Talk:Lord John Marbury
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In this article it is stated that Lord John Marbury would not be known as such on account of his possesion of a marquessate and subsidiary titles. However, it is possible that he was the younger son of the previous marquess and it was by the courtesy title of 'Lord John Marbury' that he became known and did not wish to confuse by then changing to the correct title, when his brother predeceased him, in much the same way as Michael Ancram, the prominent Tory MP, continues to be known as such despite having inherited the Marquessate of Lothian.
- Fanwanking! I love it. That's actually quite an elegant fanwank. It would probably constitute original research (actually the whole thing probably constitutes original research, but whatever...) john k 15:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nice idea but a bad example, as Michael Ancram is generally known as "Michael Ancram" or "Lord Ancram", but rarely "Lord Michael Ancram" (and anyway his real name is Michael Kerr). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/03/11/do1102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/03/11/ixopinion.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.2.82 (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Seems to be a timeline error.
He did not name himself, but mentioned the Earl of Ulster, who was only five years old. from this article -v- The_West_Wing_(TV_series)#Timeline_skew
It is mentioned that Bartlet won the third and final debate, which was held on 30 October 1998, in St Louis, Missouri, and that this helped swing a close election in his favor.
If the timeline is c2000 then the Earl of Ulster (b 1974) would be ~ 26 Alci12 12:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's assuming rather more correspondence between our universe and the West Wing one than is generally shown. Maybe in the WW-verse one of the butterfly effects of whatever skewed the timeline was the death of that Earl of Ulster, making the title pass to some presumably fictional younger relative? Or even that one was never born, as 1974 seems to be after the POD (if it's really all to do with Watergate). --86.128.73.139 08:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Johnmarbury1x11.jpg
Image:Johnmarbury1x11.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
