Talk:Arthur Wellesley, Earl of Mornington

Incorrect details
I can't find any evidence that Arthur has worked for Bain consulting, (I work for them and there is no record of him as alumni or active) so I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎206.106.128.5 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. DrKiernan (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Wellesley, Earl of Mornington → Arthur Wellesley, Marquess of Douro – The 8th Duke of Wellington died today, making his son the 9th Duke. According to the courtesy rules of the British peerage the Earl of Mornington became Marquess of Douro. Could the page of Arthur Wellesley, Earl of Mornington be moved to Arthur Wellesley, Marquess of Douro Fdewaele (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support I was about to request this myself, but I'm glad someone else has already.  I strongly second this request, since currently this page has his incorrect title.--Ezrameyer (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Complicating matters, someone erroneously moved the page to "10th Duke of Wellington". That will only happen upon the death of the (new) 9th Duke and only if Douro is still alive at the time. -- fdewaele
 * Support The Earl of Mornington is the courtesy title of the grandson of the Duke of Wellington and the Marquess of Douro is the courtesy title of his son. I do not know why is a discussion needed, actually.--The Theosophist (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courtesy and because there is already an existing article to which this one should be moved and thus only an admin can move it. I therefore listed a formal move request. -- fdewaele, 2 January 2015, 16:11 CET
 * There is an existing redirect (to this article), not an existing article. Anyway, I understand.--The Theosophist (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes but for the Wiki software that means that formally there is an article with that name, and unfortunately a move to an existing article (even if it's only a redirect) can't be done that easily. Trust me... I tried. -- fdewaele, 2 January 2015, 16:22 CET
 * You most certainly did. And I did too, multiple times. Usually, when this is the case, I list it at Uncontroversial Technical Moves and it is done in the space of six hours. Had you not placed this move request, it would have been deemed uncontroversial and done already. You, Labour, you.--The Theosophist (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Temporary oppose - see discussion below. I only support the requested move in case there is proof he assumed the courtesy title. Dr. D.E. Mophon 20:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If he uses it or not is irrelevant. He holds it for sure. Also, Fdewaele pointed out that he is called this way in newspapers.--The Theosophist (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My apology, but that's nonsense. He certainty does not hold the title, the only one who actually does is his father the 9th Duke of Wellington; Marquess of Douro is one of his subsidiary titles. His eldest son however, may - when following tradition - use the title out of courtesy. He is not the legal owner of it, he only (with the lack of a better word) "borrows" the title with "permission" from his father. However, if he decides not to use the title, or his father does not want that, he does not use the title. It is as simple as that. Dr. D.E. Mophon 20:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. He assumed the title as soon as his grandfather died. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose until there is proof that he is using the new title. As pointed out above, there is a difference between the holder of the Marquessate of Douro and the courtesy use of the title. The title itself has been inherited by the 9th Duke. His son might very well choose to use it as a courtesy, or he might decide to keep his current style. Until we see something positive we'd best not assume. --Bcp67 (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as this is the title used by the heir-apparent/presumptive of the Duke of Wellington. GoodDay (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Current personal title, should be current article title. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 02:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - changed vote per FactStraight comment below. Oppose per Bcp67. Nobody supporting this move has produced any evidence that he has in fact assumed the title Marquess of Douro. Several have suggested that it is a courtesy title, and that he has to be explcitly granted to him by his father. Again, nobody has produced solid evidence that it either passed automatically or that the father granted it. Until that evidence is shown, the page should not be moved.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is "suggesting" it's a courtesy title. It most certainly is a courtesy title. He doesn't have to be explicitly granted it. It is common, normal, traditional and accepted practice for an heir to take his father's second title as his courtesy title. He simply is the Marquess of Douro (by courtesy, at least). -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * if that's the case, please provide a reliable source for it, and I'll be happy to withdraw my opposition. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See below under Discussion: I provided a link by a British newspaper which already called him Douro. -- fdewaele; 20 January 2015, 18:36
 * The article you found was in the Daily Mail newspaper. I don't want to say that's not a reliable source, because that hasn't been universally agreed upon within Wikipedia, but I wouldn't personally rely on anything they write. Just to give one example of that, this article about Cristina Aguilera getting the anthem wrong due to Wikipedia: was patently false; the vandalistic edit was made *after* she sang at the superbowl. See also User:John/Is the Daily Mail a reliable source? for another user's view on this. Anyway, my point is that the Daily Mail could have just as easily made the same assumption as others here seem to be, that the courtesy title is *always* and "immediately* granted to the Duke's heir. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I am yet to see concrete proof that's the case. Thanks  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, given the article was in a tabloid I'd consider it to be more accurate in this instance. In my experience, most journalists wouldn't know a marquess from a march hare and wouldn't have the first clue how to refer to the eldest son of a duke, and that goes doubly for those working for the tabloids! This suggests the author got it from a decent source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Wikipedia doesn't wait for published scholarly findings, personal declarations or news coverage of usage to ascribe a peerage title to the heir upon the previous titleholder's death because it is long-established usage that transmission of the title is automatic and its usage is immediate (unlike, for instance, conferral of new peerages or honours by the Crown which entail gazetting and/or the accolade for uptake). This is true even if the peer subsequently chooses not to be known by his/her title, unless the declination of use was announced prior to or at the time of the inheritance of the peerage. British courtesy titles are treated in exactly the same way as peerages, in this respect, and have been for centuries. The only sense in which use or attribution of the new courtesy title is "controlled" by the actual peerage holder is if the peer himself/herself chooses to retain the courtesy title in question for personal usage, since the title can't be used for two different persons (e.g., Macduff vs Southesk earldoms). Wikipedia risks making up new rules of succession to titles by treating the attribution of a courtesy title as a matter of an ancestor's discretion. Transmission is governed by British, not family, tradition. FactStraight (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * again, you need to provide proof of what you're saying. "British courtesy titles are treated in exactly the same way as peerages, in this respect, and have been for centuries", you say. Surely something that has been happening for centuries must be documented somewhere. We don't need proof that this specific guy has inherited this specific courtesy title, but we do need some proof of the assertion that they are automatically transferred. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Many books explain how peerages and courtesy titles are used, but the only one I happen to have to hand is L.G. Pine's "Titles", published by Barnes & Noble, Inc. in 1992, ISBN 1-56619-085-5, which says on p. 115, "The eldest son of a duke, marquess, or earl will use one of the father's subsidiary titles." It doesn't say "may" or "sometimes uses", nor does it say "eldest son of a peer" (since viscounts and barons are peers, but their heirs do not use one of their father's subsidiary titles, although viscounts often have one). Sources which go into greater detail will point out peculiarities and exceptiions, but this source confirms the main, relevant point which has been consistently affirmed (while being expressed differently) by everyone here familiar with what is a traditional, not a legal, system of titulature for the heirs of the upper nobility: The eldest son of a British duke is known by his father's next highest peerage unless and until, by family tradition or personal choice, he takes up some other subsidiary title (indeed, so strong is this tradition, that an heir of the rare duke or marquess who lacks any subsidiary title is allowed to make one up and use it -- the only instance I know of in which such broad discretion is sanctioned by any Crown!) or declines to use any at all. The applicable tradition in the Wellesley family is observable over two centuries: The heir apparent of a new Duke of Wellington is known as Marquess of Douro. FactStraight (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you ! That is the kind of source I was looking for, and I'm happy to now change my vote above to "Support". &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

The 8th Duke of Wellington died today, making his son the 9th Duke. According to the courtesy rules of the British peerage the Earl of Mornington became Marquess of Douro. Could someone/an admin please thus move the page of Arthur Wellesley, Earl of Mornington to Arthur Wellesley, Marquess of Douro and a redirect of that page to his father is no longer necessary. I apparently cannot move it. -- fdewaele, 31 December 2014, 14:32 CET
 * We have no evidence that Mornington is going to change courtesy titles. Yes, we can expect he will, but they don't always do so immediately (or at all.) There's a recent example I can't think of right now. (Was it Burlington?) DBD 17:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Burlington (son of the Duke of Devonshire) did indeed keep his old courtesy title out of professional reasons. But that's the exception to the general rule. The normal usage/the norm always is the higher title. Why plan for the rare exception instead of the general rule? Absent a source tying in with such an exception, one should go for the general rule. -- fdewaele, 31 December 2014, 19:10
 * Exactly. The Earl of Mornington is the courtesy title of the grandson of the Duke of Wellington and the Marquess of Douro is the courtesy title of his son. Either way, he is not the 10th Duke of Wellington for sure.--The Theosophist (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the logical reason to change the page to "Arthur Wellesley, Marquess of Douro", it makes sense. But we should wait until we have some sort of confirmation that he indeed uses the title "Marquess of Douro". Instead of the ducal title, all the courtesy titles do not transfer automatically to the new holder. I could not find it, but can somebody else find a source on the internet that he indeed uses the title? But anyways, he is not the 10th Duke of Wellington :-D Why did Paul Brussel change the page to "Arthur Wellesley, 10th Duke of Wellington"??? Dr. D.E. Mophon 15:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, all courtesy titles do transfer automatically. Some peerages have courtesy titles even for the great-grandson, so when the peer dies, all people in the line of succession advance automatically. Also, whether he uses the title or not is irrelevant. The fact is that he holds it.--The Theosophist (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether courtesy titles do transfer automatically and I tend to disagree with your statement. Indeed, the transfer of courtesy titles follows some order of succession, but this is a matter of family tradition and is not legally regulated. Therefore (although not often), the holder of the peerage or the heirs apparent may choose to deviate from this family tradition. For example, William Cavendish, Earl of Burlington did not assume the title Marquess of Hartington when his father became the new Duke of Devonshire, although he was entitled to use that courtesy title. Dr. D.E. Mophon 20:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not a Baronetcy, which one can either assume or not. Not using a title does not mean that you do not hold it. He is more known as the Earl of Burlington and this is why he uses this tile. This does not mean that he is not the Marquess of Hartington.--The Theosophist (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But he is not the Marquess of Hartington. The Marquess of Hartington is his father. The son may use the title, but does not hold it. The son is not an actual peer. Surtsicna (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * True. The fault was mine. He is, however, the person entitled to use the courtesy title and whether he does or not is irrelevant.--The Theosophist (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He's already called that way in the media see for instance http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2892544/The-Duke-Wellington-99-dies-months-200th-anniversary-Waterloo-Jemma-Kidd-s-husband-heir-title.html As to wht Paul Brussel changed it: baffles me as well. -- fdewaele, 17:30 2 January 2014, CET


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incorrect title
This article is incorrect. Arthur Wellesley, eldest son of the Duke of Wellington, kept the courtesy title Earl of Mornington when his father became the 9th Duke of Wellington in Dec 2014. The 9th Duke of Wellington has kept the subsidiary title Lord Douro. I know because he is my boss and I have seen his passport. Archivist10 (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly the 9th Duke is no longer known as Marquess of Douro, he now sits in the House of Lords as Duke of Wellington. That the Duke, like prior Dukes, is the substantive Marquess of Douro is without doubt. Has your boss had occasion to have a new passport issued since his grandfather's death? LE (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Wellesley, Marquess of Douro → Arthur Wellesley, Earl of Mornington – This is a courtesy request from the Wellesley family via OTRS. The above discussion notwithstanding but Arthur Wellesley does not use the Marquess of Douro title and continues to the title Earl of Mornington and this is how he is most commonly styled. So per the request and WP:COMMONNAME the articles should be reverted to the previous title. Nthep (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, happy to take the family's word for it, and there is precedent for people not assuming titles they're entitled to, e.g. Lady Louise Windsor. Although looking at the article I'm questioning if it should even exist – Wellesley doesn't appear to have done anything notable outside of being the son of a duke, and notability is not inherited through parents. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, no personal opinion but as heir apparent to a dukedom, there may be some opinions that consider that notable enough. Nthep (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I'm not sure how the previous move happened without any references to the change in courtesy title. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recommend deletion
The subject of this article has no notable achievements and certainly none cited. I recommend that this be reduced to heir apparent of hereditary member of the House of Lords and incorporated into any entry on the father who was an MEP although both otherwise without distinction and probably best subsumed into any entry on the grandfather who was a senior member of the UK army. ElspethWho (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Odd redirect
The article is currently a redirect to Jemma Kidd, the Earl's now separated wife. Her article makes only a passing reference to the Earl, so it seems odd to me that this article should redirect there. DDFoster96 (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The redirect was the result of the AFD last year (Articles for deletion/Arthur Wellesley, Earl of Mornington) Whether it is still an appropriate target in light of their separation is open to discussion. Nthep (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)