Talk:Richard Child, 1st Earl Tylney

Nomenclature
Hogarth's Assembly at Wanstead is said by the Philadelphia Museum of Art to depict a scene celebrating the 25 wedding anniversary of the builder of Wanstead, the date of which was 1728, when Richard Child held the title Viscount Castlemain. It would therefore be inaccurate to use the later title of Lord Tylney in the caption, which title was not created until 1731. I cannot see why this inaccurate edit was made, for which reason I have restored the original caption to "Viscount Castlemain". I also cannot see why the introductory paragraph has been altered. The title of the article, with much deliberation, has been fixed as "Richard Child, 1st Earl Tylney". Child never would have actually used the surname Tylney which he adopted in lieu of his patronymic by Act of Parliament 13/6/1733, since he would have used his title instead. Therefore the name "Richard Tylney" is a theoretical name only. Clearly the opening line of the article must match the name in its title. Indeed the only biography of this gentleman I have found, in the series "History of Parliament", lists him as Richard Child. The stone gate-piers surviving at Wanstead bear the monogram RC. Also, "known as" is a bit vague. The previous intro. para. seemed to me to be more clear, thus it has been largely reverted, although the specific dates of birth and death are a useful addition, thus retained. "Succession" is surely the appropriate term for a para. header to describe his children and heirs? Thus "Family" has been reversed, which is also a duplication of para. 1, "Family Background". (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

Richard Tylney, 1st Earl Tylney
(This section has been copied from User talk:Lobsterthermidor, for the benefit of future editors. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC))

There is a guideline at WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. The correct introduction should be: Richard Tylney, 1st Earl Tylney (5 February 1680-March 1750), known as Sir Richard Child, Bt, between 1704 and 1718 and as The Viscount Castlemaine between 1718 and 1731, was..." As for the article on the Tylney earldom, the format I used is the format used in thousands of peerage articles. You have removed important information on the holders of the Child baronetcy, which could be considered vandalism. Can you explain why your version is better than the one I provided? Tryde (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Baronetcy of Child of Wanstead is summarised & now fully listed in its proper place, with the other 3 Child Baronetcies at Child Baronets. This information does not belong in an article specifically about the Tylney Earldom. I agree that I had deleted the list of baronets from the article on the Earldom, so have now re-instated it in the Child Baronets article, please accept my apologies. The page for the Earldom as such needs to stay so the title is listed in the correct form in the category Earldoms & Extinct Earldoms, which incongruity your previous edit concerning the Viscountcy brought to my attention, which latter issue still needs resolution - i.e it is not listed in its correct form in the category Viscounts etc., unless a separate article on the Viscountcy be created with title Viscount Castlemain. I don't know whether you consider this worthwhile or necessary. For completeness, which surely must be Wikipedia's ultimate goal, it should appear in the list. As for the introductory text you suggest, which I previously reverted, my detailed and considered rationale is set out in the talk page. Regards, (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC))
 * As for the peerage article, there are guidelines for these at WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. In this case, all the material should be located at the highest title (i. e. Earl Tylney). When a baronet is elevated to a peerage the information is included in the article on the peerage, not split between a separate article on the baronetcy and a separate article on the peerage. Earl of Kimberley is a good example: the Wodehouse family were first elevated to a baronetcy, then to a barony and then to an earldom. However, all information on the family and the titles are included in the article Earl of Kimberley and not split into three articles on the baronetcy, barony and earldom. In the case when there are several baronetcies created for persons with the same surname (for example Child Baronets) and the holders of one creation are elevated to the peerage, the material on this creation should be located at the peerage article, with an appropriate link at the baronetcy article (as was previously the case with Child Baronets).
 * As for the introduction in the article on Lord Tylney, there is a guideline for this as well at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. The format I have used in both cases is used in thousands of articles on peerages and peers, and I don't see why these two cases should be any different. As we are not likely to agree on this I suggest we bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage so that others can give their views. Tryde (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your last suggestion seems sensible. Wikipedia Guidelines are just that - guides for the general case, not hard and fast rules - and I would wholly agree with your reasoning in the case of Earl of Kimberley et. al. There are however two significant differences with Child/Tylney. Firstly, there was a most unusual name change at a most unusual juncture. The 1st Earl never used his new surname, as by then he was a peer, so it was a quasi-theoretical change. It would be pedantry in the highest degree to introduce  a man in his biog. under a name which he himself never used and by which not a single one of his contemporaries or later biographers ever knew him. Secondly, there are 3 other  Child Baronets, so a page for the Child Baronetcy already existed. I take it there was only one Wodehouse Baronetcy, so it might be deemed wasteful of computer memory to create a new page for it alone: that I suspect is the rationale of the WP guideline you quote, pure pragmatism. But it would be absurd not to make the existing Child Baronetcy page the main reference site for that of  Child of Wanstead. When a reader goes to the Child Baronetcy page he expects to read in detail about all the  Child Baronetcies, not be redirected elsewhere. You state that for Baronetcies sharing the same name those subsumed within peerages should be listed on the page for the peerage. Is there a WP guideline to support this? What possible relevance could there be for a reader interested in a particular peerage  in a listing of detail about a baronetcy? Thus the WP Guideline in this particular instance needs to be overruled, not senselessly and slavishly followed. Regards (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC))
 * I don't know if there is a particular guideline but this is the system used. See for instance Jessel Baronets and Courtenay Baronets. I am going to revert your changes to the article on Earl Tylney and Child Baronets so that these articles follows the same format as other peerage and baronetcy articles. Tryde (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now created Tylney-Long Baronets and substantially expanded Earl of Mornington so that it's possible for the reader to follow the descent of the Tylney name and estates. I also suggest the following introduction for the article on Richard Tylney, 1st Earl Tylney: Richard Tylney, 1st Earl Tylney (5 February 1680-March 1750), born Richard Child and known as Sir Richard Child, Bt, between 1704 and 1718 and as The Viscount Castlemaine between 1718 and 1731, was an English politician." This would follow the guidelines. Is this acceptable to you? You are probably correct that he never used the surname Tylney although I suggest that this, his legal surname, is still used in the article title. This can then be explained in the article. You also write: "...the lesser title of Newtown [was] designed as a courtesy title for Child's eldest son..." Heir apparents of Viscounts doesn't carry courtesy titles (except for "the Honourable"). Do you have a source stating that this was an exception? It was pretty normal for Viscounts to be granted subsidiary titles that were never used. I also have a feeling that the style of the barony was "Baron of Newtown". Tryde (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to accept your argument for detailing the Child baronets on the Earl Tylney page, but have made some changes to the text where factually incorrect. Also have replaced image of 1st Bt. with a better version of same painting from NPG, and moved it down to the Baronetage section, putting in its place an image of the 1st Earl. I hope you agree this makes sense. As for the nomenclature "Richard Tylney", I cannot agree with you. In the official biography of every MP commissioned by the House of Commons, published c.2005? edited by David Hayton The House of Commons 1690-1715, vol.2,p.526, part of the series History of Parliament, he is listed as Richard Child. If you are aware of a more weighty authority and precedent for your suggestion of Richard Tylney as a title for his biog., please let it be known. I have already explained why I believe the WP guideline you quote regarding this matter should in this exceptional occasion not be followed.  I am sure you are correct about the non existence of courtesy titles for eldest sons of Viscounts, please go ahead and make the appropriate edit, else I will in due course. As for the correct designation of Newtown, I am unsure, and will do some research. Ditto. I am glad you have created an article for the Tylney-Long baronets and expanded Earl of Mornington, that will be a great help. I did some work in this area myself when working on Child, so will be interested to see your work, when I get the time. Regards (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC))
 * Last edit by Tryde reverted as attempted to unilaterally alter introductory name of Richard Child to Richard Tylney, which issue is here being discussed at great length, without consensus yet having being reached. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC))
 * Reverted a further attempt by Tryde to change name from Child to Tylney, citing Wikipedia guidelines on Peerage. I have explained clearly why I believe the WP guideline in this particular case should not be followed, please refer to the discussion above. It would be preferable if Tryde would put his argument here as to why he believes the WP guideline should be applied without any flexibility in exceptional cases such as this one. I also await his production, as a precedent for his case, of any biography of Child which introduces him as "Richard Tylney", as requested above. I have quoted him two biographies, the only ones ever written as far as I am aware, which both introduce him as Child, for very good reason, as set out fully in my postings above.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC))