Talk:Antony Lambton

Untitled
I'm have removed the rules of peerage remark. There are no rules to govern courtesy titles nor did the Peerage Act 1963 make any. They are by defintion not matters of law only custom. As the peerage act was the first time a peer could renounce a title the custom as to how to style such people was certainly then non existant. The Speaker of the Commons - who has no power over such matters - ruled that he could continue to be called Viscount Lambton in that place. That's as much as we can say not having a ruling from the Palace or the Earl Marshal.Alci12 12:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Explanation for move
The obituaries of this individual (see article) all give his first name without the 'h'. The 'Antony Lambton' page already exists as a redirect, hence admin intervention was requested, but the eventual article title, bearing in mind his courtesy title, needed no such intervention as it did not already exist! Philip Cross 14:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure his courtesy title should be part of the article. After 1970 there was contravesy has to whether he held it, and its slightly POV to refer to him as it. Legally, he was Mr Antony Lambton. (Also, the title was Viscount Lambton not Lord Lambton). I think the previous neutral title of Antony Lambton should be restored. --Berks105 15:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was going by several of the obituaries I list in the External links section. He is always referred to as "Lord Lambton" whenever the 1973 scandal is mentioned and "Lord" is used interchangeably with the lower titles in the order of Precedence, the exceptions being Marquis and Duke. Philip Cross 16:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't go by the obituaries. And Lord is interchangeable with Marquess. What do other people think of the article title. --Berks105 16:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If we use a courtesy title in an article's title, we should also use the correct form and this would be Viscount. However personally I would prefer the solution without any title. As he has disclaimed his earldom, he has contemporaneously disclaimed all his minor titles, too - so even if he called himself Viscount Lambton, he actually wasn't it any more. Greetings and have a Happy New Year Phoe  talk 17:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * According to his obituary in the Times :
 * The subject was referred to the Committee on Privileges, which ruled that he should be styled Mr Lambton.
 * When his father died, he became Earl of Durham and his son was then styled Viscount Lambton. When a peerage is disclaimed, the holder loses the rights to use any of the associated titles, but descendants all keep their titles. So Lambton's son was still Viscount Lambton, so it was illogical for Antony to revert to that title after disclaiming. (In fact, I think his son was forced to style himself Lord Durham to avoid confusion with his father, Baron Durham being another of their titles). Anyone can call themself "Lord" if they want, but we wouldn't include it in the title of the Wikipedia article. Also, we only ever use "Lord" in the title for Scottish Lords of Parliament. Even life peers, who are always addressed "Lord", are "Baron" on Wikipedia, so Lord is definitely wrong here as the disputed title is Viscount. I think the article should be put back to Antony Lambton, with a link from Lord Lambton being sufficient. But if we're keeping a title of peerage in the article title, it should be Viscount not Lord.  J Rawle  (Talk) 17:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the COP can of course rule as it likes but it is nothing more nor less than a cmt of that house and has no power to make any decisions that have an consequence outside the house. Much as I would happily agree the use of this courtesy title (inc for this article) was a nonsense. He could have used Hon. though as the Earl of Selkirk uses his 'Lord X Y' that title derives not by virtue of his inheritance OR being HP/HA but simply as a son of a peer. Alci12 12:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with JRawle. He wasn't entitled to the courtesy title after his disclaimer, and we only use titles when they're correct. This article should be moved to Antony Lambton. Proteus (Talk) 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the disclaimation is very clear as to the intent to remove all right or interest to or in the peerage, and all titles, rights, offices, privileges and precedence attaching thereto Alci12 11:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Only an admin can make that move, SqueakBox 23:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well we need one.


 * Done. Proteus (Talk) 11:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.gardens-of-tuscany.net/cetinale-eng.htm
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 16:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed section
This: Lord Lambton and his wife held a party at their London home Biddick House in 1976. Among the guests was the American photographer Robert Mapplethorpe who took photos of his granddaughter Rosie Bowdrie which would, many years later, be the subject of police action. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/reveals-again-mapplethorpes-model-1363318.html As in its current form it's speculative, weasel worded, and unencyclopaedic: what point is it trying to make? Feel free to restore when these points have been addressed. Cheers,  ...SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 12:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)