User talk:Proteus/Archive 11

Marquess of Bute
Hi, Proteus. I was trying to determine what courtesy title the PM Earl of Bute would have held before his father's death so that I could update his page accordingly. (I'm making a little project of updating PM pages to reflect WikiProject Peerage standards.) I wondered if you would be able to clear up some of the confusion I found surrounding the page for the marquessate. It states that various viscountcies and lordships of parliament were created before the earldom, but the list of holders suggests that the 1st earl was only a baronet before his elevation. How, then, did said viscountcies and lordships merge with the earldom (and eventually the marquessate)? I would be much obliged if you could clear up some of the fogginess with the page. TysK 06:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your excellent work, as always! TysK 18:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Baron Glastonbury
We don't seem to cover historic life peerages at all and frankly in many cases I'm not even certain of the class - life/h. But various royal mistresses were created life peers over the centuries but we don't included them in the peerages lists or in the life peerage article. Do we have a definitive source as in the talk page supra I could find discussion but no certainty. Alci12 12:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks wanted some confirmation Alci12 14:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for an article or two
Please would you write two articles, the first setting out when somebody is "Lord Snooks" as compared with "Lord Snooks of Whatnot", and the second setting out the difference between "Snooks of London" and "Snooks, of London". - Kittybrewster 20:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. My grant says "Arbuthnot of Kittybrewster in Our County of the City of Aberdeen Esquire Member of our Most Excellent Order of the British Empire ... etc" (no commas) - Kittybrewster 11:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Prince Philip
I note someone has added PC PC to his post noms (intended to be for Canada and the UK) I can think of plenty of past holders of two PCs (usually Ireland and UK) and none used the double usage. Do you know any different? Alci12 19:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I considered there may be some Canadian patent I'd missed. The only place I've seen two are accademic where historic posts noms or offices are somtimes listed in the form: PC(I) (date) PC (date2) Alci12 19:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Mountbatten of Burma
Somebody's trying to get rid of the "of Burma"'s again. See Talk:Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma. Your credibility and powers of persuasions are probably greater than mine; could you advise them? And I sincerely hope you don't get accused of being an elderly woman this time. TysK 21:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, they're gone. I don't have time for edit wars this week as I'm quite busy in real life, so maybe you can do something. And perhaps direct Masalai to past versions of your user page so s/he knows that you're not an elderly woman :). TysK 06:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Earl of Egmont
According to Who's Who 2003 edition the heir presumptive to the earldom of Egmont is Donald William Perceval (b 1954), brother of the present Earl. However, he's not listed in Debrett's. Do you have any information on this? Also, according to Debrett's there doesn't seem to be an heir to the Perceval Baronetcy either. Tryde 17:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have a mo
Any chance you can keep half an eye on the Duke of Châtellerault and the Hamilton Dukedom pages (see my talk) as I can see where this is going. Alci12 11:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

All dukes of York are dukes in England ?
Hi Proteus! I've recently created the peerage categories on the french wiki. I have a dispute with an other user about a categorization, so we need an arbitrage from a specialist! :-)

This user has created a new category : "Dukes in England", and has sub-categorize "dukes of York" (<- category) inside. DoY title has been created in the GB and UK peerages too. This user asserts it's incorrect to sub-categorize "DoY" in "dukes in the peerage of England" + "..of GB" + "..of the UK".

In fact, he says that since York is in England, they are/were all "dukes in England". He wants a geographical categorization...

Anyway, it's strange to have 14th century peoples' articles being sub-categorized in "duke in the peerage of UK". Category:Dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom > Category:Dukes of York > Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York

I tend to think that the York part in "duke of York" is just a denomination, and is not anymore geographicaly linked to the town of York.

Can you give me your point of view ? I think you're the specialist i need! Thanks! :) --PurpleHz 15:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right &mdash; it would definitely be odd to describe modern Dukes of York as "Dukes in England" simply because York is in England. (To me, "Dukes in England" would just mean "Dukes (of whatever Peerage or nationality) who happen currently to be in England".) Titles normally correspond to places within the geographical area of their Peerage, but not always (the Earl of Mexborough is an Earl in the Peerage of Ireland, but Mexborough is in Yorkshire, for instance), and so it's dangerous to imply too close an automatic connection between country and title. And yes, our categorisation of Dukes is a little odd. I'd take "Category:Dukes of York" out of "Category:Dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom" etc., and put them both in "Category:Dukes" (or "Category:British dukes"). Proteus (Talk) 00:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's very interesting, in fact you just say that this user and I are wrong. "Category:British dukes" seems promising as a sub-cat of "Dukes". Thanks again ! --PurpleHz 01:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Earls of Dysart
Hi Proteus, can you please move Earldom of Dysart to Earl of Dysart. I think we should stay consistent. Greetings and thanks. Phoe talk 07:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen the cut and paste move, but only that of Countess of Dysart to Earldom of Dysart. So thanks for your additional work, too. Phoe  talk 09:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Lauder Baronets
Please contribute to User_talk:David_Lauder - Kittybrewster 18:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was starting to wonder, it seemed straight forward enough to me. The only thing I couldn't find or clarify was the means by which it was cancelled. Novodamus is a regrant of the title with a new of the succession or td or potentially a change of the lands that had been erected into the title (usually for baronies and peerages) It can't cancel a title. Scots law allowed a surrender of a title but that's not what i'd call a cancellation either. Alci12 18:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well aware of the Scots habit of changing titles by surrender and regrant and understand how that works but it has been bugging me that I can't find the exact process by which cancellations occurs. Alci12 18:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Baron Hylton of Hylton
Is this correct? The sources don't seem to agree.Alci12 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well most of the sources were telling me it was wrong but I did find it odd as there was a previous baron that could reasonable be terminated from abeyance that they would re-create the same title, even upon the co-heir to that prevoius title. As it all involved a page move and I hate doing/undoing those I thought I knew a man who could :) Alci12 15:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Rennell Rodd, 1st Baron Rennell
Is he not Baron Rennell of Rodd? - Kittybrewster 00:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Heyho :-) It is possible, that Kittybrewster has misunderstood you?. I think the move from Baron Rennell to Baron Rennell of Rodd is wrong - or wasn't his title Baron Rennell, of Rood in the County of Hereford, was it? Greetings Phoe  talk 16:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye, thanks for the clarification. If he can't revert the moves, would you do this then please? Thanks again and sorry, that I'm distributing work :-) Phoe  talk 17:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We have a curiosity here
One user Seneschally appears to be some sort of (non-malicious) alter ego for another user, who's been contributing a great number of articles on the O'Donnells, particularly of Tyrconnell. These are the original nobility of Donegal, princes and aristocrats some of whom emigrated to Spain and Austria. She's evidently a close relative of one of the O'Donnells, as she's uploaded some family photos of relatives. So far, so good; the articles generally seem to be well-referenced. However, she's also written part of Vice Great Seneschal of Ireland. She claims that the position is held in conjunction with that of Hereditary Seneschal of Tyrconnell. Have you ever heard of such a dignity? She's just made changes referencing "Registry of Deeds, Dublin, Book 12, referring to Grant of 17 July 1442", so I've transferred that citation to the article on the Vice Great Seneschal and removed the "disputed" tag for the time being. It still ought to be checked (Shrewsbury wasn't appointed Steward of Ireland until 1446, but perhaps the Seneschalcy of Tyrconnell predated the Vice Stewardship), but I don't want to chase off a good contributor either. Incidentally, the present Earl of Shrewsbury has also appointed deputyships to his office a few years ago, but this is obviously something different. Tim Griffin 15:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
A user has created and them, somewhat with my help recreated the article at the wrong location. I wasn't sure what was best to do, presumably a move from one of the articles to the correct location. It's such a stub I did wonder if it was just easier to create a new correct article and put a speedy (author mistake) deletion tag on the other pages. Which way around does policy say it's supposed to be done. The Articles are, Seymour Henry Bathurst and Seymour Henry Bathurst, 7th Earl Bathurst which should be I assume at Seymour Bathurst, 7th Earl Bathurst Alci12 14:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I take it by your edits burkes is wrong again as they list it in that format. Alci12 16:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sighs checked 3 sources all wrong. I thought it odd which should hve been enough to make me take the trouble to search further but I was off out and sent the changes :-( Alci12 17:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Baron Capell of Tewkesbury
Hi, maybe you can enlighten my a little. Do you know if Henry Capell was made Baron Capell, of Tewkesbury in the County of Gloucester or Baron Capell of Tewkesbury, in the County of Gloucester? Unfortunately, my sources contradict themselves. Greetings and Merry Christmas to you. Phoe talk 15:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, I have seen just that I had completely forgotten to thank you for your answer, therefore I hereby make this up. Greetings Phoe  talk 14:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul McCartney
A word in your shell-like, if I may be so bold. User:Vera, Chuck & Dave is a longtime contributor to the Macca article, and he is also the recipient of a George Medal - which may or may not mean he knows something regarding the Honours System. You may wish to have a chat, citing your sources for appointment vs. awarding, with him before deciding on a form of words for the article. Cheers.LessHeard vanU 22:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He can expect WP:Civil and a discussion. From your talk page I can see that you are involved in a lot of articles regarding titles and honours, but I also note that there are not a few comments regarding your style of discourse. At The Beatles Project we welcome all contributions, but we also try to foster a pleasant working environment.LessHeard vanU 23:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He said "See talk page" and then included "Please" and "Thank you" in the comment. If that appears rude to you then you may be a little over-sensitive (which means that you may find Crestville below positively outrageous). I repeat, you may be right - but you seem to be unable to discuss the matter politely, and antagonising a group of people is not the way to get the desired result (a better Wikipedia). LessHeard vanU 23:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop taking things so seriously and engage in a flexible adult discussion matey. I swear it makes things easier.--Crestville 23:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What a hypocrite you are, then.--Crestville 23:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Right or wrong, you've as good as broken the three revert rule over an contentious issue. 2+2=4.--Crestville 23:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't.--Crestville 23:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:laughing
Far from it, my good man. At no point did Tvoz or I insult you, he merely made the point that you are appoaching this argument with a distict lack of humour compared to the way we like to deal with things on The Beatles Project. Please have a read of some of our other problems, how we have dealt with them and see why this one stands out as anomylous. It is now Christmas eve where I am, I SINCERELY wish you a good day, I for one will be going to the pub with 15 or so members of my family, and I can't wait. You?--Crestville 23:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * With that sort of attitude, I'm not at all surprised. Ever heard of digging your own grave? It's not the best way to save Ebeneezer.--Crestville 23:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Crestville has it right, except it's "she". I could be insulted, now, couldn't I? But I'm not. Chill out. Believe it or not, this isn't real life. (And  "laughing" was at his joke, not at you.) Tvoz 06:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

An apology
I certainly didn't wish to make you so uncomfortable as to make you want to stop editing Wikipedia, so I would express my regret at the tone I used. The Beatles Project members are close knit group, and are sometimes oversensitive to comments made to a member and can thus appear to "gang up" on the other party in a debate. That said, your point of your statement(s) appears valid and the ongoing discussion appears to be accepting of your position. It is, perhaps, that the tone of the comments quickly escalated to the point of incivility, and I am as guilty as anyone in that respect. Sorry. Have a great Christmas. LessHeard vanU 21:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC) This is a personal apology, and I am not speaking for or on behalf of any other individual or group.

Descent of Marquessate of Queensberry
Hello Proteus,

Since you seem to be very knowledgable on these matters, I hope you can help me. I am confused about how the Marquessate of Queensbery descended. The current marquess does not seem to be descended from the original marquess at all. When the marquessate separated from the dukedom, the dukedom descended through a daughter of the 2nd duke, and the marquessate appears to have descended to a male line heir of the 1st earl. Since the male lines of the 1st marquess had apparently ended, and the marquessate did not have the special remainder to a female line like the dukedom, shouldn't the marquessate have become extinct, and the current marquess be the Earl of Queensberry? Dglenn 18:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, it was very interesting and helpful! Dglenn 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Lord" Lambton
Hi Proteus, Happy New Year and great timing! Your comments on the title of the article currently at Antony Lambton, Lord Lambton would be most appreciated.  J Rawle  (Talk) 21:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you back. Choess 15:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Cavendish Dowagers
Hi Proteus, can you clarify something for me?

In the middle of 1944, the Edward Cavendish was the 10th Duke of Devonshire; his wife and Duchess was Mary Cavendish. His mother, the widow of the 9th Duke was Mary Cavendish, Dowager Duchess of Devonshire. In 1944 his eldest son William, Marquess of Hartington, marries Kathleen Kennedy, who becomes Marchioness of Hartington. William dies 10th Sep 1944, so his younger brother Lord Andrew and his wife Deborah (Lady Andrew) become the new Marquess and Marchioness of Hartington.

So ... am I right in thinking that then there were in fact: The Dowager Duchess of Devonshire (Evelyn) The Duchess of Devonshire (Mary) The Dowager Marchioness of Hartington (Kathleen) The Marchioness of Hartington (Deborah)

... two dowagers and two wives of incumbents? And also, if Kathleen was a dowager, why does she never seem to have been styled Dowager Marchioness of Hartington? What were Mary and Evelyn called after the 10th Duke's death?

Finally, on the subject of Dowagers - (1) if a Queen consort is widowed from a King - or divorced (unlikely but assuming), does she stop becoming a Queen in either case? Or does she become say, upon marrying a duke, a duchess and retain the syle of "Her Majesty"? Similary, if a Dowager Duchess remarries, why does she lose her title? Does she keep the prefix "Her Grace" or "Royal Highness"?

(2) Why was Augusta, wife of Frederick Prince of Wales, styled "Dowager Princess of Wales" upon her husband's death? Since her son (later George III) did not marry until he was king surely there was no need for her to use the dowager title since there was no other Princess of Wales? (and incidently, how WAS her son Prince of Wales when he was the grandson and not the eldest son of the monarch?)

(3) What is the widow of a younger son of a duke called? Dowager Lady Charles Smith, for instance?

(4) Is there another way of titling dowagers (queens and wives of peers alike) without using the Christian name? e.g. Dowager senior, dowager dowager ...

On a completely different theme, why does the current duke of Devonshire's heir still style himself Earl of Burlington? When he marries will his wife become Countess of Burlington?

Many Thanks.--82.17.177.237 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorising peers

 * It appears I misread the section of this page which reads "In categories dealing with peerage, British peers are sorted by name of the title rather than surname, e.g. Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury is alphabetized under "Salisbury", not "Gascoyne-Cecil" or "Cecil":" without looking at the example underneath. I assumed that the inclusion of this phrase meant that while it is fathomable to list British nobles by their title in categories where such a title is even remotely relevant, it is utterly utterly absurd to refrain from listing posh people by their real names even in categories (such as Category:1805 births and Category:British socialites) where their nicknames are irrelevant. Now I see that this was an incorrect assumption, apologies for my haste. Jdcooper 14:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * NB, I have since altered the wording on Categorization of people to avoid future confusion. Hoping that this clears up any outstanding problem. Jdcooper 14:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

John_Lauder_or_Maitland%2C_5th_Earl_of_Lauderdale
I've tried to tidy the above to bring into line with MoS/standard peerage articles. As to the page title itself the example of Charles_Stewart%2C_3rd_Marquess_of_Londonderry would seem to suggest it should stay at the birth name. There are a few articles like this I'm not clear there is a policy. I can raise it at PP unless you know otherwise but obviously I don't regard the present as satisfactory. Alci12 15:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ivory Coast move
Since you participated in previous discussions on Ivory Coast, you might be interested in the requested move at Talk:C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivoire. —  AjaxSmack     06:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wives of baronets
I'm looking for the right place to move Lady Stephen, wife of Sir Harry Lushington Stephen, Bt. (She used the Christian name Barbara.) Even if that was the usual style of address to her during her lifetime, it doesn't seem right for an encyclopedia, but of course I defer to your guidance. Choess 19:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)