Talk:Jack Lawson

Untitled
Is it correct that he should be referred to as the 1st Baron Lawson. To my knowledge, this was not a hereditary peerage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.113.0 (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

His title
The Lord Lawson of Beamish Community School is named after him, confirming that "Lord Lawson of Beamish" was his title. Has anyone got a proper reference? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It confirms nothing of the sort. Cracrofts and ODNB confirm, in fact, that "Baron Lawson" was his proper title.  If he was in fact commonly known as "Lord Lawson of Beamish", which the school's name suggests but does not really confirm, that should be mentioned in the first paragraph of the article, not in the infobox, which should give his proper title. john k (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There's this.
 * The ODNB article has "in March 1950 he went to the House of Lords as Baron Lawson of Beamish".
 * Of course the School's name confirms it. They didn't just make it up. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course they didn't make it up - Beamish is the geographical designation. He is "Baron Lawson, of Beamish in the County of Durham."  If the title itself was "Baron Lawson of Beamish," he would have been "Baron Lawson of Beamish, of Beamish in the County of Durham."  And second half of the 20th century/21st century peers, especially Labour Party ones, have been notoriously bad about knowing the actual names of their titles.  Here is the actual gazetting of the title: "The KING has been pleased, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 17th instant, to confer the dignity of a Barony of the United Kingdom upon The Right Honourable John James Lawson, and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, by the name, style and title of B ARON L AWSON, of Beamish in the County of Durham.".  Compare to the next baronial title granted: "The KING has been pleased, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 11th instant, to confer the dignity of a Barony of the United Kingdom upon Sir Francis Campbell Ross Douglas, K.C.M.G., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, by the name, style and title of B ARON D OUGLAS OF B ARLOCH, of Maxfield in the County of Sussex."  His title was absolutely not "Baron Lawson of Beamish."  If it's on his tombstone, I suppose it's fine to say he was commonly known as Lord Lawson of Beamish in the text of the intro, but it should not be in the infobox, or in the formal name given at the beginning of the article. john k (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm content with your latest edit. Perhaps you should write to the school and tell them to insert a comma into their name. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * They, of course, can call themselves whatever they like. But we should be clear about what his proper title was. Glad we could come to a mutually agreeable solution. john k (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we both learned something. If ever I get offered a peerage, knowing this'll come in very handy. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)