Talk:Sir Rupert Clarke, 4th Baronet

Untitled
According to "A fair dinkum Aussie Baronet" Mark McGuiness SMH 16/2/2005 he will be succeding as the fourth Baronet. Not sure if its official yet or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 10:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That was written some time ago. The son of a baronet will have an unqualified right to succeed, it's just a formality. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


 * The result of the discussion was no consensus to move.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move: Sir Rupert Clarke, 4th Baronet -> Rupert Clarke
According to the official Standing Council of the Baronetage the succession still has not been proven, http://www.baronetage.org/unproven.htm. Therefore it is incorrect to name the page Sir Rupert Clarke, 4th Baronet, it should be Rupert Clarke. Even more, for Rupert Clarke, it would be illegal to name him like that. Demophon (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose move to Rupert Clarke which is a a disambiguation page for all the baronets and more. Perhaps Rupert Clarke, Jr. would be better. Or his full name Rupert Grant Alexander Clarke. Tassedethe (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose move to Rupert Clarke, which serves as a disambiguation. Agree with Tassedthe that Rupert Grant Alexander Clarke is better (I don't agree with Rupert Clarke, Jr.; Rupert Clarke III might be better, since he is the third). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

2nd Proposed move: Sir Rupert Clarke, 4th Baronet -> Rupert Grant Alexander Clarke
The opposition is quite clear to move the name of the page to Rupert Clarke, this since that name already serves as a disambiguation. I propose therefore to move the name of this page to Rupert Grant Alexander Clarke. Demophon (talk)
 * Support to move the page to Rupert Grant Alexander Clarke. Demophon (talk)

Discussion
I question whether it is in any sense illegal for us to use this article title. The site to which both the nomination and the article itself refer is quite explicit as to the contexts in which use of the title is illegal, and this is not one of them. So the nomination is perhaps overstated.

And it's also as yet unsubstantiated. The situation is, the succession seems to be clear, but the process of official recognition is still underway. There may be a clause in the naming conventions that covers this situation, but I'm skeptical. So there are two questions: What's he normally known as?, and Are there any relevant detailed naming conventions?. And nobody has yet answered either.

It's a rare and complicated enough case that perhaps waiting for the resolution of the succession (another two years probably) is reasonable. Andrewa (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, one thing is clear, Rupert Clarke is not put on the Official Roll of the Baronetage. This means that it is literally illegal to British law to address him or mention him by that title. See Succession to a Baronetcy. So Rupert Clarke is simply not a baronet, well "not yet". However, in this case we should follow WP:NCP not WP:NCNT. I think the suggestion made by the others to name the page by his full name, i.e. Rupert Grant Alexander Clarke, is a nice solution. Maybe Rupert Clarke (unproven baronet) is also a possibility? Demophon (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (unproven baronet) makes it seem like he is a possible impostor, like all those people who claimed to be Anastasia of Russia. Is it actually illegal to refer to him as that, or is it illegal for him to call himself that? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure that British law is all that relevant to an article in a US-based encyclopedia describing an Australian citizen, and Rupertswood is of course in Australia too. On the other hand, agree that WP:NCP is relevant. But I can't see anything there supporting the proposed move... which provision exactly? And in any case, why do you think this convention should be preferred to Naming conventions (names and titles) (of which WP:NCNT is of course an alias)? Andrewa (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.thepeerage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=754&sid=be1e9e732f970f01a733ef821ee502c7 reads in part He leaves two sons, Rupert Grant Alexander Clarke, b. 12 Dec, 1947, who now succeeds to the baronetcy (created 1882)... That's describing the demise (ie death) of the 3rd Baronet, and clearly states that this is his successor. Hmmm... Andrewa (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter, he isn't a baronet yet. The title Baronet is (primarly) a British invention, the Clarke Baronetcy is a British one (not Australian), he has to follow the British customs/rules according to that. And according to British law someone is only a baronet whose name is entered on the Official Roll. This is not the case with Rupert Clarke, so he should not be named like that! It is as naming Barack Obama already the 44rd president of the United States. Althought he probably will become the president, he isn't that (yet). He's not chosen (yet), and he certainly is not inaugurated acc. US law. Demophon (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't matter whether or not he's officially a baronet yet. What primarily matters is what he's known as, unless there's a more detailed applicable convention, which we haven't found yet, or there's some reason for invoking WP:IAR, which we haven't found yet either.


 * We won't rename the Barack Obama article (assuming he's elected) any more than we put the title into the John F. Kennedy or George W. Bush articles, but people will start to call him "President" as soon as he's elected, although he won't actually be that until January 20 (officially he'd be "President-elect"). So if it was our practice to add the title "President" to the article name, the time to do that could well be as soon as he was elected. And we'd discuss that in terms of the naming conventions.


 * You're making some very valid points if there were no naming conventions to consider. But there are.


 * So far as the title being a British one is concerned, that's still another claim that is both debatable and irrelevant. He's (potentially) Baronet of Rupertswood, which is near Melbourne. But even if he were Baronet of London, he'd still be an Australian subject and resident, and we'd want to know what he's known as in Australia (as well as in Britain) to justify moving the article. Andrewa (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.