User talk:Proteus/Archive 8

Notability of John 5th Balliol

And while I am at it, I request you to comment upon the following argument: The guy (father of king John) has so little notability that his article is destined to be a stub into eternity. Waimea 08:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(a) If that were the case, what would be the problem? Do stubs disrupt the fabric of the universe or something? (b) He's the founder of an Oxford college, which makes him far more notable than thousands of people with articles. Proteus (Talk) 08:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I read correctly that you actually accept that there can be stubs which do not have any viability to grow into proper articles? Interesting view. Are you certain that you are working towards building an encyclopedia, not a dictionary? Waimea 14:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order: Yes (though I do not accept that this is the case here) and yes, thanks. Proteus (Talk) 16:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shrewsbury

Are you sure that is how it is pronounced? Locals, IME, call it "Shrews-bury". -- ALoan (Talk) 15:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, wouldn't something like IPA be a better choice for pronunciation hints? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table of rules for peers

Hi Proteus - I was just wondering, I saw a table on wikipedia sometime telling of the rules of designations for peers, e.g. showing a Duke is almost always a territorial designation, a Marquess too but showing exceptions, showing how an earl can be either of territory or family name - do you know where this table is?

Also, I was just wondering, where do all these names of terriotorial designations come from? It seems that all the dukedoms are names of counties etc, why is this not true for all of them? E.g. the Dukes of Northumberland, Edinburgh, but then Dukes of Grafton & Clarence. Is it possible for a dukedom to be named after a family? How come so many earldoms used up big territorial designations (eg Earl of Hertford, Earl of Warwick, Earl of Kent) when some eg Earl Spencer didn't even have a placename - does this mean anything? Are there any rules for deciding territorial designations of peerages?

You might be interested to know that I went round Hardwick Hall a year ago, and the guide was telling us the history of the dukes of Devonshire. He said (and I haven't heard this anywhere else) that James I (I think) created the Earldom (as it originally was) of Devon for the family, not realising there already existed an earldom of Devon, so they stuck the "shire" prefix onto it to make it different. I wonder, why do no other titles have the shire suffix?

Do you know, was the Dukedom of Wharton a placename or named after the family?

Also, does the Dowager peerage system work with courtesy titles? Eg Kathleen Kennedy was Marchioness of Hartington, then her husband who held the courtesy title died - since his younger brother Andrew was the new Marquess of Hartington and his wife the new Marchioness, what was Kathleen styled as? Could she have been styled as Dowager Marchioness of Hartington?, or was she Kathleen, Marchioness of Hartington (and if so, presumably took the same status as a widow of a peer?)

Finally, I'm a great admirer of your work on wikipedia - do you write outside wikipedia also? If so I would like to read your work, you are certainly the most informed person about peerage and royalty here! --130.88.188.14 17:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of billionaires (2006)

The Lord Thomson of Fleet? What is wrong with his first and last name? All of the other billionaires are listed as first and last name. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other billionaires have titles. I would have thought that was obvious. Proteus (Talk) 17:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'll admit you are probably 100% correct, it's not by any means obvious. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feudal Baronies - Again!

If you look at Category:Baronies we have two (at least) Feudal Scottish baronies that have been bought and appear to be being (were I to take a guess) promoted by their owners. Baron_of_Fulwood & Barony_of_Barrichbeyan the latter of which contains the usual rubbish "it was open to be claimed by anyone in the succession by the Scottish law of positive prescription, which entitles ownership of the title to anyone who successfully holds the title and enjoys its rights for a period of ten years."

I think we need to sort out what we do here. Mixing genuine peerages under the catagory baronies with real or fake fudal titles is just awful but how to handle. I'll copy this to Choess though we may need to move to a proper discussion page. I would appreciate any thoughts as to how we handle this. Alci12 14:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did consider deletion - particularly for the second page (Barrichbeyan) where they have simply assumed the title based on a false notion of Scots' law. However the former is potentially more tricky. If they have bought that title and it is recognised by the Lord Lyon then it does exist.[1] The question then if does having a Scottish fudal title make an article notable on its own in the way we say it does for peerages. My general view is probably not - I don't know much about how much we need to find a consensus before proposing Afd which is why I ran this by you. Searching I now find in the history Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Baron of Fulwood in 2005. Can we re-propose?Alci12 16:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly if forced to keep the article - I fail to see how it survived before as not very notable, it's written in part by the subject who isn't notable and has no citations to support anything said - we need to prevent confusion with genuine baronies which is why I was concerned to see the entries I gave you on the cat. baronies. If they have to stay they should be moved to a cat feudal baronies. Certainly I think they should be remove from the former as it suggests equiv. levelsAlci12 18:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British order of precedence

The Order of precedence in England and Wales page states it is only up-to-date as of October 2004- an obvious error, as the Duchess of Cornwall is included. How up-to-date is the list? The date should be changed, and you seemed like someone who would want to know. TysK 06:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baroness Howe

For goodness sake please realise that whether or not it is technically correct (and I do not agree with you on this point), there comes a time when common sense trumps both consistency and strict adherence to rules. David | Talk 12:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried warning you subtly but you did not respond. I will now say openly that your personal attacks are breaking Wikipedia policy and are souring the atmosphere. Please also desist from the suggestion that only you know about the Peerage, which is untrue.

I did not mention accuracy. I said "strict adherence to rules". It seems to me common sense that Baroness Howe is known principally by a title awarded to her in her own right rather than one which devolved upon her by marriage. There is also the issue of precedence, given that the holder of a Life Barony is higher in precedence than the wife of a Life Baron. Finally (for now), do you want to do a search for any other source not derived from Wikipedia which refers to "Baroness Howe of Aberavon"? David | Talk 12:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Lancaster

I noted your edits to the Duke of Lancaster and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom pages, wherein you note that the sovereign is not called the Duke of Lancaster. Yet, from the Duchy of Lancaster site, one reads this:

Founded in the 13th century, the Duchy of Lancaster is a unique portfolio of land, property and assets held in trust for the Sovereign in his or her role as Duke of Lancaster.

How can one be x without being called x? Is there some verification for your claim? Just curious. Fishhead64 18:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also from the Duchy of Lancaster website's Q & A page:

Question: Why is Her Majesty The Queen referred to as the Duke of Lancaster and not the Duchess of Lancaster?

Answer: Historically, Queen Victoria considered that the title 'Duke' was the proper title for the holder of a Dukedom whether man or woman, that of Duchess being a courtesy title for the consort of a Duke. Today, Her Majesty The Queen is sometimes referred to as the Duke of Lancaster. However, the use of the title is considered to be dependent upon the pleasure of the reigning monarch and is not used on official or formal documents or on occasions. Fishhead64 18:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the Queen is Duke of Lancaster since she holds the Duchy - however, no sovereign can hold a peerage honour since they themselves are the fount of peerage dignitaries. However, she is toasted as The Queen, Duke of Lancaster upon occasions in Lancashire - but this is tradition rather than fact.--130.88.243.192 11:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She's not Duke of Lancaster, technically or otherwise. Proteus (Talk) 12:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - it seems that this is already being discussed. It seems that the alt.talk.royalty faq [2] disagrees with you. Hope this satisfies you. Sorry. Noisy | Talk 14:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. And there's no need to be sorry, you're hardly the only one producing incorrect links. Proteus (Talk) 15:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected - she's not the Duke of Lancaster since that title merged into the crown centuries ago, the sovereign cannot hold a peerage. She's only toasted as such in Lancashire (don't know why), perhaps because she fills the role were she Duke of Lancaster?--130.88.243.179 18:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just tradition, really. She's toasted as "The Queen, Our Duke" in the Channel Islands with a similar lack of legal basis. Proteus (Talk) 18:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sighs I've tried knocking some sense into the Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom article but I'm not getting very far. I'm not sure where we go with this.Alci12 14:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating baronetcies

I seem to recall you've opined against using the territorial designations to distinguish baronets. How would you recommend, I go about disambiguating, e.g., Sir Richard Browne, 1st Baronet, representing three individuals? Choess 22:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note new page Browne Baronets - Kittybrewster 22:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord/Lady Justice

I noted your comments on Talk:Mary_Arden_(judge) but looking at the reference to her on her husband's page we refer to her as Lady Justice. I haven't edited it until I'm clear how we handle it as I can see perfectly good reason's for both solutions.Alci12 17:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armagh (disambiguation)

You moved Armagh, County Armagh to Armagh. Can you revive the old Armagh page, which was a disambiguation page, and move that to Armagh (disambiguation)? Once you have done that, could you please add a link to Armagh, Quebec, a municipality in Canada, to the disambiguation page? TruthbringerToronto 04:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People aren't baptised "Sir"

Sir is a title, like "Doctor" or "professor". It is not the first name of people you are trying to say it is! See WP:MOS — Dunc|☺ 22:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you wrote the MOS did you? You seem awfully insistant that some people's first names are "Sir". — Dunc|☺ 23:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Proteus, I was wondering if you could poss answer my questions on this page under "Table of Rules for peers", thanks.

Also, things are getting a bit heated on Elizabeth II's talk page about Duke of Lancaster ....

I was thinking "I thought I did...", but looking at the history of this page it seems you're on a dynamic IP, so they're on a pretty random user talk page (here). I'll paste the contents here, anyway: Proteus (Talk) 18:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titles

(Cross-posted from my talk page)

A hereditary title can go to any son - right? So if say, The Duke of London & Islington (made up title as an example!) was newly created with Letters patent for the Dukedom of London to go to the eldest son and the second dukedom of Islington to go to the second son... the 1st duke's duchess is The Duchess of London and Islington, right? So if the Duke of London & Islington dies and his sons become The Duke of London & The Duke of Islington respectively, and their wives become the Duchess of London and The Duchess of Islington respectively, DOES the wife of the 1st Duke stay "The Duchess of London & Islington" or become The Dowager Duchess of London & Islington, or e.g. Sarah, Duchess of London & Islington?

It'd be a very unusual situation, as in the vast, vast majority of cases all titles go to the eldest son, but in the case you lay out I'd imagine the 1st Duke's widow would become either "The Dowager Duchess of London and Islington" or "Sarah, Duchess of London and Islington" (the choice, as with all widows of peers, would be hers, and down to which form she preferred). The reason I'd say this is that Dukes and Duchesses with more than one title are generally known only by the first in informal situations (so the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry is generally just called "the Duke of Buccleuch"), and so if she kept her former style both her and her eldest son's wife would be known generally as "the Duchess of London", which wouldn't really be acceptable.

If the situation were to happen as above, except the dukedom were to go to the second and third sons, does this mean the eldest son does not get a courtesy earldom as he would if he were the heir?

Indeed it would. Courtesy peerages are only held by heirs apparent, and it's just coincidence that eldest sons are almost always the heir apparent and so have courtesy peerages. The eldest son in this case would be "Lord John Smith". Likewise, if the titles were as such in your first example, both eldest and second sons would have courtesy peerages (the eldest getting the highest peerage other than the Dukedom of London coming to him and the second getting the highest peerage other than the Dukedom of Islington coming to him). A real-life example of this is found with the sons of the 3rd Marquess of Londonderry: Londonderry was created Earl Vane and Viscount Seaham with remainder to his heirs male by his second wife (his first son was his only son by his first wife). Before Londonderry's death his eldest son was known as Viscount Castlereagh as heir apparent to the Marquessate whilst his second son was known as Viscount Seaham as heir apparent to the Earldom.

When a Duke is listed in Burke's peerage, he has all his titles listed, right? E.g. Duke of Devonshire, Marquess of Hartington, Earl of Burlington, Baron Cavendish..... so what are the Duke's heirs known by if their courtesy titles are taken?

Well they're not "taken", as such, as they're never used to describe the actual peer except in peerage reference works. The actual peer continues to hold all his peerages, and the courtesy peers merely use them as if they held them (they might almost be called "spare peerages" that the peer doesn't need and so lets his heirs pretend they hold them).

Is The Duchess of Cornwall also "The Princess Charles"? and is the countess of Wessex "The Princess Edward"? If so, why are they never referred to as such? Does this make them actual princesses? Surely a princess outranks other peerages?

Yes, they are, but they're never referred to as such because "Prince" and "Princess" are considered to be rather akin to courtesy titles: they're used by those with nothing else, but nowhere near as grand as even the lowest actual peerage (though higher, of course, than courtesy peerages). It's the same reason that members of the Royal Family are created peers — it's nice to be a Prince, obviously, but nothing beats holding a peerage.

Why is Prince Charles not known as "Earl of Merioneth" in his titles as the Duke of Edinburgh's son? Similarly, why is Prince William not Lord Greenwich?

Courtesy titles are really only there to give heirs something to call themselves that shows their status. As actual peers have actual titles, they don't need lesser courtesy peerages and so generally just ignore them.

Is it possible to have two different forms of the same designation in a title? E.g. Can there be a Duke of Shrewsbury at the same time as there being an Earl of Shrewsbury?

Yes, though usually only as a historical accident rather than through design. There is currently a Duke of Sutherland as well as a Countess of Sutherland (the two titles were once held by the same people, but have since separated because only one can descend through the female line), and there are various other examples, mainly of subsidiary titles.

Do the children of a younger son of a duke have a courtesy title? E.g. if Lord Charles so-an-so has children, do they get "The Honourable" prefx?

No, they're just ordinary untitled people.

Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, was not in a position to be styled "Princess Alice" since she was not born royal. Why was she styled as such and was she in any way a princess by marriage or creation?

Well she was always "Princess Henry" as the wife of Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, so she was really a Princess all along. As to why she was "Princess Alice": when her husband died, she would in normal practice have become "HRH The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester". However, this didn't suit her very much, and so she asked if she could be "Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester" in the same way as her sister-in-law, Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, who was styled as such because she was born a Princess (not of the UK). The Queen bent the rules and agreed, and so she was styled in that way.

Why does Prince Charles never use his earldoms or his barony? Or the Princedom of Scotland? (surely that's higher than the dukedom of Rothesay?)

Peers generally don't use their lesser titles themselves, so he's really only following standard practice with the Earldoms, but as regards the Princedom of Scotland I think our article on it probably explains more clearly than I could.

Why did Queen Mary not have a state crown made for her at the Delhi Durbar like George V?

Sorry, can't help you with this. The Queen-Empress Consorts don't seem to have had the same status as their husbands, however: the King-Emperors (and Queen-Empresses Regnant) signed "Name RI" ("Name King/Queen Emperor/Empress") but their wives only signed "Name R" ("Name Queen").

Why is the Earl of March, Darnley & Kinrara often only referred to as "The Earl of March and Kinrara"?

Because his father's generally called the Duke of Richmond and Gordon: the Scottish Dukedom is missed out and so they also miss out the Scottish courtesy Earldom.

If the heir of a peer holds a courtesy title of say, earl, to say he's not a peer means he's actually not an earl?

It depends in what sense: he's called "the Earl of Somewhere" so he's obviously nominally an Earl (he's not a Viscount or a Marquess, for instance), but he's not actually an Earl in the sense of "someone who holds an Earldom".

If the Queen cannot hold a peerage being the fount of honour, why is she referred to as The Duke of Lancaster? Similarly, isn't she by law Duchess of Edinburgh?

She's only referred to as Duke of Lancaster by tradition, rather than by law. And she is, technically, Duchess of Edinburgh, but of course a monarch would have no need to use such a title.

Was The Duchess of Windsor, while not being an HRH, not a Princess? if her husband was The Prince Edward, surely she was "Her Grace The Princess Edward, Duchess of Windsor"?

Most probably, though she wouldn't have been known as that, just as all Royal peeresses are just "HRH The Duchess of Camelot" rather than "HRH The Princess Lancelot, Duchess of Camelot".

Say the Duke of Bedford has an heir, the Marquess of Tavistock. Lord Tavistock has an heir, Lord Howland. Lord Howland has an heir... what is he called? The Duke has more than one barony to be used as a courtesy title - does Lord Howland's son just take another barony to become, say, Baron Russell, or does he go a rank below his father and become The Hon. Mr so-and-so?

He'd just be "The Hon. John Smith". Heirs of courtesy peers follow the same rules as heirs of actual peers: they can only have courtesy peerages if their fathers are courtesy Earls or Marquesses, not Viscounts or Barons, and they have to have a lower grade of peerage than their fathers.

Sorry there are so many questions here ... it would be great if you could help!

No problem, hope I've been of assistance. Proteus (Talk) 21:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything that Proteus has said though I'd add perhaps that sons of younger sons of peers do by a less formal tradition use Esquire Alci12 10:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honorific reverts

Hi. You seem to be reverting rather a lot of changes wrt MOS:Honorific prefixes. Any particular reason for this ? Frelke 12:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you mentioned something in an earlier edit summary. But sorry, I can't find anything about the use of honorifics in Infoboxes. Can you please reference this item for me pls. Ta. Frelke 17:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that the wording is actually "... shall not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper...." This infers that they can be discussed (i.e. "He became a Rt. Hon when he was made Lord Mayor") but should not be used elsewhere. If you read Wikipedia:Captions you will see that captions (which is what we are discussing) are treated as, and expected to be, full sentences that add to the encyclopaedic content of the article. Thus they are "inline". Frelke 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you accept that it does infer that ? Can you provide a reference to those discussions? It seems to me from reading Talk:MOS:Honorific prefixes that you were in a real minority on this and pushing the boundaries of reason. You obviously belive wholeheartedly in the use of such honorifics and you are entitled to do so but, please dont 'imply you wrote the rules, which is what I infer from your comment. Frelke 18:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinals

I wasn't going to post this as you had a wikibreak listed but as you popped into the trimble page I though perhaps you may be able to offer some advice. See Talk:Lord_Lovat and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage. Now I think Canæn's argument is...'not good' but I think he is probably acting in good faith even if he is causing a problem . I'm slightly reluctant to edit Clan Fraser to correct the details he has changed there (16->18th Lord Lovat again) as in all likelyhood I can see a revert war especially if his 'braveheart' reasoning finds favour there but his changes can't stand. He is pushing a clan POV and renaming pages as a consequence but I'm not sure what I should do really.

Obviously you have exams so don't worry about this it'll still be there afterwards Alci12 16:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial designations

You removed territorial designations saying this is an incorrect way to disamibiguate Baronets. I wonder what your authority is for that statement. Is that not what territorial designations are for? Somebody else suggested territorial designations are somehow "not official" and I think they cited you. Is that something you believe and if so why? - Kittybrewster 18:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 23:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda

I see you've joined this thread. I can't see this can go anywhere as he's an admin and simply cites his viewpoint as NPOV. Would this be better sent to dispute resolution of some sort. Alci12 16:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Lovat

You may wish to look at the Lord Lovat page again. I think Canaen is pushing is POV again, he's not giving up on the numbering of the Lords, insisting that because apparently the general public refer to them differantly we should account for this. To be honest, I think 99% of the public have never heard of him, so I think this is a strange argument. --Berks105 13:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset

Please be aware that you may be breaking the three revert rule if you make any more reverts to the above page. If these reverts are over a dispute, then I would suggest that you take this issue to mediation. Thanks Abcdefghijklm 13:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford

Please be aware that you may be breaking the three revert rule if you make any more reverts to the above page. If these reverts are over a dispute, then I would suggest that you take this issue to mediation. Thanks Abcdefghijklm 13:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI=

Just had a look at WJohnsons history, it appears he has been blocked before for breaking the 3-R-R. Just so you know, I believe your edits are right (which is why I reverted one of the pages to your edit) and conform to standard stylings of the peerage. I will not get involved with this as a mediator, or otherwise, but I will keep an eye on the article to make sure he does not break the 3-R-R again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abcdefghijklm (talk • contribs) 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A rule that I was not aware of before I broke it. And this is not standard styling for the peerage. I have in front of me the Complete Peerage which is the authoritative book on the subject and not one single time do they simply call something 'Lord' this or that. They always use the person's given name. I can also cite you a few thousand examples from the Patent Rolls if you want. Wjhonson 23:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Imbros and Tenedos

There is a new move request here; you may be interested in it. Septentrionalis 18:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]