Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage

New User page - which might be helpful

User:Kittybrewster/successions. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a copy across from the baronetage site. I suspect that a number of titles there listed as unproven are held by peers who have proven their peerage succession but not their bt - but we can read across the proof where that is the case.Garlicplanting (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Keane Baronets of Belmont (SCB) or Cappoquin (Rayment)? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the original entry in the LG but I can find a later entry of the Roll of the baronets for the 5th baronet describing him as: "KEANE of Belmont and Cappoquin - Sir JOHN KEANE, 5th Baronet." See LG Issue 2880420 February 1914 suppliments Garlicplanting (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

ODNB says Belmont in their entry for the first Baron Keane, a younger brother of the second Baronet; unfortunately, the sixth volume of CB will be moderately difficult to access. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Volume six is only notes and appendices; Cokayne did not live to complete his plan, and it was not revived after him. But CP, in the entry for Baron Keane, describes the father of the grantee as first Baronet of Belmont. I suspect a confusion between the estates (Sir John owned Belmont and Cappoquin, and was thus John Keane of Belmost and Cappoquin), and the title (Baronet of Belmont).

The barony is of Ghuznee (Ghazni) and Cappoquin, which suggests the second son was left the smaller estate.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Where should I ask my question?

I did some research just now on how we refer to wives of knights in Wikipedia. I thought I'd post the results here, but then I realized this is Wikiproject Peerage and Baronetage, which doesn't really include knighthoods. Or could it, should it? I don't see any other wikiproject that makes sense, although I may have overlooked something. Here's my little study. I saw an article in which the wife of a knight was referred to as "Forename, Lady Surname" and that seemed odd to me. "Lady Forename Surname" is clearly wrong, but I am not sure what is really correct.

Of the people knighted this year in the Queen's Birthday Honours and who have a wikipedia entry, 7 - no wife's name mentioned 2 - forename surname (but referred to at time of marriage, before knighthood) 2 - forename surname (referred to in present tense) 2 - forename only

None seem to refer to "Lady Surname".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You'll have seen Debretts on the issue. I have to wonder how often the wife should be named in the article. If she is notable in her own right, then we use the name she is commonly known by. If not, then there is no point in the Debrett's "Lady Brown", because it confers no extra information. Forename gives some extra information, as does forename and maiden name. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure we need an explicit codification here beyond "go with sensible outside sources and guidelines." Fortunately for us, a suitable excerpt from Debrett's Correct Form is available. In short, it appears that "Lady Surname" is correct for non-conversational but not legally formal writing such as ours. Choess (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The wife of a knight, in common with a baronet, or the wife the son of a Duke or Marquis is referred to as Lady (surname), or Lady (husband's Christian name and surname). Widowed or divorced ladies in that situation use their Christian name followed by their hubbie's honorific, eg Margaret, Duchess of Argyll rather than the Duchess of Argylll. Good for differentiation. Brendandh (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No! not in common with but quite distinct from! Younger Sons of dukes (etc) are Lady (husband's Christian name and surname) Wives of peers/courtesy peers are Lady (husbands title) and knights are Lady (husbands surname)Garlicplanting (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

How about if the wife was a Dame or Peer in her own right? Hack (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If the husbands title is higher that generally takes priority for usage except where the wife is universally known by her own title or say premarriage name Garlicplanting (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's avoid saying "Sir Bufton Tufton is married to Lady Bufton Tufton", or "Sir Bufton Tufton is married to Lady Tufton". Better than that is simply "Sir Bufton Tufton is married". If the purpose is to give information to the reader, we say "Sir Bufton Tufton married Frederika Bloggs in 1972". Itsmejudith (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Lady Edward Smith ...... wife of ygr son of duke or Marquess
2. Lady Elizabeth Smith .... dau of duke, marquess or earl
3. The Lady Smith ........ wife of Baron
4. Lady Smith...... wife of knight or Bart;. or unmarried widow of divorced wife of knight; or
.................... baronetess; or unmarried bart's widow who can also be either
4a Dowager Lady Smith or
4b Elizabeth Lady Smith
..................... unless he had a previous wife in which case the previous wife is 4b
..................... and the widow is 4a.
5 The Viscountess Smith............wife of viscount Smith
6 The Dowager Lady Smith .......... Viscount's widow.
Kittybrewster ☎ 15:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

So are we happy to all agree knights can be dealt with here (but lets not change the project to include knightage its a long enough name already!) that on first mention the wife needs her maiden name and thereafter by her title unless she is exclusively known by some other name/title Garlicplanting (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It seemed to me that Jimbo was raising two questions. My response is designed to help address part of one of them -- but I think it deserves its own section, perhaps under styles. It doesn't seem to be covered anywhere else and is relatively comprehensive ?? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking of the style guide as Forms of address in the United Kingdom seems to cover the details? Garlicplanting (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

iI have planted it in [[1]]. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Another related question - In these modern times, many wives of knights (and peers) will go by their maiden/birth name rather than adopting their husbands surname. According to DeBretts, "The wife of a knight is known as 'Lady', followed by her surname..." [2] but it seems clear that for wives of peers, they are known as "Lady" followed by the title, not surname. In Tina Brown we identify her in the first sentence as "Tina Brown, Lady Evans"; she is married to Sir Harold Evans. Is that right? Or should she be referred to - taking DeBrett's literally - as "Lady Brown"? Or (as seems likely and sensible to me) is it up to her preference socially, regardless of what her legal/professional name might be?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC) And a related note - Just an observation along these lines, Gail Rebuck is a Dame in her own right, and the wife of (recently deceased) peer Lord Gould. She's notable in her own right as CEO of Random House, and interestingly is most often referred to in the press as "Dame Gail Rebuck" and almost never as "Lady Gould" - indeed, I can only find one reference to that, from 2008, before she became a DBE. If I understand DeBrett's, then her title as wife of a Baron is higher than Dame, at least in a traditional sense, but the press and common understanding would seem to agree that being married to a peer is less of an honour than earning a DBE in her own right. Our article never attempts to refer to her as either "Dame Gail" or "Lady Gould" so there is no particular editing question here, only an academic observation some may find interesting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The wife of a knight is only entitled to be "Lady Husband's-Surname", but nowadays no one is forced to use a title they don't want (particularly one that would involve them losing their own surname). So Jane Smith marrying Sir John Brown could either remain Jane Smith (either Miss Jane Smith or Ms Jane Smith) or could become Lady Brown (or could use both, depending on the circumstances - there are plenty of people who use their title in private life but not in public or business life). Whatever her preference, she'd probably be described in a legal document as "Jane, Lady Brown". She couldn't become Lady Smith (unless of course her husband chose to change his surname to match hers, which is probably unlikely in my example but has happened in the past where an heiress has married). Similarly, Dame Gail Rebuck could choose to be Lady Gould of Brookwood, but she doesn't have to be (although, again, she'd probably be described as such in a legal document). Other examples include Dame Mary Arden (Lady Justice Arden), who could be Lady Mance as the wife of Lord Mance, and (an example not involving a switch of surname) Dame Norma Major, who ranks higher as the wife of Sir John Major (a Knight of the Garter) than she does as a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire, but who chooses not to be Lady Major. I suppose what I'm saying is that you can use your own title or your husband's, but not a combination of the two. Proteus (Talk) 11:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I defer to your greater experience and knowledge, but how do you reconcile what you are saying with the quote from DeBrett's: "The wife of a knight is known as 'Lady', followed by her surname..."? Not "followed by her husband's surname"...--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

They seem to be working on the assumption that all women take their husband's surname on marriage! The British Ministry of Justice appears to have taken down its guide on forms of address, but its archives indicate it didn't address this issue. The New Zealand Government, however, does still have such a guide, which clarifies the point: "The wife of a knight may use the courtesy title of “Lady” before her surname, provided she uses her husband’s surname." Proteus (Talk) 16:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Precedence and styles of the children of courtesy peers

I think I've found a rather big hole in Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom: children of courtesy peers are not addressed at all. I posted in the talk page a few weeks ago but received no response, so I'm bringing it up here (though I think it might be better for any resulting discussion to take place there?). This WikiProject certainly seems much more relevant than WikiProject Politics, though you wouldn't realise that from the talk-page banners. Waltham, The Duke of 16:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy peers rank as peers of the rank one lower than their father, but below substantive peers of that rank, so their children rank as the children of peers of that rank, but below the children of substantive peers of that rank. This then continues for their children. So the order is:

• Dukes
• Marquesses
• Eldest sons of Dukes
• Earls
• Eldest sons of Marquesses
• Eldest sons of eldest sons of Dukes
• Younger sons of Dukes
• Viscounts
• Eldest sons of Earls
• Eldest sons of eldest sons of Marquesses
• Eldest sons of eldest sons of eldest sons of Dukes
• Younger sons of Marquesses
• Younger sons of eldest sons of Dukes
• Barons
• etc.

As an aside, it is a slight oddity that the titles of the children of courtesy peers are taken from their father's title rather than his rank, and so a younger son of the Earl of Arundel would be an Honourable (addressed as "Mr Fitzalan-Howard" or "Sir") but a younger son of the Marquess of Tavistock would be a Lord (addressed as "Lord John" or "My Lord"), despite the fact that the former would outrank the latter (both would rank as Viscounts). Obviously the incongruity exists for a good reason with courtesy peers (the only alternative would be using peerages that don't exist), but there's no real reason why it should apply to their daughters and younger sons. Proteus (Talk) 20:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree in practice - though I think this is more by custom than by warrant as I've never seen a formal document to actually legalise this Garlicplanting (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And the whole question is largely theoretical, except for royal levees, which I hope don't rely on us. Precedence of infants rarely matters, except for royalty (not covered), and how many Dukes have had adult grandsons? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite a few - the point was that wiki needs to be a little careful in distinguishing between matters of law (perogative) and custom. We have something of the same with the wives of knights which are by custom 'lady' but legally 'dame' Garlicplanting (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Garlic, I wish your email was switched on. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a misunderstanding that "Courtesy peers rank as peers of the rank one lower than their father". The courtesy title can only be another title held by the actual peer, who often has a title of the next rank down, but not always. Also, the courtesy title needs to be different from the peer's main title. In the case of the Duke of Somerset, for instance, his eldest son is Lord Seymour. Moonraker (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sadly it's you who misunderstand the situation. Proteus is quite correct in stating "Courtesy peers rank as peers of the rank one lower than their father". It been the case for close on 500 years. (Lord Chamberlain's Order 1520/1595) In your example Lord Seymour ranks as a Marquess despite his father not holding such a title. As an additional point though it is generally true quite some peers use courtesy titles that don't exist or at ranks they don't hold.Garlicplanting (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You are right, I failed to read that as a comment about precedence and thought it was to do with the degree of a courtesy title. As it's about precedence, it would be more correct to speak of the eldest sons of peers, rather than of courtesy peers, as the table of precedence refers to eldest sons, some of whom might lack a courtesy title. (All peers' daughters also have much the same advantage of precedence as eldest sons, whereas other sons go not one rank lower but two.) Moonraker (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

My original question was not about courtesy peers but about their children; the styles and precedence of the various children of peers are well-documented in Wikipedia and elsewhere, but I did not know about either with regards to the grandchildren of peers (although the article on forms of address does indicate that the styles for peers' children apply equally to the offspring of courtesy peers, as I now notice). You are right that talking in terms of eldest children rather than courtesy peers would be better, but I didn't know about their treatment; rather, I hypothesised that, at the very least, the children of courtesy peers would have some style and a place in the order to go with it. I did think that the eldest son of, say, a baron's eldest son might also have a place in the order, but he would be fairly low and obviously has no style because his father has no courtesy title.

By the way, what you say on daughters touches on a realisation I had the other day, after studying the order of precedence a little closer: the daughters of earls are styled "Lady" because they rank as viscountesses, while their younger brothers are mere Honourables because they rank as barons. That difference always puzzled me. Waltham, The Duke of 19:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Daughters of Earls, Viscounts, Lords of Parliament or Barons formally and in correspondence are the "Hon xxxxx", or if married the "Hon Mrs xxxx". They are always referred to in common parlance as "Lady xxxx". Menfolk of that degree just have to deal with "Hon." or plain Mr. unless they are the sons of a Marquis or a Duke, when they would take the courtesy Lord. Brendandh (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Daughters of earls are Lady, not The Hon., as they rank as eldest sons of earls. Opera hat (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish, they are accorded the courtesy honorific of "Hon." for all normal correspondence, if one is a gentleman one might refer to such a lady as "the Lady [first name]". As non heritors they certainly don't take the pecking order place of the heir to an earldom. The daughters of a Duke or a Marquis are given that courtesy however, but still without a place in the system of precedence, unless they are a substantive peeress in their own right. Still it's nice to be nice to the ladies! Brendandh (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Daughters of earls bear the courtesy title of Lady before their Christian names - e.g. Lady Diana Spencer, daughter of the Earl Spencer; Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, daughter of the Earl of Strathmore. See also Debrett's.

Table of precedence
Gentlemen	Ladies
Viscounts	Viscountesses
Eldest sons of earls	Wives of eldest sons of earls Daughters of earls
Younger sons of marquesses	Wives of younger sons of marquesses
Bishops (in England)	no female Bishops in the CofE yet
Barons and Lords of Parliament	Baronesses and Ladies of Parliament
various offices including Secretaries of State
Eldest sons of viscounts	Wives of eldest sons of viscounts Daughters of viscounts
Younger sons of earls	Wives of younger sons of earls
Eldest sons of barons	Wives of eldest sons of barons Daughters of barons

Regarding where daughters rank, I have appended an excerpt from the tables of precedence which quite clearly shows that earls' daughters rank alongside eldest sons and some way above younger sons, and the same principle holds for daughters of viscounts and barons. Opera hat (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I was about to thank Proteus for his response and apologise for my delay in acknowledging it (I've been regrettably unable to follow my watchlist closely in the last few months) but I now see that the discussion is continuing. I have nothing to add myself, although it would be nice for this information to be added to the article in question if it can be cited; my curiosity has been satisfied, but the hole remains. Waltham, The Duke of 22:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need citation for the usage of titles by peers grandchildren. It visibly exists in practice as looking up individual peers gc in any reference or public news source shows. Wikis "sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" doesn't seem an issue here. Precedence is different as there is no easy way to see it. My earlier point still stands; I remain unconvinced without an official source that any precedence extends to gc (except royals) Garlicplanting (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the matter of citation relies on what can be safely considered common knowledge; most people have no clue about styles, but how much of a clue does one need to have so that something they do not know cannot be common knowledge?

Regarding the order of precedence, grandchildren are included anyway: the order at Debrett's includes the eldest sons of younger sons of hereditary peers (near the bottom). The eldest sons of eldest sons must therefore be included as well, and the fact that they are not mentioned points to the application of a sub-set of rules (as described by Proteus) which is apparently omitted for the sake of clarity in the list. In any case, reviewing the entire table reveals that anyone who has the style "Lord", for whatever reason, is included; common sense alone would therefore place the son of a courtesy marquess on it. (And the same thing goes for most Honourables, too.)

Then there is the internal consistency of the system described above. Precedence falls in a very specific manner as we move farther away from the peerage holder. One step away is the eldest son; two steps away are the eldest son of the eldest son and the younger sons of the substantive peer; three steps away are, in this order, the eldest son of the eldest son of the eldest son, the younger sons of the eldest son, and the eldest sons of the younger sons. With the exception of the very last case, the number of steps equals the number of ranks of lost precedence in relation to the peerage holder. If this order holds true, and knowing that the eldest sons of the younger sons are included in the table (as I have already mentioned), then all the preceding men are included as well, at least for dukes and marquesses and probably also for earls.

Most of this is original research, but it makes sense, no? Waltham, The Duke of 19:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Precedence rules don't always make sense so I'm not sure that argument follows :-). Either the table of p were drawn up at a time when gc very rarely reached adulthood (21 at the time) in their gf lifetime so the need for precedence didn't exist. It's only really the 20C that has seen this become reasonably common and no one seems to have ever bothered to amend the official precedence to take account of it. And/Or adult gc were/are treated socially and even officially as if they possessed a precedence as you suggest above so it was never thought necessary to codify it. 12:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garlicplanting (talk • contribs)

Related to this is the claim made at Duke of Manchester, but marked "citation needed", that: The heir apparent to the Dukedom takes the courtesy title Viscount Mandeville, and the heir apparent's heir apparent (when such exists) is styled Lord Kimbolton. (This is one of only two exceptions, the other being in the case of the Marquess of Londonderry, to the general rule that the heirs of Viscounts do not use courtesy peerages.) (The claim, and the plea for a citation, is repeated at Marquess of Londonderry.) Can anyone confirm or debunk this?--Kotniski (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I might have been the one who asked for the citation - I've certainly done so in the past. I think Valentine Heywood's British Titles has something on it but I don't have a copy. Opera hat (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Immediately after writing that I remembered it's reproduced at the online Cracroft's Peerage: see here. The relevant section on Lords Kimbolton/Stewart is here. Opera hat (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The above is accurate. Touching on this point and Duke of Waltham's there is an article in the 1827 Gentleman's Magazine (google) discussing Kimbolton mentioning its use and discussing the problem of no precedence being assigned to gc. Now I don't for a moment regard this as an authoritative source but it does indicate title use and the problem of precedence and gc not being covered in the tables being discussed for a long timeGarlicplanting (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That is here; which would suggest that there was no well-known rule under George IV. Since seating by precedence has noticeably decreased recently, this suggests that a Victorian source will be needed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Precedence of peers' grandsons revisited

The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica has a lengthy article on precedence (volume 22, pages 267 to 288) and specifically mentions this issue, as follows:

The sons of all persons, when any specified rank is assigned to them, are placed in the precedence of their fathers. Eldest sons of the younger sons of peers were ranked before the eldest sons of knights by order of the earl marshal, the 18th of March 1615, and before the eldest sons of baronets by order of the earl marshal, the 6th of April 1677. But no precedence has been given to the younger sons of the younger sons of peers, although precedence is given to the younger as well as the eldest sons of baronets and knights by James I.'s decree of 1616. Moreover, no precedence has been given to either the eldest or the younger sons of the eldest sons of peers. But in practice this omission is generally disregarded, and the children of the eldest sons of dukes, marquesses and earls, at all events, are accorded the same rank and titles which they would have if their fathers were actual instead of quasi peers of the degree next under that of their grandfathers. Sir Charles Young says that "by decision (Chap. Coll. Arms of 1680) if the eldest son of an earl died in his father's lifetime leaving a son and heir, such son and heir during the life of the earl his grandfather is entitled to the same place and precedence as was due to his father: so had the father been summoned to parliament as the eldest son of a peer the grandson would succeed to the dignity even during the grandfather's lifetime" (Order of Precedence, p. 27). And, of course, what applies to the grandson and heir of an earl applies equally to the grandsons and heirs of dukes and marquesses. But the grandsons and heirs of viscounts and barons are differently situated, and have neither honorary additions to their names nor any ascertained place and precedence even by the etiquette of society.

The whole article, though out-of-date in many respects, contains a lot of useful citable information on the order of precedence in general. I'm having a bit of trouble finding a decent online version, though; the one here is obviously just a direct scan with all the footnotes jumbled up in the text. There is a project to add the entire 1911 encyclopædia to wikisource, but it's in the early stages and the article on precedence hasn't yet been done. Scans of the individual pages of vol. 22 are viewable at wikisource here. I'm not a contributor to wikisource myself, but I might create a more easily-readable version of the precedence article on a user sub-page here on wikipedia if I get round to it. Opera hat (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Or I could just have read the wikipedia article on the 1911 EB which gives a list of online versions at the end! At archive.org starting here. Opera hat (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

William Maule, 1st Baron Panmure

This article states that: "Lord Panmure created a scandal when he departed to Italy with Christina Mackay. He remained with her, predominantly in Italy, until his death in 1852. Together they had one illegitimate child James Mackay. James Mackay married Deborah Lyle of Nova Scotia and their second son was James Lyle Mackay, 1st Earl of Inchcape." This material was added by an anonymous IP address back in 2008. I am now wondering if it's true that Lord Inchcape was the grandson of Lord Panmure? Tryde (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not mentioned in Panmure's ODNB life, although he does seem to have scandalized the Victorians with his dissoluteness. It doesn't sound like he would have bothered to leave Great Britain, and he died in Forfarshire. (Also, the chronology is a bit tight. Inchcape was born in 1852, only thirty years after Panmure's second marriage. It takes some time for even a Regency aristocrat to be off with a new wife and settle with a mistress.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

CP says Panmure was estranged from his first wife, not his second; this seems inconsistent with the passage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Lord/Baron Fellowes

Currently Lord Fellowes is a disambiguation page, whilst Baron Fellowes is a redirect to Robert Fellowes, Baron Fellowes. That this seems oddly inconsistent to me is perhaps neither here nor there, but is it correct? It has been suggested to me off-wiki that Robert Fellowes, as the earlier creation, retains the (in Wikipedia terms) undisambiguated style, and Julian Fellowes is 'Fellowes of West Stafford'. Presence or absence of comma before the 'of' is significant? William Avery (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It ought to be significant. Whether we correctly represent reliable sources is another question.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The two peers are: Baron Fellowes, of Shotesham in the County of Norfolk and Baron Fellowes of West Stafford, of West Stafford in the County of Dorset. The comma is as you suggest king. Only the first is unquestionably Baron/Lord Fellowes. The latter title should be in full in any formal use (exactly as we do on the wiki entry) though informally 'Lord Fellowes' is used for both. PMAnderson's latter point is I agree an issue. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Julian Fellowes' peerage is sourced to the London Gazette, and that is their form. Unless this RS has a typo, that one's right. As for inconsistency: the difference is the same as that between, say, the 2nd Lord Esher, who is known by his peerage, and Laurence Olivier, who is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't Lord Olivier redirect to Baron Olivier rather than to Laurence Olivier? Opera hat (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless the actor is primary referent over his uncle, which is at least arguable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 11:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment -- According to normal arrangements, the dabpage should be at Baron Fellowes and should be expanded to a brief substantive article, such as we have on most similar titles held by more than one person. Lord Fellowes should redirect to that. Julian Fellowes has been in the news for a successful TV series, but I suspect that the royal private secretary ought to be the primary subject if we needed one. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Renaming articles using titles

Just a heads up, a drive to remove article titles including baronetcies is underway by User:Mais oui!. He has removed a link I posted to his talk pointing to the guidelines, with the statement our standard way to disambiguate is by occupation, not titles. So there you have it. I don't really want to get too involve to I'll leave this to consensus. Benea (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have moved all but one of the articles back to their original name. Tryde (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

He continues. I've moved two more back, but somebody else should watch this pointless campaign. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord John FitzGerald

Members of the project may want to contribute here. Tryde (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Lord Elystan-Morgan

In recent days, an anon ip has made several edits to the biography of Lord Elystan-Morgan. They don't appear on first glance to be very problematic and a brief review of the IP's contributions in the past did not reveal any glaring problems. But at least one of the changes, the inclusion of the name, birth and death dates of a spouse, are something that I've been unable to confirm. I would normally think that the passing of the wife of a peer would merit at least passing mention in the newspapers, but Google news archives turns up no mention of her - ever, as far as I can see.

As the information is not glaringly negative (though it could be hurtful if false, to some degree) I didn't think it urgent enough to remove instantly on BLP grounds. But I do think it should be removed within 24 hours if we are unable to find some form of confirmation. As I know others here will have better access to some sources than I do, I thought I'd post here for assistance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Her name and existence are noted here, a copy of an article from the Western Mail; this was from 2003.

But there are more serious problems; his speech against blasphemy laws (and the quotation from Dawkins which is embedded in it) needs citation, and the fact that he sits cross-bench (not surprising for a Judge, but unmentioned). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I seek your guidance about the best way to handle the question of the spouse. As we do not have an obituary, we do not have a reliable source for Lady Elystan-Morgan's passing, if true. For now I have simply removed her birth and death dates and also the bit about her parent. I strongly suspect that all those details are true, added by someone close to them, but without a source I don't feel comfortable keeping it. I will now look for a source for the blasphemy speech.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You want to consult Debrett's Peerage for the basic biographical details of titled relatives of Peers. (Sadly Burke's Peerage, which rose from the dead a few years ago, has headed once again to the grave.) Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Debrett says this: "m 1959 Alwen, who d 2006, da of William E. Roberts, and has issue..." I'll add these details, with a citation. Moonraker (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

How to refer to peers in running text

I have been involved in a curious discussion with another user at Talk:Order of Merit. He or she insists on referring to Charles Middleton, 1st Baron Barham as "the Lord Barham" in the running text, instead of the normal and simpler "Lord Barham". Should we refer to Lord Byron as "the Lord Byron" in running text, for instance? The more formal style of "The Lord X" or "The Marquess of X" should of course be used in lists and info boxes. I would like to hear from others here. Tryde (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should be just "Lord X" (or in some cases just "X") - that's normal English.--Kotniski (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

My usual practice (which I probably don't stick to very well) is to use "the Lord X" (or "the Earl of X", etc.) until about the Civil War (on the basis that rank actually mattered somewhat up to that point; it certainly did in the Middle Ages when Earls were nominally responsible for counties), and then "Lord X" for everyone afterwards (on the basis that by then rank didn't really matter, except perhaps for Dukes). But that's just my personal preference. Proteus (Talk) 15:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As you say, Tryde, "The Lord X" is a formal style, still used on envelopes, in monumental inscriptions and so forth. To use it outside any formal context would (in my view) be terribly old-fashioned and/or pompous. Moonraker (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

John Prescott's concerns

This article quotes Lord Prescott speaking in the House of Lords thusly: " I get a full page in the Telegraph but what worried me about that they used evidence of all personal factors and when I went on to them, where did they get that information because they are lies, they said they got it from Wikipedia. Well they didn't even ask you the question they just pumped it out. Why? Because it was a political action to in a way attack somebody from another political party for decision they have made."

He also tweeted about it about an hour ago.

I hope we can fact check this quickly and make sure there are no lies, repeated in the Telegraph, in the Wikipedia article.

I have posted as well at the talk page of the article, and will be posting at WP:BLPN to draw more minds to this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, can't see anything that jumps out. Of course this could all be referring to a prior version of the article. Garlicplanting (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The section on nationalization policy is mostly speculative history about the inner councils of the Lagour Party; it could use many more sources, and not the Telegraph - nor the Daily Mail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph is a great deal more grown-up than John Prescott. I see he is quoted as saying "when I went on to them, where did they get that information because they are lies, they said they got it from Wikipedia", I am sceptical about whether that is an accurate report of his conversation. He does not even say who he was speaking to. It strikes me as very unlikely that a Telegraph editor or journalist would say the paper had relied on Wikipedia for its information. This is not a paper which behaves foolishly and gets itself into the libel courts. Its proprietors expect all staff to take responsibility themselves for what they write and approve. Moonraker (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Most wanted baronets

Are now listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Most wanted baronets. (Note the tool, and the way I used it, requires that there is a redlink for them on one of the baronetcy pages.) Rich Farmbrough, 22:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC).

Byronic boosterism?

There have been some very curious edits to Byron King-Noel, Viscount Ockham, and on various related pages, from 220.245.94.232. As this page was created by a now-banned user, and has seen only 'technical' editing since, I'd be concerned that potentially no-one is watching it -- perhaps some members of this WPJ might be interested in doing so. (I get the strong impression that these edits are from someone with a mail-order 'lordship of the manor' and some dubious postnominals, and is looking for a page to 'host' some self-promotion.) 84.203.74.123 (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages

There is a website called Leigh Rayment's Peer Page and as far as I can tell not only is it self published but it pages (here is one selected at random) do not seem to carry any citations to any other source.

The problem is that there are a number of templates that link to this website and the information from that website is embedded in thousands of Wikipedia pages.

Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages

Template	Text	Transclusions count
{{Rayment}}	Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages	2933
{{Rayment-b}}	Leigh Rayment's List of Baronets	2177
{{Rayment-bd}}	This page incorporates information from Leigh Rayment's Baronetage Page which has further dates on it, not shown above	29
{{Rayment-bt}}	This page incorporates information from Leigh Rayment's Baronetage page	65
{{Rayment-hc}}	Leigh Rayment's Historical List of MPs	6333
{{Rayment-hc-ie}}	Leigh Rayment's historical List of Members of the Irish House of Commons	158
{{Rayment-pc}}	Leigh Rayment's Privy Council Page	4

Template:Rayment survived an AfD back in 2006.

I have been searching around to see if the reliability of this site has ever been discussed. I could find no entry in the archives of the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.

Some people have implied that the website is reliable in the archives of this page, but there does not seem to have been any specific discussion about the site and whether it is a reliable source.

Note particularly the specific comments in Archive 3: Breaches of Copyright (it seeems the author does not like Wikipedia reproducing his pages and there are some deliberate errors in them so he can check for copying violations (although the view at the time was that the lists could not be protected these errors may be a problem)) and archive 9: overly broad external links not about reliability but about the relevance of some of the templates.

(So that the information here is more complete and can be used as one point of reference in the future. Leigh Rayment (or someone posing as Leigh Rayment) made two edits as 203.61.124.39 in June 2004. The first edit was transferred to Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation#Historic list of members of the Privy Council. the second edit is in this talk page archive: Archive 3: Breaches of Copyright ). -- PBS (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT "Leigh Rayment's Peer Page" fails as a reliable source (but maybe I am missing something). In the opinion of people who read this page is this website a reliable source and can it be cited and used as a reliable source to meet the requirements of WP:V? -- PBS (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I edit RS/N primarily. This is not a reliable source. It is an SPS. It doesn't have an EXPERT exemption. There is no editorial control. There is no editorial policy. It also fails ELNO 1, 2, 11, and possibly 16 (cf: [3]) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, "Rayment" is technically not a reliable source. Nevertheless, experience shows that it is usually reliable. There are many much less good sources that are regularly used in WP. Though they are not cited by Rayment, it seems to me that the website is in fact a compilation from reliable sources. WP should certainly encourage the substitution of information from better sources for it, but until we get that done, we should leave things as they are. A less-than-ideal source is better than no source. I would thus consider it a retrograde move to remove all references to Rayment from WP without replacing them with references to other sources. Rayment has the advantage of being Internet-accessible without subscription. Burke's peerage requires a subscription; Debrett is (I think) only available as hard copy. GEC Complete Peerage (now an older work, but still excellent), likewise - save that information from it has been incorporated in www.thepeerage.com. I do not know the easy sources for lists of MPs. I have occasionally foudn errors in Rayment, but they are few. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have created hundreds of articles on British MPs, and edited thousands of others. I used to Rayment as a reference until I got other reference books (Craig, Stooks Smith, Times guides), and the London Gazette went online. I too have very occasionally found errors in Rayment, but they are very very rare, and that's after using every single page his MP lists. So I rate Rayment's work on MPs very highly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Basically, I agree with what Peter and BrownHairedGirl say on this matter. Rayment is not technically a reliable source, but he's almost always accurate when checked against reliable sources. We should try to replace citations to him with ones to actual reliable sources, but we shouldn't delete accurate information because he's the source. To Peter I would add that Cracroft's Peerage is available for free online (or much of it is, at any rate), but I'm not sure whether it would technically count as a reliable source, either. On the whole, I think Wikipedia is probably much too conservative/inflexible in its treatment of online/self-published sources. We shouldn't indiscriminately rely on such material, but there are many self-published online sources that are very accurate and extremely useful. On the other hand, there's all kinds of non-self-published material that probably shouldn't be used - being in a printed book is no guarantee of accuracy. It would be good if we could find some way to identify self-published sources that are reliable, rather than indiscriminately excluding them. john k (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

For Parliament there are several good sources available online. I think that http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/ is good. -- PBS (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree for all the reasons given above except on Cracrofts which seems to meet the reliable test Garlicplanting (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

History of Parliament is certainly the most accurate but it leaves off in 1832. Note that Rayment was apparently used as a source by the Hansard digitisation project, but considered imperfect: if you look at the page of any MP it says "Information presented on this page was prepared from the XML source files, together with information from the History of Parliament Trust, the work of Leigh Rayment and public sources. The means by which names are recognised means that errors may remain in the data presented." An example here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that alters my view. If they are willing to use and cite rayment as a source (even with a qualification) then I rather feel we're churlish to decide he's not acceptable. I wonder if being cited in such a way is prima facie expert status. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree. If an internet source is being cited by a clearly reliable source as a source that they themselves relied on, it seems absurd to say he's not a reliable source. john k (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the Hansard project was not aware of the nature of Rayment's errors (i.e. "copyright traps" as it were)? Ardric47 (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Since copyright traps are common enough in many commercial sources I don't see that has any baring one way or another. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The advantage of Millbank Systems as a verification source for Rayment is presumably they will have crossed checked the data, but that does not make Rayment a reliable source, or changes the advise that a "better source is needed". -- PBS (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

We're cross checking as well as we do with officially 'reliable sources' because they often disagree. It seems to me we're holding rayment to achieve a standard that our other 'reliable' sources failGarlicplanting (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

To my mind, Rayment's greatest deficiency is not inaccuracies (which are rare), but his failure to adequately distinguish between constituencies. He does not distinguish between parliamentary boroughs and the later eponymous county divisions, and most frustratingly he tends to make no distinction in Wales between boroughs and districts of boroughs. However, his lists of MPs are remarkably thorough, and his inclusion of full names and later titles makes his work a useful companion to Craig's frustrating use of initials only. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

See Template talk:Rayment#Reliability and my comment that starts "I posed the question..." and continues "I have therefore appended two templates {{Self-published inline}} and {{Better source}} to the template so that readers and editors are warned about the source and requested to proved a better one." -- PBS (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)