|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Billy Hughes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- I think once you are given a title you keep it, even if you die. Wellington is still called Wellington, even though he has been dead for about 150 years and it is a title (the Duke of Wellington, his real name is Arthur Wellesley). So I would assume that Hughes would still have the title of Rt Hon. - Bambul 14:19, 23 June 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's as simple as that. Noble titles are different to others. And in any case, it doesn't to me make any sense to have dead kings or emperors styled "his majesty/imperial highness". Certainly that's not the practice among journalists, historical or biographical writers, or other encyclopedias. In these works, Arthur Wellesley is Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, not His Grace Arthur Wellesley Duke of Wellington. Anyway, I don't know if there's an official Wikipedia policy on the matter. Slac speak up! 18:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This section needs to be removed as its irrelevant. Rt Hon is reserved for those holding a commission from the GG or SG, that is a govt. minister. When the commission is given to another the title can no longer be used. However, ex-PMs do get to keep the title as a courtesy.18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please learn the following facts.
- At the Federal level, ministers (and now parliamentary secretaries) must be sworn of the Federal Executive Council before being administered their commission by the GG. That's a requirement of the Constitution of Australia (ss. 62 to 64). With very few exceptions (the only one I know of is Glen Sheil), people once sworn remain Executive Councillors for life, and are technically always on call despite having left public life and parliament. It's this permanent membership of the Executive Council that gives them the right to "The Hon" for life. That's "The Hon".
- Now, "The Rt Hon" is a different kettle of fish. In Australia, it's used by the Lord Mayors of most capital cities, but only while they hold those offices. Peers (there are some who are Australian by citizenship or residency) are also The Rt Hon (or higher). For others, it is membership of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom that bestows "The Rt Hon". It used to be the case that Aussie Prime Ministers were automatically offered membership, although not all accepted. Whitlam declined, Fraser accepted, but Hawke declined, and I think it hasn't even been offered since the passing of the Australia Act 1986, which abolished Australian appeals to the Privy Council. If we no longer look beyond the High Court of Australia in our judicial appeals, it makes no sense for Australians to be members of a body that we cannot utilise. Keating, Howard, Rudd, Gillard and Abbott are certainly not The Rt Hon, but are certainly The Hon. Hence, The Rt Hon is dying out in Australia, and since Fraser's death the only ones left are as shown at The Right Honourable#Australia. But like "The Hon", once one gets "The Rt Hon", it remains for life (except in the case of Lord Mayors).
- In formal contexts, dead people are accorded the same permanent honorifics as they had at death. Hence "The Rt Hon Billy Hughes CH KC", "The Rt Hon Sir Robert Menzies KT AK CH QC", "The Hon Gough Whitlam AC QC", "The Rt Hon Malcolm Fraser AC CH", etc. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
His daughter Helen and his unknown grandson
Is there any place in the article for mention of this? It's a fascinating story, and some Sydney-sider's next door neighbour must be the grandson in question. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
In the article Hughes' religion is stated as Baptist, but I have retrieved his burial records that state he was buried in the Church of England section of his cemetary. Any suggestions? I suggest removing Baptist and placing in the death section that he was buried in the Church of England section. Wikistar (Place order here) 12:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I am descended from the same Hughes family of Holyhead. They were a mix of Baptists and Methodists. I've noticed a lot official records list my ancestors as CofE, particularly on shipping records. They're buried in Methodist sections of cemeteries, if such sections are available. Otherwise its the CofE section. The funeral service was at St. Andrews (Sydney City) which is a Presbyterian.22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
After some more screening of the UK 1881 census and birth records from Wales, I suspect much of Hughes' quoted history as a teenager is guess work and incorrect. The WM Hughes at 18 Vauxhall Bridge Rd (1881 census) is listed as the SON of the owner W Hughes. There's no record of a William Hughes being baptised in a Baptist service in Holyhead 1820-1833. Most of the Hughes' at Holyhead were 'street' Calvinists, coming from other areas, and worked on the harbour and bridges. Their births were generally not recorded but their baptisms were. In all Anglesey during the 1820s there were only two Baptists families listed and they were not in Holyhead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Hughes' feud with Mannix needs expanding, as it was central to his entire term as PM. Hughes was the one of the few leaders who took on the Catholic hierarchy and branded it as treacherous. Sydney Catholics, who disliked the Sinn Feiner Mannix, tended to be pro-conscription and pro-Empire. Mannix ran the Labor Party as his personal collection of sock puppets. Hughes was not a Catholic and he objected to Mannix's attempted controls. Mannix effectively won the fight when the referendum failed. Hughes resigned from the ALP and started his own Nationalist Party, which eventually became the Liberals. Mannix lost control of the ALP in 1948, but remained the puppet master of the DLP until his death in 19188.8.131.52.19 (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Im un sure as to whether i should post such a small correction to the talk page but as a notice im changing the 'vote of confidence' to 'vote of no confidence' so it correlates with the linked content, this is in the section for Hughes 1916-23 Akeegazooka (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
There're are a few bits of hearsay in the article. The claim that most Labor members were against federation is probably too strong. Certainly some were against the proposed constitution rather than being against federation. The Senate was a particular point of contention as they felt its was just another House of Lords but dressed in American terminology. Such a generalization is difficult to reference.184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|This article badly needs sources (including references to published biographies)--Grahamec 06:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)|
Last edited at 06:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)