Talk:Marquess

message: QUOTE: The term is also used to translate equivalent Asian styles, as in imperial China and Japan. END OF QUOTE
The above contention has to be qualified by a little more information. In feudal languages, when honorifics get added to the name, a huge set of other words also get changed. Words such as You, Your, Yours, He, His, Him, She, Her, Hers etc. exist in varying levels in these languages. And they move in sync. 
This phenomenon is not three in English.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D10A:CEE4:39B5:982C:79AC:7208 (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asian connection 

message: The Latin Vicipaedia article for this page is . I would add it to the language links on the left of this page, if I could figure out how to perform this once simple task using the new complicated tools. Rwflammang (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin     

message: The implication that Margrave is a German word is incorrect. The German title is Markgraf, which is translated into English via French as Margrave, and, with reference to the comment below, was widely used in German-speaking lands.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.123.28 (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be combined with Margrave 

message: > "Marquis" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Maquis.
MaRquis and Ma_quis are mixed up in redirect/disambiguation section; I don't know the syntax enough to fix it myself.
176.52.32.104 (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong redirect/disambiguation 

message: is unreferenced.  Is this supposed to refer to the present day only, in which case it might be true (I do not know)?  But I do not think that it was true historically.  On the contrary.  As a rough poll I looked at the relative prevalence in the 70 million pages in the online British Newspaper Archive over 1800-2000, comparing "marquis of" with "marquess of" - overall in the 6 million hits it is about 10:1 for Marquis and over time narrowing from 15:1 in 1850/1900 to 4:1 in 1950-2000 (there is some bias in this as some real French political nobles will be included in "marquis" count only, but probably not very significant). There was no real difference in proportions between use in English or Scottish newspapers.  
I looked also at an example from Scotland and from England to see whether there was a distinct difference: Marquis of Ailsa (the man I was trying to find - there's not even a redirect) and a random Marquess of Westminster.  They both show the same dominance of Marquis.
There may be other other and better ways of looking at this, but it's outside my field.  I have no desire to disturb the current adoption of a preference for "Marquess" to meet WP:CONSISTENT objectives, but I hope that some proper explanation of the reasoning for this and the real history can be added to this article - and redirects from "Marquis of Xxx" encouraged wherever appropriate. Davidships (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have though "real" continental "marquises" would be pretty significant, as there are an awful lot of them, compared to very few in the peerages of the British Isles. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Very few mentions in the English papers of continental marquises, and usually as "Marquis de", not "Marquis of".  Just to see what emerged, I looked for "marquis" and "marquess" in Jan 1800, 1850, 1900 & 1950, noting different people (not frequency since those in active public life dominate).
* 1-31/1/1800: Marquis - English eight (Bath, Buckingham, Carmarthen, Cornwallis, Granby, Hertford, Lansdowne, Salisbury), Scottish five (Annandale, Bute, Lorne, Lothian, Tullibardine), Irish four (Donegall, Downshire, Waterford, Wellesley)
* 1-31//1/1800: Marquess - none (the first that decade not until September 1801)
* 1/1/1850: Marquis - English fifteen (Anglesey, Blandford, Camden, Dorset, Ely, Exeter, Hertford, Lansdowne, Normanby, Northampton, Salisbury, Staffod, Westminster, Winchester, Worcester), Scottish two (Queensbury, Breadalbane), Irish eight (Abercorn, Clanricarde, Dalhousie, Donegall, Downshire, Londonderry, Sligo, Thomond)
* 1/1/1850: Marquess - English seven (italics above, Granby), Irish four (italics above), Scottish none
* 1/1/1900: Marquis - English eight (Corwallis, Normanby, Northampton, Ripon, Salisbury, Townshend, Westminster, Winchester), Scottish five (Breadalbane, Lorne, Lothian, Tweeddale, Zetland), Irish four (Dufferin, Londonderry, Ormonde, Waterford)
* 1/1/1900: Marquess - English five (italics above, Abergavenny, Bristol, Granby), Scottish two (italics above, Bute), Irish two (italics above)
* 1-20/1/1950: Marquis - English thirteen (Abergavenny, Anglesey, Bath, Bristol, Camden, Hartington, Hastings, Lansdowne, Milford Haven, Reading, Ripon, Salisbury, Stafford), Scotland four (Aberdeen, Bute, Lorne, Lothian, Queensbury), Irish four (Donegal, Dufferin, Hamilton, Londonderry)
* 1-20/1/1950: Marquess - English thirteen (italics above, Blandford, Crewe, Mormanby, Morthampton, Tavistock, Titchfield), Scottish six (italics above, Huntly, Linlithgow, Zetland), Irish four (italics above, Headfort)
It is clear that the earlier dominant marquis had a strong presence through to at least my time.  This is of course WP:OR of a middling kind, but is just to illustrate why I think that there is an issue to be addressed. Davidships (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marquis