Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 13

message: Suffixes for non-British/Commonwealth subjects/citizens receiving British awards should not be used. The sentences 'This Bob Geldof is not "Sir Bob Geldof" in the title and is "Bob Geldof KBE (hon.)" in the text. Likewise, Colin Powell is not "Sir Colin Powell" but "Colin Powell GCB (hon.)". See the talk page re explanation of change.' should be changed. The KBE reference can stand for Geldof as an Irishman, but few Americans know or care about what GCB is supposed to stand for and only British publications will ever add such suffixes to Powell's name (it currently does not exist in the wikipedia article). A mention somewhere in the article about receiving the award is appropriate, but adding it as part of a person's name is anglo-centric. --Jiang 19:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: replaced reference to Colin Powell with "Post-nominals should not be used for non-Commonwealth or former British Empire citizens as their use outside a Commonwealth context are extremely rare." without objection. No one uses these post nominals in the US. It's only used by British/Commonwealth people in their own contexts. --Jiang 08:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  British titles for non British subjects 

message: Courtesy titles (also referred to as an honorific prefix)² such as Lord or Lady differ from full titles because unlike full titles they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth. As such, they should be included in the article title if a person if universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it. For example, the nineteenth century British prime minister Lord John Russell was always known by that form of name, never simply John Russell. Using the latter form would produce a name that would be unrecognisable to anyone searching for a page on Russell.
I'm not a fan of citing as examples cases that are more convoluted than they need to be. The page on Russell is John Russell, 1st Earl Russell, as he was known after 1861, including during his second premiership. Can someone come up with a better example? Lord Randolph Churchill sprank to mind but regardless of his being known to history by that title there is also the need to disambiguate from his grandson Randolph Churchill. Timrollpickering 15:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lord Frederick Cavendish? Proteus (Talk) 19:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have updated it. Timrollpickering 00:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Better example of courtesy titles?

message: Really just a slight tidy up to add two further exceptions clauses which cover current practice. Can I suggest we change the first paragraph as follows with addition in bold:
# Members of the hereditary Peerage' (people who inherit their title), such as a marquess, viscount, count, duke. earl, etc., as with royals have two names.  For example Henry John Temple was also the 3rd Viscount Palmerston, hence typically referred to as "Lord Palmerston". Rule here is, "So-and-so, ordinal (if appropriate) title of place", and place redirects as you see fit. The sequence number is included since personal names are often duplicated (see Earl of Aberdeen.) Examples: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, or Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, with redirect Lord Palmerston, which allows both of his names to be included. EXCEPTIONS: When individuals received hereditary peerages after retiring from the post of Prime Minister (unless they are better known for their later career under an additional/alternative title), or for any other reason are known exclusively by their personal names, do not include the peerage dignity. Examples: Anthony Eden (not "Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon"), Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell") (but Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth not Henry Addington). When individuals held more than one peerage and are best known by a title other than their highest one, use the interim one. Examples: Frederick John Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich (not "Frederick John Robinson, 1st Earl of Ripon"), William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne (not "William Petty, 1st Marquess of Lansdowne"). When individuals inherited or were created peers but are best known to history by a courtesy title use that. Examples Frederick North, Lord North (not Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford), Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh (not Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry).
Both are in practice for good reason (and after long debate ages ago) because of how Addington/Sidmouth, North and Castlereagh are known to history but don't seem to be covered here. Timrollpickering 00:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Modify peerage bit

message: Reading through this page, I noticed that it's not really up to date with our current practice, so I've changed several aspects of it:
*I've removed the "all titles" section at the beginning, as it gave a rule that only applies to titles in American English, and the vast majority of articles on people with titles don't use that. International English practice is to write "Lord Shrewsbury met the Duke", not "Lord Shrewsbury met the duke", and "the Secretary of State met the Prime Minister", not "the secretary of state met the prime minister", and the first way of each of those examples is the format used in the vast majority of articles, so it makes little sense to have this page contradict that usage.
*I've implemented the changes to the peerage section suggested above, as they make sense and no one seems to have any objections to them.
*I've added a bit about multiple peerages and single peerages with multiple parts, which merely explains current practice.
*I've deleted the sentence grouping baronets together with knights and added a section on baronets (again, merely reflecting current practice).
*I've edited the section on members of royal familes to reflect articles such as Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and made a couple of small tweaks.
*I've altered the section on formatting the opening of articles on members of royal families, as we changed this style a while ago because it didn't look very nice.
I think that's it, and as I say most of the changes merely reflect current practice and are simply bringing this page up to date, but feel free to complain if you think I've been too bold. Proteus (Talk) 15:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks reasonable to me. Deb 16:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Extensive changes

message: Okay, the current article titling for peeresses is a complete mess. For some we have Firstname, Title, as Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire.  For some we have just the maiden name, e.g. Elizabeth Georgiana Leveson-Gower.  For some we have Firstname Marriedname, Title, as Charlotte Montagu-Douglas-Scott, Duchess of Buccleuch.  I would imagine we have others at Firstname Maidenname, Title, although I've not seen any.  I already suggested at the Charlotte Montagu-Douglas-Scott page that we not use surnames at all for peeresses.  Proteus disagrees, thinking that we should use the married name.  I thought I would see what others think.  There also seems to be a great deal of mess over how to title articles on Queen-Consorts for countries other than Britain.  Should Princess Louise of Sweden who marries the King of Denmark be at Louise of Sweden or Louise of Denmark?  That could perhaps be resolved as well. john k 19:41, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's a mess, but what exactly do you mean by peeresses?  Sorry to go over old ground, but it seems obvious that we need different rules for peeresses in their own right from the rules that apply to women who have married peers. Deb 20:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: AAAAARGH!!!!! Deb 21:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure.  It would at least be consistent to always used married name.  I would rather have them all at Firstname Marriedname, Title than some there and some at Firstname, Title. john k 02:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm - it's the "what does most commonly known as mean?" problem again. Certainly in Georgiana's case "Duchess of Devonshire" should be in there even though I think she later remarried (there's a bit of discussion on the talk page). Timrollpickering 10:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed. john k 02:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed. john k 02:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, we already do this with peers.  For instance, Gathorne Hardy, 1st Earl of Cranbrook.  By the time he was Earl of Cranbrook, his surname was Gathorne-Hardy.  But since he was for a long time known as "Gathorne Hardy," the compromise is made.  But I would agree with not doing this with peeresses, at least. john k 02:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dare we have a further rule for people who go and merge their first name and surname into a new surname for peerage titles? All the elements are still there? Timrollpickering 10:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Disraeli's wife died before he became Earl of Beaconsfield.  So she'd be Mary Anne Disraeli, Viscountess Beaconsfield, I guess?  john k 02:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a peeress in her own right the number needs to be there so Mary Anne Disraeli, 1st Viscountess Beaconsfield, as she is at now. Certainly not Mary Anne Evans, 1st Viscountess Beaconsfield (maiden name + title) or Mary Anne Lewis, 1st Viscountess Beaconsfield (1st marriage name + title). There is of course the further problem of women who remarry - obviously a married title is formally lost on remarriage but this doesn't always follow in common use. Sarah, Duchess of York is likely to be always known as that or "Fergie" even if she does remarry. Timrollpickering 10:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Also there's cases where a man is due to be granted a title but dies before it can be conferred and so it's conferred on his heir with remainder to be inherited as though he held it and his widow is given the style of a Dowager of the title by which she becomes well known but she was never actually married to someone who held the substantive title...Timrollpickering 10:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd say that married higher titles should get precedence, since they were almost certainly better known by that title than by their own. john k 02:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was okay with this until we got to Mrs Disraeli, but personally I would prefer to see her as just plain "Mary Anne Disraeli".  Is the "1st Viscountess" thing correct?  Supposing there was a "2nd Viscount whatever" and he died unmarried, but then the "3rd Viscount whatever" got married - would his wife still be 3rd Viscountess, because she takes her title from him? Deb 17:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, only suo jure peers and peeresses use numerals (so they aren't used by wives of peers or, in the past, husbands of peeresses who were styled as peers jure uxoris). If Lady Beaconsfield had survived to see her husband ennobled, she would have been "1st Viscountess Beaconsfield" but only "Countess of Beaconsfield". And they don't really make much sense when you've had suo jure peeresses - the son and heir of a 1st Countess is a 2nd Earl, even though there's never been an Earl before him - but they're generally used anyway. The only other way is writing "xth in line" in brackets afterwards, but Margaret of Mar, Countess of Mar (31st in line) is hardly an ideal article title. Proteus (Talk) 18:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peeresses 

message: I don't like the current policy for baronets.  I think the title should only be used when necessary to disambiguate.  By the current rule, Robert Peel should be at Sir Robert Peel, 2nd Baronet. john k 17:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baronets 

message: First, a minor point - whatever the merits of using "His Holiness," they don't have to do with naming conventions, which have to do with how you title an article.  So I've reverted that change.
Second point - We've been having a dispute over at Talk:Schismatic Pope Alexander V (or whatever it is by the time you read this), about how to deal with article titles for antipopes.  Nat Krause and others seem to dislike the use of "Antipope" in article titles, and feel it is POV, in that wikipedia is determining that these people were not really pope.  I don't think this is right - we are calling them antipope because they are normally recognized as antipopes by other people, and because nobody anymore recognizes them as having actually been pope.  The issue with Alexander V is more complicated, since it has not been definitively stated that he necessarily was an antipope.  I'm not sure how to deal with this.  But I do think we need a real standard for how to title articles on antipopes. john k 14:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple points: John Kenney makes a good point that few people living would have a problem with describing antipopes as antipopes. Still, I'm not convinced that it can ever be really NPOV to call somebody something unless both a) it is widely accepted in the present, and b) it would have been acceptable to the person in question. There may be times when it would be unavoidable to make such a comment in the article, but it should be avoided as much as possible in the article titles. Certainly, an antipope would have vigorously debated being called an antipope. Similarly, it doesn't seem very advisable to me to label anyone as a pope unless they are very widely accepted as such by the relevant followers. As an alternative, I would prefer to use personal names, particularly in the cases of people, such as Baldassare Cossa / Antipope John XXIII, who are fairly well known by that name; or else, to use standard disambiguation measures, such as (papal claimant) or (timeperiod papal claimant), i.e. Alexander V (papal claimant) or John XXIII (15th century papal claimant). Another option, which is in use in some pages, has rival popes as Avignon Pope Thisandthat or perhaps Pisan Pope Suchandsuch. This is okay, but it strikes me as a little nouvelle (I don't know if other sources ever use this convention), possibly a little confusing for readers who don't know what a "Pisan Pope" means, and possibly misleading, as in the case of Alexander V, who may well have had a lot of followers, during and after his life, outside of the Pisan Party. This convention might also not be generalizable to all antipopes. - Nat Krause 09:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popes and Antipopes 

message: This may have been discussed in previous archives but Wiki stylebook indicates that the titles of article about foreign rulers and royals should reference the closest English equivalent of their names. Wiki's articles about the Spanish royal family, however, use their Spanish names -- ie Juan Carlos, Felipe, Sofia, et cetera -- as do those for the present Swedish king and his wife -- Carl XVI Gustaf and Silvia. Wiki stylebook seems to dictate that this usage is incorrect, and that we should be referring to them as John Charles, Philip, Sophia, Charles XVI Gustavus, and Sylvia. Non-royal heads of state, however, keep their original names, seemingly no matter what, ie Nicolae Ceaucescu and Mikhail Gorbachev, which seems illogical. I have read the relevant passages re naming conventions over and over and still come to this conclusion. Can somebody explain, succinctly, to me where I am perhaps misreading the citation? If indeed I am? Mowens35 12:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common English Equivalent of Names