Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Re:Merging - John Campbell, Baron Campbell of Eskan with Jock Campbell

Could a member of this WikiProject please merge John Campbell, Baron Campbell of Eskan with Jock Campbell. As far as I know they are the same person. I don't know how to merge an article and I'm not a member of this WikiProject. Kathleen.wright5 02:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a go at it, though I'm also not a member. Perhaps someone could check it tomorrow. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned now that there is a major error in the Jock Campbell article, that it has confused two different people, Campbell of Colgrain and Campbell of Eskan. See Talk:Jock Campbell. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done some research and now feel that I can take care of this. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Move request: Jock Campbell to Lord Campbell of Eskan

Related to above, I merged the previous Lord Campbell of Eskan article into the current Jock Campbell article since it was by far the larger of the two. The next stage is to reinstate the proper title. Since I don't want to do a nasty cut and paste job, I've created a formal move request. It is my understanding that articles about peers should use their formal title. Please add your comments to talk:Jock Campbell#Requested move. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments on whether the correct title should be "Lord Campbell of Eskan" or "Baron Campbell of Eskan" are particularly welcome since he was a (Scottish) life peer. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Oxenhillshaw

This user has created a number of articles on subsidiary peerages that were previously redirects to the substantive peerage (for instance, Earl of Lewes, Viscount Gordon, Baron Alanbrooke, Baron Rideau). These articles fill no purpose as the material is already covered in the articles on the substantive titles. He/she has also created separate articles for life peerages that were previously redirects to the article on the holder of the life peerage. I am sure the edits have been in good faith but as they fill no purpose I have reverted most of the edits. Tryde (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Categorization: specific peerage titles

I noticed that Category:Dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom contains two subcategories, Category:Dukes of Connaught and Strathearn and Category:Dukes of Sussex, along with a lot of dukes not thus subcategorized. If there's no direct reason not to, it would be an idea to either get rid of the subcategories, or try to move all the UK dukes into subcategories. Which would be preferred? (I'm assuming there's a similar situation with all the "X in the Peerage of Y" categories.) -- Jao (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Dukes in the Peerage of ..." categories were removed by one user just over a year ago (without any prior discussion) and replaced by the "Dukes of X" categories. I have just re-added the "Dukes in the Peerage of..." categories to hundreds of articles on dukes. In my mind the "Dukes of X" categories are unnecessary. The holders of a certain peerage are already listed in the article on that peerage. If a reader is interested in other holders of a peerage, than he/she should use the relevant peerage article, where the history of the peerage and its holders are described in detail. Of course this is also the norm for other categories: Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, Category:Earls in the Peerage of Scotland, Category:Viscounts in the Peerage of Great Britain, and so on. None of these have sub-categories. The "Dukes in the Peerage of..." categories also gives the reader a much better overview. Tryde (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am in full agreement with this. -- Jao (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Extended titles

When a title is of the form "X-upon-Y" (or similar), we always use the full form. Thus we have Evelyn Pierrepont, 1st Duke of Kingston-upon-Hull, John Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Henry Pelham-Clinton, 2nd Duke of Newcastle-under-Lyne, etc. Generally, however, these full forms aren't used — these families were and are usually known as the Dukes of Kingston and the Dukes of Newcastle. Should we shorten these as we do with other forms of extended title (e.g. we use "Earl of Cork" rather than "Earl of the County of Cork", and "Earl of Jersey" rather than "Earl of the Island of Jersey", only using the full form on the article on the peerage itself and then clarifying that the shortened form is what is always used)? I'm not particulary convinced either way, but it is an issue I've noticed, and I'd be interested to see everyone else's views. Proteus (Talk) 15:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there not an issue of disambiguation involved? Cork and Jersey are names more or less unique; on the other hand, Kingston could be Kingston upon Thames, and Newcastle... Well, that is a special case; both titles are held by a single person. But here applies the principle of consistency, no? Whatever we do for the rest of the titles, that same thing we should do with this one. Waltham, The Duke of 19:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

But there have never been any Dukes of Kingston-upon-Thames, and certainly none called Evelyn Pierrepont, and even if there had been such concerns don't seem to bother common usage, which seems quite happy to call the Dukes of Kingston-upon-Hull "Dukes of Kingston" even though there are in fact plain Earls of Kingston. And that's my issue, I think — why are we using the full forms when no one else feels the need to? Proteus (Talk) 22:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about disambiguation between the place names, not the titles... I shall admit that it is not a very strong argument... But it's there.

Still, can we really compare County of Cork and Island of Jersey with Kingston-upon-Hull and Newcastle-under-Lyne? The two latter places are only commonly referred to as Hull and Newcastle respectively, but the full names are the proper ones save the official designations (City/Town/Borough/District/County). If we really want all the names considered on equal terms, these two should probably be City of Kingston-upon-Hull and Town of Newcastle-under-Lyme (note the different spelling as well). Therefore, there actually is consistency in practice; only the designations are removed. Waltham, The Duke of 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't disambiguate place names in titles, though, because it's not really important what place is being referred to. (We don't distinguish, for instance, between those Earls of Derby whose Derby was the County of Derby and those (the current Earls) whose Derby was or is the Hundred of West Derby in Lancashire, or between the Marquesses and Earls of Dorchester (co. Dorset) and the Barons Dorchester (co. Oxford).) But if you consider the places they're referring to, I think it becomes even more important to use only the title actually in common usage - if the full titles are used, then someone who knows of Kingston-upon-Hull, for instance, might assume that the Dukes of Kingston-upon-Hull were known as the Dukes of Hull, just as the city is known as Hull. If we called them the Dukes of Kingston, this problem would clearly not arise. Proteus (Talk) 11:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've wanted to bring this up before (but obviously didn't), especially with the Dukes of Newcastle, who, especially in the London Gazette, are noted as simply of Duke of Newcastle, without -upon-Tyne or -under-Lyme. Generally, I would support this move, as long is it doesn't result in confusion for other users or readers. Craigy (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could change Mansfield and Mansfield to just Mansfield too? Craigy (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Cecilia Grey, 2nd Baroness Bonville

I recently did some work on this article but probably made a mistake when I moved it from Cecily Bonville to Cecilia Grey, 2nd Baroness Bonville. Unfortunately, my knowledge of peerage article conventions is slim so I'd really appreciate it if someone with more experience could look it over. User:Jeanne boleyn started it with an excellent base of information to work from; all I did was clean up the formating and redlinks as best I could. I'm out of my depth with it now. ;) Cheers, Pigman☿ 19:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It should probably be at Cecily Grey, Marchioness of Dorset (as we don't follow the genealogist's habit of putting all women at their maiden names). Proteus (Talk) 11:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Sir" and "Dame" - attempts to remove from openings

A handful of editors at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#POV_exception_reduxare currently attempting to have Sir and Dame removed from the start of articles. Next they'll no doubt be on to peerage titles. Perhaps some of you might like to pay a visit and weigh in with some good arguments. JRawle (Talk) 19:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes in particular if any expert in peerage has one or more reputable sources to back up the continual assertions that 'Sir'/'Dame' prenominals are fundamentally part of the holder's name, that their use in all situations is mandatory not optional, and the name is strictly incorrect without their presence, such a source would be welcomed. As would anything concrete that says the contrary. Also there's quite a bit of debate there (also see the section above & below) - try to read it to get up to speed to where we are before contributing - additional expositions that peerage is a well established system etc. are not helpful. cheers. Ripe (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Tried reading Debrett's? Mackensen (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I don't have access to a copy. If you think that what I requested above is in there, can you paste that part in verbatim. thanks. Ripe (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Precedence categories up for deletion

A while ago I created "precedence categories" for peers' children. Although I didn't get a response when I made people aware that Category:Daughters of marquesses was up for deletion (since been restored), Category:Wives of younger sons of dukes is now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 7 and I wondered if anyone would like to see it (and the others) stay or go? Craigy (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There is now another related cfd - 2008 June 25#Order of precedence categories. Views welcome. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Post-nominal Bt. not for peers??

Note 2 in the section "Pages on peers" says the following "the post-nominal abbreviation "Bt" for "Baronet" should not be used with peers". Can somebody please expain to me why this is, and show me some official sources on which this is based? I can not find any source on the internet at all which says the same. Demophon (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think the reason is that the suffix Bt is used to distinguish Sir John Smith Kt from Sir John Smith Bt. However peers have a higher dignity and the prefix "Sir" is not commonly used for them - that is it is only used when his full names and titles are given, in which case an Earl would have his subsidiary viscounty and barony as well as Baronet (in full). The present Viscount Cobham is also Baron Lyttelton, Baron Westcote, and a baronet, but no one bothers saying so. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger

This is just an idea, but seeing as activity in our group is rather slack these days, and more so in Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies, how would others feel about merging the two, perhaps becoming Wikiproject:Peerage and Baronetage? I realise that lack of activity isn't going to get more work done, but would it not be better to have just one semi-dormant project as opposed to two, especially since both are so alike? Comments welcome. Craigy (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I may be kind of an outsider, but I have been watching this page for a long time and have seen for myself how little traffic it receives. From an administrative standpoint, merging the two projects is an excellent idea; not only are they closely related, but they share many of the same contributors (at least from what I know—there is no relevant list in this project). Unless the situation changes dramatically, merger is the way to go.

PS: The copy-editor in me says "the correct title would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage". :-) Waltham, The Duke of 08:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(The) Lord/Lady X Y

Hi all! We're having a discussion at Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Philippos Andreou about whether his lead should start The Prince Philip... or Prince Philip..., and it's occurred to me that it's a very similar case to the sons of Dukes and Marquesses and daughters of Dukes, Marquesses and Earls — what do you lot have to say about whether, for instance Lord Nicholas Windsor should start The Lord Nicholas Windsor or Lord Nicholas Windsor? Cheers DBD 12:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Proper nouns?

(a) Baronetage (b) Baronetcy (c) Baronet. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say only (a) is a proper noun, as it will be referring to a particular Baronetage (UK, GB, etc.) (b) shouldn't noramlly be capitalised unless referring to a particular baronetcy. So, "He was awarded a baronetcy", or "the Baronetcy of London". I'm not sure the latter is normally used anywhere. And (c) should be a lower case following the conventions of peerage: "The duke went to..." unless it's a royal duke, in which case it's capitalised. JRawle (Talk) 13:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In which case, List of baronetcies in the baronetage of Ireland etc needs speedy renaming. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say they should all be capitalised. Certainly in careful English usage "the Duke" (when referring to a specific Duke) is written thus (it is after all merely a contraction of "the Duke of Somewhere"), and I think the same would apply to Baronets. As to more general terms, this page from the website of the Ministry of Justice, for instance, uses "Dukes", "Marquesses", "Earls", etc., in mid-sentence, and this page does the same with "Baronets" and "Knights". That, for me, represents correct usage. Proteus (Talk) 14:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Both the Times [1] (see Duke of Edinburgh) and Telegaph [2] (Capping up) seem to imply only to use capitals for royals. Ultimately, it's always a matter of house style and personal prefernce, but I would be more inclined to trust those two style guides rather than the MoJ. JRawle (Talk) 14:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to distrust any style guide with such arbitrary rules. Why on Earth would a Royal Duke be "the Duke" but a non-Royal Duke be "the duke"? They both hold exactly the same title... (Plus they don't even abide by that dictum: this obituary of the 9th Duke of Buccleuch and this obituary of the 11th Duke of Devonshire, for instance (and even this article on the Italian Duke of Castel Duino), refer to their subjects as "the Duke" throughout.) Proteus (Talk) 15:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I nearly did say, "...trust those two newspapers," but then thought again and changed it to "style guides". I certainly wouldn't trust the content of the newspapers themselves as they don't adhere to their own style guides, and are often full of mistakes! At least we agree that "baronetage of Ireland" should be changed. JRawle (Talk) 15:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. "Peerage/Baronetage of X" is definitely a proper noun. Thinking about it, I'd capitalise "Duke" or "Baronet" because they're technical terms with specific meanings, rather than simply descriptive nouns. In the same way that (in British English at least) a "Captain" is a military or naval officer holding that rank whilst a "captain" is a leader of a group of men and a "Privy Counsellor" is a member of the Privy Council whilst a "counsellor" is someone who gives advice, a "Lord" is a Lord of Parliament, a "Peer" is a Peer of the Realm and a "Duke" is a Duke in the Peerage of England (or what not). They may not be obvious technical terms (mainly because they've only got one word - we have no problem saying "the Chief Constable" or "the Secretary of State", which amount to the same thing), but they still are. Proteus (Talk) 15:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

But the editor who renamed them disagrees. User_talk:Fram#Incorrect_renaming Kittybrewster ☎ 18:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

We are getting sidetracked here with a general discussion of capital letters, but I'm sure we all agree that "Baronetage of Ireland" needs a capital "B" as it's referring to something particular. I've added an analogy to names of rivers to the user talk page. JRawle (Talk) 20:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Similar problem at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_20#Category:Peerage_work_group_articles. - Kittybrewster ☎ 20:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Williams Baronets 1955

Can anybody please add the territorial designation of Sir George Clark Williams, 1st Bt, Queen's Counsel and Justice of the Peace ? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Llanelly, in the County of Carmarthen - although I imagine it should be Llanelli. Craigy (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It will be Llanelli according to modern orthography. I suggest you use [[Llaneli|Llanelly]], as the patnt probably uses the old anglicised spelling. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Marquess / Marquis: Natty4bumpo

I noticed Natty4bumpo (talk · contribs) had gone through and moved a Marquess of Lothian and all of the articles of Marquesses of Lothian who are articles to page titles using the Marquis spelling. I checked his contributions, and he has moved pages of many other Marquesses. He has also unlinked individual marquesses who do not yet have articles.

This is against our guidelines, so what do people think about this? I'm unhappy about such a change being made without any discussion, and feel he should have taken the matter to Requested moves. JRawle (Talk) 10:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. I'm just appalled. Quite apart from the substantive point (the modern convention (e.g. in Burke's, Debrett's, Cracroft's) is to use "Marquess" universally, and lots of the moves were of British, not Scottish, titles in any event), so many moves in clear contravention of an obviously established policy is just ridiculous. I've reverted all of them (well, I think I got all of them, but I have a funny feeling we're going to be coming across "Marquis" in odd places for the next six months), and would oppose any suggestion that we change our policy. Proteus (Talk) 12:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you got all of them except for some pages to do with the Duke of Montrose and Marquess of Douglas. As they were already redirects, Natty4bumpo's moves had created double redirects which he'd made noattempt to fix. I've changed them now.

Actually, the way Marquess of Douglas redirects to Earl of Angus somehow doesn't seem quite right. Shouldn't the page title be the higher title? Could you take a look at that if you have a moment? JRawle (Talk) 12:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It does seem a bit odd. I mean, it could work, I suppose, since (I think) no one's ever been Marquess of Douglas without being Earl of Angus, but I agree that it's odd to have the higher title on the article for a lower title when both are extant. I think perhaps separate Earl of Angus and Marquess of Douglas articles (the latter also incorporating information on the Dukedom of Douglas) would be more straightforward. Proteus (Talk) 14:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In Scotland the title is spelled Marquis, not Marquess, and always has been. Burke's, Debrett'es, etc., are all British publications and so naturally follow English usage as England is the dominant country in the United Kingdom and titles of that rank in Ireland and Wales already follow it. In no book written in Scotland I have ever seen in over thirty years has Marquis been written Marquess. Since the titles whose pages I moved are all Scottish, even if (some at least) they have been incorporated into the British peerage, they should follow Scottish usage, not English. I suppose we could always take up the matter with the Lord Lyon King of Arms.

Speaking of standard Wikipedia usage, in debates entries by individuals should be indented (or not) the same number of spaces every time an individual "speaks" rather than an ever increasing number of spaces.

As one of the oldest titles in Scotland, Earl of Angus is held the more premier title vis a vis Marquis of Douglas, which I might add was/is without a doubt Marquis not Marquess. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The title is determined by the original Letters Patent, these will usually be found in the London Gazette (or potentially for pre-1707 Scottish titles in the Edinburgh Gazette). For example Marquess of Linlithgow was created as such in 1902, see "No. 27487". The London Gazette. 24 October 1902. (although even in later issues of the gazette, individual Marquesses are sometimes referred to as Marquis eg "No. 27604". The London Gazette. 9 October 1903.). If the title was created in the Peerage of Great Britain (or the Peerage of the Untied Kingdom), it was probably created as Marquess, even if it was named for a Scottish location. I'm afraid I've also never come across the talkpage convention you refer to either, I've always just see the indents increasing, until someone gets bored, and decides to start again. David Underdown (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Lord Lyon, since he is the authority on determing matters regarding the Scottish peerage, I am going to write him and ask for his determination in the matter. I will, of course, abide by whatever his opinion is and I expect everyone else here to do likewise. I already know beyond the shadow of a doubt that all such titles held by the Hamiltons and Douglases are Marquis not Marquess and I am nearly as sure about those held by Campbells and Gordons.

My apologies on the Marquess of Linlithgow should that prove to be the case, but I am sure the Lord Lyon will have that information also. The overwhelming majority of the pages I'd moved were created before the Union of Crowns, however.

The indention thing I learned about from the writer of a page on the American Civil War more experienced in Wikipedia than I. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the earliest Gazettes aren't online at the moment, so it's hard to check those definitively (though the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography certainly uses Marquess of Tweeddale, not Marquis). Aftre the accession of James I (and VI) the moarchs were almost entirely based in England rather thatn in Scotland (and I think that is the Union of the Crowns), even before the formal Act of Union in 1707 which created Great Britain as a legal entity, rather than merely a personal union, so it's easy to imagine that English naming would rapidly take over. On the other issue - go and look at somewhere like WP:AN where virtually all contributors are admins, and there's no sign of the convention you cite. David Underdown (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll go with whatever the Court of the Lord Lyon says, although writing each of the Lords individually is another option. It may indeed by the case that different Lords of that rank use different spellings. As for the indention, I suppose I could have been misinformed, but the practice does make debates easier to follow. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we won't necessarily follow the Lord Lyon. Wikipedia is free to settle its own usage, and is in no way whatsoever obliged to obey any outside dicta. (We disagree with Buckingham Palace on numerous matters, for instance.) This is especially true in a matter such as this, which is more an issue of linguistic usage than technical correctness. And although the original form of the creation may be helpful, it is by no means authoritative: the Peerage is full of current usages that differ from their original forms. For instance, if we were to follow the London Gazette reports of the original creations slavishly we'd have to call the Earl De La Warr the "Earl Delawarr", the Earl of Mount Edgcumbe the "Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe", the Marquess of Lansdowne the "Marquess of Lansdown", and the Viscount Galway the "Viscount of Gallway". Particularly relevantly, this is even true of the forms of ranks: until relatively recent, "Duchess" was almost always written as "Dutchess" in the Gazette, even in peerage creations. That spelling has fallen out of usage, and so we never use it. Likewise, in most reference works, with "Marquis". (For the record, I've also never heard of the indentation convention you mention, and I'm an admin.) Proteus (Talk) 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The Court of Lord Lyon is not simply a giver of opinion; its determination in matters of Scottish peerage is law. Ignoring it would demonstrate that Wikipedia is as capricioous and inaccurate as many claim it to be. However, as long as I'm at it I may as well write the Lords I mentioned above and inquire about their own usage. For certain historical instances, "Marquess" would be an anarchronism. Regarding the indentation, I've already stipulated that I may have been misinformed, but continuity of indentation among debaters does make the discussion easier to follow. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Peerage law is decided by the H of Lords - where necessary. Lyon has legal powers only in matters heraldic and then mostly subject (depending if it is a ministerial or judicial action) to review by the Court of Session and the House of Lords. I note the Peerage_law article of wiki makes the same mistake in the opening section even if it corrects itself later. While it would be perfectly normal for Lyon to be involved in preparing a peerage claim that is not the same thing as deciding the matter. AllsoulsDay (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that misinformation. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Having just checked the website of the Clan Hamilton Society (which works very closely with the Duke and his household) and seen they now use Marquess rather than Marquis, which almost certainly means the current Duke does also, I'm dropping the argument, though I am still going to write the Lord Lyon for my own information, which I won't bother to share since you've declared Wikipedia free to ignore it. I'm grateful that the changes I made, which I did in what I thought was the interests of accuracy, have already been reverted.

Earl of Angus, by the way, is one of the titles of the Duke of Hamilton, who is heir male of the House of Douglas as well as head of the House of Hamilton, both of which are commonly referred to as "Clan". The title dates from just after the time when the north of Scotland was united as the Kingdom of Alba, and possibly before, when the title was Mormaer rather than Earl. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

However, the Marquis of Bute still uses the "old" style (see: http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1326397.0.0.php and http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/southeast/halloffame/historical_figures/bute.shtml), so perhaps the article on that line of Lords should be spelled that way. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the media can be relied upon at all. They will just spell the title however they think it is spelt. Someone probably phoned up with the story, and they wrote it down. If you look at the obituaries of Michael Ancram's father, the Independent spells his title Marquess [3] while the Telegraph prefers Marquis [4]. Yet the Telegraph sometimes spells the same title the other way [5]. It's simply a matter of style (and, as discussed above, newspapers don't even stick to their own style guides!) JRawle (Talk) 22:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose one of us could write to Stuart of Bute and ask him what he uses. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The Mount Stuart website, which I assume His Lordship has control over, consistently uses "Marquess". Proteus (Talk) 10:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's probably true, although it still wouldn't hurt to write him and ask. Of course, it'd help to belong to his Clan, but I can't imagine that a chief who's a professional race car driver as well as a marquess/marquis and an earl stands on ceremony. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose one could argue that Marquis is Lowland Scots (which has its own wikipedia), unless legal evidence to the contrary in modern English were produced. Wikipedia (per WP:NAME) in naming articles generally however follows usage, not the idiosyncracies of any one country's legal system. But not sure this helps here, as usage is divided. On google books, for Marquess/Marquis of Queensbeery, it's 717 for the British English spelling and 748 for the Lowland Scots spelling, evenly divided. It would be good if some guideline were formulated though and stuck to, outside of this project page (which has little authority for non-members). Re Earl of Angus, this predates the Scottish peerage system by at least 5 centuries, and the British peerage system by 7 and 1/2. It is the modern English title for a semi-sovereign territorial lordship first attested in the 10th century (i.e. Dubacan mac Indrechtaig [d. 937]) and is of far more importance than the title Marq. of Douglas, which is but an almost meaningless modern courtesy peerage. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The old Scottish title was mormaer, usually translated "Earl", like the Latin comes. I thought that marquis was of French origin, and possibly cognate with the German margrave (though I may be willing to be told I am wrong). This is related to the term March, as in Welsh March and marcher lord (neitehr of which are satisfactory articles at present). Modern English spelling was formed in the 18th century: I do not think that arguments from medieval history really take this matter forward. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Order of the British Empire - civil and military divisions

Not a Peerage question as such, but people here may know the answer. According to the article on Dame Kelly Holmes, she received an MBE in the military division. User:81.132.159.110 has edited the article to say that this means Dame Kelly is entitled to both postnominals, DBE and MBE. The same editor has then editied the Order of the British Empire to add the following:

If one is awarded a higher award in the same division, one must return one's medal in exchange for the upgrade and and cease using those post-nominal letters. Some however have been appointed to both divisions, such as Kelly Holmes who has been awarded an MBE military division and an DBE in the civil division, and is therefore known as "Dame Kelly Holmes DBE MBE".

I don't quite trust anyone who calls them "medals" (or writes "received an MBE", or "an DBE"!) Do members of the order really have to "exchange" their insignia when they are promoted within the order? And does being a member of both divisions entitle the holder to two sets of postnominals? JRawle (Talk) 22:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I very much doubt that the insignia for the lower rank are returned. I also think that normal practice is to refer only to th higher rank. This may be compared with military rank. Every colonel will have been a major, a captain and a lieutenant, but only the highest rank will normally be used. The Order of the British Empire is one order with two divisions, not two orders. It would be different if she was also a member of a different order, e.g. CB CBE. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Any other opinions appreciated, but for the moment I think I'll remove the offending section of Order of the British Empire as unreferenced. JRawle (Talk) 23:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Frederick North, Lord North

I don't think this page is at the correct title. I would prefer Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford. The courtesy title is Baron North, not Lord North. If we are saying that he page title should vary from the usual convention because he was known as Lord North, I believe the page should be at simply Lord North. Any opinions? JRawle (Talk) 12:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No contest. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - this is surely our usual format for courtesy peers (see Category:British courtesy barons and lords of Parliament), since courtesy Baronies are never given as "Baron X" but always as "Lord X" (even in legal documents - Debrett's Correct Form gives the legal form of a Baron's name as "The Right Honourable Charles John, Baron Blank" but that of a courtesy peer's name as "Sir John Brandon Knight Bachelor, commonly called Lord Brandon"). As for substantive v. courtesy title, I think North qualifies as one of those peers (like Lord Castlereagh) known so overwhelmingly by a courtesy title that it would be bizarre for us to use their eventual substantive title (in this case held for only two years, during which he was not politically active at all). I would prefer Frederick, Lord North, as I'd prefer to follow the format of legal names and omit surnames, but I doubt that's ever going to happen. Proteus (Talk) 12:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

But then, I disagree with the Margaret Thatcher placing although that is what she is undoubtedly generally called. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this (exceptionally) should be kept as it is. Lord North's main notability was as Prime Minister, which was during the period when he was known by his courtesy title. I note the article Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford is a redirect, as is apropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Nearly all Prime Ministers are best known by their title at the time of their premiership, whether commoner, courtesy or lesser peerage, even if they were subsequently politically active under another title - so for instance Frederick John Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich not Frederick John Robinson, 1st Earl of Ripon. North is in line with this. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Margaret, ?Baroness? Bryan

The ODNB states she was created a baroness, but (as far as I'm aware) the CP states she only claimed that H8 created her baroness. Does anyone know anything further about this, and if the ODNB is proved incorrect, are we 'allowed' to disregard it? As well as to correct the article, I've asked this as a user and I seem to disagree over whether the intro should read Margaret, Baroness Bryan or Margaret, Lady Bryan, as the wife of a knight. Craigy (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

ODNB is a reliable (and recent) academic source. If there were doubt over her creation as a baroness, I would have expected the author to mention this. The ODNB has a long list of primary sources on her and her son. The Complete Peerage is an older source, with which modern historians are entitled to disagree, just as ODNB has substantially revised DNB. If you have substantial reasons for preferring CP's view, I would suggest that you add them to the article, but are careful to cite your sources precisely, and verify that they are substantial ones. It may be that the ODNB author has done good research and established that the claim was genuine. Knowingly preferring an older source over a good modern academic source is a variety of WP:OR, unless you can prove that the new work is wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I may have implied the ODNB is wrong, but it's more a case of finding out which source is right. I'm sure the author of the ODNB article is a respectable editor (and has more credentials than I ('ll ever) have), but it seems to me that she may have took Margaret Bryant's letter (see User talk:Boleyn) a bit too literally. I'm not sure which of her sources refer to her being made a baroness, but I imagine it refers to that letter. I'll see if I can contact the author and ask if she can confirm if it was definite or not. Craigy (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Peerages were very rare in H8's time yet I can't easily find a date of creation only vague online references and repeats of (Bryan's) own quote about the 'creation'. I'd disagree with Peterkingiron - simply because a source is newer does not make it necessarily more accurate or raise an OR claim. All sources have to be assessed and if need be both sides presented in an article.AllsoulsDay (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this is she. Craigy (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sure tyou have correctly identifed the ODNB author. The author of a newer article is likely to have examined an older one, though the structure of ODNB does not mean that it will necessarily say so. I was not seeking to say that WP could not disagree, but that if it does, WP must be very specific as to the sources relied upon, so as to get to the bottom of the issue. It is not WP:OR if it is soundly based reliable sources. I know that WP has in the past discouraged the use of original archival sources, but sometimes this is unavoidable. I express no view as the correctness of the claim of a barony; I am merely addressing the issue of what are reliable sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually in this case there is a link to (two) earlier versions of the ODNB article, and the original DNB article. The original DNB article refers to her in passing as Lady Bryan, but that's it, so it does appear to be new research. There are no substantive differences between the versions of the ODNB article as it relates to her. David Underdown (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Labour Party life peers

A user has created Category:Labour Party life peers and moved all Labour peers from Category:Life peers into the new category. As of yet, there are no categories for other parties.

What do people think of this? It's probably best discussed on the user's page here. JRawle (Talk) 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sir George Russell, 4th Baronet

MP for East Berkshire per Burke's peerage. No such constituency per leighrayment.com - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

SOLVED! Wokingham was the eastern division of Berkshire. He was listed as "George Russell (politician)", but there have eben other politicians with that name, so that the article I have created has tItle as above. All links havebeen corrected to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Biography (peerage)

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Biography (baronets)

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Marquesses of Wharton

Hi WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. FYI, I have proposed that Category:Marquesses of Wharton be upmerged into parent Category:Marquesses in the Peerage of Great Britain. I invite you to contribute to the discussion here DH85868993 (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Date delinking

A bot, called Lightbot, has been delinking years in many articles. There is a discussion, here, but that may not require more complaints. More urgent is the fact that some of our peerage articles have lost their traditional links to the dates of creation; I reverted the link at Earl of Devon; I don't know how many others need to be fixed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Peerage articles are one of the last bastions of year links. I'm not sure why this practice shouldn't change; the links hardly offer any information. Plus, there is an issue of accessibility: when there is a link in a heading that does not include the entire heading, screen readers stop at the first transition. Linking should generally be avoided in namespace headings. Waltham, The Duke of 02:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

They offer a great deal of information: at least the reign, and some context, for the creation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Text in the article itself should offer a great deal of information. In the example that you furnish, it does, so the year links are useless. The reign, in any case, is only given if an important event mentioning it happens in that year; and to find it requires digging in a list of irrelevancies. As I see it, if year links should be used in any such articles, these should be the stubs that cannot provide context on their own. Waltham, The Duke of 03:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's because the peculiar descent of the Earldom of Devon required a fuller explanation than most; even Duke of Devonshire does not do likewise, and the typical peerage article is closer to Earl De La Warr. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason that dates are being delinked is presumably that there is so much information that a year is nigh on useless as a search term. As long as the date is retained in the heading (even though not linked), surely that is all we need. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• PMAnderson is one of those clever editors who can, on occasions, construct a reasonable case for the retention of a particular year-link; while I give him his due, this should not be taken as a generalised imprimatur for retaining such links. Two things we need to watch: (1) it's usually better to include any of the vaguely relevant, isolated, fragmentary information in a year-link in the original article itself; and (2) links are sometimes used as an excuse for not providing a sufficiently full context in the article. Tony (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of styles and postnominals

There's a discussion going on at Template talk:First Sea Lord#The options as to whether styles like "The Hon." and postnominals like "Bt" should be included in the template. Any additional contributions would be welcome in trying to reach a consensus. Opera hat (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

David Lloyd George

I noticed the current version of his article says he was Earl Lloyd-George or Dwyfor, hyphenated, and also gives Lord Lloyd-Weber as another example of a title having to be hyphenated where the surname isn't. However, I'd always believed Lloyd George refused to have his name hyphenaated to form his title, and so the compromise was for it to be unhyphenated but to have "of Dwyfor" added to the end.

Now, I checked the London Gazette, and it actually gives his name as David Lloyd-George, and the title as Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor. [6] Leigh Rayment has both unhyphenated. [7]

So what do we believe? I don't trust the London Gazette in this instance as I'm sure his name was always unhyphenated. JRawle (Talk) 08:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Earl Lloyd George of Dwyfor if the current Earl can be trusted. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

David Beamish, a (former?) clerk of the House of Lords, certainly renders it Lloyd-George of Dwyfor & David Lloyd-George on his site and Hansard [8] follows likewise. I'd suggest we have to take Hansard/LG. AllsoulsDay (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that hyphenating double-barrelled surnames is partly a matter of fashion: at one time, they were always hyphenated, now not always and also much earlier. My impression was that the name David Lloyd George was usually not hyphenated, and I would have expected that to apply to the peerage. However, if you want a definitive answer, you would have to look at the letters patent creating the title, or the patent roll where they are recorded. For the moment (until some one can check that), I would suggest that we sticke with the form used by the present earl. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest this is clearly breaking policy Wikipedia:Verifiability ie "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Hansard + The LG are official governmental sources, 3rd party bb statements as reliable sources? AllsoulsDay (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose each member of the Lloyd[-]George family may choose whether or not to hyphenate their surname, such is English common law. However, the title of the Earldom will presumably be fixed at whatever it was at creation. It's a pity the London Gazette can't be relied on to get these things right. JRawle (Talk) 22:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there something about double-barrelled surname peerages always being hyphenated, whether the surname is or not? See Andrew Lloyd Webber, Baron Lloyd-Webber DBD 15:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Peeress succession boxes

Hi all. I just noticed that there are now succession boxes for peeresses on the British Royalty pages (e.g. The Duchess of Cornwall, The Countess of Wessex, The Duchess of Gloucester). What's this WP's policy on s-boxes for peeresses? Surely peeresses by marriage don't succeed one-another? DBD 15:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not know. Potentially, it seems legitimate, but ought not to be extended too far, as it is liable to provide links to NN peeresses. Unfortunately perhaps, most wives of peers have historically had no role otehr than as a wife and mother, which WP regards as NN. It is inevitable that the "before" item will be replaced by s-vac, as there is no direct succession, save where a Princess of Wales becomes Queen and her son is already married, which last happened in 1910. I would thus not encourage succession boxes in this context. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As they stand, they are nonsense. See Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester. The succession box implies that Duchess of Gloucester is itself a title in the Peerage, and it calls the lady who is likely to be the next Duchess of Gloucester the "Designated heir". One could argue that it's valid to have a box to indicate who the previous and next person was to be styled as the wife of a particular peer, but it should not use the format of a peer's succession box. I think this is an excessive use of succession boxes anyway and would prefer to see them removed. JRawle (Talk) 22:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Boxes should be for meaningful information - this is confusing excess. AllsoulsDay (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the succession boxes for peeresses on the British Royalty pages are totally wrong. They aren't peers themself, they only bear the title of their husband as a courtesy title. It only make sense if they obtained the peerage title by themself. We should remove these succession boxes. Demophon (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre. They should be removed. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've removed the s-box and the precedence box (the precedence is already listed in a p-box below. I've only edited those mentioned above if anyone else finds others perhaps they can handle and keep an eye on the changes I've made as someone presumably will re-add the boxes AllsoulsDay (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just noticed this... And I completely agree with the points made. The removal of these boxes was the best course of action. Nothing is passed on in these cases but the right to be styled Duchess, Countess, etc. Succession boxes exist for actual offices, peerages, and awards. Waltham, The Duke of 12:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we will have a lot of work... See for example the Peer succession boxes of Mary of Teck and Diana, Princess of Wales. Those are clearly wrong, and I'm afraid there are a lot more of these. Demophon (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I found something interesting I want to add to this discussion; it could complicate the matters. According to Talk:Courtesy_titles_in_the_United_Kingdom#Wives of peers: The wives of courtesy peers hold their titles on the same basis as their husbands, i.e. by courtesy. and Despite being referred to as a "peeress", she is not a peer "in her own right": this is a 'style' and not a substantive title. However, this is considered a legal title, unlike the social titles of a peer's children. Demophon (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The above is perfectly true - a peers wife is a legal not a courtesy status and the title likewise but that seems to me besides the point. The intent of the s-box - at least for peerages - is to show the holder of a title and their predecessors/successor in succession to the title. The wives of the present/former/future peer don't succeed to a title their husband does and they gain their rank/status and title not by their relationship to either the previous peers wife, the previous peer or by right of succession but solely and absolutely to their husband's succession. They don't hold a peerage - as the sbox misleads people to believe - but only a legal title in right of their husbands possession of the same. AllsoulsDay (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Peeresses (other than those who are peers in their own right) gain their title by their husband's creation or succession. The fact that it is not a mere courtesy title is neither here nor there. Most of them will be NN, so that having succession boxes will merely encourage the prodcution of redlinks. That will in turn lead to the creation of articles on NN persons, which will then need to be deleted. The object of succession boxes is as a navigation aid, but these ones would frequently require the use of "s-vac", every time a the successor to a peerage was unmarried. It will probably not apply to Princesses of Wales, but would not a better course be to add wives to the lists in peerage articles (but inset). Nevertheless this should only be where an article already exists. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

categorization for feudal title holders?

Do we have categories or other policies for feudal titles like Lord of the Manor? I was trying to figure out what category to put William Levett (manorial lord) in, and nothing more specific than Category:Nobility of the United Kingdom seems to exist. --Delirium (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You're looking to make 13th cent. English titles more formalized than they were. England had no peerage system at the time, the most formal you could make it would be earls and below them, barons (which is what a guy who owned some manors but no comital title would be called). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have found you one category for this article (and added it). I would be very unhappy about us starting a category for manorial lords, becasue there are thousands of manors each of which will have had many lords over the years. We might thus end up with a category with tens of thousands of names in it, which would be completely unmanageable. I do not think we have categories for esquires (Latin - armiger) or gentleman for the same reason. The term "feudal baron" is sometimes used for those who were barons by tenure, but the term is a vague one, but I do not think your subject was one. However I wonder whehter we should have a category Category:Monastic patrons, which seems to be the subject's claim to fame. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Formatting of Multiple Baronetcies

I stumbled across the Forbes Baronets page (revision of [5th oct), and was struck by the formatting. Specifically, the TOC halfway down the page (pointing to the lists of title holders), and the difficult to scan collection of short paragraphs all beginning "The Forbes Baronetcy of...". I wonder if this may be improved.

I have edited the page to demonstrate what I believe to be a better layout, but there are a still a few flaws in this format:

• The Forbes, of Foveran section looks odd because it has very little description.
• The whole thing looks a bit like a series of pages run together.

If this new style, or variant thereof, is acceptable to members of this project, I shall apply it to other pages, if not, I shan't be offended if it is swiftly reverted.PRB (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep as is now: We have two choices: either for "Forbes Baronetcies" to be a disambiguation page listing links to a seaparate page for each title, or we can have things as at present. A third alternative (which may be the standard format) is to list all the creations at the top and the have lists of the holders. Personally, I prefer the presetn format. I am a regular user of pages of this kind. I use them to find the WP accepted name-format for a titled person, who may or may not already have an article. Another function is to facilitate the identification of a (hyperthetical) Sir John Forbes who occurs in (say) 1844. In each case it is much simpler to find the right person if they are all on the same page. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm reasonably relaxed about the edit, preserving as it seems the listing of all holders on the one page. I can see this is a rare instance but it does of course probably breaks the standard layout with many other multi title pages. AllsoulsDay (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

DB and lifetime templates

I suspect that many of those who use this page are writing or editing biographical articles. Could I encourage peopel to look at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 22? I have objected to destructive editing by a bot which is deleting all the BD templates and providing birthdate, and death date categories with defaultsort without any discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence Lumley, 11th Earl of Scarbrough

I raised a question last week at Talk:Lawrence Lumley, 11th Earl of Scarbrough on whether it can be moved to Roger Lumley but it got no response. I know nothing about him, so can someone from here please take a look. Tintin 13:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

According to [9], his full name was Sir Lawrence Roger Lumley, 11th Earl of Scarbrough, but would have been Sir Lawrence Roger Lumley before inheriting thge title from his cousin. The form in which his name is given in the article, implies that he was known as Roger. If only one Christian name is used it should be that, as the article on him is at present. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

2nd Marquess of Drogheda

I'm having trouble figuring out this gentleman's name. There seems to be a division among authorities as to whether he was "Edward" or "Charles". His obituary in the Annual Register of 1838 (he died a lunatic at Greatford in February 1837) calls him Edward, but his father's obituary on the Gentleman's Magazine for 1823 refers to him as Charles. I've made a list of the other sources I combed out of Google Books and what they called him (C for Charles, E for Edward):

• Kearsley's Complete peerage (1802) C
• Debrett's (1809) C
• The Royal Kalendar (1813) C
• Debrett's (1820) C
• Annual Register (1822) C
• Nicholas Harris Nicolas's A Synopsis of the Peerage in England (1825) C
• Burke's Peerage (1826) C
• Debrett's (1828) C
• Thomas Robson's The British Herald(1830) C
• Burke's Portrait Gallery of Distinguished Females (1833) C
• William Carpenter's Peerage for the People (1837) E
• Complete Peerage (1890) C
• Burke's Extinct Peerage (1973) E

I'm inclined to believe that "Charles" is his correct Christian name, but I'd appreciate advice from others. Choess (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not know. I would suggest that you go with Charles. Complete Peerage is a well-researched work that cites its sources. In the absence of a better biography, I would regard this as the most reliable source abvailable. Extinct Peerage is I think merely a reprint of an 19th century work. I and Carpenter (which I do not know) may be influenced by an error in Annual Register, which is (I think) derived from contemporary newspapers. Journalists are inclined to mistakes, and the obituary of a lunatic is unlikely to be based on the most ideal information. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Burke's Peerage and Baronetage of the British Empire 4th Edition Vol 1 (1832) (Google Books) , at p 393, also has Charles Moore as 2nd Marquess.Ordyg (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that Burke 1832 is a WP:RS. Early editions were notorious for containing fiction. The reliable source will be a baptismal record or his father's will. We will only solve this conundrum from original archives or something clearly based on them, which is why I recommended Complete Peerage. I presume lunacy came only at the end of his life, so that the appearance of "Charles" in the earliest sources should also encourage that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Hi all, before I start to change something, I would like to hear your opinion first: is it sensible to add infoboxes with the respective arms, crest and motto on articles about baronetcies? The whole would approximately look that way ... User:Phoe/Template ... or do you have perhaps other (better) ideas?

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 03:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no harm in his, if you can find a non-copyright source for images of the arms. However, I would suggest that you do not include biographic details that should already appear in succession boxes. However, I am only another editor. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus Supporters where appropriate. Great. Stronge and Arbuthnot have something like that. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the infoxbox is thought only for articles about baronetcies, and not about specific baronets, no conflict with the succession boxes will arise, and since it shall show only the written description of the coat of arms (without inserted picture), neither biographical details will be contained nor problems with the copyright will appear. - Kittybrewster, I have inserted a line for the supporters.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 01:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Earls

There are now two proposals to move this page; please see Talk:List of Earls. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dai Llewellyn

This one looks like it needs some help, particularly the article title which does not follow the usual form - I don't know enough to move it so handing it over to the experts. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Tidied up with succession box added. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow quick work. What about the title - shouldn't it be something like David St Vincent Llewellyn, 4th Baronet Llewellyn? – ukexpat (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

At baronets we use the form Sir Nicholas Nobody, 21st Baronet only if a disambiguation is necessary. Otherwise the article would go simply as Nicholas Nobody - or as Nicky Nobody, if he was commonly known under his nickname.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Lady Helen Taylor

A user keeps changing Lady Helen Taylor article to reflect his opinion that Lady Helen Taylor is a peeress and that lady is a title of peerage. I revert and explain, he reverts and doesn't explain. Can someone please help me? Surtsicna (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th Ed., "Lady" is a title of nobility or royalty.

However, if I understand (now), the British nobility consists of two entities, the peerage and the gentry? And she isn't a peer as wel not part of the gentry? According to this I have to make the conclusion she is indeed not part of the British nobility. Demophon (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

But at the other hand, she is a member of the (extend) British family (hence the title "The Lady"), and therefore the royal infobox is applicable. Demophon (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Her being entitled to "The Lady" has nothing to do with her being a member of the extended royal family, whether or not she is such a member. Any daughter of a duke is entitled to "The Lady". -- Jao (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Im not sure but I think that's not true. Correct me if I'm wrong but every one who belongs to the extended British royal family Windsor and is a daughter/son of a British royal prince are called "The Lady"/"Lord" (unless they are a prince(ss) themselve). And it doesn't matter whether their father is a peer or not. Demophon (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point (considering Lady Gabriella Windsor, for instance). I'm not entirely as convinced of my "has nothing to do with" statement anymore. -- Jao (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Item 1: A letters patent issued by King George V states that "the grandchildren of the sons of any British sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have the style and title enjoyed by the children of dukes".

Item 2: "A courtesy title is a form of address in systems of nobility used by children, former wives and other close relatives of a peer. These styles are used 'by courtesy' in the sense that the users do not themselves hold substantive titles." (see also Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom)

Said summarized: Lady Helen Taylor isn't a peeress - and - "Lady" is a style, but no title itself.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 17:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this! It will be interesting to see if Viscount Severn's children will be known as Lord and Lady, even if born before Severn inherits his father's earldom, gets it by courtesy or takes up use of his princely title. The wording of the letters patent implies it, but letters patent seem to get ignored these days. Starting to wait for Severn's marriage... now. -- Jao (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The form, Lady Mary Jones, implies that the person concerned is the daughter of an earl (or above). As the daughter of a duke she is entitled to this title (which is not a peerage). If she married a Mr Smith she becomes Lady Mary Smith. The form is sometimes applied to the wife of a peer or to a peeress, or to the wife of a knight, but this is (strictly) incorrect. She ought to be Mary, Lady Jones (etc.). The equivalent for men is Lord John Smith, but only for the sons of dukes and marquesses, and usually only younger sons - the eldest uses his father's second title as a courtesy title. Unless she had her own title, his wife (even if christened Mary) would properly be Lady John Smith, though this sounds strange today. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Duke of Buccleuch

It would seem someone's moved (and sometimes created and redirected[!]) Buccleuch to Buccleuch & Queensberry from around the 4th duke. Thoughts anyone? Craigy (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, an absolute ducal fuck up has been made with redirects, surname abridges and nominals for duchesses here, there and everywhere. I needed a place to vent...Craigy (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The fictive Earl of Stirling

Everybody who was involved in Talk:Earl of Stirling or has simply read it, might find it funny to read also [10], a document I have stumbled over recently.

... I have also discovered the official report from the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament about his petition to be declared Earl of Stirling [11] (read from col 64).

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 07:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. All very laughable, inluding Helen Eadie's stupidity/naivity on the use of the The Rt. Hon. Craigy (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Peerage capitalisation

List of baronies in the peerages of the British Isles is just right, but what about List of baronies in the peerage of England? I thought specific peerages were capitalised, just as specific titles are (like, say, erm, The Duke of Waltham). If so, the lists of the right column of {{UK Peerages}} should be moved.

Well, at least the titles are consistent—with the exception of List of hereditary Baronies in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, which I hesitate to move before I hear more opinions on the matter of Peerage (as Baronies should obviously become baronies). Moving things around too often might do more harm than good... Waltham, The Duke of 01:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think your proposed capitalisation for the list articles is appropriate, but Baron Jones and Earl of Footown should retain capitals. Excessive capitalisation is annoying, but a failure to use an adequate amount is also bad. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course; it's a matter of general versus specific usage. The system goes like this:

• Baron Jones / Earl of Footown / etc.
• List of barons/earldoms/etc. in the Peerage of England/Scotland/etc.
• List of barons/earldoms/etc. in the peerages of the British Isles

If I see no objections, I'll make the necessary adjustments in a few days. Waltham, The Duke of 22:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

With some delay, I am reporting back: the issue has been settled. The articles are all in their proper place, and the template has been modified accordingly. Waltham, The Duke of 21:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Should baronets-work-group and peerage-work-group be merged or not?

In KingbotK/plugin talk page, I wrote the following: "I read in WP Biography that Baronets-work-group is now deprecated. Changes must be done in the plugin. It has to be removed from the "Workgroups" list and if the plugin to automatically replace it with "peerage-work-group"."

I think this is ok. Isn't it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It will look funny having a baronial crown on baronets' articles. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I understand this. My request above is already implemented and it about to be released in the next version of AWB. Should be changes it back or maybe we could do something with the icon of the work group? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the benefit of merging them? The distinction seems like a useful one, since baronets are not peerages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I got it wrong. Since we have only one working group, it should be only one way to tag an article for this working group, or not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BHG. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. I already asked for revert. Sorry for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Magioladitis, it was kind of you to apologise, but I'm not sure that an apology was needed. A code change was prepared in good faith, but the crucial thing is that you were kind enough to come here and check before implementing it, and then gracefully revert the change after discussion. That's exactly how this sort of thing should done. Thank you very much for the care you have taken here and for your courtesy in handling it all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• As some one who does not work on assessment, this is strictly not relevant to me. Semantically, [[User:BrownHairedGirl] is right that baronetcies are not peeerages. However, the workgroups have been merged. Do we need a neutral title? Perhaps, "British hereditary titles workgroup". I have looked at the icon, but coronets differ with rank; a duke's has strawberry leaves on it. If the presence of a coronet is a problem, I see no reason why we should not have two separate links both leading here. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Peerages are not all hereditary. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What about ""British nobility titles workgroup"? But I'm not British so I don't no whether this is correct English. Demophon (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Lord Carnock

A significant content change has taken place at Adam Nicolson (the new Lord Carnock), where User:86.141.5.138 (believed to be the subject of the article) is wanting to disassociate himself from the title. The page has been moved to leave out the title, which is fair enough, but the lead has also been changed to plain Adam Nicholson. Does anyone feel it should stay this way, or that the lead and/or article title of Adam Nicholson, 5th Baron Carnock should be restored? Personally, I'm in favour of leaving the article title but restoring the latter lead, regardless of whether he uses the title or not. Even still, is this a case for WP:AUTO and not us? Craigy (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If he does not want to use the title, WP should not force him to by the way it presents its article. In my view the lead should reflect names as actaully used. He is notable as an author and (possibly) as the resident owner of Sissinghurst Castle, not for being a peer or a baronet. I have made the reference to the title into a separate paragraph to emphasise his wish. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy and others

Some of these are Category:Recipients of Honorary British Knighthoods while others are shown [also] as KBE. I suspect there is room for greater consistency. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I suspect that almost all are KBE (Hon), and should perhaps be excluded from the KBE category, since they do not get the title "Sir" (unless naturlised). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless anyone knows better ..... and then there is the question of categorising Allen Stanford and his kind. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to what the article says, I suspect that Stanford's is not merely honorary, due to his citizenship of Antigua. Sir George Sholti was able to use his title, originally honorary, by becoming naturalised in Britain. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Stanford's knighthood is in the Antiguan Order of the Nation, and presumably became substantive when he ws granted citizeship (much as Terry Wogan's hon KBE became substantive when he finally took British nationality). Presumably one could also be made hon KCVO or KCMG in any case. The combination of the Hon category and the relevant one for whatever grade someone's appointed too seems reasonable, either taht or we potentnailly need to creat an honorary subcat for every grade of every British order (probably could do someting simialr for Stranger knights in the Order fo the Garter and so on a well). David Underdown (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The talk page advised me that The Times refers to him as Mr Stanford. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy title holders

I would be grateful of guidance on how to deal in aricles on peerages with the holders of courtesy titles who did not inherit the main title, usually due to predeceasing their father. My practice has been to place them in the list of peers after the father, but indented (by use of "**" instead of "*"). This question has arisen recently for Marquess of Bristol (where my edits have been restored) and Duke of Bedford where my addition of William Russell, Lord Russell has been removed. My discussion with another user on this is as follows:

Duke of Bedford:I'm reverting your addition of "William Russell, Lord Russell (1639--1683) (Courtesy title)" to the list of dukes. Maybe such lists ought to include everyone who was ever an heir-apparent to a peerage, but generally they don't. Inclusion in this form suggests to the casual reader that he was a duke who bore the style "Lord Russell" in place of a ducal title! —Tamfang (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that you have seen fit to revert my addition. This was indented to show that the person concerned was not a Duke (or earl). I use pages such as this one as a disambiguation aid to discover the accepted name form for a peer. This may also be for the peer as an MP before he inherited or as a notable person in other contexts. The object of this is so that I do not create a redlink that some one else may turn into an article, duplicating an existing one. It also allows me to remove redlinks created by others. I have on a few articles inserted into the lists entries (such as for William Russell, Lord Russell) for notable holders of courtesy titles. If I come across a person using such a title, I will search for "Baron Russell". Since it is a subsidiary title of the Dukes, the article on that title redirects to that on the Dukes. However, I would be none the wiser because William Russell does not (or did not) appear there, because it was a courtesy title and he failed to inherit. My addition is that for a purpose, and I propose to reinstate it, but would like your comments first. I do not wnat to engage in an edit war. If you want to discuss this further, I would suggest this conversation be continued on the peerage project page. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What about putting Lord Russell in "See also"? —Tamfang (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This raises an issue of policy, which is why I bring it here. Some months ago, I asked if I might add "ancestors" to peerage and baronetage articles, provided that this related to notable people who had or should have articles, and was told that I could. I would like comments on the way forward on this. I certainly do not want to add every eldest son, who died in infancy without inheriting, only notable eldest sons etc (with courtesy titles) who failed to succeed. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I am persuaded by your method. But red links should not be made into an article without proper searches first being done. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, adding heirs with courtesy titles to the lists is extremly disadvantageous. How Tamfang has already written, this will not alone irritate users who are unfamiliar with peerage titles, but also make some lists very large - as you have to consider, that just at long existing titles many sons would come under such a policy (I remember a duke, whose three sons were all MPs and had successively inherited the courtesy title). By the way, the style with the two ** is also used for jure uxoris peers, what makes the whole still more confusing. In short I think, that ancestors, heirs with courtesy titles and other notable family members shall be mentioned only in the text and in individual cases also in the see also section.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 21:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in favour of placing indented links to eldest sons who didn't inherit - seems like a good idea. However, as you say, I suppose they should be notable and at least have an article. Including ancestors seems informative too, but I'm not sure how this would work without making the lists look a tad messy. Craigy (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I accept Kittybrewster's point about redlinks. I would suggest that there should only be redlinks, where another redlink already exists elsewhere. A holder of a courtesy title to whom there is no previous link should be added in (unlinked) black, if added at all. For an example of how "Ancestors" works see Baron Lyttelton. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I must say I side with Tamfang and Phoe here. Of course there are compelling reasons to mention any notable Lords Russell in the article to which Baron Russell redirects. But what is the compelling reason to do this in the section listing the Dukes of Bedford, making them (indented or not) look like dukes when they are not? Why not a new section for notable holders of subsidiary titles by courtesy? Another solution might be to redirect Baron Russell to the disambiguation page Lord Russell, and likewise for any other courtesy title that has been held by notable people. (As a side note, there seems to be room for improvement of consistency here anyway. While Lord Russell is a disambiguation page, Viscount Castlereagh redirects to its notable holder, Lord Carnegie redirects to his father's peerage, Lord Stanley does the same although with a hatnote, and Lord Downpatrick is a redlink—just to mention a few.) —JAO • T • C 09:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tamfang, Phoe, and Jao here, especially with the arguments that Jao made. Demophon (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that a redirect to the father's title is the usual solution. This is often the substantive title held by a predecessor. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be developing a consensus against the view that I took and Kittybrewster supported, though not against adding non-inheriting heirs to article. Can we try to develop a consensus as to how to deal with the issue? The list of titleholders is a level 2 heading. Might I suggest that we have a list (with a level 3 heading) entitled, "Heirs-apparent" or "Other courtesy title holders"? Or what? My idea is that this would be placed immediately after the list of title holders. I think this is preferable to placing it at the end of the article, because successive creations of an earldom or dukedom may have quite different subsidiary titles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I have made the appropriate edits to Duke of Bedford to show how this might look. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is that some of our pages are too "busy"—there are far too many peerage titles crammed into the same page. If we cut down on this (pulled apart the Earls and Dukes of Bedford, perhaps), it might make lengthening the lists easier to bear. Personally, I tend to like your original format with indention and maybe italicizing. I think having them as a list at the end of the article is not a good way to present them. Essentially you're presenting two chronological lists and asking the reader to collate them in his or her head. Maybe the best thing to do is to grant some of these redirects of courtesy titles first-class status: list the various creations, followed by See Duke of X for further holders, and then have a "Courtesy peers" heading for the notable courtesy peers who used that title. What do people think of that suggestion? Choess (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I like your ideas Choess. There are some articles who would benefit from such a splitting, however we have to be careful with this to avoid to get a bunch of overlapping and repeating stubs. I therefore suggest that before somebody makes a cut at an article, it should be discussed here, whether the respective cut is necessary and in which form it shall happen. Regarding the courtesy titles, I would change the redirects to disambiguation pages, list the notable incumbents with the usual informations ((approximately the same what I've done at Baron Russell of Killowen), and would then add a link at the associated title with a brief explanation.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 02:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to pick a test case later in the week when I have more time, and we'll see how people like it. Choess (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Baron Lavenham

I believe this is an elaborate hoax. Tryde (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be good-faith ignorance. August 1641 is the correct date of creation for a Spring baronetcy for William, although the line of descent does not agree with Burke's. Suggest opening correspondence with the author first before swinging the wrecking ball. Choess (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I had also reckoned it as a confusion with the Spring baronetcy firstly, however after a short check it showed no match, so I think it is a only good developed hoax with unfortunately many tentacles, possibly created on the basis of a fictional character in a novel (see The Talisman Ring). This is once again a reason, why the principles of Wikipedia should be overhauled.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 13:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I have informed User:00vis about this and have invited her/him to add a comment.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 14:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Very elaborate! Shame we're not allowed to speedy all of them. I suggest we/someone takes the articles to AfD if no substantial proof crops up. Craigy (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Done [12]. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice, KB. That you've listed them all separately is commendable :-) - I'd have lazily grouped them all together. Craigy (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I have listed them all. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think these articles should also be in contention: Category:Spring family, Spring family, Thomas Spring II, Thomas Spring III, Sir John Spring. Tryde (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, now that I've looked over it, it's quite bad. When the cited references don't match content at all, AGF becomes rather difficult. Well, off to register my opinion. Choess (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Several of the nominated individuals are verifiable in Burke's. See this link. It appears that the hoaxer started with the legitimate, verifiable line of the Spring clothiers and started adding fantasy post-1641. IMO, the verifiable individuals should be bundled up into Spring family, which could make a nice local article. I've also detected another one and nominated it: Comte du Vérac. Once the article deletions are done, we can clean up the image of the "1st Baron" and the "Counts of Vérac" category. Choess (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reliable evidence that shows which Sir William Spring was MP for Bury St Edmunds and or Suffolk? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. This says that William Spring II (father of the 1st baronet) was HS Suffolk 18 Jas. I, and knight of the shire for Suffolk 21 Jas. I. I think Brunton & Pennington's Members of the Long Parliament might identify which Sir William represented Bury in 1625; only snippets are available online, but one of them suggests that it was the 1st Baronet who sat for Bury in 1640 and was replaced by Barnardiston. Another snippet of Brunton & Pennington says that the William Spring who represented Bury in 1625 died in 1638, so I presume that must also be William Spring II. Choess (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dates don't tally. And google book says baronetcy went to uncle - not son. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have recently been researching the Spring family of Lavenham, and discovered that one of the articles by user 00vis was historically completely accurate (and in my view worthy of an article), but was removed as part of removing the other articles which were hoaxes. This was the artcile on Sir John Spring (of Lavenham, Hitcham and Cockfield). Secondly, is there any information as to why Sir William Spring, 1st Baronet, recieved his title in 1641 from Charles I, as he later served as a Republican MP? Thanks Kazzi03 (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case we need the article on Sir John Spring restored via Deletion Review. I think you must mean "Roundhead" not "Republican": there were few republicans before the trail of the king in 1648/9. If his estates were deep in Roundhead controlled territory, supporting them (or at least staying neutral would be a matter of necessity. to avoid them being sequestrated. Not a very full answer! On the wider issue, we seem to have a confection that starts with truth, and then moves into fiction. So far as it has reliable sources, preferably cited ones. We should reinstate, but only that far. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

How do we go about getting Sir John Spring restored? Kazzi03 (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It would need inline verifications + RS + V + NOTABILITY. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

PMGI

Perhaps some of you folks can help. I am working on the "Postmasters General of Ireland" but have found some curious/odd references to the same title though they predate the establishment of the post in 1784. Seeing as most of these people were, in the main, noblemen of various kinds, could someone have a look at User talk:Ww2censor/PMGI where I have listed the references I found. I wonder how accurate peerage.com is and can someone consult Burke's Peerage and/or DNB, as I presume someone has access. As it stands, while short, the sandbox article could do with some fleshing out though sources are difficult, but besides the references it is basically ready for prime time. Any assistance gratefully accepted. ww2censor (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

For an overview about the postmaster generals between 1784 and 1809, you can take a look at [13]. A very interesting book to this topic is "The Royal Mail to Ireland" by Edward Watson, (1917) [14].

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 19:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Phoe. If you have a quick look look at the working draft, I'm already using some information from the Book of dignities, which mentions William Fortescue, 1st Earl of Clermont but without any dates. However you reminded me that I have a copy of The Royal Mail to Ireland in my library, a rather expensive purchase I recall, but it does not help with the questions asked as it only mentions the PMGI in passing with a date of establishment and termination; no names, or other details and unfortunately nothing else helpful. Any other suggestions welcome. I would really like to figure out what these other references are about that list people as PMGI before the establishment of the post in 1784. All the details I have are on the working copy talk page if you can help. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have found a source [15] that shows that William Fortescue replaced Sir Thomas Prendergast, 2nd Bt (on his death in 1760) as as PMGI. It also shows that the Earl of Bellomont replaced William Brabazon Ponsonby and gives a date of his appointment. I have therefore then searched in the online archive of The Times and have found the news of the appointments in January 1789 [16] and July 1789 [17]

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 02:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As I understand from [18] the post office and the postmaster general existed in Ireland already before 1784, however in a rather unorganised and insufficient kind. The act of 1784 gave it formal structures and overhault the old system. The single postmasters general before 1784 were (as I see it at the moment): Isaac Manly, dates unknown; Sir Thomas Prendergast, 2nd Baronet, until 1760, William Henry Fortescue from 1760 until 1784.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 13:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I know little of the subject. The draft will make a desirable article. I suspect that the new establishment of the Irish Post Office in 1784 will be related to the constitutional changes in the GB/Ireland relationship about that time. Several of the Postmasters were peers. The practice is in GB is to list people by their title, or sometimes name and title, but those in use when they held the office, not their title at death (which is the usual form of the article name. However, it may be that this practice is not applied to Irish articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Peerage templates

Hello there. I'm not a member of this WikiProject, and this has probably been discussed before, but have you expolored the possibilities of introducing a template for peerages, to replace those old-fashioned and difficult succession boxes? Regards, GiantSnowman 01:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

With titles (peerage or baronetage) with many holders perhaps a template could be an alternative, however those titles are actually a minority group. A big hindrance for such templates is also the sometimes complex history of just old titles. Generally I think that at the moment templates can't replace succession boxes appropriately.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 06:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have gone into stupid mode. I did not understand the question. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I wasn't clear. Basically, to show the history of a certain peerage, you currently use succession boxes at the bottom of articles, such as:

However, I believe you should introduce templates, such as the ones we use over at WP:FOOTBALL, a la Template:France national football team managers, as they are cleaner and much easier to navigate. Hope this clears up any confusion! Oh, and as for older titles, couldn't you introduce different levels, as music band templates do? Look at Template:Oasis and replace 'Stuido albums' and 'Singles' with 'First creation' and 'second creation' or whatever it is you need...GiantSnowman 10:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I think this is a terrible idea. Succession boxes show exactly what they're supposed to do, which is tell one who preceded and succeeded a given person in the various offices they held. If you want to follow a series of Chancellors of the Exchequer, Chafe-Waxes, or what have you, you can keep clicking along the links as one succeeds another. What is is not intended to do is compress one of our list articles into neutronium and reproduce it over every one of the articles it links to. Nor is this, IMO, very useful. Someone reading about John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough might want to learn why Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers replaced him as Master-General of the Ordnance (chiefly the political shift toward the Tories), and so it's useful to have a convenient way to get there. It's highly unlikely that one would suddenly develop a burning urge to leap from Marlborough to such later Master-Generals as Lord Moira and Lord Raglan that they couldn't bear to make one more click to reach the list. These templates also destroy much of the utility of the Special:WhatLinksHere feature by creating huge quantities of unrelated links. I think they're by and large a blight on Wikipedia, and I certainly have no interest in unleashing them on peerage articles. Choess (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Here here! - templates are an absolute blight for the reasons you state. However if this user is interested in the history of a certain peerage, it is quite easy. Just click on the link in the centre of the succ' box and lo and behold you get it all in a fully informative article! Motmit (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha, my suggestion is clearly not a popular one, is it? Oh well, never mind - nothing ventured, nothing gained. Cheers, GiantSnowman 16:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. Successsion boxes are useful. The problem is of infobox templates trying to take over their content. How can we get "What links here" changed so as to exclude links via templates, which clutter up these search results. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I like that. Don't want it changed. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Baronetcy page merger

A user has proposed a merge between Collier Baronets and Sir George Collier, 1st Baronet, on the grounds that 'The Collier Baronets article contains only information about Sir George, therefore propose merging that article into this.' As I understood it, the Baronetcy still independently justifies an article, but I'm prepared to be guided by this project on that. Benea (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm OK with articles about baronetcies and noble titles which have only one holder redirecting to that person's article, provided the appropriate categories are left on the redirect. (e.g., Duke of Shrewsbury). I can't claim to speak for the project, though. Choess (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Choess on this. There's not much point in an article on a title with one (and only one) holder unless the title itself is notable in some way (i.e. some weird dispute over the letters patent). Mackensen (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is pointless for a baronetcy to have its own page, when it refers to the first and only baronet. The page can only contain information on the 1st baronet. Duplicate pages are dangerous, because different infomation may be added to them respectively to the point where the contradict each other. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nem con. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald

Hello, I have a quick question regarding the use of "Sir" before Cochrane's name in the opening sentence of this article. Cochrane is a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath and another using keeps adding "Sir", but am I correct in thinking it shouldn't be used because he is a peer? BarretBonden (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Correct; no inline use of sir for peers. Mackensen (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Why not? The current version of Burke's Peerage does. Opera hat (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Baronetcy tangle: Sir Windham Carmichael-Anstruther, 8th Baronet

Hi folks, I have just created Sir Windham Carmichael-Anstruther, 8th Baronet, but I think I have done a poor job on the two baronetcies held by him, so I have tagged the article as needing expert attention.

Please can someone with the relevant expertise check it over and make any necessary improvements? Thanks!--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

tidied up, but more work would be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Younger sons of baronets

I created this category. Tryde (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we include this cat in younger sons who inherit the baronetcy? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion this category should only include people who never succeeded in the title. Tryde (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree: those who inherited will be categorised as baronets. The fact that they inherited as a result of an older brother having no male issue (or their becoming extinct) is insignificant. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox_Officeholder

Some one is adding the above template to biographies. This is in principle good, but I would question the desirability of including the predecessor and successor fields, where the same information appears at the bottom in a succession box. The infobox is useful in providing a thumbnail sketch fo the subject's acheivements, but it seems to me that it should be kept brief and to the point; otherwise it is liable to overwhelm the rest of the article. What does every one else think? Perhaps I have posted this in the wrong place. If so, please move it, and tell me the diestination. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The succession info displayed in the infobox is less informative than in the bottom-of-the-page succession boxes, and the vertical arrangement makes it much harder to digest. So unless there is a lot of other biographical info which can be summarised in the infobox, it's better to leave them out. {{Infobox Officeholder}} works well on lengthy biographies with a lot of detail, but it overwhelms small ones.

Maybe you should raise this at Template talk:Infobox Officeholder? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Baron Lavenham/Spring Baronets

Overlooking the recent history of Spring Baronets, the involved users (apart from User:Kittybrewster) and their edits, I have a very bad feeling. Both User Em500 (talk · contribs) and Kazzi03 (talk · contribs) tend to edit only articles regarding the Spring family and to add content similar to the contributions of User 00vis (talk · contribs) (see for example http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=List_of_French_peerages&diff=prev&oldid=280835413). Although I explicitly DON'T want allege that they are clones, I consider the whole conspicuous and advise a sharp eye on the edits of the mentioned users ...

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 21:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A request to WP:CHECKUSER might be in order. --16:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes for baronets

I have done a small tweak to {{s-ttl}} which will make it easier to create succession boxes for Baronets, whether using {{s-ttl}} or {{succession box}}.

Previously, unblolding the territorial designation worked only by one of two hacks, shown below (using Sir William Bowyer-Smijth, 11th Baronet as an example):

by closing the unbold markup on the next field, like this

{{start box}}
{{s-reg|en-bt}}
{{succession box 
  | title  = [[Bowyer-Smijth Baronets|Baronet]] <br />'''(of Hill Hall)
  | years  = '''1850 – 1883
  | before = Edward Bowyer-Smijth
  | after  = William Bowyer-Smijth
}}
{{end box}}

or by using <nowiki></nowiki> tags

{{start box}}
{{s-reg|en-bt}}
{{succession box 
  | title  = [[Bowyer-Smijth Baronets|Baronet]] <br />'''(of Hill Hall)'''
  | years  = 1850 – 1883
  | before = Edward Bowyer-Smijth
  | after  = William Bowyer-Smijth
}}
{{end box}}

Neither hack is now needed, and the markup can now be applied straightforwardly

{{start box}}
{{s-reg|en-bt}}
{{succession box 
  | title  = [[Bowyer-Smijth Baronets|Baronet]] <br />'''(of Hill Hall)'''
  | years  = 1850 – 1883
  | before = Edward Bowyer-Smijth
  | after  = William Bowyer-Smijth
}}
{{end box}}

... which produces

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Norman W. Moore

I'm currently considering creating an article for Norman W. Moore, a conservationist and one-time visiting professor at Wye College. He is also a baronet, though he doesn't claim the title. I found a reference here. Is that a reliable source and how much of it can be used in an article? I also found this (claims which title it traces back to - OK, just realised that is a mirror of List of extant baronetcies). For his conservationist work, I found this, which contains a tribute to him ("Corbet, P.S.: Global protection of Odonata and their habitats: a tribute to Norman W. Moore: 112"), with the text available here: "By precept and example, Norman Moore has been a leader and enabler in the field of nature conservation all his professional life." Does this all sound notable enough for a short article? Carcharoth (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

He is mentioned at Moore Baronets. Some other links here, using information from the peerage.com biography: Eton College, Trinity College, Cambridge. Prisoner of war. Royal Artillery. Bristol University. Nature Conservancy (UK) (later Nature Conservancy Council). Title of 3rd Baronet Moore. Visiting Professor of Environmental Studies at Wye College. From the pdf: Odonata, dragonfly, nature conservation, IUCN Species Survival Commission (chaired a subgroup on Odonata), agonistic behaviour. There is also a list of books he has written as well. Carcharoth (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

And (going full circle to the article I wrote that led me to a disambiguation page that led me to this Norman Moore), it seems that this Norman W. Moore is the grandson of Norman Moore (medical historian). Can anyone here confirm that? Carcharoth (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on my experiences I reckon ThePeerage as a reliable source with occasional errors in spelling and annual details, so I mostly use only these parts, which I can verify by other sources. Yes Norman Moore (medical historian) was the first baronet [19] and therefore his grandfather.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 21:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I've written the article (as you can see). It is still rather short. Additions and critiques welcomed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

FitzRoy MP dabbing

I wonder if an editor with more specialist knowledge could look at these pages. There are several Lord Charles FitzRoys, some of whom were MP for Bury St Edmunds, plus there is Charles Augustus FitzRoy who seems to be redlinked in various places as Lord Charles Augustus Fitzroy or Lord Charles FitzRoy (politician). My confusion is over the 'Lord' title which isn't mentioned at Charles Augustus FitzRoy. (Plus Lord Charles FitzRoy (politician) is listed at the dab page as a different person). Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

See my answer at User talk:BrownHairedGirl

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Baronet pagename guidelines -- I have launched an RFC

I have launched an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Page_names_for_biographical_articles_on_individual_baronets.

My proposal is to stabilise the pagenames of articles on baronets by either forbidding the use of baronet titles in page names or making them universal. I think that either option is an improvement over the status quo, because it removes any scope for dispute over whether baronetcy titles should be applied to individual articles, and that will make life easier for everybody. The current flexibility has been tried for several years, and while I believe that it is workable, in practise it doesn't actually work because too many interested editors have strong views for and against the use of titles. It has ended up being an unsustainable compromise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Titled people as President of the Zoological Society of London

Please see Zoological Society of London#Presidents. I'm trying to get the entries there (given in the source) to link direct to the right articles. Several of the ones for titled people only link to the page for the title, not for the person. Could anyone here help work out the following and fix them in the article? The years are the dates they held the presidency of the Zoological Society of London:

• Marquess of Lansdowne 1827-1831
• Lord Stanley, Earl of Derby 1831-1851
• Viscount Walden, Marquess of Tweeddale 1868-1878
• Duke of Bedford 1899-1936
• Earl of Onslow 1936-1942
• Duke of Devonshire 1948-1950
• Viscount Alanbrooke 1950-1954

Essentially, seven links to be disambiguated. Hope someone can help! Carcharoth (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to User:Cam for disambiguating 6 of them. If anyone wants to double-check, that would be good. There is also seventh, but that might have been dabbed by the time anyone else gets there... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple first names in peerage articles

Current practice seems to be that most peerage articles are in the format "Firstname Surname, Nth Rank Title" rather than "Firstname Secondname Thirdname Surname, Nth Rank Title". Presumably this is to avoid lengthy titles like Thomas Galloway Dunlop du Roy de Blicquy Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde, which is fair enough. However I think that when a peer has fewer Christian names they should all be given in the title unless it is known which was/is used. I have recently had to move articles such as John Barnes, 1st Baron Gorell, Frank Merriman, 1st Baron Merriman, John Balfour, 3rd Baron Kinross and Lawrence Parsons, 6th Earl of Rosse because editors have wrongly assumed that these peers used their first name. Opera hat (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article title for "Lawrence John Smith" should be in the form "John Smith, 5th Baron London", if in practice John is the Christian that he used, not "Lawrence Smith, 5th Baron London" though the latter might usefully exist as a redirect. Personally, I would look at the article on "Baron London" and in the first instance use whatever form was there, unless In was absolutely sure of my ground. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And if it wasn't apparent from that article? Opera hat (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about that. Aren't knighthoods always conferred under 1st name, whether or not actually used? Peter jackson (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I would still follow the form identified in the article on the peerage: it may be necessary to open the article for editing to check what form is piped there. Since that form will exist as a redlink or an article, it should be followed initially. If the redlink is clearly long, change it; if not sure, open a dsicussion on the peergage article's talk page. If you think the article is mistitled, open a discussion on the article talk page. I do not think the practice on knighthoods really helps. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Honours lists will certainly list all names, but when it comes to the actual dubbing, which for Knights Bachelor at least get a separate notice in the London Gazette, I've certainly seen the form Sir (notverywellknownfirstname) Secondnamewhichiswhattheperson'snormallyknownby surname, the brackets making it clear that that part of the name isn't actually going to be used by the person who's just been knighted. David Underdown (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles Baron Talbot and Earl of Shrewsbury

These two articles were split, but if I understand this page, the Baron Talbot, as a subsidiary title to the Earl of Shrewsbury, should be on the Shrewsbury title page, right? I'm not sure so I just wanted to bring it to someone's attention. Ltwin (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

According to convention, I think you are right, but the Talbot titles are so complicated that it is probably better to have separate pages for Baron Talbot, Earl Talbot, and Earl of Shrewsbury. I presume that is why they were split. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

There's currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) that might interest you lot. Essentially it is about whether hereditary members of the House of Lords should get an automatic "free pass" of the notability guidelines under WP:POLITICIAN. It is my understanding that standard practice for an article on a peer whose only achievement is being born and having their father pop his clogs is to redirect to the article on the title itself - this discussion might interest you lot, since if hereditary members of the House of Lords count as politicians, every member of the UK peerage who took his or her title before 1999 would be worthy of an article. Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ambrose Dudley, Earl of Warwick

I am trying to determine whether Ambrose Dudley, 3rd Earl of Warwick should properly be 1st Earl of Warwick as part of a new creation in 1561.

ThePeerage.com calls Ambrose the 1st Earl of Warwick, citing Burke's Peerage.

Burke A general and heraldic dictionary of the peerages of England, Ireland, and Scotland: extinct, dormant, and in abeyance (1831) separates "DUDLEY—EARL OF WARWICK. By Letters Patent, dated 26th September 1561." (Ambrose, p. 184) as a separate creation from "DUDLEY — VISCOUNTS L'ISLE, EARLS OF WARWICK, DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND" (Earldom granted by letters patent 17 February 1547).

Ambrose would have been the 3rd Earl only of he had inherited from his older brother John Dudley, 2nd Earl of Warwick; John was attainted and his titles forfeited. He died on 21 October 1554, aged 23. Ambrose and his brother Henry were "restored in blood" in 1556 and in 1561 Ambrose was elevated to the peerage as Baron d'Lisle and Earl of Warwick.

Can someone with more expertise or better references advise on whether the Letters Patent of 1561 constitute a new creation? - PKM (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If they're in the correct form they'd automatically do so, even if the title already existed. Non-duplication of titles is custom, not law. there are 2 Earls of Mar. Peter jackson (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The question, then, would be whether Ambrose ever inherited his father's title, or only held his own new title. john k (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I just ran across Ambrose, started wondering about a move, and found this previous discussion. GEC seems to agree that it was a new creation; I'm inclined to move, but weigh in on the talk page there. Choess (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Earl of Norfolk

If you go onto the "1st" Earl of the "second" creation's page, and follow the wikilink to his father, it becomes apparent that he was also an Earl of Norfolk. How does one slot him into the timeline on the Earl of Norfolk page? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's generally best to avoid "nth Earl of" type styles in these articles, they are anachronistic and the data is not secure enough. Would suggest moving all the articles to the manner of Hugh I, Earl of Norfolk or Hugh I Bigot, Earl of Norfolk, and so on. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The earliest earldoms seem more to have been an office as much as an honour. It may be better to have "early earls' and then 1141 creation, etc, rahter than nth creation. I would suggest the preferable form is Hugh I Bigot, Earl of Norfolk. The standard WP rules do fit well with this early era. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

To add, the idea of a "new creation" is just totally unfathomable for this period. But well said. Same would apply to the earls of Chester. Gherbod the Fleming is actually the first earl of Chester (though Chester was the region held by Edwin, Earl of Mercia when he died, the rump of the earldom of Mercia, and Gherbod is clearly the direct successor), but nevertheless we have the article Hugh d'Avranches, 1st Earl of Chester. He's normally called Hugh I or simply Hugh d'Avranches; likewise Ranulf le Meschin is Ranulf I or Ranulf le Meschin (note you can find him being called 3rd, 4th and 1st earl of Chester) - Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

On a side-note, Hugh's father wasn't earl of Norfolk and the article is wrong in naming him such. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Blomefield addresses him as such in his History of Norfolk (written 1735), which is how I found him in the first place. I guess it depends on your definition of Earl. Incidentally, the article on Hugh doesn't actually say why he received a earldom (assuming he didn't inherit it). - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 16:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...I think we ought to use Complete Peerage as our source for whether somebody qualifies as a peer, primarily. Certainly it would supersede something written in 1735. john k (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sir William Spring, 1st Baronet

In the article Sir William Spring, 1st Baronet, is said to have been High Sheriff of Suffolk in 1641, whilst the list of High Sheriffs of Suffolk has him listed as 1640... does anyone know the correct date? Also, does anyone think that Cromwell's letter to Sir William of Sept. 1643 is worthy of mention in the main article on Sir William Spring? Thanks! Kazzi03 (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither is sourced. It's actually possible both are "true" as it may come down to Old Style dating and related issues. Sheriffs' terms conventionally run March to March. In mdoern dating this obviously covers two calendar years, but in the English calendar of the time new year was officially Lady Day, 25 March so the term actually only covered a single term, so different sources could conceivably give either date and still be "right", they just haven't been very clear about whether dates have been adjusted to New Style or not. David Underdown (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Haig, 3rd Earl Haig

The country's newest noble - Alexander Haig, 3rd Earl Haig - could do with some article improvement please. Many thanks, GiantSnowman 17:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm, do you're sure he is notable? I can't find something of relevance and would consider the article rather a deletion candidate.Remember that after the House of Lords Act 1999 he hasn't even a seat in the House.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 18:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've WP:BOLDly redirected to Earl Haig, since there's no way he'll pass WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we not consider peers automatically notable anymore? john k (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Peers have never been considered automatically notable unless they fall under WP:POLITICIAN. Since he took his title after the 1999 Act, and his title does not confer upon him a seat in the Lords, he doesn't fall into that area. Ironholds (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose this is the case, although my general tendency would be that all earls, marquesses, and dukes, at least, are more or less going to prove notable. Certainly we have reliable sources that provide information about them (peerage guides) which is normally the principal limitation to removing articles due to notability concerns. BTW, I was just reading over your earlier inconclusive discussion of this issue in the WP:BIO talk page archives, and proposed some further discussion of peerage notability over there, if you're interested. john k (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a peek. Dukes are certainly going to be notable, since at the moment they all fall under the "members of the Royal Family" proviso. Ironholds (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Only a few dukes fall under the "members of the royal family proviso." Most dukes are not members of the royal family. john k (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Query

User:Tryde and I are having a debate over the infobox in Claud Schuster, 1st Baron Schuster. We've worked most points out, but one remains - in "appointed by", should it be "Lord Haldane" or "Viscount Haldane"? Tryde believes it should, pulling in the guideline from this wikiproject that "Succession boxes for offices, when these are held by peers, should refer to them by title, masking a link to the actual article. The style used is 'The Earl of Somewhere', 'The Lord Elsewhere', etc…" and saying that the same should apply for infoboxes. I believe it shouldn't - an infobox about a person generally is different from a succession box about a specific title, Haldane appointed Schuster in his judicial and official role (and such people are referred to as "Lord X" rather than "Viscount X"), Haldane's general position was one in which he was referred to as Lord Haldane and all the sources I have on the matter give him as Lord Haldane for this purpose. Thoughts? Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If Schuster was appointed in July 1915, wasn't it Lord Buckmaster who appointed him? Buckmaster had become Lord Chancellor in May 1915. john k (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

He was appointed and selected pre-July, the appointment was only made official and gazetted under Buckmaster. Lord Haldane recruited him and confirmed his appointment, though, so sources (at least his central biography) describe Haldane as the appointer. Ironholds (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...obviously Haldane chose him. I wonder if "appointed by" should be in the infobox at all. Isn't that a feature which is generally reserved for American subjects? Aren't all appointments officially made by the King? john k (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure when it comes to the civil service. I wouldn't be suprised if it works in the same way as with QCs (the Lord Chancellor "recommends" people to the Queen). Several judicial biographies I've read have said "X was appointed by Lord So-and-so, the Lord Chancellor" - The biography of Rigby Swift I'm currently reading, for example. Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the Lord Chancellor "recommending" people seems likely to me, as well. The same way that cabinet ministers are appointed by the Queen at the PM's "recommendation." I think it would be best to avoid the confusion. The text of the article can mention Lord Haldane choosing him. john k (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So me and Tryde are both wrong, and it should be blanked :P. Ironholds (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Baronets related to the article's creator

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#New editor creating lots of unrferenced stubs, refuses to communicate

I hope that the alarm is a false one. There are also some issues of apparent outright factual error that participants in this WikiProject might want to deal with. Uncle G (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

List

Here is a brief overview of the current state of processing of the recent creations by Joshua L. O'Brien (talk · contribs):

• Dermod O'Brien, 5th Baron Inchiquin (AfD discussion) — AFD discussion running
• Sir Donough O'Brien, 1st Baronet (AfD discussion) — AFD discussion running
• Sir Lucius O'Brien, 3rd Baronet (AfD discussion) — AFD discussion running
• Sir Edward O'Brien, 2nd Baronet (AfD discussion) — AFD discussion running. No-one has participated.
• Mathghamhain O'Brien (AfD discussion) — AFD discussion closed as "keep"
• Connor O'Brien, 2nd Viscount Clare — Speedy deletion declined, no further deletion nominations. Tagged for referencing.
• Daniel O'Brien, 1st Viscount Clare — Tagged for referencing. Not nominated for deletion.
• William O'Brien, 3rd Earl of Inchiquin, 8th Baron Inchiquin — Speedy deletion declined, no further deletion nominations. No cleanup requested.
• Henry O'Brien, 7th Earl of Thomond — Speedy deletion declined, no further deletion nominations. Tagged for referencing.
• Henry O'Brien, 5th Earl of Thomond — Speedy deletion declined, no further deletion nominations. Tagged for referencing.
• Phaedrig Lucius Ambrose O'Brien, 17th Baron Inchiquin — Tagged for referencing. Not nominated for deletion.
• Lucius O'Brien, 15th Baron Inchiquin — Tagged for referencing. Not nominated for deletion.
• Murrough McDermot O'Brien, 3rd Baron Inchiquin — Speedy deletion declined, no further deletion nominations. Tagged for referencing.
• Brian Sreamhach MacMathghamhna O'Brien — Speedy deletion declined, no further deletion nominations. Tagged for cleanup.
• Daniel O'Brien, 3rd Viscount Clare — Speedy deletion declined, no further deletion nominations. Tagged for referencing.
• Dermod O'Brien, 2nd Baron Inchiquin — Speedy deletion declined, no further deletion nominations. Tagged for referencing.
• William O'Brien, 2nd Earl of Inchiquin — Speedy deletion declined, no further deletion nominations. Tagged for referencing.
• Donogh O'Brien, 4th Earl of Thomond — Cleaned up and extensively expanded by Charles Matthews. Tagged for cleanup again, afterwards.
• Connor O'Brien, 3rd Earl of Thomond — Speedy deletion declined, no further deletion nominations. Tagged for referencing. One detailed source mentioned on the talk page.
• Donough Edward Foster O'Brien, 16th Baron Inchiquin — Tagged for referencing. Not nominated for deletion.
• Lucius O'Brien, 15th Baron Inchiquin — Tagged for referencing. Not nominated for deletion.

Fisher renaming discussion

There is currently a renaming discussion at Talk:Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher#Requested move that mainly covers the naming conventions for peers. Input from this project would be appreciated. Woody (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Banner tag duality

Greetings, fellow Wikipedians; I see the project has survived my absence. :-P

While looking around, I have come upon this, which can be safely attributed to the merger of the two WikiProjects into, well, you. Since there is no division of labour now, and provided that the different images are to remain in use (I am only familiar with this example; I don't know about other banners), I suggest giving priority to the coronet and taking out the helmet.

I can do that on my own, of course, but I am unfamiliar with the general situation. Waltham, The Duke of 22:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

I just un-deleted a couple of pages, Ashby Baronets and Ayshcombe Baronets. Both are labelled as stubs, but I can't see that there will be much info added to them, especially the latter. Rich Farmbrough, 08:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC).

Since there never was more than one holder, perhaps an article on that period should be created and the stubs made into redirects to them. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Harold Tennant

I hope someone can help me with the marriage details of Harold Tennant. Tryde (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet

User:DGG, aparently an American librarian has move the article on Sir Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet to the above title saying that this is according to WP:MOS. He has also protected this against furhter moves. If MOS does require this in the case of baronets, there is something very wrong with MOS, because a baronet is not correctly addressed without the prefix "sir". Could an Admin please sort this out and explain the correct nomenclature for British baronets to this user? If this is not done then we are going to have thousands of articels on Baronets moved to this horrid mangling of correct style. I know we do not like "Sir" in articles on knights, but it is invariable the title used for baronets. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not that I am unaware of UK nomenclature for titles, but I think it makes no sense for Wikipedia purposes. and is inconsistent with general disambiguation practice. (In fact I think it makes so little sense that I couldn't imagine there was a special rule requiring us to use it, and therefore followed the general MOS rule; now the special rule is pointed out to me, I've unprotected as my error, and you may do as you like pending discussion) The general rule for Wikipedia disambiguation is to add only as much as is necessary to disambiguate. If this leaves less than the entire title, what of it? We give the full correct title in the article. I am going to continue to challenge the rule. Not that i typically care much about details, but this is a blatant exception to general practice, and would logically lead to the use of Sir and Dr. and all other prefixes, which are equally part of the person's full title. We don't even use full middle names unless necessary. It's a single exception to the rule against prefixes. I see no reason why it is necessary--it does not clarify, it does not help disambiguate. I am referring further discussion to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), which is more widely read. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion have been already done intensively in the past. With many people. And with voting. Please see WP:MOSBIO and WP:NCNT. "Sir" is a Honorific title (Dr is not). It was decided that Baronets and knights should generally have their article located at the simple name, i.e. "John Smith". But their title should be noted at the beginning of the article in the format, i.e. "Sir John Smith, 1st Baronet". If they need to be disambiguated from another man of the same name, use the full style as the article name. Regarding baronets, the prefix and postfix should be used always together, thus "Sir" with "1st Baronet" or with "Bt". The name of the article is now utterly wrong and and I think it should to be changed back how it was previously. I will wait for a short time, but then it should be fixed. See also my comments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Demophon (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A comment here may help though: Most of the members of Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Nova Scotia are titled in the style Sir Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet; now, as in Cockburn's case, this is often needed for disambiguation, but is this so for all of them? If not, we should use the plain name, as the simplest and most common term, and redirect from the form with prefix and title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems we re-hash this about once a year. Until the rule is changed, it should be either Alexander Cockburn or Sir Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet. Whether the jurist is more notable than the journalist I can't say; I suspect though that most people now searching for Cockburn would expect the latter. Mackensen (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Update to Template:WPBiography

Please note that priority assessments for this work group are now added by using the |peerage-priority= parameter in the {{WPBiography}} project banner. Please refer to Template:WikiProject Biography/doc for full instructions on how to use the banner, or feel free to ask any questions on the banner's talk page. PC78 (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Earl of Limerick

Some days ago I reverted an attempt from September to establish a hoax succession of the title [20]. Now there is currently another try ([21] and [22]), so I wonder if perhaps a semi-protection would be sensible? ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 21:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The mentioned hoaxes were now revived by User:Dunganscholar and expanded. Please see also Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Earl_of_Limerick ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I recommend indefblock of Dunganscholar + revert all his edits. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Baron Bergavenny questions

I posed some questions on the talk page of Baron Bergavenny, but I'm not sure how many folks have it on their watchlists. Hopefully, one of the denizens of this wikiproject might shed some light on the matter. --Coemgenus 23:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Where should "Lord Byron" redirect?

To the poet "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" alone? Or to "Baron Byron" (of which title each holder has been addressed as "Lord Byron" in his own turn)? Currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Lord Byron. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Have now "closed up the gap with our English (and Australian) dead"

• John Byron, 1st Baron Byron (1599–1652) —[pre-existing]
• Richard Byron, 2nd Baron Byron (1606–1679) —NEW
• William Byron, 3rd Baron Byron (1636–1695) —NEW
• William Byron, 4th Baron Byron (1669–1736) —NEW
• William Byron, 5th Baron Byron (1722–1798) —[pre-existing]
• George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron (1788–1824) —[pre-existing]
• George Anson Byron, 7th Baron Byron (1789–1868) —[pre-existing]
• George Anson Byron, 8th Baron Byron (1818–1870) —NEW
• George Frederick William Byron, 9th Baron Byron (1855–1917) —NEW
• Frederick Ernest Charles Byron, 10th Baron Byron (1861–1949) —NEW
• Rupert Frederick George Byron, 11th Baron Byron (1903–1983) —former stub
• Richard Geoffrey Gordon Byron, 12th Baron Byron (1899–1989) —NEW
• Robert James Byron, 13th Baron Byron (b. 1950) —[pre-existing]

Of the Barons Byron listed, most articles did not exist a couple of days ago, and one that did was a stub... so I've filled in the gaps, and tried to get everything at least past "stub" (to "start") class, expanding or enhancing or tidying up some of the rest along the way, for instance creating disambiguation pages for common names in the family, like "George Byron" and "John Byron". More eyes are always welcome. Please check my work, spot errors, find areas for improvement, etc. These are still woefully short articles. Can we find more details? Illustrations? Other features? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

CfD debate on two baronets categories

Two categories nominated for deletion or upmerger:

• Cook Baronets: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 29#Category:Cook_Baronets
• McConnell Baronets: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 29#Category:McConnell_Baronets

Your contributions are welcome at the CfD discussions. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)