Talk:Baron Hume of Berwick

message: (Thread copied from user talk pages)
What is your authority for changing the spelling of Lord Home of Berwick to Lord Hume of Berwick? Home is pronounced Hume. I look forward to hearing from you because it says "Earl of Dunbar and Lord Home of Berwick" on his tomb. David Lauder 17:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not surprised it should be spelled 'Home' on his tomb.  The name, of course, was spelled several ways, in different documents throughout this period... but Lord Hume of Berwick has become an accepted norm.  My authority for this is Debrett's Peerage & Baronetage, Charles Kidd & David Williamson, editors, (2003), p.808. Flozu 18:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note your comment transferred to my Talk Page. Spellings at that time varied depending who was writing it down, but there is no doubt whatever that the surname was Home, and it seems incomprehensible to me, at least, that his title would be spelt otherwise in a formal document as late as then, and that is not what the learned Reverend J. Kirk, MC, CF., says in his treatise on George Home, Earl of Dunbar (1918). What is Lord Home's source on this? I shall consult Debretts but my understanding was that the Patent was to male heirs of the body with the Berwick title. Are you saying that is incorrect? David Lauder 18:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard the spelling of Home/Hume, the name was being spelled variously at this time, by various members of the family - and even by the same person. There are countless examples of this in the muniment room at The Hirsel. Let us not forget that spellings did not become fixed until much later on. There is the famous example of Shakespeare signing his name in two different ways in the same document.... But I'm sure you know all this. Flozu 19:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling of title

message: I have received requests on my talk page from both User:David Lauder and from User:Flozu to intervene in the edit war on this article.
It is clear from the revision log that an edit war is underway, so I have protected the page: this means that it may only be edited by an admin.  In accordance with Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content_disputes, I have protected the page at the version which was current when I examined the article, and have not attempted to decide which of the many recent versions was preferable.
Initially, I have protected the article for 7 days. This protection may be extended if that seems necessary, or may be lifted if the dispute has been resolved.
Since you have both asked me to help resolve the dispute, I suggest that you may want to consider the following method.
#You work together to create a version of the article which accords with the facts you both agree on.  Either of you could start this off, in your own userspace. Such a version is likely to be much shorter than the current article.  Is there enough common ground to allow this to be done?
#Once a common version agreed, then take it in turn to propose changes. If the proposed changes are concise and limited and well-referenced, it is more likely that an admin will accept them.
I hope this helps!
Good luck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS to request changes to the protected article, please use the template . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection extended. Having looked at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, it seems that 14 days is the usual period for initial protection of an article, so I have extended the protection on this article to 14 days (i.e. until 4 June 2007). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected 

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

message: I would summarise the dispute as follows:
DL and I both agree that many sources state the title of Lord Hume of Berwick as extinct. We also both agree that Debrett’s states it is not extinct, but held by the Earl of Home. We further agree that the article should state both of these possibilities.  I think that DL now accepts that Alec Douglas-Home, 14th Earl of Home ‘disclaimed’ the Barony of Hume of Berwick in 1963, and that this information should be included in the article.
DL disagrees with me on the following points. First, he thinks that my version of the article is POV, because it promotes a claim to the title by the Earls of Home. Second, he rejects the assertion that there is uncertainty as to whether the peerage was an English or a Scottish creation, stating that it was English.  Third, he objects to the statement that Douglas-Home’s renunciation of the title was constitutionally significant.
I would respond to these objections as follows:
#It is easily verifiable as fact that Alec Douglas-Home and his forebears stated a claim to this title, even if a formal claim was never pursued all the way to the Committee of Privileges.  D-H's disclaimer of this title in 1963 should be evidence enough of this. While I have not argued (nor intended to imply) that the Homes’ claim is valid, the question of the continued existence of the title is of central importance to the article.
#I happen to agree that the title was probably English, as most sources state.  However, several good sources report uncertainty about this fact, which needs to be stated in the article. Other than Debrett’s, Dickie (in The Uncommon Commoner) and Thorpe, make it clear that the Lord Chancellor's office listed both "The Lordship of Hume of Berwick in the peerage of Scotland" and "The Barony of Hume in the Peerage of England" in Douglas-Home’s disclaimer because of uncertainty as to which peerage the title belonged.  The London Gazette reports this here .
#Douglas-Home was the first Prime Minister to renounce his peerages in order to sit in the House of Commons – a momentous and widely reported event. An analogy would be Gordon Brown changing his name under new legislation in order to succeed Tony Blair. If D-H had not disclaimed all of his titles he would have been barred from taking a seat in the Commons - making his unproven claim to the Barony of Hume of Berwick constitutionally significant.
I'll leave it to others to decide which version of the article more accurately represents the available evidence. I'll not make any further contributions to this debate for a week in the hope that tempers may cool, and good sense prevail. See you then. :) Flozu 23:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flozu's answer to BrownHairedGirl 

message: * She states firstly that she agrees that the title is extinct, as all the principle authorities agree. But then further on she states "the question of the continued existence of the title is of central importance to the article."
It is not, because no formal claim by the Earls of Home has been made to this title. Moreover, the title had been reissued to the Marchmont family in the 18th century indicating clearly that the Crown saw it as extinct and reissueable
* Flozu has moved slightly from her reliance on an opinion by Debretts in this century, to concentrate on Sir Alec Douglas-Home's Disclaimer, which she states was "of constitutional importance". No-one is debating this particular point at all but it was of constitutional importance because he was renouncing his seat in the House of Lords as the Earl of Home, a very senior noble title, and the other titles he holds (some of which did not entitle him to a seat in The House) would quite naturally be included, as a matter of form, just as they are in Peerage directories. But the 'also rans' do not form part of the "constitutional importance" at all.  The important thing is that at no time did the Earls of Home or any of their family ever attempt to take a seat in The House as Lord Home of Berwick.
Sir Alec was then a very important politician and became Prime Minister. The onus for getting his Disclaimer drawn up was upon him and the directions would have come from him. They could not have come from anyone else! If the Earls of Home believed they had some sort of claim to this title they doubtless had it included it in the lists of titles for the Disclaimer which followed that of the Earl of Home to the scribe drawing up the formal disclaimer. But that does not constitute a legal formal claim and so its inclusion is essentially meaningless.
* The Gazettee to which Flozu refers simple states that the Disclaimer has been handed in. That is all. And we all knew that anyway so I cannot think which this entry is being held up as a pertinent reference.
* Flozu also cites biographers of Sir Alec but naturally they will be on his side where this issue is mentioned. They are hardly going to be hostile. (We're talking about a popular politican, not Robert Maxwell). Elsewhere on Wikipedia we see attacks on the Arbuthnot family histories, however brilliantly researched, as being unacceptable and unreliable. So why should we now accept the opinions of other partisan biographers as essential fact?
My argument is for a proper summary of the salient facts of this title because they referred to a famous politican of the day who late became an Earl of Dunbar. I am a great fan of Sir Alec Douglas-Home. But he and his family have no legitimate claim to this title according to the Heralds and other excellent sources and until they make a formal claim any mention of their beliefs in this matter should not interfere with the established facts and the main part of the article. For an encyclopaedia to mention a "peerage in England (or Scotland)" (as Flozu insists upon inserting) is more than ridiculous as people refer to an encyclopaedia for the essential facts and every authority (bar the scribes under instruction from Sir Alec) states that it was in the Peerage of England. Worth adding that Berwick-upon-Tweed had been in England for over a century when this peerage was created and had such a title been created in the peerage of Scotland it would have created uproar. David Lauder 10:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to the above statement by Flozu

message: I think the block on editing has been helpful and that CK and DL are both now being more reasonable and considered in their responses. May I suggest that the article be rewritten by another editor who is experienced in these nuances? I have in mind User:Alci12 or User:Choess. And, after that has happened, CK and  DL suggest amendments to the revised article on the talk page before reverting them. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Thats all very well, but no-one has yet told me what was wrong with my last edit and the article in that format. David Lauder 11:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested way forward

message: It seems that another edit war is underway, so I have protected the page again, per Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content_disputes: this means that it may only be edited by an admin.
Initially, I have protected the article for 14 days. This protection may be extended if that seems necessary, or may be lifted if the dispute has been resolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I am happy for an independent admin to ajudicate. David Lauder 08:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I have added quotations from Volume VI (1926) of the 2nd edition of the Complete Peerage, stating that this is a creation in the Peerage of Scotland and that it is dormant. Hopefully this will not re-ignite the edit war after fourteen years (not a long time in peerage matters!). Alekksandr (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Peerage of Scotland