Talk:Styles in the United Kingdom

Comments

That's all I can think of at the moment. Obviously some descriptions are duplicated because certain people have a choice. Proteus (Talk) 14:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Garter entry is somewhat wrong, at least in that Lady name surname should have LG after it in all writen usage so as to make it clear they are not the daughter of a peer. I've been wracking by brains on "Dame Elizabeth Smith (Dame; technically could be the wife, widow or divorced wife of a Knight or Baronet)" as I'm sure I remember a royal warrant ~1600s for something where this form is used reflecting the original correct form. I can't for the life of me remember where I saw it though :/ Alci12 22:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just generally not including post-nominal letters. And I don't think the letters are essential — it's really more impressive to be an LG or an LT than the daughter of an Earl etc. anyway. Proteus (Talk) 11:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to add The Rt Hon. because it would mean using it for the peeresses, and distinguishing those with it (wives and widows) from those without it (divorced wives), which would make everything so much more complicated. Proteus (Talk) 11:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't even touch the most common usage for peeresses, who are usually addressed simply as "Lady Title," except for duchesses. And then there are the complications of the daughters of earls, marquesses, and dukes who marry peers' heirs below their own rank, so that she is able to keep their own "Lady Firstname" title (combined with her husband's courtesy peerage title) until her husband accedes to the peerage, becoming "Lady Firstname Title." And of course all daughters of peers married to someone with a lesser precedence get to keep their own courtesy titles. Also, something got garbled in the second listing above, and I can't figure out what it's supposed to mean. Laura1822 01:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's really a list of formal titles, i.e. those that would be used on lists of people, envelopes, etc., rather than how people would be referred to in speech. Again, I didn't add all the very complicated title combinations for fear of making it too convoluted, but perhaps I should. Proteus (Talk) 11:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's problematic. Either you have an article so simple that it's a collection of various other articles on various types of peer/address forms combined or you have the nightmare of the rules that do exist (eg. HRH Princess Alexandra, The Hon Lady Ogilvy wife of The Rt Hon. Sir Angus Ogilvy - which touches on more rules than most people can probably handle :) ) Btw Laura you lose precedence if you marry a 'peer' of a lower precedence. Lady jane blogs marrying baron bloggs will take her husband's precedence and lose her own. If she married mr bloggs she would retain her precedence. Alci12 14:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he's really a peer, then yes, she does. But if he's the heir to an earl, for example, and Baron Bloggs is his "courtesy peerage" title, then she retains her precedence (if she so chooses) until her husband accedes to the peerage himself. See, for example, Lady Georgiana Cavendish, elder daughter of the 5th Duke of Devonshire. She married Viscount Morpeth, heir to the Earl of Carlisle, in 1801. From that point she was addressed as Lady Georgiana Morpeth. When her father in law died in 1825, her husband became the 6th Earl of Carlisle, and she the Countess of Carlisle. It is a complicated rule though because if she'd married the heir to a dukedom or marquessate, she wouldn't have had the option (duke's heirs outrank duke's daughters). This is however a rather obscure usage and probably no one's used it since 1950. Laura1822 02:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be difficult to fit Princess Alexandra in because her style is incorrect, based on the usual rules. She should be "HRH Princess Alexandra, Lady Ogilvy". But I'll try to do a fully complicated version to see what it'd be like. Proteus (Talk) 14:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me I hope I am doing this right, but what is the style of a divorced wife of a younger son of a duke or marquess - if Jane Brown marries Lord John Smith and becomes Lady John Smith, what is the style/title when they divorce? Obviously it cannot compare to Mr./Mrs. where she becomes Mrs. Mary Smith as that would make her sound like the daughter of the peer herself. What is her title/style? Thank you Louise LoCicero 88.105.107.157 21:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2

See Styles in the United Kingdom

Notes

Obviously "London" just stands for any peerage title — it could still be "Smith", or it could be "Archer of Weston-super-Mare" or "Stuart de Rothesay". I've almost certainly forgotten lots of things, so comments and suggestions very welcome. Oh, and it's obviously based on my interpretation of the rules on definite articles before courtesy peerages (i.e. the Lord Chamberlain's and the Court Circular's "they should be there" rather than the College of Arms's "they shouldn't be there"). (One of the things a table like this can show is odd situations that could arise but rarely do. For instance, if the definite article isn't used with courtesy peerages, if The Hon. Elizabeth Smith marries Sir William Brown, she becomes The Hon. Lady Brown, but if she marries the much-higher-ranked Lord Brown, a courtesy Baron, she only becomes Lady Brown, which is clearly ridiculous. Indeed, if this Sir William Brown's father is created Earl of London and Baron Brown, as a result of this ennoblement his lady wife's style will actually decrease from "The Hon. Lady Brown" to "Lady Brown", which is even more ridiculous. At least I now know why my gut instinct is to use the definite article...) Proteus (Talk) 16:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm not sure some of those have ever existed but they seem 'right' such as they are. However your issue with the Lady Brown seems to be having your cake and eating it. If LG is 'more distinguished' than an Earls daughter, as you suggest above, and is addressed the same way as the daughter of an earl~duke but a KG is styled correctly below a baron. Why are the wives of every knight styled above their husbands when they were originally and should logically continue to be Dames. The daughters of all peers rank above their brothers (save the eldest). These are but a few examples of the system not being nice, neat and logical, or even consistant. So the the issue is par for the course Alci12 16:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sure loads of them have never existed (I certainly can't think of any courtesy Marchionesses ever having been in the Privy Council), but if it's going to be systematic... And yes, there are plenty of inconsistencies between men and women (brought into prominence by some life peeresses not being best pleased that their male counterparts' titles make it plain that they're peers whilst they could be mistaken for the wives of knights and so adopting the horrible "Baroness Smith" style in protest), but there aren't too many inconsistencies if only one sex is examined. Normally as rank (or at least "distinction") increases so does the appropriate style. Proteus (Talk) 16:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really up to detailed analysis of it right now, but my glance-through didn't notice any errors. Great work, thanks for doing it. Those Rt Hons do muck things up a bit, don't they? I adore the widowed courtesy marchioness, PC. Laura1822 02:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page title

For a page title, we should probably go with something boring like "Forms of Address in the British Honours System." Someone will no doubt accuse us of insularity eventually. Laura1822 02:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the upload is probably where it best fits. Wiki has articles like Forms_of_address Royal_and_noble_styles and Use_of_courtesy_titles_and_honorifics_in_professional_writing and several others. We perhaps need to sort out overlaps between these and or links between them as I'm not sure how you can be expected to find what you are looking for at the moment. Alci12 10:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of styles in the United Kingdom? Proteus (Talk) 11:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are all noble/quasi-noble styles at present unless we are going to combine this with something that deals with say Lord Mayors or other non noble styles and forms of address Alci12 11:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It includes Privy Counsellors, so "aristocratic styles" or some such is out. I suppose they're all "personal styles" (i.e. styles that indicate personal status rather than office/rank/job etc.), so perhaps that would be a useful clarification. Proteus (Talk) 11:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a list of styles in UK - it is a definition of them as well. - Kittybrewster 22:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, will someone searching for such things search for personal styles? I fear they will search for forms of address or titles or somesuch. I can't think of a simple solution to get around this problem as many obvious redirects exist as articles - some of which I mentioned above. We'll probably get it in the neck for making something that's specifically British so assuming all this we'd end up with something like British personal styles and definitions which isn't exactly catchy! Alci12 23:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-catchy does not matter as long as there are references to the page elsewhere. - Kittybrewster 23:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct form

This discussion and the articles quoted have made me realise how disorganised our coverage of what might be termed "Correct Form" is — I'm sure we have quite a lot of stuff on it spread over numerous different articles, but anyone coming to Wikipedia as an alternative to buying Debrett's Correct Form would undoubtedly be severely disappointed, which I think is a shame, as there isn't really any online source for this sort of thing. Does anyone think this list would be useful as part of a more organised series of articles on British Correct Form (not only listing the styles but explaining how different ones are used in different situations and by different people, explaining common errors and pitfalls, discussing how they arose and how they have developed, etc.)? Proteus (Talk) 11:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, though I can see it's a headache of a job, I think we need to work out a structured/logical relationship between the existing articles that cover names/titles/styles both british and foreign, and where appropriate remove sections that seem repeat and create articles that fill the gaps and sort links so you can find all this good info easily. The idea of a 'correct form' seems a very good idea but we need to sort what we have first and therefore what we can borrow or what we need to create before we add a new article from scratch. It may be that some of the existing articles need renaming so they more accuratetely reflect what they are intended to cover.Alci12 12:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. The ultimate aim might well be Correct form of styles in Britain; the American users would generally not be interested. - Kittybrewster 14:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes (continued)

Incidentally, there are more sources for this form of courtesy title where men are concerned: Burke's styled Michael Ancram "The Rt Hon The Earl of Ancram" (sic, including the capital letter on "The") before his father died, and there are various references to the courtesy Marquesses who held political office in the 19th century as, for instance, "The Rt Hon. The Marquess of Hartington" (or "The Rt Hon. The Marquis of Hartington"). Proteus (Talk) 15:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Upload as Correct form of styles in Britain? - Anything to be added? It will be a reference WP:Correct form to which to refer people who wrongly correct Lady McCartney, etc. - Kittybrewster 15:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Styles in the United Kingdom seems sufficient: I don't want to make it overly restrictive, as the wider it is the more we can expand it. Proteus (Talk) 15:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a category. There are probably more appropriate ones, though. (And if we make a series we can probably create a new category for the pages in it.) Proteus (Talk) 16:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

Forms of address in the United Kingdom and Styles in the United Kingdom

Can these be merged? If not, can it be made clear in the intro paragraph how they are different? — MrDolomite | Talk 17:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is the intention, see the discussion above, to strip out from various article this content where repeated and form one central article or more tightly define those existing articles where things overlap so they stand alone and cover clearly different material. The articles concerned as far as I can see are Forms_of_address, Royal_and_noble_styles, Use_of_courtesy_titles_and_honorifics_in_professional_writing and Courtesy_title Alci12 19:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Forms of address in the United Kingdom should really deal with spoken address — "My Lord", "Your Grace", etc., how they developed and how they are used — whereas this deals more specifically with formal styles. Proteus (Talk) 20:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but 'your grace' is both spoken and written in formal usage. You obviously in reference to the earlier articles have styles such as 'Most Noble' that is used in royal warrants and such but very formal, 'Most High potent and noble Prince' that is ultra ultra formal and barely ever used. So how are we handling those.

You're saying forms of address should be historial and developmental so is that the 'Most High as it's essentially historic. We could pull the stuff out of Royal and Noble styles and just provide a link out to the whatever full article we deem proper as the sectrion there is very basic and is covered elsewhere already if unevenly Alci12 21:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the historical stuff should go in whichever article it's appropriate to. This article should probably have a section at the bottom on archaic and extremely formal written styles ("The Most High...", "our right trusty and right entirely beloved cousin", etc.), or if it looks like it would be too lengthy we could say this is on usual or default styles and have a separate article on formal styles in the United Kingdom or some such. Forms of address in the United Kingdom could discuss, say, the change from Grace to Highness to Majesty, and the use of "Sire". I'm generally very keen for each article to be a meaningful article rather than just a list. Proteus (Talk) 22:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - I think Forms of address in the United Kingdom is currently the superior article, the table in that article being very intuitive. An article about the history of titles, and other interesting facts could appear after the table. --Surturz 00:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge. I just had to look up the correct form of address for someone and found the Forms of Address page very useful. The other one would have been useless. The forms of address one is clear and to the point, there's no need to merge them. Nick mallory 10:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the Numbers

Let's say a Duke of London is the 3rd person to hold that peerage, but only the second male to hold it, to wit: if the second holder was a woman who held it "in her own right", then would it be proper to refer to the 3rd individual as the 3rd Duke of London or should it be the 2nd Duke of London? 209.92.136.131 21:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd. There isn't really any logical reason for it though — it's just the way it's done. See the Dukes of Marlborough for an example. Proteus (Talk) 21:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except the Duchess is not supposed to use the numbering ie it is correctly 1st Duke, Duchess, 3rd Duke - not 2nd Duchess though this mistake is becoming more common. 86.134.78.14 11:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]