User talk:Proteus/Archive 1

Hey there! Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like this place--I sure do--and want to stay. If you need help on how to title new articles check out Naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Help and The FAQ, plus if you can't find your answer there, check The Village pump or The Reference Desk! Happy wiki-ing! Alexandros

Regarding Falkland, okay. It was my understanding that all Scottish Viscounts used "of". Fine to take it out. john 19:25, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi yet again

Thanks very much for redirecting those pages, I didn't know how to do it myself. I only started to do this a few days ago, when I corrected an inacurate page about Mentmore Towers, then the subject seemed to grow and grow as people kept asking and chalenging. The whole Rosebery thing seemed to be going off at tangeants. I don't think there are any errors, but the style could probably be improved. I was amazed how many people were intersted in the subject! Please feel free to redirect anything else, and correct.Ragussa 11:50, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Again

Brilliant - thanks a lot Ragussa 11:34, 6 May 2004 (UTC) Hi

Thanks for answering my question, about Ruth Primrose (Lady Halifax). (I'm just trying to find out why a gate in a local churchyard is always called Ruth's gate) However, I thought Ruths father was The Hon. Neil Primrose MP(son of the 5th earl of Rosebery) who died when she was a child in WW1 If this is the case he can't have been heir apparent to his father, as his elder brother Albert (Harry),Lord Dalmmeny, (later 6th Earl)already had a son himself The Hon. Archibald primrose (he too later became lord Dalmeny & died 1930ish befor inheiriting) but by the time of his death, Neil Primrose had beeb dead 12 or so years, so Neil could never have been heir apparent. Thanks for the help though, its just created another question. Ragussa 11:18, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Earls of Warwick
Mr Tilman, I wonder if I could ask you to inform me of the Earls of Warwick in the medieval creation(s). According to the page Earl of Warwick and several other sources, it would appear that Warwick the Kingmaker is the 16th Earl. However, prior to him, on said page, there are only 14 Earls listed. Furthermore, there are some sources that indicate that the earldom became at numerous times extinct, and thus Neville would not be able to bear the ordinal 16th. I thank you for any aid that you might be able to provide in this matter, and also for the help you have given in the cases of several other peerage titles. -- Lord Emsworth 14:08, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

Mr Tilman, it might be rude to Burke's Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage to point out their mistake, but I have nevertheless done so at representative peer. I thank you for pointing this out to me. -- Lord Emsworth 16:12, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)

I concur in your changes to the forms of address page, save that I am not sure if grandsons or granddaughters of the Sovereign not in the direct male line would get the titles. I await your confirmation. -- Emsworth

Lord Wharton
Hello, Mr Tilman. I have just created the page entitled Baron Wharton. In the list, there seems to be a missing baron. It is agreed by all of my sources that the sixth Baron was Duke of Wharton, and that the fifth was Marquess. I also have found that the eighth baron was as listed. However, I don't seem able to find a reference to the seventh holder of the title. I intend to write an article on the barony, but only after finding out who the last holder is. (Additional information that I have found: the barony was created by patent, but was held by the Lords to have been created by writ because the patent was lost. Therefore, it was allowed to fall into abeyance). -- Emsworth 23:03, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

Titles
Hello, Peter.

I think that we can certainly create pages that list all peerage titles of a certain rank, eg List of Baronies, List of Earldoms, &c. It would not be very difficult. All one would have to do is use certain pages by cutting and pasting them into Microsoft Word, and then using the Search and Replace functions to insert the requisite html tags. The only question is where this should be done. -- Emsworth 13:49, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Those pages appear to be a little out-of-date, however. For instance, the extinct Viscountcy of Tonypandy is still listed.

Leigh Rayment's Peerage page seems generally complete, but some ancient titles which I believe to have become abeyant in the thirteenth century are listed as extinct. Furthermore, it does not include the developments caused by deaths in 2004. -- Emsworth 14:42, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'd think titles that became abeyant in the 13th century would be, at this point, dormant. I generally agree that such a page would be easy enough to accomplish, if we so desired. Such a list should indicate which peerages are subsidiary titles of higher grades of the peerage. john 19:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. I have just one discrepancy (so far, that is): you give the Earl of Carlisle's heir as Viscount Howard, but suggests that it is Viscount Morpeth, probably because there is a Viscount Howard of Bindon. -- Emsworth 00:10, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Another question: how can the Duke of Leinster's great-grandson be Viscount Leinster of Taplow, considering that other peers' eldest sons have skipped titles because they match the peers' main titles? -- Emsworth

How exactly does one determine when "of X" is to be used or not used? I am sure that territorial references to a county are always dropped, but otherwise am not aware of the full rule. -- Emsworth 00:35, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Baroness vs Lady
Google hit count - "Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean" - 7,990 "Lady Symons of Vernham Dean" - 195 Any particular reason why you're making these changes? Mintguy (T) 13:44, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the Project page. But Baroness is being used by Hansard. Here are 6,730 links from the Stationary office. Mintguy (T)

Dukedom of Cleveland (1670)
My understanding was that there was only one creation of the Dukedom of Cleveland, and that by some special patent it was allowed to pass from the Duchess to her eldest bastard. Do you have a source on the idea that there were two creations? john 19:34, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Earldoms
I think that we should merge the pages together, and divide it into sections for each peerage. Then the problem of having a long page is solved. (I have posted the same on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage, where you could respond.)

The Hereditarytitles.com database does not include dates of forfeiture for titles. Was there a separate page that listed such dates? The same applies when determining if the title was a subsidiary one for a higher peerage or if the peer in question was later raised to a higher rank. -- Emsworth 20:17, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

What would you suggest be the indication in the "notes" column if title A is created after title B, but B is of the same rank as A? The situation is that the title Viscount Latimer was created in 1673 in the Peerage of England, but that the title Viscount Osborne was created a few months earlier (in Scotland). Currently, the notations available are (given Viscount B as the main entry): -- Emsworth 22:35, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * also Viscount A from (if the titles are created separately and later inherited by one person)
 * created Viscount A in (if A is created after B)
 * subsidiary title of the Earl of A (if both are created at the same time)

Spritual Peers
Peter, how do you think spiritual "peers" should be dealt with in the article Peerage? Debrett's suggests, "The Archbishop of Canterbury is the first peer of England ... The Archbishop of York ('Primate of England') is the third peer in the United Kingdom ... Diocesan Bishops of England in the Lords are also peers of the kingdom and of Parliament" (Debrett's - Lords Spiritual). On the other hand, the 1911 Britannica suggests, "the spiritual lords are not now regarded as peers" ("Peerage"). -- Emsworth 22:19, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Burke's says, in Glossary- Lord, "Not every lord, even one with a seat in the House of Lords, is a peer. Bishops, for instance, are spiritual lords." -- Emsworth 19:10, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Proteus - Do you know who was the Lord Chamberlain during the First World War? He seemed to have a role in the Titles Deprivation Act and the Order-in-Council issued thereunder, and would help in the writing of a new article on the said act. -- Emsworth 00:59, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. -- Emsworth 10:48, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Re Rich List different Lord Sainsbury Mintguy (T) 22:57, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC). Yes I knew which Lord Sainsbury was meant, I mis-interpreted your summary, and didn't look closely at you edit, because a subsequent edit corrupted the list. So, basically just ignore this. Mintguy (T)

Naming policy poll
Hi, I greatly appreciate your support on the naming policy poll. I have written up a FAQ about it and placed it at Naming policy poll FAQ. I used some of the content from your posts. I hope that's OK. I was hoping you could look it over and change/add anything you think is appropriate. Nohat 20:30, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

Peers lists
That sounds fine to me, go ahead and move them. I would imagine that some would think alphabetically is the natural way of listing, though. john 21:28, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do you think that our peerage pages are deeply anglocentric? After all, there are dukes in France and Spain, and Swedish royal dukes, and no-longer-recognized dukes in Germany, and so on and so forth, who are not listed in the List of Dukes. Similarly, the Peerage article is entirely devoted to the British peerage, with no reference to the peerages of France or Spain, or anywhere else that might have peerages. You think we need to do anything about this? john 00:24, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I've been rather staggered by the sheer number of barons, but I imagine I'll finish with the english ones by tonight or tomorrow (I hope). [HereditaryTitles has been most useful for expanding the list. As for dividing the list, I'd be all for it, but perhaps we should wait until we have a complete list. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] 00:59, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I basically agree with you. François Velde's site and the ATR archives probably have enough useful material to write decent, but not nearly comprehensive, articles on the French and Spanish nobility. Certainly not anything as detailed as the stuff we have on the British Peerage. But currently there's almost nothing on other European nobilities. I agree with you about just having a disambiguation notice at the top of Peerage if it becomes necessary, pointing to articles on the French Peerage and the Spanish Peerage (are there any other peerage systems of note?) john 03:44, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

List of Baronies now has a somewhat complete list for the peers of England. No doubt a few are missing, but in the main it's done. Mackensen 23:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Peerage: References
As you might have noted, the articles under Peerage have numerous references. I was wondering about whether you would suggest that paranthetical references should be included in the text. (Presently, they are not included; with the large number of references, however, it might be difficult to determine what information each reference involves.) Then again, I would not want the article to seem like a research paper, instead of an encyclopedia article. So either paranthetical citations, or the use of footnotes, or neither, would be possible: what would you suggest? -- Emsworth 21:04, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Principality of Wales
Is the Principality of Wales considered a peerage dignity? The House of Lords Act 1999 provides that, for the purposes of that act, the Principality and the Earldom of Chester are treated as hereditary peerages. Presumably this is to prevent future Princes from claiming that the Principality, since it does not descend, should be treated as a life peerage. Additionally, in membership lists prior to 1999, the tables listing peers by type of peerage show that one "Prince" sits in the House (here). All of this would seem to indicate that the Principality is indeed a peerage dignity in the first place -- would this analysis be accurate? -- Emsworth 21:58, May 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've done a bit of research. The 1911 EB says of the Prince of Wales, "his principality is a peerage," but other sources disagree (though not explicitly). I think it would just be best to admit that there is a dispute about the principality. -- Emsworth 19:17, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I thought I should explain why I've moved Lady Eleanor Talbot back to Eleanor Talbot. I did it because we normally don't use "Sir" or "Lady" before people's names - or "Lord" - unless they are best known by that name or, in the case of ladies, were born with it. Eleanor Talbot was a knight's daughter, so I don't think she was born with a title, though she later acquired one through marriage. I could be wrong - if so, please let me know. Deb 20:46, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

She was the daughter of an earl. I thought we used "Lord" and "Lady" before peer's children's names generally (although not "Sir") john 20:53, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, you're right. It's been there so long that I automatically misread it.  Drat!


 * As I recall, we only started using "Lord" and "Lady" because of Lord John Russell. Lady isn't usually a controversial one, because if you're "Lady" you're usually called it from birth, and therefore it could be said to be part of your name.  It's a bit different with "Lord", and tends to depend on the individual case.  We never used to use any titles, and the fact that we do so now is probably causing a lot of confusion.  Nevertheless, Proteus was right to move it and I stand corrected. Deb 20:58, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Lord Firstnames Surnames are generally just as likely to hold that name from birth, just like Lady Firstnames Surnames. Of course there aren't all that many younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses, at least as compared to the number of daughters of Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, and Countesses in their own right. I think that these courtesy titles, as well as baronetcies, which are frequently held for much of the person's life, should be included when appropriate. john 21:20, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Harry, 6th earl of Rosebery.

I recently wrote a page on Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery. You kindly helped me out, however I now want to do a page on her eldest son Harry 6th E of R. However you set up a link claiming he was christened Robert, could you re-check this as I am sure he was in fact christened Albert Edward Harry Mayer Archibald, as his godfather was Albert, Prince of Wales (Edward VII)it is likely this was the case. Eitherway, he was always known as Harry. Thanks a lotRagussa 17:24, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Harry, 6th Earl of Rosebery.

Thanks a lot, since writing the above, I have just unearthed a legal document that he signed (obviously just 'Rosebery') However the full name printed at the top gives Albert; but you are right his father called him Harry,his wife called him Harry, King George VI, caled him Harry - so I will too, I just did not want to start a page and then have every one writing and editing such a fundamental mistake as his name!Ragussa 20:43, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi

I have just done a large edit and corrections of the Swanbourne page, the previous editor/page founder had said that Iain and Betsy Duncan-Smith lived in the village. Could you check I have titled her properly, is she The Hon Mrs Iain D-S; or The Hon. (Mrs?) Elizabeth/Betsy D-S, or does she lose the courtesy title completely on marriage (I don't think so) It's a bit of a minefield. My guess is The Hon. Elizabeth Duncan-Smith and Mr Iain Duncan-Smith.Ragussa 12:59, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Copyright violation?
Hey, check out Request for immediate removal of copyright violation, at the bottom. The complaint is pasted there from User talk:Andrew Yong and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage. I'm really not sure what to make of it - I'd never thought before that factual information could be copyrighted. john k 04:06, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree that we probably should have sourced him - the general consensus seems to be that there's no real legal issue, though. (I'd also note that Mr. Rayment doesn't credit any of his sources on his page, which puts him in an interesting position to be criticizing us for not crediting him). john k 15:35, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Curzon of Kedleston?
Is the "of Kedleston" really a part of the title? Have there been other Curzon titles that it needs to be distinguished from? john k 22:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Princess Frederika of the United Kingdom
Hi

Could you take a look at Princess Frederika of the United Kingdom which is on the 'clean up' page. I was going to edit it (when I have time) however, I have a hunch the info. is not all correct, was she a Princess of G Britain? or had all the German relations been stripped of their British rights etc. by then. And George VI approving the marriage etc. Welcome your oppinion before I spend ages on it. Regards Giano 13:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

PS: Even if she had been born a British Princess, would not George V's act making only children, and filial grandchildren of a monarch HRH have deprived her of her HRH anyway? Giano 13:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Thanks a lot, I did'nt see how she could be, am I right in thinking the 1st Duke of Cumberland was a son of George III, who inherited Hanover because it was subject to the salic law and so Victoria, could not have it. I'll move the page to the title you suggest and then work on it, thanks Giano 17:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi yet again

Thanks for the advice, have tidied the page up and renamed, still don't like it though, its too clumsy. Appreciated your help Giano 21:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Moving Pages and Redirects
Good call splitting the Air Force Cross. I just suggest, if you are going to move pages like that, you check the "What links here" button. Your splitting that page caused about three other pages to be linked to the wrong place. I fixed it and there was no harm done. Just a friendly suggestion. Thanks- User:Husnock (7 Jul 2004)

Talk pages as policy?
In your edit to Ian McKellen, you gave as rationale "Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) indicates "Sir" should be bold (unlike, say, "The Rt Hon." or "The Rev.")".

Since when do talk pages represent policy? The Wikipedia biography MoS contradicts, and it seems to me that a guideline on an actual policy page should trump a guideline on a talk page, don't you agree? --TreyHarris 22:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Life Peers
It seems that various individuals have complained about articles on life peers not including the names of the baronies in the article titles. Current policy ("Life peers ... are generally mentioned by their personal name not title, because among other reasons a life peerage is often awarded at the end of a career, while the individual holding them may be far more widely known though their personal name, so use George Robertson, not Lord Robertson") is absolutely flawed and was never specifically approved, to my knowledge. But nothing has been done to fix the matter. Therefore, we appear to have certain courses of action: So, do you have any particular suggestions as to which plan should be adopted? -- Emsworth 23:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Set up a poll (a not-so-great idea, in my opinion, given widespread misunderstanding about peerage dignities, complexity &c)
 * Just change article titles as necessary (similarly problematic, because people might arbitrarily start moving the articles back)

Professor Sir
You say that Professor and Sir cannot be used together - who says? It's a widely ignored rule in the media (BBC, The Times, Guardian), anyway. Average Earthman 14:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cabinets
I agree, but the format that had been at John Major previously was a bit incomplete and I at least wanted a complete, albeit messy listing... I'll eventually fix it up to look like the lists at, for example, Lord North and Tony Blair... BTW, what do you think about what I did to Robert Walpole? Although it doesn't show the order of changes, it does look tidier than what I did to John Major... ugen64 01:10, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Full royal titles
Hi, I reverted your changes to the name of the page on Prince Albert Victor. Your change is technically correct but wikipedia has long had a policy of most senior and easily comprehendible title, not full titles. As a fanatic for accuracy I would love to see full accuracy but that is not practical and is liable to cause confusion to visitors to wikipedia, who unlike those who are experts in the field, don't know facts and so are coming to pages to establish them. Details on the full complexities of royal ducal titles belongs in the article, not in the name of the article, where titles should be as clear, as precise and as short as possible. In addition too much theoretical accuracy in royal pages has a habit on wikipedia of provoking a backlash among those who are opposed on principle to using titles and accuse wikipedia of 'kowtowing to imperialism' by using them. (I lost count of the number of reversion wars on this topic that erupted.) The last thing we want is for a group of the usual suspects to decide to raise the issue once again and start changing Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale to Prince Albert Victor, or even worse moving Queen Elizabeth II to Elizabeth Windsor (yet again!).

For clarity purposes and to avoid irritating the no titles brigade into screwing everything up yet again with widespread renamings and edit wars, leave the titles as simple and straight-forward as possible. Even professional historians unless they have a particular knowledge about royalty forget the Avondale tag for Eddie and would be thrown at first by seeing the page with the full title. FearÉIREANN 18:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(PS - I am chuffed however to see people like yourself on, given your clear knowledge. When I came here first, the royal pages were laughably bad, with titles mucked up, surnames used in article names, wrong surnames used in articles names, makey-up names, references, and b**s**t by the buckload. I had a fight even to get titles accepted at all. A handful of us had a battle to stop royal naming here looking like it had been the work of Bart Simpson. Having been through a couple of multiple-page edit wars over titles, seriously you don't want to trigger off another round of it. Remember encyclopaedias need easily understood article titles that are as close as possible to accurate. Don't make it too complex. The complexity belongs in the text. FearÉIREANN 18:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Administratorship
Hello, You seem to have made numerous edits, actively contributing since the beginning of this year. I would imagine that you would be a good Administrator. I find myself ready to nominate you (Requests for Adminship), but your prior assent is necessary. -- Emsworth 13:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The nomination has been made&mdash;I believe you have to register your acceptance on Requests for adminship/Proteus.

You're a sysop!
I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. Congratulations!. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | Talk 21:37, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the tweek on the Lord wardens table on George Boleyn, it would be good to see them all standardised in time, but I have been concentrating on the items themselves adding the table here and their when I have a monent. Some people seem to think it a waste of time. Im glad to note that I am not the only wikipedian with an interst in history!- Some people seem to think you can just pluck the facts out of thin air and that hours of note taking, for free, to all is of less importance than spelling! Faedra 08:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lady Louise Windsor
Please don't just keep reverting because you prefer a legal technicality to practice. I've added my comments to the discussion page, I'd rather you added yours there (and then maybe put them to RfC after?) rather than engage in an edit war.

Thanks. Jongarrettuk 10:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:Demonslave
Hi Proteus, thanks for fixing the damage done to my user page by the vandal at 24.131.109.26, I appreciate it. --Demonslave 18:11, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Lords of Parliament
Hello, it looks like some lordships of parliament got lost during your update. I noticed Lord Abernethy (1233) and Lord Graham (1415). Mackensen 19:11, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, Rayment's pages put the Graham lordship at 1415, and I imagine that's what we based the Duke of Montrose article on. Great work though. I've started combing his pages for missing baronies, glad that's taken care of. Mackensen 19:41, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Notice Board
Of late, individuals seem to have created "notice boards," where announcements specific to certain groups of users may be made. I believe that the first was the Irish Wikipedians Notice Board. Now, User:Francs2000 has created a UK Wikipedians Notice Board; you might find yourself interested in joining. -- Emsworth 23:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)