User talk:Proteus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note that I reserve the right to remove any comments placed on this page.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Contents

[edit] Using English

Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with using English instead of foreign terms in articles. A few are trying to "Anglicise" French terms in Wiki articles according to current guidelines but there is some resistance (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement"). Your input would be appreciated here. Thankyou. --Bob 16:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earl of Carnwath

Any chance you could take a look. The above is wrong but I can't correct as I'm not certain of some of the holders. thepeerage has the 2nd Earl as Gavin. Obviously after removing the erroneous 7/8/9th Earls this will change the rest Alci12 14:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alci12 13:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Burley

Hi, could you tell me exactly where you found evidence that the people of Kent rose up in protest of his death.. I have not seen this mentioned anywhere.

81.96.79.131 13:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)S. Farrand

[edit] Peerage guidelines

After noticing your move of Savile Baronets over Marquess of Halifax, I realized our guidelines (Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage#Pages on Peerages) may stand in some need of an overhaul. It currently suggests, among other things, that Earl of Bedford and Duke of Bedford should have separate articles; however, the first redirects to the second. Perhaps some redrafting is in order. (I bring this here because if there's anyone I trust to write an airtight guideline about peerages, it's you.)Choess 04:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vice Great Seneschal of Ireland

In case Vice Great Seneschal of Ireland isn't on your watchlist, I wanted to alert you to some comments I left on the talk page which may be of interest to you. House of Scandal 12:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duke of Newcastle

Hi Proteus-- quick question. Were all the early creations of Duke of Newcastle (all but the recently extinct one) in the form of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, or were some just plain Duke of Newcastle? I know the one held by the PM was -upon-Tyne, but I realized that the earlier ones may not have been, and I figured you'd know. I don't want to have incorrectly relocated a page. Thanks! TysK 01:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earl of Airlie

I've renumbered to remove those previously included who were attainted. Don't suppose your sources give an explanation for the HoL refusal to admit the claim of the younger brother of the 3rd Earl? Alci12 17:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh if the AoP says that then we should revert. Alci12 12:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I mean, we're not obliged to follow what Parliament says I think if we ignore appropriate legal decisions (assuming attainder was reversed in the way cr says) and substitute our own views (even where the former are sometimes wrong) it's tantamount to original research. Alci12 10:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill

Please vote. - Kittybrewster 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Spencer family

TysK said, I should ask you for help. So, are you able to help me with the Spencer family? Or do you know someone who is able? Thank you very much for your help.
VM 18:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taking seat

It might interest you; looking for something quite different, I came across this [1] wherein it makes it clear that Milford Haven took his seat in the Lords (July 25, 1917) when his patent for the creation of the titles doesn't pass the great seal until Nov (letter 30th October 1917) [2] Alci12 13:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well there is a patent and warrant stamp but I don't see lawfully you could stamp the former and refuse the latter. It did cross my mind that, in November realising the mess they had put themselves in, they backdated the entry to the time it was decided to give the peerages to tie up the loose ends. There is precedent to take a seat without LP certainly up to c15 so I suppose it may be unprecedented in modern times it might not be ultra vires. Likewise we see knighthood awards 'backdated' to a time when the recipient was alive for various people who accept the offer but don't live to its announcement. Still a v interesting little find I thought. Alci12 13:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the fees went c.ww2 with the influx of 'poor' labour peers who couldn't be expected to afford such things. I seem to remember the King paying for a number of ministers court dress in '46 for a similar reasons.(Many of the old families were both rich and in some cases used the robes of their ancestors; Churchill in 1924 remarks he has his father's robs as chancellor from 1884) I thought about a marquessate by writ myself ;) I can only assume that the letters is misleading or unclear because I don't see how this wouldn't be the case of a new writ creation Alci12 17:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duque de Ciudad Rodrigo

When did the 8th Duke of Wellington succeed as 9th Duque de Ciudad Rodrigo? When his father died in 1972 or 4 years earlier? The site doesn't make that clear.
VM 18:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baron Loch

Hi Proteus, do you know perhaps whether these edits ([3] and [4] are correct? If they are, we then should not move the articles? Although I have already searched myself, I am unsure, what the result concerns - I have unfortunately found both possibilities namely Baron Loch and Baron Loch of Drylaw. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 11:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

Aye, thanks for the "investigation". ~~ Phoe talk 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ </span

It is surely, Loch of Drylaw, in the county of Midlothian. See Lord's Journal, 13 Augusti 1895, pages 284 and 285. Furthermore, GEC, not known for its mistakes has it as such, and it remains so, uncorrected, in the 1990s update volume.Rodolph 13:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baron Ponsonby

Hi, I am sorry but I have a case once more which makes your stepping in necessary (see Special:Contributions/Christina Kaye). How I wrote at Talk:John Ponsonby, 1st Viscount Ponsonby of Imokilly, the LG states the viscountcy as Ponsonby, of Imokilly and not Ponsonby of Imokilly. However I haven't found an entry concerning the barony, so do you know whether her statement at Talk:William Ponsonby, 1st Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly is right? Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 08:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

Looks like there are several disamb pages for the barony an what not that she's also changed. Alci12 10:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, now back to the fun at talk Stirling (I still can't work out how his posts are within the rules) Do you have any info on the remainder for 'Lord Hume of Berwick'? Alci12 11:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks also of me.
Btw do you have seen this interesting hoax [5]? It seems the alleged Viscount St Pierre is a child prodigy (see [6]) :-). Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 15:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ~~
Sadly not that's the GB creation-but thanks for trying. The issue for me comes down to this. If the patent for creation exists then it must be clear from which great seal is used and/or any subsequent 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 parliment after his mother's death an before he gained the earldom? Absent that I don't believe the title exists.PS Hmm @ Earl Roberts another loony entry Alci12 16:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Query Re: Earl Roberts

May I ask why you reverted my edits, AGAIN. Sorry but its a little frustrating. Why exactly? Do they not conform to the editing standards or something? Thank You. user:mduparte 18:04 13th February 2007 (GMT)

Perhaps you wouldn't have the frustration of having your edits reverted if you contributed productively rather than creating ridiculous hoaxes. Proteus (Talk) 18:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
excuse me? user:mduparte 18:04 13th February 2007 (GMT)
Oh don't be stupid. You're not going to fool anyone here. Proteus (Talk) 18:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm sorry but there's being rude, and there's being rude! What do you mean, and could be presume for one second that I'm not a hoaxer here, because I'm not. Perhaps you could just calm down and present a nice balanced arguement. I have every resource with me. Hell! I work here! Martine Duparte 18:22 13th February 2007 (GMT)
Fine, lets work under that presumption. Please provide a link to the announcement of this peerage in the London Gazette. Its online archives go back more than 300 years so it shouldn't be too hard. Proteus (Talk) 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Here you are. The London Gazette - The Earl Roberts Martine Duparte 21:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
LOL! You've made my day, seriously. That's the funniest thing I've seen in ages. Bit of a waste of the domain registration fee, though. Proteus (Talk) 23:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't look quite right in Firefox. For a three-hour scratch job, though, I have to take my hat off to you, Stefan — it's a pretty good mock-up. Be strong to resist the dark side. Really now, is being a chorister not distinction enough without having to be a courtesy viscount and running an imaginary charity? Choess 01:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It is fascinating to see how much work makes somebody to itself to fake an identity for Wikipedia. I think, though, the LG would not be so pleased that somebody copies its web page - perhaps one should give them a small tip :-) . ~~ Phoe talk 08:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC) ~~
Well the wording is not right but it's not a bad effort. I looked for the whois on the site originally, word to the wise, best to use a hosting company as it really does give to much info away if you use your own details! Alci12 12:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I too am lost in admiration - just in case anyone is unaware, the London Gazette is actually gazettes-online.co.uk, and our hoaxer here is hoping no-one notices this one is .org.uk. Sam Blacketer 13:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Hume of Berwick

Thanks, now back to the fun at talk Stirling (I still can't work out how his posts are within the rules) Do you have any info on the remainder for 'Lord Hume of Berwick'? Alci12 11:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The LG Issue 11665 [7] 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) ~~
Please look at Debretts, a pretty standard modern source - as cited on discussion page. If you're interested I can email you correspondence from the Lord Lyon on this peerage. I can't think how else to reference it.Christina Kaye 20:39, 13 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)

[edit] "Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly", or "Baron Ponsonby"

  • Burkes Peerage (106th edition available online at [8]) and The Complete Peerage both give Ponsonby's title as 'Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly', and not as some editors prefer, 'Baron Ponsonby, of Imokilly'. The House of Lords Journal, available online, also uses this as his title. At the time the peerage's creation in 1806 there was another Baron Ponsonby around, namely Baron Ponsonby of Sysonby, the GB title under which his cousin the Earl of Bessborough (an Irish earldom) sat in the House of Lords. Christina Kaye 17:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi (Proteus), I am sorry but I have a case once more which makes your stepping in necessary (see Special:Contributions/Christina Kaye). How I wrote at Talk:John Ponsonby, 1st Viscount Ponsonby of Imokilly, the LG states the viscountcy as Ponsonby, of Imokilly and not Ponsonby of Imokilly. However I haven't found an entry concerning the barony, so do you know whether her statement at Talk:William Ponsonby, 1st Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly is right? Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 08:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ~~
    • No problem; it's not. The LG for 8th March 1806 says: The King has been pleased to grant the Dignity of a Baron of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the Right Honorable William Brabazon Ponsonby, and the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten, by the Name, Style, and Title of Baron Ponsonby, of Imokilly, in the County of Cork. Burke's is renowned for adding territorial designations to titles when they shouldn't. The title is thus the same as the Viscountcy. I'll break the news. Proteus (Talk) 09:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Looks like there are several disamb pages for the barony an what not that she's also changed. Alci12 10:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
        • They should be fine now. Thanks for the heads up. Proteus (Talk) 11:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Proteus, we all know that Burke’s is often inaccurate. But the point is Burke’s is not alone – most of the reliable published sources I can find use the name “Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly”. The London Gazette cannot, I'm afraid, be considered reliable in this instance. Not only does it state on its own website that "this archive is historic and cannot be assumed to be reliable in a current context", but it also sometimes uses the form "Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly" - e.g. on 4 September 1855 [9]. I think it is important for editors to reach a consensus about which sources carry most weight. I would have thought one of the most reliable published sources in this instance is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. It states: “Ponsonby, William Brabazon, first Baron Ponsonby (1744–1806)… was raised swiftly to the British peerage on 13 March 1806 as Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly”. [10]. Another source is the UK Government’s “National Register of Archives”, which indexes “Ponsonby, William Brabazon (1744-1806) 1st Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly” [11]. I would also refer editors to the House of Lords Journal. Early volumes of this are not available online, as far as I know, but Volume 63 (1 November 1830) is available at [12]. It refers to “Lord Ponsonby of Imokilly” (although obviously this is in relation to the 2nd Baron). I would also once again draw editors’ attention to the fact that the Earls of Bessborough sat in the GB & UK parliaments as Baron Ponsonby of Sysonby, as their other more senior titles were Irish and did not entitle them to an automatic seat. Might this explain the currency of this form of title? In summary, I think a sensible position would be to reinstate the disambiguation page for Baron Ponsonby, which somebody deleted, since there are inarguably a lot of Barons Ponsonby of various forms around. I do ask that editors do not undertake further edit reverts on this subject until a consensus has been achieved about the best sources to follow. Christina Kaye 21:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've added comments to talk:Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly Christina Kaye 16:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Mackenzie Stuart, Baron Mackenzie-Stuart

Heja, I wonder from which reason you have removed the QC postnominal. He was a Queen's Counsel, wasn't he? Greetings, best wishes and so on :-) ~~ Phoe talk 16:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

Ah, learned again a little... many thanks. ~~ Phoe talk 16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

[edit] Style

Hello. Let's sort out this "second v 2nd and Francis Baring v Francis Baring" business. My view is this: Firstly, I've contributed to hundreds of peerage pages on Wikipedia and have used the same system for all. The peerage and the recipient are bolded (if the reader wants to check out the full article on the recipient he can scroll down to where all the holders are listed, we don't need more than one link). Secondly, regarding ordinal numbers I have always used "first" et cetera in preference to "1st" et cetera, mainly because it looks nicer (in my view) but also because I believe this is the preferred style in running text (although I'm not a native speaker of English and certainly no expert). Writing out the full name and title of a peer is of course a totally different thing, I would always prefer John Smith, 1st Baron X, to John Smith, first Baron X.

Furthermore, I'm not a fan of Google being the judge of every argument in the world, but as you brought it up, yes, there are more google hits for "2nd+Baronet" than for "second+Baronet". However, there are more hits for "second+Baron" than for "2nd+Baron". But let's leave that aside. I know you're a highly knowledgeable contributor on these matters and I certainly value your opinion. However, for you to change from "second" to "2nd" in an article is a bit of a waste of your efforts in my opinion just like I'm wasting my efforts in writing this message. We should concentrate our efforts on something more constructive. I hope we can sort this out here. Otherwise, I fell the best way is to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and let others have their say. Regards, Tryde 20:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, that's probably correct, only the article title should be bolded. However, I would argue that peerage and title pages in general might constitute a special case where the peerage and the recipient are strictly inter-linked and it is therefore logical to have both in bold. I have considered this the best way to highlight the recipient, although I realise it is theoretically against Wikipedia policies. I have nothing in particular against linking the grantee, although then two problems arise 1) there are double links in the artice (in the intro and the list of holders), often separated by only a few lines, which are unnecessary (and I believe against Wikipedia policy) and 2) there would be a lot of red links as many peers don't have articles, and red links are a nuisance.
As for ordinals, I'm a strong opponent the system you're advocating (I don’t know that you mean by "our style"?), mainly because I think it looks terrible but also because I believe there are "rules" that numbers below ten shouldn't be used in running text. However, I guess both versions are ok, so I don’t see why both systems can’t be used. The content is after all the most important.
I’m going to continue using the system where the recipient of a title is bolded. I have seen that user:Phoe has used the same system for some baronetcy pages he has created, so we can have a word with him and see what he thinks. I can also bring up the topic at WikiProject Peerage for a discussion. After all, along with the Iranian nuclear programme and global warming this is a pressing issue that needs to be dealt with... Regards, Tryde 20:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Baronets and the use of "PC" instead of Rt. Hon.

In the Northern Ireland Privy Council, am I correct in assuming that it is completely incorrect for a member who is a Baronet (and thus a commoner) to use the postnominals "PC (NI)"? Nobody at Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet seems to think that that is the case, and if I change it again, I'm in violation of 3RR. Thanks in advance for the help. --Ibagli (Talk) 21:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have just raised this on Sir Norman's talk page. He is clearly either PC or Rt Hon in line 1. - Kittybrewster 21:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Please contribute to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes_No.2. - Kittybrewster 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gillis Baronets

This does not feature in my 1995 Debrett's or in Rayment's list. Is it kosher? - Kittybrewster 23:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please would you nominate them speedy afd. - Kittybrewster 23:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David G A A Lumsden

Please would you check this article and categories. It looks to me like a vanity page. - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lionel Phillips

I know this must be difficult for you, but would you mind keeping your hands off this article until I have finished it? Paul venter 15:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I won't "keep my hands off" that article, or any others you've created. Firstly, Template:Underconstruction is intended to prevent edit conflicts whilst a major revamp is underway, not to stifle legitimate edits just because you like a particular article, and I'm going to remove it for that reason. Secondly, the fact that you've created an article doesn't give you the right to decide where it should be and how it should be formatted: such matters are matters of policy and WP usage, and aren't things to be sorted out as the article's being written, and I'm going to revert your edits reverting mine for that reason. I suggest, if you intend on being a constructive editor here, you learn how to interact with people on a reasonable basis, and not act as if you own a particular article, because, I'm sorry to have to tell you, you don't. Proteus (Talk) 00:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. I politely asked you to keep your hands off the article while I was busy with it - see above
  2. The Template:Underconstruction was not placed there by me or at my request, but obviously by someone who decided I was being subjected to gratuitous harassment.
  3. Styling your edits as legitimate is presumptuous.
  4. WP policy, to a very large extent, is a matter of interpretation - if you feel that you are the final word on such interpretation, then we obviously have little common ground.
  5. Does being a constructive editor mean doing things your way?
  6. Please look at your discussion (or lack thereof) when you edited the article, and then tell me that your behaviour was reasonable
  7. I don't own the article and have been here long enough to know the conflict that presumed ownership can cause - but neither do you own the article and therefor your summary edit without any discussion makes a mockery of your supposed reasonableness.
  8. If you have any special qualifications that set you above other editors, don't expect them to divine this. Paul venter 06:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Lady A. Lindsay

Lady Abahai Lady Abdullah Haroon Lady Aberdeen

Lady Aberdeen Bridge

Lady Abigail Masham Lady Ada Lady Agatha Russell Lady Aisin-Gioro Lady Aitchison Hospital Lady Albemarle

Lady Alethea Talbot Lady Alexandra Coke

Lady Alexandra Duff Lady Alexandra Etherington Lady Alice Lady Alice Boyle Lady Alice Christabel Montagu-Douglas-Scott Lady Alice Christabel Montagu Douglas-Scott Lady Alice Egerton Lady Alice McDonnell Lady Alida Brittain

Lady Allen

Lady Allen of Hurtwood Lady Amelia Windsor Lady Amherst's Pheasant Lady Amherst's pheasant Lady Amherst Pheasant Lady Amin Lady Amos Lady And The Tramp Lady Andal Venkatasubbarao MHSS Lady Anelay of Saint Johns Lady Anelay of St. Johns

Lady Anelay of St Johns

Lady Ann's Drive Lady Ann Cummingham Lady Annabel Goldsmith Lady Annabel Vane-Tempest-Stewart Lady Anne Barnard Lady Anne Blunt Lady Anne Brewis Lady Anne Churchill Lady Anne Clifford Lady Anne Farquharson-MacKintosh Lady Anne Finch Conway

Lady Anne Halkett

Lady Anne Horton Lady Anne Hyde

Lady Anne Lambton

Lady Anne Lindsay Lady Anne Mackintosh

Lady Anne Palmer Lady Anne Rhys Lady Anne Stanley Lady Annie Henrietta Yule

Lady Antonia Fraser Lady Aoi

Lady Arabella Seymour

Lady Arabella Stuart Lady Arcana Elestar Lady Arthur Hill

Lady Arwen Lady Ashley Montagu Lady Ashton of Upholland

Lady Astor Lady Audley's Secret Lady Augusta Gregory Lady Augusta Murray

Here are a handful of counter examples I grabbed from the index - there are hundreds more....do have a look - there are obviously lots of titles needing your attention. Have a good day! Paul venter 10:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baron Grey of Codnor

What were your sources for the following statement?

The Barony, though simply "Grey", is often termed "Grey of Codnor" or "Grey (of Codnor)" to distinguish it from the other Grey Baronies throughout history and from the extant Earldom of Grey, though it should be noted that the holder is always styled simply The Right Honourable Lord Grey

You have often argued forcibly, notably here [13], that the London Gazette is the only available source that can be relied upon to get territorial designations right. It gives the title as 'Baron Grey of Codnor', as can be seen here [14]. Should the Grey article therefore be amended? Christina Kaye 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • As I believe has been pointed out on other occasions, the LG is reliable when reporting the creation of a peerage (as it has access to the letters patent). On other occasions it can be as mistaken as the rest of them, and as for the creation of this peerage, unfortunately the LG doesn't exist for the year 1397... Proteus (Talk) 00:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • In this instance, the LG was reporting a new writ of summons issued when the barony was called out of abeyance in 1989. The situation is surely therefore analagous to reporting on a new creation by letters patent - as in either case the document signed by the monarch becomes definitive with regard to title, doesn't it? Can you shed any light on this? I don't want to harp on about this, but a clear understanding of the strengths and limitations of the gazettes would be extremely helpful. In answering, I would be grateful if you could share your sources for your statement at the top of this section. Thanks. Christina Kaye 13:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • As to the usage, I'm going mainly by Burke's, which calls Lord Grey "THE 6TH LORD (BARON) GREY (of Codnor, Derbys)" and his style at the beginning of his address "The Rt Hon The Lord Grey DL" [6]. The problem with definitive answers on this particular issue is that the Barony of Grey was created by writ, and so doesn't have an exact form specified by letters patent, but all baronies by writ are essentially "Lord X" rather than "Lord X of Y", because being summoned as "Ricardus de Grey de Codnor" made someone "Lord Grey" rather than "Lord Grey of Codnor" (it meant "Richard de Grey from Codnor" rather than intending to add anything to a title). Occasionally the "of Y" bit has been added through custom and usage (as with Willoughby de Eresby and Willoughby de Broke, which are both technically simply Willoughby (and if one became extinct the holder of the other would be free to drop their distinguisher)), but that simply hasn't happened with Grey. Proteus (Talk) 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks for clearing up the sourcing. I must admit to raising a wry eyebrow at your citing Burke's, given your earlier comments about its unreliability with regard to tds. Nevermind, that's water under the bridge. Back to the matter in hand... if Charles Cornwall-Legh was summoned to Parliament by writ as 'Lord Grey of Codnor' in 1989, wouldn't this provide strong evidence that the accepted form of the title should now be written in this form, particularly if custom and usage can be considered determining factors as per your Willoughby example? Wouldn't it also seem to contradict the statement"the holder is always styled simply The Rt Hon. Lord Grey", at least as far as the Lord Chancellor's Department is concerned? Christina Kaye 22:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Rather bafflingly, Burke's gets TDs wrong when writing out peerages yet manages to miss them off when writing forms of address. Thus they call Lord Dufferin "The Rt Hon The Lord Dufferin and Claneboye" whilst saying he's "THE 11TH BARON DUFFERIN AND CLANEBOYE OF BALLYLEIDY AND KILLYLEAGH , Co Down, and a Baronet" [15]. As for the writ summoning Lord Grey to Parliament, writs like that generally don't set out the title how letters patent set it out, and it's entirely possible the LG (or, indeed, Parliament) got it wrong, but that doesn't change the title. Proteus (Talk) 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
            • In summary.... the barony follows a different rationale from other comparable peerages. We have agreed that writ creations are mutable - the Willoughby examples show that the exact form of titles do change over time through custom and usage. We would expect this peerage to have done the same, given the existence of many other Grey peerages, but for some unexplained reason it hasn't. I think we'll just have to leave it there until someone comes up with a source weightier than Burke. The Committee of Privilege's ruling on the abeyance might be a good starting point. May I suggest that for now we change the wording of the article to something like this:
The Barony, though technically simply Grey as it was created by writ, is often termed "Grey of Codnor" or "Grey (of Codnor)" to distinguish it from the other Grey Baronies throughout history and from the extant Earldom of Grey; though it should be noted that the holder is always by convention styled simply as 'The Right Honourable Lord Grey. Christina Kaye 08:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I'll copy this string to the Grey of Codnor page in the hope that it may elicit some answers. 08:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peerage-work-group tag

Please would you check that my latest answer to kingboyk's latest question User_talk:Kingboyk#Baronets_work_group is constructively comprehensive. I am unsure whether e.g. Lords of Parliament should be included. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Representative peers? LPA and AJA means what? - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please opine

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies#Sorting_order They are wholly inconsistent. - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victor Child Villiers, 7th Earl of Jersey

Dear Sir/Madam:

You changed the surname from Child-Villiers to Child Villiers (as you claim "there is no hyphenation"), however you neglected to do the same with other members of his family and relations (prior Earls), almost all of whom retain the hyphenated surname on Wikipedia in their text. There is a lack of consistency.

Yours, 216.194.4.200 14:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your new page, Earl Panmure

I believe that the page Earl Panmure should redirect to Earl of Panmure. However, I don't want to do this without your permission. So please reply below. In the future, please search Wikipedia before creating a new article. --Chaffers (talk)/(contributions) 22:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help on title issue

Dear Proteus I am new to Wiki and not at all sure if I can reach you this way, but please tell me how is the divorced wife of a younger son of a Duke or Marquis titled? What does "Lady Edward Smith" become upon divorce, is it "Katherine, Lady Edward Smith"? Obv it can't be "Lady Katherine Smith" as it would if his title were Mr. and not Lord.

Many thanks

Louise L

She stays "Lady Edward Smith" (like Lady Colin Campbell). Unfortunately there is no special form of address for them, but it's considered less crucial for these titles to be unique anyway. Sorry about the (possibly enormous) delay in answering, but I hadn't noticed this question up the top, and I don't know how long ago you asked it. Proteus (Talk) 22:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarity

Not sure what you're saying/trying to say here: "This table presents the situation from the Jacobite perspective, and so titles granted after 1689 by the de facto successors to King James II, whose authority was not recognised by Jacobites, are represented in inverted commas." Did you mean to say 'successors to the British throne after James II'? David Lauder 18:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Connery not a KBE?

Sean Connery seems to be a KBE, please check the following links:

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

Tekin 09:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

They are wrong. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. And Wikipedia is not a source. Proteus (Talk) 10:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew_Lloyd_Webber

I note your last edit supra. While I certainly would remove Mr as you did I'm not aware of any precedent or wiki policy for generally adding Esq to all male names. While I can see a argument for adding them to say the eldest sons of baronets we probably ought to have a wider discussion on project peerages etc for something broader. Alci12 13:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd looked quickly at a few random articles and Esq. seemed the exception not the rule which is why I thought perhaps we needed some sort of collective decision for one or the other or indeed I supposed a policy of specific people we would add it to. Alci12 14:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Alci12 that the addition of 'Esq.' in this instance is probably not a good idea. I really cannot see any mileage in promulgating the term, which has no contemporary currency as a 'title' (any more than 'Gentleman' or 'Mister' does) and will just lead to fruitless argument. As it happens, even under the somewhat ill-defined and now redundant rules governing esquireship, Lloyd Webber would not qualify, at least during his early life.... but this is exactly the kind of argument I was hoping to avoid! Christina Kaye 18:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll happily post, if you think best, to project peerage so a consensus can be sought though I'm not sure that is really an ideal place for it to be settled but I can't think of anywhere better Alci12 10:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I see we've lost another one

Looks like Phoe has had enough, not that I don't understand what with the constant battles. Been losing rather too many of recent sadly. Alci12 15:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Reading

I see that you changed the full name given for the 1st Marquess of Reading from "Rufus Daniel Isaacs" to "Rufus Daniel Rufus Isaacs". What is the basis for this? I've never seen such a thing, and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography has "Rufus Daniel Isaacs." I'm going to remove the extra "rufus", but I thought I'd shoot you a note since you usually know what you're talking about. john k

Ah, I suppose. Personally, I think that later changes to surnames which were never really used should not be given particular prominence. Can we do Rufus Daniel Isaacs (later Rufus Isaacs), 1st Marquess of Reading? john k 23:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Question from a passing guest: Why not ask the Rufus Isaac's themselves? As far as I know the name Rufus Isaacs doesn't exist, Rufus was the 1st. Marquess' christian name and 'Rufus Isaacs' became a generic term during his lifetime and his descendants became known as such. Was it ever changed to a surname by law?

A query: why is The Lady Jacqueline very rarely mentioned? Wasn't she a World Champion Show-jumper in the 60's or 70's? You think the family would be bleeting that from the rooftops. She was also a photomodel in the 60's but I can't find any photos of her. Said to be a right cracker. I knew the Swedish Equestrian expert TV commentator, Anders Gernant, and he said she was part of his family, a lovely girl. He said she was disowned by all her family bar The Lady Stella, famed for starting the WVS . Disowned, what for? (According to Gernant for being human and enjoying life to the full. Destitute, she had to sponge off Lord Snowdon for a year before she got on her feet again, using the money from her modelling to start a boutique in Knightsbridge).

You may publish my www address, I've nothing to hide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.123.186 (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) where you will see we should use simple names when possible, and with both Jeffrey Archer and Sebastian Coe we are talking about people who are primarily known as a writer and an athlete and only secondarily as nobility. Also please note there is a clear consensus on the Jeffrey Archer talk page re calling the article Jeffrey Archer. Your refusal to engage in that discussion and your insistence on using anti-vandalism technology in order to label me a vandal while reverting fits in neither with your defiance of the Archer talk page consensus nor with the naming policies commonly used on wikipedia. It may be that because these people are Barons you are thinking that is the most important facet of them whereas in these 2 cases that is demonstrably not so. Please can you stop this pointless edit warring, SqueakBox 01:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me important that they are de facto ennobbled now. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well take it to the talk pages. I would agree in almost all cases but both htese chaps were well known before they became ennobled and we shopuld stick to the common usage, for which there is current consensus on the Archer page, SqueakBox 16:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bad faith nomination?

Please see here where Kitty himself states that he forced the AfD and that it was not a bad faith nomination. Can you please now strike through that statement.--Vintagekits 13:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

that is fair enough and just goes to highlight who in this situation is really acting in bad faith.--Vintagekits 13:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Rt. Hon.", "Rt Hon", and "Rt Hon."

Hello.

I know I've run into you on this before, but it hasn't gone away and I'd like to solve it. I noticed you've been changing articles on Privy Councillors recently to read "Rt Hon." When we had our other talks about this a while back, the consensus seemed to be that either "Rt Hon" or "Rt. Hon." were correct, but that "Rt Hon." was an incorrect neologism based in the otherwise-valid British practice of putting full stops after abbreviations and leaving them out after contractions. Please tell me if and how I'm wrong on my talk page. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 07:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See this and this, both on my talk page. Thanks, -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 23:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yoghurt

I want to start out by saying I'm really sorry that this happened - I did my best to stop it, but sadly I have been overruled by 4 people who are obsessed with name changing (regardless of whether or not I agree with them), and there is a new debate on the Yoghurt talk page about the move - I just felt it would be best if most people who had voted in the past knew about this.danielfolsom 23:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Viscount Dillon

I note you have done much editing regarding nobility, peerage etc; so I am respectful of your views.

I was wondering why you have deleted my ditty for the pages of each viscount: Viscount Dillon, of Costello-Gallin in the County of Mayo, is a title in the Peerage of Ireland. It was created in 1622 for Theobald Dillon, Lord President of Connaught.

The question I ask myself when I read about any 'aristocrat' is 'Why are you a noble when I am not?. The answer lies with the first in the line. To remove this answer to is detract from the article in my humble/arrogant opinion.

The ditty has previously been removed on the grounds that if someone is that interested thay can find the information anyway. My answer is twofold (1) Don't assume every reader is as computer savy as you - you have destroyed a nugget knowledge that they might not be able to retrieve themselves (2) For a computer savy person: Why are you making him do this donkey work?

Obviously, if your reasons are different , please excuse this verbosity. Aatomic1 16:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you please clear this up.

There is a discussion here that I would like you to have a look at. Its my understanding that this guy isnt actually a Baronet. He may or may not have the right to become one if it is proven but at the moment should not to titled as such - can I get your take on the situation please.--Vintagekits 13:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

Kind and respectful salutations, dear Madam. The article on Her Majesty the Queen Mother appears likely to be "featured" in the near future. In the past you have somewhat urgently (indeed, I hope you will forgive me, lovely lady, extremely rudely!) objected to Her Majesty the Queen Mother being referred to at birth as "The Honourable." And indeed to any member of the nobility being referred to for convenience or otherwise at every single remove other than by his or her full title of nobility. You may wish to weigh in on the discussion. One hopes that you can contain your oft-noted inclination (one is reluctant to say!) to incivility: one realises that matters of proper address for the British nobility are extremely dear to your (with all due respect) elderly female heart. It is such a pity that Swiss finishing schools, of the kind you doubtless attended and where you doubtless picked up your expertise on these important matters, are increasingly no more. We certainly need more ladies — whether elderly or otherwise — like yourself, dear lovely Madam. Masalai 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rogue Admin

Please see my User talk:68.110.8.21 and User_talk:Akhilleus#WP:POINT.2C_WP:HOAX.2C_WP:PN.2C_WP:BIAS. Wikipedia seriously needs your help Proteus. Thanks. 68.110.8.21 03:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Campbell of St Andrews

Isn't the territorial designation necessary? My understanding was that "Lord Campbell" was a title held by the Dukes of Argyll. john k 06:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but I've always seen him listed as "Baron Campbell of St Andrews." The ODNB listing, for instance, is "Campbell, John, first Baron Campbell of St Andrews (1779–1861), lord chancellor." What's your source? One of the peerage guides, I imagine? john k 13:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess (although, I will note, that "Baron Stratheden and Campbell" doesn't, I think, provide much evidence one way or the other - "Baron Stratheden and Campbell of St Andrews" is incredibly awkward, and presumably wouldn't be used even if it were technically correct.) john k 14:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petty-Fitzmaurice

As far as I can tell, you are the one who moved all references to the surname of the marquesses of Lansdowne from "Fitzmaurice" to "FitzMaurice," a couple of years ago. As far as I can tell, this is simply wrong - every major reference work I can find spells the name "Fitzmaurice." I am remedying this. john k 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Hon. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

Dear lady, I am very well aware of how outrageous you find it and how exercised and irate you become when Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother is referred to as "The Hon. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" as to the four years between her birth and her father's accession to the Earldom of Strathmore and Kinghorne. I am surprised and disappointed that you did not enter the discussion when the article on the Queen Mother had featured status. Or have you perhaps conceded that point? It seems most unlikely in view of the vitriol with which you have expressed your opinion on this subject in the past, often quite taking leave of the ordinary canons of genteel and ladylike behaviour, so urgently do you feel these things. Kind and respectful regards, dear madam. Masalai 13:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-P

I am obviously confused on baronet vs. baron. Since you appear to be the subject matter expert here, could you elucidate a bit on this? Preferably on the B-P talk page, where we can all understand. Thanks, --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earl Vane

Hello Proteus. I have a question which I thought you might be able to answer. Charles Stewart, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry was created Viscount Seaham and Earl Vane in 1823, with remainder to the male issue of his second marriage, and was succeeded in these titles by his eldest son from this marriage, George (later 5th Marquess). According to Wikipedia's own article on the latter and also according to Leigh Rayment, George was styled Viscount Seaham from 1823 until his succession in 1854. Is this correct? This despite the fact that he was a younger son and that his elder half-brother was styled Viscount Castlereagh at the same time (of course, he was heir apparent to the earldom through the special remainder, but this was not a substantive title). If this is correct it must have constituted a special case in the history of the Peerage (I can't think of a similar case). Your thoughts would be appreciated. Regards, Tryde 18:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add something about this to the Marquess of Londonderry article. Tryde 06:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MOSBIO: People known by a middle name

I have just re-opened discussion on this issue, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Revisiting_people_normally_known_by_their_middle_name. I am notifying you since you participated in an apparently inconclusive discussion on the same topic in January 2007.

Your thoughts would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Lord Guildford" vs simply Guildford

I have read the Wikipedia Naming Conventions "rules," including the subsection on Other Non-Royal Names, paragraph 6 on Courtesy Titles. I stand partially corrected. However, I feel compelled to reiterate that though Guildford Dudley may have been "universally recognized with" the title "Lord" during his lifetime, he is also today fully recognized and recognizable without it. As I noted on the article's Talk page, few modern writers of biographies and history texts refer to him as "Lord." The majority refer to him simply by his name. So the naming conventions are in this case disputable. If one adheres strictly to the wording of the Wikipedia Naming Conventions rules, the fact that he is NOT "unrecognizable without" the title "Lord" mitigates against including that honorific in the article title. But it makes no real difference to me in the end. Regardless of what Wikipedians do, I will continue to refer to him in my own work as simply "Guildford Dudley." But I'm one of those horrible Americans ... culturally averse to and Constitutionally barred from titles of nobility. PhD Historian 13:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For my opinion on the "correct" spelling of Guildford's name, please see the Talk page for the Lady Jane Grey article, discussion item number 21: Guilford or Guildford? My apologies for not embedding a direct link, but my expertise is in Tudor history, not computers. PhD Historian 23:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lords

Okay, I can accept that I am wrong about some of the entries on the disambiguation page I created, but there certainly are other people who are commonly referred to as Lord Henry Percy, one being Hotspur and the other being Henry Percy, 6th Earl of Northumberland. If you google on Lord Henry Percy, these are the first two you come up with. Why could you not simply have put your Lord Henry Percy at Lord Henry Hugh Manvers Percy to make it clearer? Or even moved the disambiguation page to Lord Henry Percy (disambiguation)? Deb 19:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to compromise. I do appreciate it. Deb 17:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher

Please desist from reverting the edit made by User:Roger Davies at 12:39, 15 September 2007. What Roger has done is to put in a useful footnote and a few minor corrections. If you know of a good reason for the article to not have these, please explain your point on the talk page, instead of reverting.--Toddy1 20:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear Madam, are you up to your old tricks again? Tsk. It is precisely lovely that a dear lady of certain years participates as enthusiastically as you do in what most people would consider a young person's project, but you must try harder to empathise with the more usual run of participants in Wikipedia.Masalai 00:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Trimble

Your help at David Trimble, Baron Trimble would be appreciated. An anonymous user is insisting that the territorial description is part and parcel of the title in the info box. Timrollpickering 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ladies' Precedence re: Duchess of Cornwall

Hi Proteus, I've been absent from Wikipedia editing for a while. Do you still support the notion that the Order of Precedence was only changed for private functions, and that officially The Duchess of Cornwall remains above The Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra. I just noticed that someone has again put them above The Duchess of Cornwall, I am just going to edit it now, but if you could keep on eye on it. Eddo 17:08, 08 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Madam

Could you please take a look at my talk page? I have another Wikipedia user threatening to write a letter to my ISP because he believes I have committed sockpuppetry. If you don't have time to handle this, could you please forward my request to another admin who could help investigate this? Thanks very much. Rockdiedout 09:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. I have repeatedly told Martial75 to stop patrolling my page and harrassing me, all the while carrying himself as if he himself is an administrator. Rockdiedout 09:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Proteus here are some reasons for this report: User:Martial75/rockdiedout. Bye. Martial BACQUET 09:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I admit that some of what I have done has been inappropriate, and I was blocked accordingly. However, this tracking of everything I post--as if Martial75 is an admin trying to solve something--is what I have asked him to stop doing multiple times by now. I truly believe that what Martial75 is doing is a form of harassment. For me, I have not posted a single thing to Martial75's page since I was blocked the first time a week ago. Even if this situation probably wouldn't be worth legal proceedings, I don't think it's worth sending a letter to my ISP either. That, to me, is a continuation of harassment, especially if my ISP contacts me over it and I have to explain myself to them. I should also add that I am new to Wikipedia editing--although I have been an avid reader for several years now--and I have learned my lesson from being blocked three times now (the most recent for 48 hours). I admit, having not read the rules--and getting involved in edit wars--was a mistake. However, I also believe that Martial75 is taking this too far. I want him to stop tracking everything I do on here, because that should be left to an administrator. If you could, please ask Martial75 to reconsider his brash and unwarranted action. Rockdiedout 10:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Surely you must be embarrassed at addressing this dear old English lady as "Dear Sir"! She is an extremely prickly and irascible (though at times amusingly so) old thing! And we should be forbearant as to the sensibilities of the elderly! But tricky though this amusing old lady assuredly is, she is a lovely old darling, despite her acute (and frequently aggressive) sensitivity as to the minute niceties as to the British peerage! One must assume that she is the younger daughter of an extinct Irish peerage. Do please try to be kind to her: despite the aggressiveness she evinces when she often loses it — when she is crossed she can be extremely rude and abusive — she really is at heart a lovely old thing when she is fully in command of herself, and she really is astonishingly knowledgeable as to the minute particularities of her family's ancient involvement in the peerage. Masalai (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
From what I can tell, Martial75 and I have come to terms with our argument. I do not wish anything against Martial75 anymore. I just wish for this argument to end, and it seems that it has (so long as I obey Wikipedia rules in the future). So, please disregard my earlier request. Rockdiedout 11:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Lowry, Baron Lowry

I do suspect you are right but just curious why you removed the Knight batchelor thingy; is it verifiability? (I know judges get a 'sir' automatically; but I must have read he has one proper or I would not have put it in. Aatomic1 (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Cheers as ever I've learnt something new! Aatomic1 (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bollocks

This edit [20] seems to me total hooey. Do you agree? If so, you might like to respond there. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Pleased to see you editing again. You've been missed. Choess (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wessex Children

Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, † DBD 16:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franz Josef Strauß

Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

Hi. As you just recently changed the Margaret Thatcher page, I was wondering if you could please comment on a discussion I have started here? Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Chief the Right Honourable Sir Michael Somare

Dear Madam, you appear not to be aware of the Papua New Guinea honours system. Please, dear, kind and doubtless wonderful lady -- we are certain you are indeed a kind and wonderful and lovely lady -- do not impose your erroneous views on others. The British honours system is not universal. All compliments of course to your consummate loveliness, dear, kind and charming woman. Masalai (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)

[21] - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proper date

Hi, Proteus, hope you're well. I am currently rewriting an article about Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll (User:PeterSymonds/Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll) and I'm currently researching the dates for her appointments to various orders. Her appointment to the Order of St John occurred on 10 June, 1927, but it came into effect two days later. Which would be the correct (appointment / effective) date to use in the list of honours? Thanks very much in advance. PeterSymonds | talk 18:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much :) I agree with you. I've thus decided to go with the 12th. Best wishes, PeterSymonds | talk 15:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heya!

Hey,

Just spotted your fixes to the articles on the new and most-recently-former Chief Whip in the Lords that I altered last night (tsk, I should have spotted them myself) - presumably when it first came up in the '70s, "Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms" when the office-holder is female wasn't changed despite the implied sex of the holder?

Noticed that I'd not actually seen you around for a very long time, and felt guilty for not spotting you before (it probably means I don't work on articles enough). Anyway, "hi". Really good to see you back. :-)

James F. (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sandwich courtesy title

Should it be spelled Viscount Hinchingbrooke? Hinchinbroke? I've wondered about this for a while. Choess (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you for a prompt and polite reply to a rather brusque query. Choess (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Edward Louis Spears

I'm adding to the Wiki page about the above and would like to establish the heading of the entry. He was definitely a KBE (knighted in 1942 before taking up the post of "Minister to Syria and the Lebanon"). He was addressed as "Sir" after this. However, the existing title page describes him as "1st Baronet". So is it the case that a KBE is always a 1st Baronet? If anyone has the necessary reference works, I would be grateful for clarification. The present page gives "Louis Spears", but I am aiming to change this to give all 3 names. However, I want to make quite sure about the "1st Baronet" before going further. Mikeo1938 (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marquess vs Marquis

Hello Proteus- I saw your posts at Talk:Marquess#Marquis_vs._Marquess and wanted to alert you that I put a comment there. -Eric talk 12:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Jock' Campbell

Why do you think it should be "Jock Campbell, Baron etc" rather than "John Middleton Campbell, Baron etc, nicknamed and widely known as Jock Campbell"? Certainly everybody knew him as Jock, but should we use his formal name? What is the norm? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A few questions about monarchy/peerages

Hi could you possibly answer the following for me?

1. With the creation of Royal Family members as peers, was there any particular protocol for choosing the territorial designations? I have noticed that on the whole many non-royal & royal dukedoms were created using substantially big and important territorial designations, such as Devonshire, Connaught, Edinburgh, York, Norfolk, Somerset etc. Why then were such large designations relegated to earldoms eg Prince Alfred, Queen Victoria's son, being created Earl of Kent, or the Earldom of Dublin on the Prince of Wales, Earl of Sussex on the Duke of Connaught? Surely Duke of Dublin would have been more appropriate as the capital of Ireland? Is there any correlation between the size/importance of a territory and its designation of a dukedom, marquessate, earldom etc? I have noted some dukedoms eg Clarence come from tiny parts of territory, yet they are made dukedoms nonetheless.

2. Similarly to above, can a dukedom be named after a family name or does it have to be a place? Examples being the dukedoms of Windsor, Gordon, Hamilton, Brandon, Schomberg.

3. Why did some dukedoms contain two territorial designations, eg Duke of Kent and Strathearn? Is it a "double dukedom"? Did it indicate higher status for the holder?

4. Why did Queen Victoria not create her second son Duke of York? And why instead was it relegated to the younger (indeed not the elder) son of the Prince of Wales?

5. Why are royal Dukes given courtesy titles when their sons do not use them and are known as Prince?

6. Does Prince Charles ever use his titles of Earl of Chester and Carrick? Are there any arms, shields or insignia for these titles as there are for his dukedoms and his principality?

7. Is it likely Prince William will be created a Duke upon marriage? Or could he be an earl or a marquess? If so, what title might be used?

8. Could the Queen create a new dukedom of Connaught or a peerage using the territorial designation of the now Republic of Ireland? Do peers who hold titles derived from there pre-independence still use these Irish titles in the UK?

9. What happens if a Head of State makes a state visit to Canada or Australia for example, where Elizabeth II is the head of state but not resident? Does the Governor General meet the head of state in her place? Or does the Queen fly over to be hostess?

10. Is Prince Charles a prince three times over? (Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Prince of Scotland)?

11. Why has Cardiff not been used in a peerage as the largest city in Wales?

12. How come the Queen is Queen of some territories that would normally denote as principalities? Equally, how come Wales as a principality nears in size to some European kingdoms?

13. Why was the title "Crown Prince" never used in England as in European monarchies?

14. Finally, surely if the Queen were to create new peerages, she would be running out of territories?! Many, many designations have been used, how is it they decide on new ones?

Many many many thanks!--Kenwood2008 (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much, a super help!!--Kenwood2008 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Tudor page names

Could you please put on the discussion pages of those you changed why they needed to be altered? It means people are less likely to feel they need to change them back if they know your reasons. Also for the change of Mary Howard to Mary Fitzroy, could you please check if a redirect is in place? When I typed in 'Mary Howard' in the search, nothing came up. She is (rightly or wrongly) usually referred to by historians by her maiden name, and so people will search under that as well. Thanks,Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)

Your expertise would be most appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Exception_redux_arbitrary_break. We're having to rehash the old Sir/Dame issue again. Best, Mackensen (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy)

remove "sort by surname" column, and enable name column to be sorted by name
Very nice! Very nice indeed. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(P.S. Is there an easy, automatic, or semi-automatic way to do it? Or do you just have to do lots and lots of editing? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Earl of Shrewsbury

Well done, that puts paid to that bit of nonsense. Mind you we can probably expect the argument to continue (probably with greater cause) over the name of the townOrdyg (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)