Talk:Lord/Archive 1

Two questions
1. If someone is appointed, say, as Lord Chancellor (or Lord President of the Council etc.), can they keep the style "Lord X" after leaving office? 2. Some lords have the style "Lord X of Y". Others don't. What are the rules about that? Can you choose whatever you want?(I know Montgomery was Lord (or Viscount) Montgomery of Alamein - surely that's not where he was from)? If anyone could add answers to these questions to the article it would be helpful.

DSP

1. The holders of those titles are members of the House of Lords anyway, so will have a life peerage. Therefore they have the title Lord X anyway. 2. When someone is given a life peerage, they choose their own title. These days, they mostly choose to use their surname X. Sometimes they choose to include a place name to give Lord X of Y (this is also necessary is there is already a Lord X). The "of Y" is part of their title. It isn't the same as the territorial designation. See Territorial_designation for details.

Note that they don't have to use their surname. Recently, some new peers have chosen to use just place names, e.g. : Tony Banks (Lord Stratford) and Dennis Turner (Lord Bilston). This illustrates why is it incorrect to use the title "Lord" as if it simply replaces Mr, Dr, Sir, etc. "Lord Tony Banks" is clearly wrong. But so is "Baroness Margaret Thatcher" or "Lord Norman Foster" (the latter I see all too frequently in the press). --JRawle 16:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

"A wierdo plus the ratio of some africans"
This is nonsense, right? I may have missed something but I think this ought to be changed.


 * Of course. Next time feel free to be bold. Doops | talk 22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Laird
"Laird" is not simply a Scottish equivalent of "Lord" even though the words are cognate with each other. A laird is like an English 'lord of the manor'. Scottish marquesses, earls, viscounts and 'lords of Parliament' (equivalent to English Barons) are lords, but not necessarily lairds.GSTQ 04:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I must agree! Laird should have its own page. Redirecting to Lord is gross ignorance. --Camaeron 18:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

order???
what is the order of importance in a court? are they the lowest of the low, or does it vary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.13.166 (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you would be so kind as to rephrase your question I should be happy to answer! --Camaeron (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: YOu can sign your edits by typing four tildes"Camaeron (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)" at the end of your edit!

Title
I have put the section title first: As the word lord is English I thought it fitting that the English (British) meaning came first. --Camaeron 20:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC) . what are you saying about Lord in eastern world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.99.215.55 (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing what so ever. You can add the info yourself if you keep to wiki-guidelines....--Camaeron (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

LORD
LORD is also an acronym for Legend Of the Red Dragon and there should be a disambiguation link, or some reference to the other article from this one. This fact is already noted at Lord (disambiguation)... --Camaeron (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

An English title?
"A Lord is an English title for a person who has power and authority"

The only way this could be accurate is if it redirected to 'English Language', which in turn would be a bit pointless as it is the English Wikipedia.

If a national adjective is required then it should be UK not England, as Lords are appointed in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland in the same way as England. However, even this isn't much better as it doesn't fit in with the other uses of the word, for example, 'The Lord' which is used throughout the English speaking world.

Therefore the 'English' and all other national identifiers should be left out. Donegal92 (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But the title is originally English (from England). I suppose I would settle for British (a quick glance at the other wikipedia's shows both british and english to be used). Do you know of any non-British lords? --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, the peerage of Scotland is separate to that of England, so "English" is correct here. TharkunColl (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I often take a quick peek at the German equivalent of an English wikipedia article: I have noticed that a lot of the time the German version labels more things as English than the English one does! That is because there are so many English speakers that are not English and thus our heritage often gets "lost in translation" (or rather, the opposite!). --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Peerages of Scotland and England were merged to form the Peerage of Great Britain in 1707, which in turn was merged with the Peerage of Ireland to form the peerage of the UK in 1800, therefore there is only one Peerage, and so English is actually incorrect (see here). To say that it is English in the sense that the word came from England is already implied but an argument can be made, however in that case it should link to English langauge not England. As for non-British Lords: I think most people would disagree that The Lord is British! Donegal92 (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you are wrong. The peerages of England and Scotland still exist, and most peers belong to either of the two. No new creations were made after 1707, and all new creations were part of a new peerage, that of Great Britain. Similarly, after 1801, a new peerage of the United Kingdom was created. TharkunColl (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An interesting point, perhaps, but as I say below, not relevant. This article is not "Peerages of England"; it's about the word "Lord", and its use as a title which is not peculiar to England (as you state yourself).  So how can "English" as currently used in the first sentence be correct? -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The word lord is an English word, indeed comes from Old English. It is as English as you can get. TharkunColl (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the word can be termed as being from England, when the lead itself mentions the Lord Provost of Edinburgh. Whether the peerages are separate in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is totally irrelevant. This article is about the word "Lord", not a history of peerages, and the word "Lord" is used as a title in more than England. What the German Wikipedia says isn't relevant either if it is incorrect. Europeans frequently confuse English with British and vice versa.

If someone can produce evidence that the term was first used in England (in the political entity called England) then I suppose this could be mentioned, but only in a historical context along with the English language etymology. So the term "English" should be removed from the lead sentence. The fact that it is an English language word rather goes without saying, this is an English language encyclopaedia, and where it is used is covered adequately and more accurately later. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the article to bring some of the threads together but have left 'English' for now.


 * I agree entirely with Escape Orbit, there is no need for it using either of its meanings, nor is there a need to put anything in it's place. Donegal92 (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we need to ask ourselves, is the article treating of the literal word or the concept? If the latter, then lord is not an exclusively English title; it is pretty well universal in Western Europe.Each nation has its equivalent. And it is, of course, a generic as well as a specfic title. You can talk about 'our lord, the King', 'my lord Duke', 'the Lord Pope'. English and many Commonwealth Anglican and RC bishops are still addressed 'Your lordship.' Ultimately derived from the Roman dominus.

But if you're taling about the literal word L-O-R-D? Of course it's English. Still, that spelling is relatively modern. It was originally lorde and, before that, probably something similar to the Scottish laird.So let's not be too precious about these sort of things.--Gazzster (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, even if the title was first used in the realm of England (which is dubious), it is not now an exclusively English title. It is not now even an exclusively British title (or British and Irish title), for instance the Lord Mayor of Melbourne, the Lord Bishop of Wangaratta.GSTQ (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point! (Who was that masked stranger?!)--Gazzster (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How about "is an English title that later spread throughout the commonwealth"!? --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, unless you can prove that the title was first used in England. This is unlikely as it was used long before the country England existed.  English language has a longer history than England, which is why an English language link would be correct (but redundant) and an English country link is not. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Englands predecessor states where still "English"! --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The kingdom of Northumbria existed in both what is now England & Scotland and spoke Northumbrian Old English. What makes this predecessor state "English" any more than "Scottish"? It's not nearly as clear cut as you presume and incorrect to use either term other than in describing the language -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You could just as well argue the word "Herr" not to be German as it existed before a German state did! --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How about 'lord is a title (and form of address) used in English speaking countries'?--Gazzster (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your own example only goes to prove my point. "Herr" is German language and used in Austria, both currently and historically through shifting national boundaries.  It would therefore be incorrect to label it from the German nation alone. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Escape_Orbit's argument about the realm of England is off-point. Gazzster's suggestion is nothing more than a paraphrased linguistic link, which I agree would be redundant on the English-language Wikipedia. In my view, the conclusive point is that the title was used in Scotland as well as England from the time of the Anglo-Saxon invasions, which shows that it is a linguistic link. And quite apart from its use as a title, the concept of "lordship" is not a phenomenon that is now or ever has been peculiar to England. We use the same terms in our history books to describe Continental participants in the feudal system: "lords" and "serfs" and "vassals" and all that. The only reason the title has ceased to be used outside an English-language context is that nowadays English-speakers have become less comfortable about using English words as equivalents of Continental ones. Shakespeare's plays set in Italy (and Denmark, and elsewhere) all use "my lord" and other English-language forms of address where appropriate. The leader should omit any reference to England or the English language.GSTQ (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That is what's rubbish about the English language wikipedia! It would be so much easier if other countries could have their own languages! = ) The German wikipedia has an article on Herr for a German point of view and a separate article on Lord to highlight the English title. It seems a shame that the English wikipedia is inferior in this aspect...--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * English is other countries own language. And this English language Wikipedia has an article on Herr to highlight the German language title. Just like de.wikipedia.org, but in reverse. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * English is their countries language...but their own language? Sounds like political correctness gone rather wrong...why not abolish the term 'English' language altogether then? --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Do Cameron or TharkunColl have any relevant responses to the above statements that explain why the English link should be removed? Can we close this matter? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends which question you mean = ). But I have a question to you? Can you name me a lord whose title does not originate in England (UK) or is not of English (British) origin? --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No I can't, but I thought we were all agreed on that. "Lord" is an English language word.  But this is an English language encyclopaedia, so it is hardly worth mentioning it's an English language word.  But "Lord" is not, nor ever has been, purely a word used in England.  So a link to England in the first sentence is incorrect and misleading. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you forget that Wikipedia is not a dictionary? --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Have you anything to add that establishes that "Lord" is, or was ever, a word only used in England? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Lord" is an English word. By definition, there was once a time that the English language and England were coterminous, because England was named after the language, and not the other way round. So yes, there was indeed a time when "lord" was only ever used in England, because there was once a time that the English language was only used in England. TharkunColl (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds pretty obvious to me.--Gazzster (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But unfortunately you are completely wrong. Please read the Northumbrian Old English and Northumbria articles.  Perhaps if you went back to a period prior to that you may find a small part of what became England as the only place speaking an early version of Old English, but to extrapolate that out to the political entity England many centuries later, ignoring all others, is a stretch. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 09:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea but I take your word for it. But aren't we being a little pedantic? Old English? Northumbria? All we're saying is that 'lord' is an English word: English English, Irish English, Scots English, Australikan English, Street English, Guatemalan High Northern Expat English If such as thing exists): it's all English, isn't it?--Gazzster (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. There's no problem with what you're saying.  The problem was that the first sentence in the article linked to England the country, not English the language.  It was identifying it with only one part of the English speaking world for no discernible reason.-- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotcha.--Gazzster (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How about I state that the title 'originates in England' and is now used in other countries, specifically ones that were formerly under English or British influence (Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Australia...). Any objections? --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because that is not the case. It originates before England existed and was used in Scotland and Wales before England existed.  So how can it be said it originated in England? I'm unclear how you can still insist on trying to do this when you have nothing that states that, despite all the evidence of the history of the English language, "Lord" somehow originated in England prior to its use elsewhere. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In the British isles then? --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but would this add to the value of the article? The paragraph on the etymology says all this in better detail. Would it not be better adding a section on the use of the word throughout the English speaking world, perhaps noting the influence of the British Empire in spreading its use?   -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's precisely what I'm working on! Perhaps I'll send you a draft before I 'go live' so you can check it for any 'mistakes'! --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC) --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to Cameron's question "Can you name a lord whose title does not originate in the U.K.?" how about "THE LORD"? Besides, this article is not solely about the title. There is also a section on feudalism, which is not restricted to the British Isles, as I pointed out above.GSTQ (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If one is to assume you do not mean the 'Lord of Mann', then I must ask you. Do you have any evidence that such a lord exists? = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not exclusively about things that have been proved to exist. Allow me to direct you to the God article for one example.GSTQ (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All right, well this discussion appears to be over. Unless anybody has anything sensible to add within 48 hours, I'm going to remove the superfluous word "English" from the leader.GSTQ (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm...it's already gone!--Cameron (t|p|c) 12:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Placeholder?? Higher titles??
"It is a common misconception that the title 'Lord' is used alone. Lord is actually merely a 'placeholder' for higher titles of the peerage." The "common misconception" needs two citations - one for the proposition that it is a commonly-held view, and one to shew that it is a misconception. I don't even really know what a placeholder is supposed to be, and given the quotation marks (where is it being quoted from?) I'm not sure the original author had any idea either. The second sentence makes no sense anyway. If "Lord" is used to replace "higher titles of the peerage", is the title "Lord" a sixth rank of peer below a Baron?GSTQ (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought you were an anglophile? Have you ever come across anyone who held the title 'lord'? It is most commonly used by barons...but they are nevertheless titular barons and not 'lords' as such...This among other things has lead people to believe 'lord' to be a separate title which isn't. = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 10:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps you missed the fact that I intended the "sixth rank of peer" question as a rhetorical question. The way you have put it in the article, anybody would think it were. Who are these "people (who) believe 'lord' to be a separate title (separate from what?)". It is a separate title in that it can be used on its own. It is a separate title in that it stands by itself for any of the four lower grades of peerage (as well as being used by way of courtesy by numerous people who do not hold peerages). This is made abundantly clear in the rest of the section without the confusing and misleading gloss at the beginning.GSTQ (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
The lead paragraph incorrectly states: In the British Isles, where the title originates. Two problems with this. The reference does not support the claim that the title originates in the British Isles, and later in the article the etymology states that the title originates from Old English. The 2nd problems is that Ireland does not have any titles such as Lord, so the correct term is perhaps "British Islands", or something else. I've changed the lead paragraph to reflect this. --Bardcom (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK thanks Bardcom! --Cameron (t|p|c) 09:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, the lead paragraph presents a summary of this article which is inconsistent with the rest of the article. Is anybody else concerned about this? The Encyclopaedia Britannica reference quoted is really rather inadequate. It doesn't cover half of what this article covers.GSTQ (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem with the article is that the scope of it is not clear and the resulting mix is unsatisfactory. Is it about the word "Lord", or the title "Lord"?  Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so it should be the latter.  The etymology is relevant, but not so much that it should be in the lead.   The section on religious "Lords" should be a different article, and this article should be purely "Lord as a title of status/rank"  Pinning that down from the start would make for a better lead. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 10:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said escape orbit! Someone could add a sentence about religious contexts etc into the intro...it needn't be much...--Cameron (t|p|c) 14:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be an unjustified distinction being drawn between the word and the title of status or rank. The distinction between an encyclopaedia and a dictionary is the way in which a word is treated as a subject, not as a linguistic phenomenon. This is why the references to Great Britain, the British Isles or England or anywhere else in the leader are misleading and superfluous, especially since they appear to suggest the feudal rank and religious usage are somehow of British origin.GSTQ (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The distinction is needed because the word "Lord" has more than one meaning and this page is trying to cover more than one definition for the word, as if it was a dictionary entry.  Each meaning would be better covered in separate articles, as they appear incongruous together in this article.  Let the dab page sort out the differences. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 09:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the sections of this article on members of the judiciary, lords of the manor, lord mayors, lord chancellors and others should be removed?GSTQ (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, these are all titles of status/rank. I'm suggesting removing the religious section to a separate article.  The use of the word in a religious sense has very little to do with use of the word as a title (other than a suggestion of superiority).  Once this is done the scope of this article would be  better defined and a clearer lead could be written. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 10:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is very tempting to move the religious part out of the article...--Cameron (t|p|c) 11:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. "Little to do with the use of the word as a title"? Why do you think it started being used in a religious context at all? And regarding lord mayors, lord justices &c., if we're going to keep them in the article, then the leader needs to be revised so the reader isn't misled into thinking this article is only about usage of "lord" connected with peerage.GSTQ (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

equivalents in other languages
I have a problem. The English term lord is commonly used for feudal equivalents in other languages. For instance, the French seigneur (possibly also sire), the German Herr and the Latin dominus. All three of these titles are ranked below that of baron (a baron is essentially a lord who is a direct vassal of a sovereign (usually a king, but occasionally dukes and even counts had barons as vassals)). In this respect it should of course be noted that the German equivalent of baron is Freiherr (which also nicely explains the difference between lord and baron). Lastly, occasionally, but only occasionally counts and probably even dukes would be addressed as lords, though in those cases the Latin dominus was more likely then its translations, which sometimes makes it harder to identify a person from the sources. Anyhow, I think this type of information should be covered in the article (though obviously the main focus should be on the British/UK situation). Lastly, due to the relatively low rank of such continental lords (as I will call them here), these were generally not part of the peerage (barons were).--Caranorn (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Garzo and Speculation
Peace. I'm sure we both want the same thing on this article which is a truthful balanced article. However ypu said: "Following practice in Hebrew, the Septuagint mainly used the Greek word Kyrios (Κύριος, meaning 'lord') to translate YHWH. As this was the Old Testament of the Early Church, the Christian practice of translating the divine name as 'Lord' derives directly from it."

Isn't this a misconception? My sources show that the substitute (Κύριος, was placed by Jews to substitute the divine name. I have no idea where you came to the conclusion that it was a Christian practice. Who produced the Septuagint - the Christian or Jew? Peace and Shalom. Alleichem (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article on the Septuagint is quite clear, and I do happen to know what I'm talking about. The OT of the Early Church was LXX. Yes, it is a Jewish text, but it was foundational to Christian understanding of the Old Testament. The continued use of Kyrios (and its translations into other languages, e.g. 'Lord' in English) by mainstream Christian Bibles is a continuation of Jewish practice from LXX. It appears, Alleichem, that you believe that a Jewish practice cannot become a Christian practice, not a Jewish text come into Christian use. I could expand the statement if you think it's difficult to understand. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand it, but I feel the point is worded far better as you have just put it now. However, I still have a problem with your assertion. Jellicoe a renowned scholar suggest that the Divine Name appeared in the Septuagint, but Christians later removed it. Peace. Alleichem (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that's Jellicoe's speculation, and there are plenty who disagree. There is some evidence for fossilised palaeo-Hebrew words in LXX at an early stage, but it's likely that they had all been removed before the Christian period. The point is that Christian usage of 'Kyrios' doesn't come from nowhere, but is a continuation of Jewish practice. It looked like you wanted the article to say that Christian's were irrational for using it. That looks like speculation on your part. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your a Christian, of course you would disagree. And no it isn't speculation. Jellicoe uses a wide range of evidence both from the fragments and different scholars (B. J. Roberts, Baudissin, Kahle and C.H Roberts). I find it hard to believe that you believe Jellicoe is speculation. Peace. Alleichem (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alleichem, I'll have to side with Gareth here. Gareth is trying to preserve an article that is written in Wikipedia standards -- giving primary emphasis to mainstream views.  Your view could be right, but it is not mainstream.  Wikipedia is not about revealing hidden truths, but about documenting mainstream views, and noting a few exceptions if they are notable.  Please take some time practicing in a subject that is not so dear to your heart until you get the hang of it.  This has nothing to do with Gareth being a Christian or anything else.  This simply has to do with Wikipedia standards.  A source has to be notable and verifiable, but the article cannot give undue weight to a non-standard view. Tim (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The question is 'What is your point?'. Now, from your edits (this diff, Alleichem, you want to say something about Christian use of 'Lord' as a rendering of the Tetragrammaton as being baseless. I have pointed out that it is not baseless, but clearly based on Jewish practice. Then you say something about Catholics saying it is out of respect for Jewish Law, which is the origin of this use. However, you then add a snide remark about Catholic anti-Semitism rendering this explanation dubious. The truth is that you are trying to paint a picture of mainstream Christianity being unthinking because your Assemblies of Yahweh have come up with a few 'clever' things to say. The fact is that LXX provides the documentary link between Jewish and Christian practice. There has been a lot written on LXX, and Jellicoe is just one writer, and, may I note, one whose old books are on Google Books. Jellicoe suggests that Christians may have removed palaeo-Hebrew from LXX, but there is no evidence for this. The textual history of LXX is quite complex, and there were other attempts to render the Tetragrammaton. The use of palaeo-Hebrew or other renderings clearly did not hold their ground against 'Kyrios'. However, the complexity here is not the issue. I think it's quite clear that Christian practice in rendering the Tetragrammaton is completely based on Jewish practice. So, the edit saying it's baseless doesn't belong in the article. The cobbling together of two sources to suggest that Catholics are duplicitous on this count is simply pure bias. Then, Alleichem, you make the accusation of 'speculation': get real! — Gareth Hughes (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's go back to the point. I put that there’s very little basis for Christians using substitutes for the Name from the Bible. That’s the case, and that's how it stands. And I’m not the Assemblies of Yahweh, however I do think highly of their efforts. Alleichem (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

UNDUE
Alleichem -- you are placing undue weight on fringe information, here and in other places. It is creating a strain on a number of users to keep reverting you. Please work with the community of editors here, and not against them. Thanks. SkyWriter (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Lord of The Manor
Whilst, Lord of The Manor titles are not nobles / Peers they are recognised titles. UK Indentity and Passport Service will record as the title as an observation on pages 32 'Holder is Lord of Manor of X'. I have included a link to UK Passport Service website. Its policy of observations in passports makes specific reference to Lord of The Manor been recordable titles subject to documentary evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.125.90 (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Edward Davenport
Removed the mention of Edward Davenport, a man who is claiming to be a peer -- Rowing88 01:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Obscure, to say the least. Gingermint (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Change of image
I have restored the previous image, I agree that a better example may exist, but the new image accented the religious usage of the term, while ignoring the secular usage, and the juxtaposition of a Christian icon and a Hebrew Bible Psalm bordered on WP:SYN. Editor2020 (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't anticipated that interpretation: you may be correct, not the intention. The image simply suggested itself to me as illustrative of the highest use of the deferential use of the word "Lord". The article needs a striking lead image, one which is illustrative and relevant. The one of QEII was awful, counter-intuitive, of HM being nice to people at a garden-party. At least show her enthroned in the House of Lords, looking lordly! But better to show a male lord, she's a rare exception thus perhaps unsuitable as a lead image. It seems logical to illustrate the highest use of the term with a deity, I care not which. An image of Buddha would do fine, only it has no historic relevance to this article about a historic & ancient English word. Moreover, the illustration of the religious sense was deliberate: too many articles lazily link to this article when they should link to Baron, Earl, etc. By showing a religious image an editor who can't be bothered to read the article in depth to see if it's an appropriate link for his "lord of the nobility" will see at once that this article is far broader than the one he's looking for, and look at the disambig. page. Will restore image, minus any hint of WP:SYN, for your judgement.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC))


 * Ah, I see your point. I've tweaked the wording a little, but that's fine. Editor2020 (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion of Split
I disagree that the religious usage of "lord" should be split out. It is precisely due to its inclusion within this article that the term can be fully understood by the reader to be one of very great generality. Lord covers a wide spectrum of objects to which it is applied: deities are surely on the same spectrum as kings, but simply in a higher position, as kings are in a higher position to lords of the manor. This fact should be emphasised by the article. Why should that spectrum be cut short by this article? (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC))


 * I agree. The religious use of the term differs only in degree, not type. Editor2020 (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Appellation v. Title
It is too common a misconception that "Lord" is a substantive title, when it is simply used as an informal alternative to baron, viscount or earl. The article needs to explain this clearly and prominently. Yet to state in the opening line of the intro that "Lord is a title..." is confusing and initially re-inforces the above common misconception. Hence it appears preferable to avoid using the word "title" until lower down in the appropriate context. "Appellation" is a wider, vaguer term suitable for use in the intro. which will not mislead. Editor2020: the image of Pantocrator suggested itself to me as being particularly "lordly", thus illustrative of the term "lord", and at its highest or extreme level. This use I felt would "grab" the reader into immediately realising the generality and broad spectrum of the term. It's difficult to find an ideal image as a lead, but the previous one of QEII was unlordly because 1, she is a Lady(counter-intuitive), and 2: it conveyed nothing of the idea of a "master, figure of authority, ruler etc." (as she was shown making polite conversation at a garden party) which the article describes. I should give you notice here that I intend to have a go at introducing sections to the article to categorise the usage of the term as: 1, used as informal alternative to baron, visct, earl; 2, used as prefix to substantive title, 3, used as substantive title, i.e. lord of the manor; or other similar categorisation, I think that would be useful. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC))


 * Coming from a different cultural context, I don't have your sensitivity about the nuances of "title". The problem is, I just don't think the average Wikipedia reader understands what "deferential appellation" means, but maybe I'm underestimating them. I welcome your additions. Editor2020 (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A "legal title" (e.g. in historical Europe) was held by law and gave the holder social standing and formerly actual administrative powers (e.g. early Anglo-Norman earls (counts) were "in charge" of counties). They were hereditable titles, real-estate if I'm not mistaken. The legal and formal titles include: Baron, Earl, Viscount etc. But "Lord" is most commonly used as a deferential title, to show deference, a form of politeness or demonstration of subserviancy. Only in a very few cases is it a legal formal title as in "Lord of the Manor". No alternative more formal word exists - there's no such thing as "Baron of the Manor". Gods, Barons, Earls, Kings and Emperors and great personages in general are all known as "Lord" in a deferential sense, or informal sense, not a legal sense. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC))

Lord in Abrahamic religions
The Lord is a name referring to God, mainly by the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity).

I know that in bibical sources (in the Hebrew Bible), God is also referred to as Melekh (מלך) which means 'king' in Hebrew, is it worth noting that out? The most correct translation of the word Lord to Hebrew is Adon (אדון) which also means a 'master' and the way it is used in Hebrew bibical and generally religious sources is Adonay (אדני) which means 'my lords' (it is essentially the same as a one lord; the plurality in God's name is intentional but refers to one God and not many). - AvihooI


 * I think the 2nd line in the "Religion" section ("in a religious context, ...") needs attention:

Is it correct to say that Lord refers to Jesus in Judaism and Islam? also is it correct to say that Lord refers to the Holy Spirit in the three Abrahamic religions? 28 March 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.154.43 (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In Genesis, when reading, Lord does not mean God or Elohim. Genesis first speaks of God, then Lord God, which are two different things. The Elohim, both singular and plural was God or Gods. Then, you see Lord God or Lord Gods, which is similar to the Sumerians. El, which means God, is derived from Elil, which most say is a different spelling for the older Enlil, or God of the air. That can be found on here. It goes back to the pantheons of Gods.--Craxd (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207004013/http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb-preface.html to http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb-preface.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:NAD
This article is yet another violation of WP:NAD. The article is basically a definition of the word lord with various examples of that. An article must be about a topic, not the definition of a word. There are a few different topics that could be taken from this article (probably each of these is really adequately covered in other articles):
 * Lord as a title or description of members of the peerage in British nobility.
 * Lord as a concept of feudalism.
 * Lord as an appellation for a deity.

This page is probably better made into a disambig pointing to the various topics that can be associated with the word.

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I can definitely see what you mean, though the usage for peers and the usage for deities both seem to derive from the feudal usage. I dunno, as an American who doesn't deal with lords in real life, I found this articles explanation of all the different ways that the term is used to be rather helpful. On first read I was wondering if a two-way split into "Lord (person)" and "Lord (diety)" would be best, but the three-way split you suggest might also work. Given that there were two editors firmly of the opinion the article should not be split (in the above section, perhaps there is no consensus to do that. For now I removed the confusing tag that was suggesting this. WP:NAD says a word itself can be a topic of an article if it goes beyond what a dictionary would have and does "include information on the social or historical significance of the term", which this article does. But you have a point that this substantive part may overlap with other articles. But if there's another editor that agrees with the split idea, feel free to re-add. Or be bold and merge the content here into the more detailed articles and see if it works out well. Obviously translations and etymology can be moved to Wiktionary. -- Beland (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Rank of the rulers of "lordships" in the Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of France
Lordship redirects here, which leads to an ambiguity since the English term "lord" can refer to any member of the nobility, from barons to dukes; to which specific rank did the rulers of states designated as "lordships" correspond? ZFT (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Afaik Lordship in this context is the same as barony. Prob best to find a clarifying source. Fwiw Lord cannot refer to a duke.Garlicplanting (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge with Seigneur proposal
Please also see the discussion at Talk:Seigneur about merging seigneur into this article.

Noting here that the Wikidata item for seigneur lists the description, in various languages, as a title of nobility. All of the Wikidata language variants listed for seigneur translate into the English lord. There may be specific aspects to seigneur relating to the French & Canadian use of the title, in which case they then should be enumerated in a separate section, just as the British specific use of the title probably should be in its own section.

Also noting that the Wiktionary definition of seigneur for English, French, & Middle French each list lord in their primary definition.

Peaceray (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please could we hold the discussion in one place. As Talk:Seigneur is more developed, let's go there. Bermicourt (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I would rather then move the discussion here, as this page is likely to get more traffic. It is a matter of happenstance that the discussion started at Talk:Seigneur. Peaceray (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Consider the lead sentence of Seigneur.


 * Seigneur (English: Lord, German: Herr), was the name formerly given in France to someone who had been granted a fief by the crown, with all its associated rights over person and property.


 * could be re-written generically as


 * (Language-specific variation of Lord), was the name formerly given in (name of a specific country) to someone who had been granted a fief by the crown, with all its associated rights over person and property.


 * The "crown" alluded to above could easily refer to the kings of France, England, Spain, or Portugal, to the Holy Roman Emperor, or even to the Papacy.
 * There is a general meaning of Seigneur that undeniably equates to the general meaning of Lord; as WP:COMMONNAME indicates, it "is a natural language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article: as such the article title is usually the name of [what] the topic of the article is."


 * I believe that this general usage of Seigneur should be detached from that article & incorporated into the Lord article within its own section, if necessary to capture any French nuances. I also believe that the Anglo-specific use of Lord should be put into its own section or broken out into its own article, something like Lord (British title) or Lord.


 * If there is any Seigneur-specific usage, likewise I think it should be broken out into a new article with a more specific title. For instance, User:Lubiesque wrote "In Canada, where the French seigneurial system had been introduced, the term seigneur is not translated in English." This meaning could be addressed by creating a Seigneur (Canada) that would then redirect to Seigneurial system of New France.


 * As it is, IMHO, there is not a whole lot of substance in the Seigneur that cannot be incorporated into the Lord article. There are not even any citations in the article to establish the notability of Seigneur.


 * Peaceray (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. In the British sense, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, Baron, Seigneur, etc. are all lords. There's sufficient material on each title for the article on Lord to be a high level summary style article, with detail on each individual title in separate articles. There are too many Lord titles to squeeze them all into one page, and singling out one article for merger would leave the Lord article imbalanced, with undue focus on one title among many. DrKay (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you have disregarded the discussion of the difference between general & specific usage of Seigneur. In its general use, Seigneur translates to Lord in the sense of "someone who had been granted a fief by the crown". This is the sense in which I think it should be included into the Lord article. The specific use of Seigneur, such as that of "the hereditary ruler of Sark" or of the title that refers to Seigneurial system of New France, can be taken care of by redirects or links to existing articles other than Seigneur. I do not think anyone is advocating including the specific usage relating to Sark or New France into the current Lord article. Peaceray (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, with caveats: I have been translating French medieval chronicles for a few years now and the French at that time generally translate the English term "lord" as "sire," not "seigneur." The best example is "le sire Talbot," mentioned frequently by the fifteenth-century French chronicler Jean Chartier. Unlike the term "lord" in the English peerage, which is a courtesy title applied to anybody within the peerage, the term "Seigneur" can actually be used as a formal title by itself, such as with the "Seigneurs d'Albret." This is different than the term "Baron," which operates in both the French and English peerages as its own title of nobility. In other words, the English term "lord" should not be used to refer to French seigneurs since they are not always equal. The term "seigneur" should be retained when referring to an actual French title, while the term lord can be used in the English sense regarding a male member of the French nobility. I think precision is really the important thing to remember here: the two terms are not the same, at least in many circumstances. – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 09:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons I and others have given, but nevertheless I'm glad Peaceray has raised this because it has highlighted the need for both articles to be developed and improved to provide more in depth explanations of the use of both words in their respective languages. Bermicourt (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As above I think they are not quite as interchangeable as being argued. Garlicplanting (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Seigneur was not a title or rank, but merely used as a term for someone who held a direct fief from the crown. It is never left untranslated in English texts, with the exception of Quebec where seigneurs formed part of a social hierarchy. Of course the Quebec seigneurial system requires its own article and it has one. TFD (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Alfred, Lord Tennyson
We use Tennyson as an example, yet he is widely known as "Alfred, Lord Tennyson", and our article name now reflects that. This particular form, "Given Name, Lord Surname", seems very rare. Are there any other examples? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)