Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 4

message: First of all, this page is 68 KB :). But that's a relative non-issue. First of all, I already asked Lord Emsworth, but what do I do with long titles? Eg. John Smith, 5th Duke of London, 4th Marquess of London, 4th Marquess Smith, 3rd Earl of London, 4th Earl of Cambridge, 2nd Earl Grey of Oxford, 5th Viscount Camden of London, 18th Viscount of London, 10th Baron London of London, 11th Baron Smith of Oxford, Knight of the Order of the Garter, Privy Councillor? What I've been doing is condensing into the following: Sir John Smith, 5th Duke of London at the beginning of the article, as Emsworth suggested, then putting that long verbose title somewhere in the middle of the page, like what was done at Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, but now I'm not so sure...
Also, what are the standards for position navboxes:
Preceded by:The Earl of Wiltshire	Lord Steward1551-1553	Followed by:The Earl of Arundel
Specifically, what positions warrant a navbox? Right now, I've been doing the obvious (Secretaries of State, Great Officers of State,  etc.), but do other positions (Lord Steward, Lord Chamberlain, etc.) warrant a box too? I r teh conf|_|$3d... although I have learned much about peerages writing articles about obscure people with long names :) ugen64 01:23, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
First of all, I don't believe that it is correct to use "Sir" with peers. As to the positional navigation boxes, it was decided somewhere else (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Government) that the following officials warrant them:
*Prime Ministers
*Governors-General/ Viceroys/ Lord Lieutenants of Ireland
*Chancellors of the Exchequer and of the Duchy of Lancaster
*Secretaries of State
*Great Officers of State (incl. Great Officers of Ireland)
*Postmasters-General
*Paymasters of the Forces
*Secretaries at War
*Attorneys-General
*Masters-General of Ordnance
*Commanders-in-Chief of the Forces and Captains-General
*Chief Secretaries of Ireland
*Masters of the Mint
*Treasurers of the Navy
*Presidents of the Poor Law Board, the Board of Trade, the Local Government Board, the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Education
*First Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and First Commissioners of Works
*Leaders of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons
*Leaders of the main parties
*Ministers of Health and other important ministers
*Important judges (Lords Chief Justices, Masters of the Rolls)
*First Ministers of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland
*And finally, to answer what you asked: officers of the Royal Household (including Lord Chamberlains, Lord Stewards)
-- Emsworth 02:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A couple of issues

message: I see that we now have three separate lists of life peers: List of Life Peerages, List of life baronies, and List of life peers.  Each list has varying amounts of information.  It seems to me that we ought to consolidate these three lists and come to agreement has to how much information such a list requires.  There's little use in a separate status column; except in extremely rare cases the peerage is either extant or extinct.  Notes is sufficient for hereditary peers who've gained life peerages or the rare cases where a life peerage is stripped (has that even happened yet, I know Archer kept his)?Since we're really listing people, not titles, I'd prefer a list like so: Mackensen 03:32, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But I think they could still be listed on the same page, like we do on List of life baronies.  Otherwise, I suppose we could keep list of life baronies (although perhaps with the refactoring I suggested), and List of Law Life Peerages. Mackensen 16:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I can live with that; could we at least merge either name and title or title and territorial designation? Mackensen 17:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We could merge title and ter. desig., I suppose, as long as we put the latter in italics to make it quite clear that it's not part of the title. (I think merging name and title would present problems with life peerages given to hereditary peers.) Proteus (Talk) 19:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of life peers 

message: We have Screaming Lord Sutch not Screaming Lord Sutch, 3rd Earl of Harrow which is what David Sutch legally changed his name to. However in this case he's best known without the Harrow bit, regardless of what right he has to it but there may be less well known individuals who cause problems.
And amongst fictional peers we have Lord Emsworth (not to be confused with the user by the same name), not Clarence Threepwood, 9th Earl of Emsworth. What standards should we adopt for handling articles about such characters? Timrollpickering 15:21, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I dispute that David Edward Sutch legally changed his name to "Screaming Lord Sutch, 3rd Earl of Harrow". No such name change was ever notified to the London Gazette, and if it was ever made privately by deed poll then that is beside the point as he did not use it on any official document. Unfortunately English law allows a person to use any name they want, so long as it is not for the purposes of fraud. Sutch always contested byelections using the names "Lord David Sutch" (which makes him the younger son of a fictional higher peer, if read literally - and demonstrates why one should not read jokes literally). Personally I would put his article at David Sutch on the grounds that it only encourages them. Unfortunately there is no article on Titus Groan nor Titus Groan, 77th Earl of Gormenghast, neither on Cedric Errol,  ?th Earl of Dorincourt. Dbiv 03:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fake and Fictional peerages

message: There is a move to rename the article on Lord Denning see:Talk:Alfred Denning, Baron Denning. Is there any guidence on how to name the pages for Law Lords? -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law Lords 

message: Just wanted to let everyone know that, given the absurdly large size of :Category:Peers, I've (foolishly?) embarked on a mission to categorize all peers more specifically by rank and type of peerage.  Thus, I've created :Category:Peers of England, :Category:Peers of Scotland, and so forth, as well as :Category:British dukes and :Category:British marquesses.  At the intersection of these, I've created :Category:Dukes in the Peerage of Ireland, :Category:Marquesses in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and so forth.  So far, I've gotten through dukes and marquesses.  Any help in the task would be appreciated, though. john k 03:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked a relevant question on John's talk page. – ugen64 19:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recategorization

message: Not directly relevant to this WikiProject, but somewhat related: Do we really want succession boxes for the British Order of Precedence? Proteus (Talk) 18:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so; I've stated my reasons here. I'm tempted to start removing them as I encounter them. Mackensen (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of Precedence

message: As CFD was place on Category:Peerage because of distinct bias towards Britishness, and the fact that Peerage existed and originated in France, there needs to be a revision in the naming scheme of anything purely British in both article and category names to reflect this fact, such as Category:British Peerage. 132.205.44.43 18:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD Peerage 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Baron of Fulwood. The article Baron of Fulwood appears to be about someone who bought a Scottish Barony and has written about their ancestors. David | Talk 21:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A peerage-related VFD

message: I came across this, and it doesn't look verifiable to me... It says it's based on original research, and generally seems to violate WP:NOT.  Assuming I'm right, somebody want to VfD this? JesseW 23:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I entirely agree - I'm not clear why this hasn't been VfD - perhaps Proteus if he passes by will have a look as he's more up on the admin functions.Alci12 11:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Barony of Castel Cicciano]] - verifiable? 

message: Inactive my foot. Anyway, a question arose from Tony Benn: how shall we format a peerage succession box for a peer who has disclaimed his (or her) title? One possibility would be to display the years in which the title was actually held before being disclaimed, but that seems a bit misleading--the title is still associated with Tony Benn, else it wouldn't pass to his eldest son on his death.
Here's how I would envision a complete presentation:
Thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We could have the dates it was actually held in the middle box and insert the date of death in the "Suceeded by" box — perhaps have a "death date" field in a new succession box template so we can have "Succeeded by (1910): Tudor Palliser". Proteus (Talk) 21:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession boxes 

message: Could I possibly have some support on Glenys Kinnock (and its [[Talk:Glenys Kinnock|talk page)? User:Dbiv has been insisting that calling Lady Kinnock as the wife of a Baron "Glenys Elizabeth Kinnock, Baroness Kinnock" in the opening is wrong, and has now starting acting absurdly and removing the title completely, along with "The Right Honourable". Proteus (Talk) 17:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be inconsistent with higher degrees of the peerage, but wives of Barons are now invariably referred to as "Lady" while Baronesses in their own right are referred to either as "Lady" or "Baroness" according to their preference. In this particular case, Glenys Kinnock does not use the title "Lady Kinnock", and people are entitled to say how they prefer to be addressed. I believe that forcing a title upon her which she does not use would make the entry ludicrous, and departing from what has become an established mode of address would detract from the value of Wikipedia. I also note that when this issue was last discussed above, the consensus was as I am suggesting here: wives of Barons are Lady, Baronesses in their own right are Baroness. Obviously I would welcome the views of others on this subject. David | Talk 21:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about starting the article as Glenys Kinnock, Baroness Kinnock (dates), known commonly as Lady Kinnock. We've got a long-standing practice of noting the correct legal name first, and more common name second. Mackensen (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have a problem with that. The fact is that practically no-one refers to the wife of a Baron as a Baroness, and she's not "known commonly as Lady Kinnock", because Glenys Kinnock doesn't use the title. The only hits Google puts up for "Baroness Kinnock" are Wikipedia and its mirrors. David | Talk 22:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wives of Barons and Baronesses

message: Hi.  I've noticed this page appears to have become horribly out of date - see Talk:Members of the House of Lords for more info.  I will give it a go updating, but it would be nice if this could be maintained on an ongoing basis - we have a peerage wikiproject and a lot of people editing about peers, so it seems a shame that this list can be allowed to get so out of date.  Morwen - Talk 21:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still need help here.  Morwen - Talk 12:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Members of the House of Lords]] 

message: I've written a draft of what I think this project page could say, and I've tried to fit pretty much all our current practice into it, in a hope that, if we codify our practice, as it were, we can stop all the arguments on various discussion pages about all this sort of thing, and just direct people here, which is really where such discussions should be taking place. Comments and alterations/additions would be much appreciated. (We could also do with a shortcut — WP:PEER perhaps?) Proteus (Talk) 19:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one's commented except Mackensen, so this is really a "bump": I certainly don't want to put it up with only one "aye", but I'm also not all that keen on waiting until 2008. :-) Proteus (Talk) 19:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I was planning on leaving it until the MoS was changed, but I suppose there's no harm in being pre-emptive. I agree that a "styles from birth" section would be good, with the addition of "He is styled The Rt Hon. The Earl of Loamshire." at the beginning of the article (probably only for living peers). Proteus (Talk) 18:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense to me. I thought I'd update the MoS tomorrow. Mackensen (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated it, removing the honorifics and inserting info on "style" sections (and, having done that, I've realised that I still think it looks silly not using the definite article for courtesy peerages). Does it look okay? Proteus (Talk) 20:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Mackensen (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well removing the style per MoS is a must the rest seems ok on first glance the only thing that caught my eye is "Marquess" should always be used, never "Marquis", for the British rank. While I prefer that I'm well aware that it's probably incorrect for Scottish (pre-union) peerages which were invariably created as and continue to use Marquis. Now I guess we could just use marquess but as a bare minimum we'll have to note the usage problem.Alci12 09:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Perfecto has listed :Template:Rayment on TfD. This is to my mind ridiculous; Rayment's information is dervied from good sources and therefore naturally checks against them. Moreover, that fact that our articles used him is incontestable (which is why I made the template in the first place). Mackensen (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rayment on TfD 

message: There are lots of red links in the List of hereditary baronies. Some of these are because there is no article about the title or its holder(s). But in some cases, the title was only held by one person and then became extinct, for example James Gambier, 1st Baron Gambier. There is no page on Baron Gambier, and there is probably nothing special about this title, and nothing to say about it other than that it was created in 1807 for James Gambier – all of which will be contained in the article about the person.
In cases such as this, where there was only one holder, and nothing else significant about the title, wouldn't it make sense to put a redirect from Baron Gambier to James Gambier, 1st Baron Gambier? This would fix a lot of the red links in pages such as List of hereditary baronies, enabling people to click on the titles and find out about them and the people they were created for.
I don't want to do this without asking people's opinions here, so does anyone have any comments? JRawle 14:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. Mackensen (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peerage pages for peerages with only one holder 

message: User:KuatofKDY has, among other useful devices, contrived "headers" for the different categories of succession boxes. Currently there are four types: Template:s-off for offices of state, Template:s-hon for honorary offices, Template:s-par for legislative office, and  Template:s-reg for royal and noble titles. See Template talk:Succession box#Separate tables for an example. "S-reg" has, at present, optimizations for the British peerage:  will create a header reading "Regnal Titles" (i.e., sovereign titles),  will create a header reading "Titles of Nobility", with a link beneath to the Peerage of the United Kingdom. There are also sct, en, and gb options for the other British peerages, and ie for Ireland. I would like to propose that the use of this template be added to the MoS: the choice of en/sct, gb or uk should (IMO) reflect the state of the peerage at the end of the peer's life (so a peer dying in 1802 would have his titles labeled with uk). Irish peerages would be noted separately beneath these peerages, e.g., the Earls of Shrewsbury and Waterford would look like:






Comments and suggestions for improvement are solicited. Choess 05:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what we all need to see is an actual working implementation of the new concept. Could you work up, say, Disraeli's succession tables in this format? Mackensen (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Lord Privy Seal, though a sinecure, is still a political office and should be listed as such. This looks interesting; I'll need some time to think (and we'll need everyone else to weigh in on this one). Mackensen (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm. Any suggestions on what to call the category (and where to place it in the "stack")? On the question of honorary positions, I have a list in userspace of various offices that are now largely sinecures. (I've crossed out some political ones.) I'd appreciate input there as to about what time they became honorary. Choess 22:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made some comments. I think it's clear that Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is a political office (sinecure), but everything else is just conjecture on my part - I'm not certain about it. – ugen64 23:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The s-par template deserves a switch of its own to display more or less specific variants. Given that an individual could at different times be an MP and an MEP (and perhaps an MSP), it probably shouldn't get more specific than "Seats in Parliament," "Congressional Seats," and so forth. For the rest, de gustibus non disputandum est. Choess 18:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession box headings 

message: See [] is this the correct format? only we have this in the article themselves from that thread: 
Sir Dalrymple Arbuthnot, CMG, DSO, JP (1 April 1867, India - 31 March 1941) was a British General and the 5th Baronet Arbuthnot of Edinburgh.
Now i'd expect Bt. to be there but it's not. In the listing I'm not sure about having 5th Bt then post noms. Need to have some clear guideAlci12 12:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Baronets Clarification

message: Firstly, let me say that I do not want to delete this, or even stop using it. :Template:Rayment is used in over 300 pages, which presents a problem, because the website in question could be considered unreliable by some: it contains intentional errors (copyright traps). I have mentioned this at Template talk:Rayment, which includes a link to . Because of its accessibility and accuracy in most cases, it should probably still be referenced. On the other hand, one way to improve articles would to replace the template with citations to a more reliable source. In other words, it's certainly not a priority, but this seems to an active WikiProject, so I thought that I could bring it up for a broader readership. Ardric47 03:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's always been a concern but it's been counterbalanced by real need for accessible information. I've always tried to check against other information; when there's a conflict, I trust said information over Rayment. Still, it's usually right. Mackensen (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Rayment 

message: Hello all-
Proteus and some of us are having a bit of a go-round on the proper first name citation over at Jamie Lee Curtis.  Proteus in essence has stated that under Wiki Peerage policy, British peers and those who hold courtesy titles due to their relationship with peers are cited under their title at first reference in the article, which means that this actress is referred to at the outset as "The Right Honourable Jamie Lee, Baroness Haden-Guest".  Proteus says that under UK law, her title replaced her previous last name, whatever it was, from the moment at which Christopher Guest acceded to the barony in 1996.
This policy obviously seems perfectly reasonable by and large, since in the vast majority of cases holders of British peerage titles are British and live in the UK under UK law.  However, in this case, things seem to be more complex.  Under US law, a woman must actively fill out paperwork to change her legal name upon marriage -- nothing happens automatically.  Some women do not legally change their names, and one of the most common reasons for not doing so would be if their maiden names were well known professionally or indicated a tie to a famous relative (as JLC's last name does to her father, Tony Curtis).   I have no idea if JLC legally changed her name to Jamie Lee Curtis Haden-Guest or Jamie Lee Haden-Guest or Jamie Lee Guest or some other variation in 1984 when she and Christopher Guest married, or chose not to change her name at all.  However, since then, she has been universally known to the public as Jamie Lee Curtis.  I'd like to find out whether JLC legally changed her name in the US, because it seems pertinent to this debate -- so far, no luck on the Internet.
So here's my question.  What should Wikipedia policy be on holders of peerage titles who (a) aren't citizens of the UK, (b) don't primarily live in the UK, (c) don't use the peerage title professionally or publicly and (d) have a different legal name under the law of the country that is their primary residence?  It seems to me somewhat silly to use their peerage title in the first referent in this case, as it implies that British peerages trump all other aspects of a person's existence and the laws of all other nations.  My suggested compromise was "Jamie Lee Curtis (born November 22, 1958), known under British law as The Right Honourable Jamie Lee, Baroness Haden-Guest" which Proteus deemss unacceptably inaccurate.  Was wondering about the opinions of other Wikipedia peerage-types. --Jfruh 18:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not confuse names and titles. As you say, in America it seems likely that she wouldn't change her surname on marriage, so it should remain as Jamie Lee Curtis. The Wikipedia convention is to add the peerage title after a comma, so that makes it Jamie Lee Curtis, Baroness Haden-Guest. This is not the usual form of address for [the wife of] a peer, so isn't supposed to represent how her name is normally used; it's simply the convention on Wikipedia. The part before the comma should be her legal name, so if you can find out whether she took her husband's surname on marriage, you can change it. If we aren't certain, her surname should stay as "Curtis", seeing as this is how she's commonly known. JRawle (Talk) 11:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual name situation with non-British title holders 

message: Could someone come over to Talk:Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox and put Hale-Byrne right on the issue of Baroness Cox' title and the correct application of naming policy? He is insisting she is "Baroness Cox of Queensbury". David | Talk 22:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baroness Cox 

message: What's our policy on article titles for the above? I wanted to write an article on Lady Colin Campbell (the former wife of the second son of the 11th Duke of Argyll) but I wasn't sure if it should be listed as such, or as Georgia, Lady Colin Campbell (or maybe something else)? Any suggestions? Craigy (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd put it at Lady Colin Campbell, like Lady Edward FitzGerald. Proteus (Talk) 17:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wives of younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses 

message: After a discussion and vote, page moves have created List of dukes in the peerages of the British Isles and List of dukedoms in the peerages of the British Isles.  These don't seem to have been raised here (or noticed), and they have implications for all the other 'List of ...' articles.  The moves also have a knock-on effect in the usage of Template:UK Peerages.  I have no vested interest in thise Wikiproject, so I thought I'd raise it here for comment.  Noisy | Talk 11:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page moves

message: Should this be the Earl of Devonshire?
There are three Earldoms involved here:
#The Courtenay Earldom, then believed to be extinct in 1556; but found to have been dormant in 1831, because of the wording of its patent. It is now and was then called the Earldom of Devon. 
#This Earldom, created 1603, extinct 1606; viewed at the time as a recreation of #1, then extinct. 
#The Cavendish Earldom, created 1618, now called the Earldom of Devonshire, and still borne by the Duke of Devonshire. Also viewed by contemporaries as a recreation.  
Since #1 existed (de jure) in 1603, the Complete Peerage lists #2 as the Earl of Devonshire. This seems sensible. Septentrionalis 17:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe both #2 and #3 were (rather conveniently for us) always known as "Earls of Devonshire", even before the Courtenays turned up to throw their spanner in the works, presumably reflecting what the county was known as at that time, so it would certainly make sense to move the article as you suggest. Proteus (Talk) 18:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll move it then, and add a dab header to Duke of Devonshire (making Earl of Devonshire a dab page seems pointless). If anyone wants to argue it should be moved back, it can be. Septentrionalis 18:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Charles Blount, 1st Earl of Devon]]