself and on its continuance. In the circumstances, when so many other extremely competent authorities (includes heralds and Dugdale) differ, Debretts view is dubious, to say the least. In addition, given that the title was subsequently recreated, I should think that was enough in itself to demonstrate that the Crown held the previous title extinct. David Lauder 08:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Interestingly Douglas-Home did claim the title - or at least he was required to disclaim it. Quite a lot on this in various Douglas-Home biographies. It seems that the title came under scrutiny by constitutional experts in 1963, when the new Peerage Act was enacted for only the third time with Douglas-Home's renunciation of his titles. I haven't had a chance to look at this in much detail, but it seems apparent that the letters patent do exist, that they were examined in 1963 and it could not be ascertained to which peerage they belonged, because of their unusual format - hence the Lord Chancellor requiring Douglas-Home to disclaim the Lordship/Barony in both the Peerage of Scotland & England to play safe. This does explain why Debrett's - rather more switched on than Burke's in these matters - includes the title under the Home entry in its modern editions. All rather fascinating. I'm sure there is a large body of work on this dating from the 60s if somebody has the time and wherewithal to explore it. I'll update the article and include the relevant references to the D-H bios. Christina Kaye 10:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
"Im sure there is a large body of work on this..." - I think you need to be more specific on accessible and expert sources (i.e: not family/relatives claims). I have looked at about ten. None of them agree with these unnamed "constitution experts". In addition, Burkes were always considered a far more competent authority than Debretts, at least one of the Burkes being a Herald. All the original Letters Patents are extant at the House of Lords. The procedure is that two are done, the copy is filed and the original was given to the newly created peer. Playfair says that the query with this Letters Patent was that the King had permitted Hume his request to nominate his successor to the title, presumably because he had no son. He was to advise the authorities accordingly. This was unusual for an English Barony but likewise for a Scottish Lordship of Parliament. In addition, it seems clear that he did not want his daughter's or their husbands to succeed him in the Peerage or he would not have made that request, or at least he would have requested that the destination be males/females or heirs general. Anyway, one thing is very clear and undisputed -no-one was nominated to succeed him, and the peerage was therefore deemed to be extinct. I have looked at the list of claims at the House of Lords and there was a claim made for that peerage about 1810 but it was not pursued. Last but not least, it is clear the Crown regarded Hume's Barony peerage as Extinct because they subsequently recreated it for someone else. David Lauder 10:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
ok, let's discuss this rationally.
  1. Please don't make wild claims about vandalism just because you happen to disagree with parts of what I've written. Let's examine my contribution sensibly and try and work towards a consensus.
  2. It's a matter of easily verifiable historical record that Home disclaimed the peerage in 1963. This at least should be mentioned in the article.
  3. I haven't included any "family / relative claims", merely referenced comments by Home's biographers. These are all easily available in libraries.
  4. I cannot name the constitutional experts, but I have referenced the source which discusses Home's disclaimer. Legal opinions were undoubtedly provided by the Lord Chancellor / Crown Office at the time, that's what I mean by a large body of work - I've no idea if this survives, but my changes to the article in no way rest on this.
  5. The fact that the title was re-created in 1776 is strongly suggestive that is was believed at that time that the title was extinct (but not proof, as there are many examples subsequent creations using the format of extant titles). This, though, does not address the fact that by 1963 the Lord Chancellor's office required Home to disclaim the title, which is powerful evidence in the other direction.
  6. How many of your 10 sources post-date 1963, because that's surely the point here.
  7. I am not trying to argue that the title belongs in the English Peerage or the Scottish, simply that there is doubt about which one it belongs in - again the Lord Chancellor's Instrument of Disclaimer should be evidence enough of this. Where sources conflict, we have requirement to report this.
  8. May I make a final strong appeal to you try and work with me on this instead of just reverting everything wholesale? Christina Kaye 11:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Your claim not to be partisan is betrayed by your style of edit and the extremely bad replacement of the previous academically-styled and far more encyclopaedic article. You are very obviously supporting here a claim and whether the claim has been mentioned in two books on the family of a possible claimant is hardly a reliable source. You ought really to read through what you have said above. Full of "possibles" and "undoubtedly" and "seems" and "argues" and "strongly suggestive" and "conflicting sources" and "doubt". All meaningless phrases in academia. The article you butchered was most satisfactory and as clear as day. The claim opinion was appropriately noted. I fell over myself researching it and getting it and the style right and providing very clear evidences and sources which were simply not in the slightest bit partisan. The only reasonably academic opinion you have provided was one edition of Debretts, but frankly it does not stand up against the weight of printed evidence by renowned experts. As for Alec Douglas-Home's renouncing of all his titles to remain in the House of Commons, if the family had long believed that they should have had that title doubtless they had it slotted it into the disclaimer which they had drawn up. I don't know and really neither do you. But it is irrelevant whether or not it was in that disclaimer if they had no right to it in the first place and that is what everyone other than a 21st century edition of Debretts is saying. I could revert the unholy mess you have made on the article page in a rather shabby attempt to push your personal point of view but I don't have the time for edit wars. I cannot assume WP:Good faith where there is an overt lack of it. David Lauder 17:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, your claim to represent all of academia, which crops up all over Wikipedia, is delusional. Your statement that 'conflicting sources' is a meaningless phrase to academics is one of the most bizarre things I've read on Wikipedia, and couldn't be more wrong. Its also explicitly contradicts Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV which 'promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view in an article'. Furthermore, despite your pretensions, you seem utterly unable to absorb the arguments of other editors, and you are blind to the work of historians where it conflicts with your own sources. Thankfully Wikipedia is not some cod-academia and has clear policies concerning WP:NOR. Christina Kaye 11:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of rules, please remember the no very personal attacks rule. Lets be simplistic about this: the argument here is clearly pronounced upon by established experts, including heralds, and authorities for over two centuries. You arrive on Wikipedia, alter established fact to suit one rogue 21st century opposite opinion and, for what reasons I am unclear, try to dress it up with some sort of validity which it does not deserve, and then refer to my "pretensions"? My argument is this: the matter was settled before either of us were born and the Crown itself reissued the barony in question which shows beyond doubt that they regarded the first one as extinct. Instead of hunting around trying to cite Wikipedia rules to suit your endeavor why don't you accept reality and stop trying to rewrite history. David Lauder 11:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break

Let's keep this very simple. Do you dispute the sources which state that Alec Douglas-Home claimed the title? Christina Kaye 12:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There is no evidence in the formal claims lists at the House of Lords which show that. Family gossip and assertions can't be used in an encyclopaedia, even if family biographers have slipped it into their tomes. Where would such claims and stories end? The Lords claims procedures have been set down for generations. Notice of intention to a claim was made in the early 19th century but it was not pursued. The Crown would never have reissued the Barony if their legal experts were not content that it was extinct. I have no wish to engage in unpleasantness. None at all. But I cannot understand why you are pursuing this when the weight of evidence shows it is wrong. David Lauder 12:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Alec Douglas-Home disclaimed this title along with his four senior titles in 1963. It is tautological that he believed that he had a claim to the title. This is not open to debate or interpretation and has nothing to do with family gossip. This is fact. Douglas-Home's declaration under the Peerage Act is on public record. It is cited in full by Dickie and referred to by the other political biographers and historians that I cited in the article. The London Gazette reports it here, [2]. As for whether the Homes' claim would be likely to succeed if it ever came before the House of Lords, I have no view whatsoever. Happily, this speculation falls well outside the scope of Wikipedia. What is beyond argument is that the Earls of Home believed they had a potentially valid claim to the title. Christina Kaye 14:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Look, you misunderstand what I am saying. I am a great fan of Alec Douglas-Home. He and certain of his family may have felt they had a claim and undoubtedly told their biographers so (although its not mentioned in the Alec's biography by his son). He/his secretary may have listed the title in amongst the others when the disclaimer was drawn up. But you cannot disclaim something which you didn't have in the first place so whether its in the disclaimer is sheer irrelevance. The principal authorities say it is extinct and did so until Debretts rose to the occasion in this century (for reasons I know not), and if the Douglas-Homes wish to pursure their claim they must do so in the House of Lords. But you still have not answered why the Crown reissued the barony. Even if there had been a claim in the pipeline they simply would not have done that. Clearly the legal advice was that this barony is extinct. David Lauder 14:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken on a number of counts. Dealing with your points in order:
  1. You seem to think I'm arguing that the Homes have a proven right to the Barony of Berwick. This is not my position, and nowhere in the re-written article have I stated this. I'm not concerned with whether or not their claim is valid (which only the House of Lords can determine), just in recording that the Earls of Home have stated a claim to the title, casting doubt on the view that it is extinct. This really should be beyond argument by now.
  2. There is no biography of Alec Douglas-Home by his son.
  3. It is nonsensical to keep suggesting that Douglas-Home's family 'told his biographers' about his claim to this peerage. Their information clearly derives from the Instrument of Disclaimer itself (quoted by Dickie in full).
  4. Far from being 'sheer irrelevance' the disclaimer confirms that Douglas-Home believed his claim to the Lordship/Barony of Hume of Berwick was potentially valid.
  5. I have already answered the question of the reissue of the barony. As I said before, there are many examples of peerages created while identically named peerages still existed, so this cannot be taken as proof of a title's extinction. I do agree, though, that when the 2nd barony was created in 1776, the 1st barony was generally regarded as extinct. That does not mean, however, that the title was actually extinct. Many factors, not least changes to peerage case law and interpretation, could have had a bearing on this case during the ensuing centuries, giving rise to the Home claim.
Christina Kaye 22:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

On the Earls of Home page you very clearly inserted that this barony belonged to them. There could be no other interpretation to your very many edits on several pages where this barony is mentioned attempting to question the fact (as though you were acting on the Douglas-Home's behalf on Wikipedia) that the barony was extinct. You also directed us to the official Gazette. If you read this you will note that the Douglas-Home's wrote the disclaimer themselves and the Gazette entry is just confirming receipt of it. Whether a family or individual feels they have a particular right to something (when often they do not) is not something we can determine on Wikipedia. An encylopaedia could indeed mention a claimaint if he/she had made a formal claim because it places them firmly on the map. But slipping the title (or more than one) into a disclaimer is NOT a formal claim (and is meaningless) and until a formal claim is made I believe we should accept the established status quo. David Lauder 14:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there are some more inaccuracies in your last post:
  1. My edit to the Earl of Home article states that various earls have claimed the title, not that it belongs to them. I've already answered this point here.[3]
  2. The Instrument of Disclaimer was written by Sir George Coldstream, Clerk of the Crown and Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chancellor, and not by "the Douglas-Home's (sic)"
  3. Its difficult to take your posts seriously when you claim to have read a (non-existant) biography of Douglas-Home by his son. Perhaps you could explain this? Christina Kaye 21:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually no. Look back at your edits and you clearly state that they inherited this title through one of the Earl of Dunbar's daughters. Nothing I can find in print at that time states this. If you can get hold of a copy of William Playfair's British Family Antiquity (1811) he gives an interesting account of the arguments surrounding the Earldom and any succession to it on pages cccx - xxxcii. Apparently Sir John Home of Renton made a formal claim to the Earldom then.
It would be up to Alec Douglas-Home himself to give instructions to whoever re his disclaimer. The actual name of who wrote it up is immaterial as it is the content you (rather than we) are concerned with, which contains a peerage which they did not have in the first place.
Interesting that you have a note on your user page which states that you assume good faith. In my case I read a book entitled Mr Home, pronounced Hume, by William Douglas-Home (1979) who was his brother, not his son. My apologies there. It does not alter the substance of what I said relating to the book. David Lauder 16:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just found yet another book which cites the Barony of Hume of Berwick as becoming "Extinct" twice - 1611 and 1781: A Directory of British Peerages by Francis L. Leeson, Revised Edition, London, 2002, p.85, ISBN 1-903462-65-7 David Lauder 17:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Its obvious that you haven't read the book you persist in citing. If you had, you'd know that Mr Home Pronounced Hume is William Douglas-Home's autobiography, and not a biography of Alec Douglas-Home. Christina Kaye 15:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Your rudeness knows no bounds, does it. I don't "persist" in "citing" it. It was you who made it an issue. Moreover, if you actually read my original comment I did not "cite" it, all I said was that there was no mention of the claim in that book. I accept that it is William's autobiography, but that is not the issue here. You are the hair-splitter here who opposes all legalities. Please take your sneers and your silly claims somewhere else. We're trying to build an encyclopaedia here not a list of unsubstantiated family hang-ups. David Lauder 15:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I have appeared rude. It can be difficult to remain civil when your edit summaries say things like "get a life", this is "a lie"... "a load of old rubbish", etc. I will continue, however, to try and remain civil. In the meantime I have come up with a new compromise wording for the article. I would be grateful if you could consider this point by point, rather than just reverting the whole thing as has been your habit. Christina Kaye 12:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
My "habit" is to write factual articles. Not to write ones which suit a point of view. the discussion on this tiresom topic has been endless and yet you stubbornly refuse to accept the views of all the experts on this. Inserting a title into a list DOES NOT constitute a claim! AND its insertion by bureaucrats writing up a disclaimer does not constitue a major constitutional development! Your entire wording is POV. David Lauder 12:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the article as it now stands reflects both perspectives. What I regard as the true one (DL) and the other possibility (CK). Can DL now indicate what specific changes he would like? - Kittybrewster (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protected

I have received requests on my talk page from both User:David Lauder and from User:Christina Kaye to intervene in the edit war on this article.

It is clear from the revision log that an edit war is underway, so I have protected the page: this means that it may only be edited by an admin. In accordance with Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content_disputes, I have protected the page at the version which was current when I examined the article, and have not attempted to decide which of the many recent versions was preferable.

Initially, I have protected the article for 7 days. This protection may be extended if that seems necessary, or may be lifted if the dispute has been resolved.

Since you have both asked me to help resolve the dispute, I suggest that you may want to consider the following method.

  1. You work together to create a version of the article which accords with the facts you both agree on. Either of you could start this off, in your own userspace. Such a version is likely to be much shorter than the current article. Is there enough common ground to allow this to be done?
  2. Once a common version agreed, then take it in turn to propose changes. If the proposed changes are concise and limited and well-referenced, it is more likely that an admin will accept them.

I hope this helps!

Good luck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

PS to request changes to the protected article, please use the template {{Editprotected}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Protection extended. Having looked at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, it seems that 14 days is the usual period for initial protection of an article, so I have extended the protection on this article to 14 days (i.e. until 4 June 2007). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to admin on wording

I ask others to look at my format and revision as of 12:56, 21 May 2007. Go to the article page, click on history, then go down to that revision and click on 'last', then scroll down until you see the actual article itself. This is a neat, tidy, format which accommodates the facts and the claims. David Lauder 07:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Compromise wording

David, let's try and work out a wording we can both agree to. As per Kitty's helpful comments above, please state concisely what specific changes you think should be made. May I suggest we stick to one point at a time to keep the discussion focused? Perhaps you could suggest the first change that should be made? Christina Kaye 10:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was my suggestion ... but it was the second of two parts. The first suggestion was to see if there is any sort of article on which you both already agree. If you find this way more helpful that's fine, but remember that the aim is to produce an agreed version. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I feel I cannot add to what I have said above. I prepared a succinct and factual encyclopaedia article based on established fact and with fundamental references in the appropriate places. My compromise was to leave the spurious Home claim to this English Barony in there at all. David Lauder 12:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've tried. Christina Kaye 12:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
No, you have not tried anything. You wish a spurious and untested (in The House of Lords) claim to dominate an encyclopaedic article. That is wrong. But did I fully delete that? No I did not. I left detail of your/the claim there. But your edits attempted to thread through the entire article as though there had been some legal and official questioning of the established facts. There has not, and therefore your not-too-subtle attempts to word the article as though there was a legitimate proven claim overturning heralds and other authorities on this, even William Dugdale who was writing very soon after the creation of this peerage, is entirely wrong. David Lauder 12:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
As David's edit summary for the above post stated "no compromise", I don't feel I can take this much further. Christina Kaye 12:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How about a straightforward choice between the two versions?

OK, this may not be an issue where compromise is readily achievable, so how about a different approach: choosing between the two versions.

How about each of you explains here what you think the issues are, and why you think that your preferred version is better? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What about adding this sentence to the bottom of “First Creation”: ... It is not contested that Alec Douglas-Home’s renouncing the Barony does not make Debrett’s statement true, nor does it bring the Barony out of extinction.' - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer my edit because it is clear and straight to the point, citing all the proper authorities, numerous of them, alongside what are established facts (deleted or buried somewhere else in the article by Ms Kay). The reason I say this is because no claim has been heard before the House of Lords and so legally no claim exists, regardless of "opinons". In addition, I left a section in my edit mentioning this spurious claim in full. I wiped Ms Kaye's comments questioning whether it was Scottish or English because there is no formal dispute on this. I also wiped her ludicrous comment that Alec Douglas-Home's Disclaimer having this barony slotted into it was some sort of major constitutional matter. It isn't. I left the comments she made about private claims to this barony in the article and my own opinion is they don't count and shouldn't be in it. But I left them all the same. She wasn't content with that and reworded and slanted the entire article, from beginning to end, to demonstrate that there was official doubt on this barony. That is not the case. David Lauder 16:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think David is saying this:
I prefer my edit because it is clear and cites numerous proper authorities, alongside what are established facts. No claim has been heard before the House of Lords and so legally no claim exists, regardless of Debrett’s "opinion". I left a section in my edit mentioning this spurious claim in full. I thik there is no formal dispute as to whether it was Scottish or English. I believe Alec Douglas-Home's Disclaimer having this barony slotted into it was not a major constitutional matter. To my mind, the disclaimer and`any informal claims by Lord Home (adopted by Debrett’s) do not resurrect the barony from extinction. And I think the CK version puts undue emphasis on the latter. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christina Kaye's answer to BrownHairedGirl

I would summarise the dispute as follows:

DL and I both agree that many sources state the title of Lord Hume of Berwick as extinct. We also both agree that Debrett’s states it is not extinct, but held by the Earl of Home. We further agree that the article should state both of these possibilities. I think that DL now accepts that Alec Douglas-Home, 14th Earl of Home ‘disclaimed’ the Barony of Hume of Berwick in 1963, and that this information should be included in the article.

DL disagrees with me on the following points. First, he thinks that my version of the article is POV, because it promotes a claim to the title by the Earls of Home. Second, he rejects the assertion that there is uncertainty as to whether the peerage was an English or a Scottish creation, stating that it was English. Third, he objects to the statement that Douglas-Home’s renunciation of the title was constitutionally significant.

I would respond to these objections as follows:

  1. It is easily verifiable as fact that Alec Douglas-Home and his forebears stated a claim to this title, even if a formal claim was never pursued all the way to the Committee of Privileges. D-H's disclaimer of this title in 1963 should be evidence enough of this. While I have not argued (nor intended to imply) that the Homes’ claim is valid, the question of the continued existence of the title is of central importance to the article.
  2. I happen to agree that the title was probably English, as most sources state. However, several good sources report uncertainty about this fact, which needs to be stated in the article. Other than Debrett’s, Dickie (in The Uncommon Commoner) and Thorpe, make it clear that the Lord Chancellor's office listed both "The Lordship of Hume of Berwick in the peerage of Scotland" and "The Barony of Hume in the Peerage of England" in Douglas-Home’s disclaimer because of uncertainty as to which peerage the title belonged. The London Gazette reports this here [4].
  3. Douglas-Home was the first Prime Minister to renounce his peerages in order to sit in the House of Commons – a momentous and widely reported event. An analogy would be Gordon Brown changing his name under new legislation in order to succeed Tony Blair. If D-H had not disclaimed all of his titles he would have been barred from taking a seat in the Commons - making his unproven claim to the Barony of Hume of Berwick constitutionally significant.

I'll leave it to others to decide which version of the article more accurately represents the available evidence. I'll not make any further contributions to this debate for a week in the hope that tempers may cool, and good sense prevail. See you then. :) Christina Kaye 23:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to the above statement by Christina Kaye

  • She states firstly that she agrees that the title is extinct, as all the principle authorities agree. But then further on she states "the question of the continued existence of the title is of central importance to the article."

It is not, because no formal claim by the Earls of Home has been made to this title. Moreover, the title had been reissued to the Marchmont family in the 18th century indicating clearly that the Crown saw it as extinct and reissueable

  • Christina Kaye has moved slightly from her reliance on an opinion by Debretts in this century, to concentrate on Sir Alec Douglas-Home's Disclaimer, which she states was "of constitutional importance". No-one is debating this particular point at all but it was of constitutional importance because he was renouncing his seat in the House of Lords as the Earl of Home, a very senior noble title, and the other titles he holds (some of which did not entitle him to a seat in The House) would quite naturally be included, as a matter of form, just as they are in Peerage directories. But the 'also rans' do not form part of the "constitutional importance" at all. The important thing is that at no time did the Earls of Home or any of their family ever attempt to take a seat in The House as Lord Home of Berwick.

Sir Alec was then a very important politician and became Prime Minister. The onus for getting his Disclaimer drawn up was upon him and the directions would have come from him. They could not have come from anyone else! If the Earls of Home believed they had some sort of claim to this title they doubtless had it included it in the lists of titles for the Disclaimer which followed that of the Earl of Home to the scribe drawing up the formal disclaimer. But that does not constitute a legal formal claim and so its inclusion is essentially meaningless.

  • The Gazettee to which Christina Kaye refers simple states that the Disclaimer has been handed in. That is all. And we all knew that anyway so I cannot think which this entry is being held up as a pertinent reference.
  • Christina Kaye also cites biographers of Sir Alec but naturally they will be on his side where this issue is mentioned. They are hardly going to be hostile. (We're talking about a popular politican, not Robert Maxwell). Elsewhere on Wikipedia we see attacks on the Arbuthnot family histories, however brilliantly researched, as being unacceptable and unreliable. So why should we now accept the opinions of other partisan biographers as essential fact?

My argument is for a proper summary of the salient facts of this title because they referred to a famous politican of the day who late became an Earl of Dunbar. I am a great fan of Sir Alec Douglas-Home. But he and his family have no legitimate claim to this title according to the Heralds and other excellent sources and until they make a formal claim any mention of their beliefs in this matter should not interfere with the established facts and the main part of the article. For an encyclopaedia to mention a "peerage in England (or Scotland)" (as Christina Kaye insists upon inserting) is more than ridiculous as people refer to an encyclopaedia for the essential facts and every authority (bar the scribes under instruction from Sir Alec) states that it was in the Peerage of England. Worth adding that Berwick-upon-Tweed had been in England for over a century when this peerage was created and had such a title been created in the peerage of Scotland it would have created uproar. David Lauder 10:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested way forward

I think the block on editing has been helpful and that CK and DL are both now being more reasonable and considered in their responses. May I suggest that the article be rewritten by another editor who is experienced in these nuances? I have in mind User:Alci12 or User:Choess. And, after that has happened, CK and DL suggest amendments to the revised article on the talk page before reverting them. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Thats all very well, but no-one has yet told me what was wrong with my last edit and the article in that format. David Lauder 11:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some additional sources

I agree with Kitty's suggestion that the article be rewritten by Alci12 or Choess (or BrownHairedGirl?). In the meantime here are some additional sources which might be helpful.

Scots / English? The following sources support the view that there is uncertainty about the creation.

  • The Complete Peerage (the ne plus ultra of peerage sources) stated this to be a Scots creation in its first edition. In the 1912 edition it was amended to an English creation with the following note by the editors: “In the first edition of this work this (title) was treated as a Scottish peerage, and it seems that the patent was directed to pass ‘’also’’ under the Great Seal of Scotland, as were the letters patent creating Lord Kinloss, Lord Bruce of Kinloss, and Sir Thomas Erskine, Baron Erskine of Dirletoun. Crawfurd states it to be an English creation on the authority of Dugdale’s Baronage, vol ii, p.419, where the Patent Roll is quoted. Hewlett, p. 39 says: “There appears to have been much uncertainty after the accession of King James VI to the throne of England, as to the manner in which Peerages of Scotland should be created.”(TCP, 1912, Cockayne, V Gibbs eds., Vol IV, p511, note a)
  • The Scots Peerage records it is a Scottish title by implication. Where Scottish peers also held titles in other peerages this is stated in the summary of creations at the end of each article (cf, Elgin & Ailesbury, p.483). The editor has not done so with this title. (TSP, 1904, Sir James Balfour Paul ed., Vol. III, p287)

Extinct / Dormant? The following sources support the view that the title is not extinct.

  • The Complete Peerage states the Barony of Hume of Berwick, along with the Earldom of Dunbar, is not extinct but dormant. It further notes “The Barony of Hume of Berwick being to heirs general would appear to be vested in the issue of his two daughters and coheirs. These were (1) Anne, wife of Sir James Home, and mother of James, who … suc. As 3rd Earl of Home, being ancestor of the succeeding Earls; (2) Elizabeth, Mar. 1611/2… Theophilus Howard, 2nd Earl of Suffolk, whose representative is the Lord Howard de Walden.” (TCP, 1912, Cockayne, V Gibbs eds., Vol IV, p511, note d)
  • Burke’s Peerage states that the Earldom of Dunbar and the Barony of Hume of Berwick are dormant. (BP, 107th ed. 2003 (Home of Blackadder, Bt)
  • The Scots Peerage states: "On 7 July 1604 he was created Baron Home of Berwick, with remainder to his heirs for ever, and with the addition of a clause enabling him to nominate any kinsman or relation to have and hold the same dignity to him and his heirs.' This power, however, he never exercised" presumably because "he died somewhat suddenly". It does not state that the barony is extinct and with regard to the earldom it states “The dignity was acknowledged by the Crown to have descended in the manner previously narrated but none of the persons said to be in right of it ever appears to have assumed the title.” (Ibid)

Hope this is useful, Regards Christina Kaye 07:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No its not because you are desperately pushing a clear agenda. Here are som observations on your continuing attempts to push a line on this:
  • Cockayne has made as many errors as anyone else. If, for instance, the title were Dormant and not Extinct, and the Douglas-Home's had a legitimate claim, explain to us all why they have not pursued it accordingly.
  • Playfair states that the Letters Patent for this title had a special clause inserted stating that Baron Home of Berwick had a special remainder to nominate to the Crown who his successor(s) would be (in view of the fact that he only had daughters) but that he never exercised his right in this respect.
  • "Seems" and "would appear" are not acceptable in any legal argument.
  • I know of no English Baronage which has passed under the Great Seal of Scotland because we do not have parliamentary barons in our creations, only Lords of Parliament and the peers above them. Hewlitt may give an opinion on how Scottish Peerages were created but it is only that.
  • Crawfurd, citing the Patent Roll, states the Peerage is English. What more does anyone need?
  • Balfour Paul may not have included the English title in his volumes because his work was primarily on the Scottish Peerage and you will note that the gentleman concerned is listed under "Dunbar", his later earldom.
  • You cite one passage from The Scots' Peerage which clearly contradicts the Complete Peerage, so which uncertainty do you wish to rely upon? If you read my previous comments elsewhere and taken from Playfair (with regard to the subsequent remarks in the SP) you will see that an attempt was made to pursue the Earldom of Dunbar peerage under this obscure opinion - which failed.
There is no real question about this. The Patent states it is an English creation. All the great experts, including Dugdale, say it is extinct. Thrashing around attempting to find obscure opinions to support a fictitious and untested claim is ludicrous in terms of an encyclopaedia. David Lauder 08:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Can we focus first on the question on the English / Scots creation? Do you now accept that a number of sources (Dugdale, TCP, Dickie, etc) report that this peerage was created under the Great Seals of both Scotland and England? Perhaps you could answer this question first (as simply as possible) before we try and take this further? Christina Kaye 20:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you being paid to progress this pseudo-claim on Wikipedia? I mean, there must be a reason for your dogmatism. William Dugdale cites this Peerage as being English. He does not state that it was English and Scottish. I have already checked the Great Seal of Scotland and it does not appear in it at all. The other people you are citing here are merely raising queries, that is all. We are dealing with publishing an encylcopaedia, not a discussion article. David Lauder 08:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Please remember to observe AGF and CIVIL. Could you clarify what you mean by "I have already checked the great seal of Scotland"? This isn't a very clear answer to my question above. The TCP quotes Dugdale and states this peerage was created under the Great Seals of both Scotland and England. Do you dispute this? I think that you have finally agreed that other sources are "raising queries" about the creation, but perhaps you could clarify this?
Neither the Earldom of Dunbar or this barony are mentioned at all in the Earl of Home's titles, or anywhere else, in Edmund Lodge's 1858 Peerage (he was Norroy King of Arms); Burke's Family Index (London, 1976) cites them as "Dormant and Extinct" respectively. I regularly go into HM Register House and I made a point of looking through the Great Seal of Scotland entries for ten years after this creation. There is nothing. I have Dugdale in my own library and he says it is an English Barony. Crawfurd (which I also have a copy of) examined the Patent Rolls and said it was an English Barony. I have cited numerous other authorities who all say it is an English Barony. But you just will not leave this alone will you? I am not promoting anyone's corner in this as the barony is almost universally accepted as extinct. You, on the other hand persist in attempting to make a case on Wikipedia for some sort of claim which has never been made. It is bizarre. You are simply pursuing a nonsence and trying desperately to locate sources which might support your 'claim' which legally has not been made. In addition, regardless of how many times I go over all of this, you just don't or refuse to take on board anything at all other than your barmy perspective of this. I've never come across anything like it in my life. You might explain to the world how on earth anyone can remain 'civil' in these circumstances. David Lauder 13:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you just answer the question instead of engaging in incivilities? Do you agree that credible and verifiable sources, including the TCP, state that this barony was created under the Great Seals of both Scotland & England? Christina Kaye 14:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My edition of The Complete Peerage, by G E Cockayne and heavily revised and updated by Vicary Gibbs (1916) clearly states in the main entry under the Dunbar (p.511) entry for this gentleman that it is a Barony in the Peerage of England. Gibbs and his helpers then enter into personal deliberations in the footnotes, particularly under the Hume of Berwick entry as to why they reach certain conclusions as to why the creation might be a Scottish title (i.e: the special remainder, if exercised) but they cite Riddell (who I have been previously been asked to desist from citing on Wikipedia!) who is not always reliable, and add that such special remainders would "be against English Law". Firstly the latter is untrue. needless to say they don't cite which law they refer to. What they probably mean is it would be unusual for such a late creation (there had been earlier instances of m/f creations) and in any case had James 1st granted such a dispensation it is extremely unlikely that a court at that time would have entertained a challenge to it. The fundamentals here are clear: In their two principle entries for George Hume the Complete Peerage state it is a barony of England. In addition we don't have parliamentary barons in Scotland and I cannot find any English baronies which have passed under the Great Seal of Scotland. Had that been the case what would their title be in Scotland? And to which courts would they be responsible in cases of dispute - Scottish or English? The matter is absurd. Anyway it did not pass under the Great Seal of Scotland so such a claim is meaningless. Lastly, pondering on possibilities does not alter the facts - and that is why their and virtually everyone elses principle entries state Lord Hume of Berwick (E). David Lauder 15:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, was that a "yes" or a "no" to the above question? I think you're agreeing that Cockayne (Clarenceux King of Arms) and Gibbs did state that the title was created under both seals (but that they were wrong to have done so). Please could you confirm this as concisely as possible. Having agreed this we can move on to the next item. Christina Kaye 20:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It is becoming apparent that my command of English is unacceptable to you or that you just do not wish to move from your position. My explanation above is sufficient. David Lauder 07:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protect again

It seems that another edit war is underway, so I have protected the page again, per Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content_disputes: this means that it may only be edited by an admin.

Initially, I have protected the article for 14 days. This protection may be extended if that seems necessary, or may be lifted if the dispute has been resolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am happy for an independent admin to ajudicate. David Lauder 08:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi BHG, thanks for agreeing to my request to protect the article. I'm not interested in edit warring and believe that this dispute can be resolved with focussed discussion. I'll contact Tyrenius, as he's the only other admin that I've come across with an interest in this field. I may also try Alci12 and Choess as you and Kitty have suggested. Ok? Christina Kaye 13:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • They sound good. I'd also suggest Phoe, who knows her stuff too. Thing is, that for the next step, you don't actually need an admin, just a reviewer/mediator/arbitrator who can help create a stable version of the page. If that's done and agreed, a quick request at WP:AN will get an admin to implement the agreed changes. If he person is also an admin, they can do it themselves, but but to help a non-admin get at the text, I have created two new pages in userspace: see User:BrownHairedGirl/Lord Hume of Berwick, where you'll find copies of the latest versions by both of you. I you or anyone else wants to work on a revised version, feel free to copy them elsewhere (e.g. to your own userspace) and work away. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)