User talk:Proteus/Archive 9

Mandela
Hi, I noticed you restored Mandela's post-nominals, which I had removed after they were introduced without comment by an anonymous editor. The "problem" of Mandela's hundreds of awards had been previously discussed and addressed by opening a separate page listing them. I wondered about your comment about the convention being to include post-nominals, and I think it's worth discussing, if you're willing. I found a WP policy that "Post-nominals should not be used for non-Commonwealth or former British Empire citizens as their use outside a Commonwealth context are extremely rare." Although the converse is that "post-nominals should be used for Commonwealth citizens", this isn't actually stated, and what is stated does at least establish the idea of exceptions to the practice of using post-nominals in areas where they are rarely used. I would argue that they should not be included for Mandela, as they are rarely used in South Africa, they are all foreign honours (a Canadian honour, for instance, is of minor relevance), their usage for Mandela is somewhat inappropriate given his symbolic status as a post-Colonial leader, and that Mandela is a sufficiently prominent individual to make an exception to a convention in his case. It's not hard to see why they would not be commonly used in South Africa, given South Africa's past status as a pariah nation outside the Commonwealth, and the desire to separate itself from a colonial past. Are you open to discussing this? Zaian 19:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Baronesses, Ladies, etc.
Hi Proteus,

Just noticed your recent edits. I agree that Joan Walmsley is Baroness Thomas of Gresford (as you can see, that's what I'd put originally - I did leave the user a message to explain it). I'm not sure about "and" to link two titles - is that standard? And should it be bold?

Onto my main point: while I fully agree with you that she and Lady Gretton are baronesses, I'm uncomfortable with "Baroness" being used for the page title when it's the wife of a peer. Equally, I don't like "Baron" used for life peers. I am talking about the page title, not the introductory text, which should definitely be Baron or Baroness.

The Wikipedia naming convention is to "use the most common form of the name used in English". I can't see that Baron and Baroness fit in with that, as they are never used in English. The opening line is different as that should be the subject's full name, which can include Baron or Baroness. Sometime I intend to open a discussion about this somewhere (WP:PEER) – that's not to say the policy will change, as there are some difficult issues, not the least hereditary barons.

Final point: the usual form outside Wikipedia would be Jennifer Ann, Lady Gretton, while on Wikipedia we include the surname. Fair enough. So why don't we do the same thing for wives of knights, e.g. Elspeth Mary Campbell, Lady Campbell? Or alternatively, just leave the Lady part out altogether.  J Rawle  (Talk) 12:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Earl of Leicester (of Holkham)
I'm also surprised to see those edits. I always thought the title of the current earl is Earl of Leicester of Holkham, as the Earldom of Leicester still existed when it was created. Surely missing the "of Holkham" bit of is as bad as life peers who miss the "of Somewhere" part of their title off (remembering the clash between Baroness Young and Baroness Young of Old Scone!)

In any case, the text of the Earl of Leicester page needs looking at as it still mentions Earl of Leicester of Holkham.  J Rawle  (Talk) 12:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How were they able to recreate the title when it still existed? Was there a special Act of Parliament (as with the Eardom of Mar)?  J Rawle  (Talk) 13:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Plural of Lord Lieutenant?
Thanks for your input. While we're on the subject, how about Lord Lieutenant? When I was looking up Lord Mayor, I saw the Times Style Guide mentions the Association of Lord-Lieutenants, and says that's the correct plural, and that it should be hyphenated.  J Rawle  (Talk) 16:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And I guess the same applies to Lord Provost: there are a couple of "Lists of Lords Provost" I spotted just as I received your message!  J Rawle  (Talk) 16:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Order of precedence
It seems that succession boxes are now divided into sections according to the type of title (Parliament of the UK, Peerage of Scotland, etc.) Some bio articles have "Order of precedence", but what sort of heading should it go under? It's not a peerage title, it's not an honorary title. See Robert Lindsay, 29th Earl of Crawford for an example and Template:S-start/Instructions for a current list of headings. Perhaps we need a "Miscellaneous" heading or something similar, but I thought maybe you can come up with better terminology.  J Rawle  (Talk) 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Earl of Derby
First of all, not the hole you removed, was incorrect. Secondly please would you look Baron Stanley and,  for the former Barony of Stanley, I mentioned. The baronetcy of Bickerstaffe Hall was created for the 11th Earl, look here. The rest of the titles was an error. I'v got them from and confused the term "Stanley Family" with "Earl of Derby". Thanks. I hope you will use some of the things, I searched, to restore the parts I wasn't wrong. Phoe 13:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

David John Seyfried-Herbert, 19th Baron Herbert
I don't suppose any of your sources can clarifty this entry. I had understood it that he tried to bring the Berkeley and the barony Botetourt out with Herbert but he was opposed/contested by Mrs Cope and Mrs Peyronel so the matter was left to drop. Anon user has just edited to it never being attempted. Wondered if you know any more on this awkward one. Alci12 13:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener
I looked at the websites to check the date of the Viscountcy, but I found Leigh Rayment says: "Created Baron Kitchener... Viscount Kitchener... Baron Denton, Viscount Brome and Earl Kitchener of Khartoum 27 Jul 1914". And Cracroft's says, "Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome (3rd), Henry Herbert Kitchener". Both sites suggest the Earldom has a placename in the title, but I don't see why it should have, and I know it doesn't as you've edited the page before. So why are they wrong?  J Rawle  (Talk) 23:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Earl Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome in the County of Kent
 * Viscount Broome of Broome in the County of Kent
 * Baron Denton of Denton in the County of Kent
 * Viscount Kitchener of Khartoum and of the Vaal in the Colony of Transvaal, and of Aspall in the County of Suffolk
 * Baron Kitchener of Khartoum and of Aspall in the County of Suffolk


 * My source lists it like that. The London Gazette copy of the LP for the viscountcy certainly confirms the barony title format "The KING has been pleased to direct Letters Patent to be passed under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,granting the dignity of a Viscount of the said United Kingdom unto Horatio Herbert, Lord Kitchener of Khartoum". I think we do have an error in our entry. If the latter two are both correct then the similarity to the earldom's patent would be the source of the confusion elsewhere Alci12 16:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Privy Council
Hoping to rationalize our current categories, I've run into a problem of nomenclature. Obviously, the Privy Council was, from 1707 to 1801, the "Privy Council of Great Britain". Since there was a separate Privy Council of Ireland, was it still styled so after 1801, or did it become the "Privy Council of the United Kingdom?" Choess 22:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. So Their Majesties have or had divers Privy Councils, as one for Northern Ireland, Ireland, and Canada. But right of judicial appeal has always lain, even from dominions with their own Privy Council, such as Canada (that's abolished now, but you get the point), to the chief and principal Privy Council. Is this council "HM Honourable Privy Council of Great Britain" (the principal realm of her dominions), in contradistinction to the other Privy Councils, or does it lack a territorial appellation entirely? Choess 15:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I propose that Category:Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom be renamed Category:Members of the Privy Council and that this go on CfD. - Kittybrewster 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Having browsed around a little, I'm not sure that any of the Privy Councils, except perhaps that of Canada, has a definitive, fixed style of territorial appellation: e.g., letters patent from Lord Lyon in 1631 refer simply to "[HM] Most Honourable Privy Council in this Kingdom" (Scotland). Nonetheless, I think I would keep "Members of the Privy Council of Scotland" as a subcategory and add "Members of the Privy Council of Ireland" and "Current members of the Privy Council"; "Members of the Privy Council of England" could be kept as a subcategory or merged into the parent, as you please. It may not hew exactly to the formal style, but it seems like the best way of demarcating the Scotch and Irish counsels as separate bodies. Choess 20:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

FitzAlan
Heia, because I've seen that you capitalised the "A" in FitzAlan in various articles, I would like to ask you, if the same should be done on Baron Fitzmaurice and Earl of Upper Ossory, respectively with the names Fitzmaurice and Fitzpatrick. Thanks ... Phoe 14:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Lady and The Honourable
Since when have the daughters of British aristocrats been entitled to use Lady and The Honourable ? - Kittybrewster 14:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Lord John Philip Sackville
This man is frequently referred to in cricket sources, including some that are contemporary, as above. I suppose the Philip is there to avoid confusion with his son John Frederick who became the famous 3rd Duke of Dorset.

I have used the above title in the cricket article about Sackville because of those sources.

If you have alternative sources, perhaps in the Debretts or whatever, that conclude he should be called Lord John Sackville only, could you please quote them so I can consider it further. It may be that a disambiguation page will be necessary.

Incidentally, I notice that the edit in August was performed by you wherein the article opens with "The Lord John Philip Sackville", which indicates that you regard that his correct title. I am therefore surprised that you want to exclude "Philip" from the article title. Please give a rationale.

Regards --BlackJack | talk page 11:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please give a rationale for changing the title of the article. Please also do so objectively and constructively.  --BlackJack | talk page 11:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And the sources listed in the article itself? Admittedly all these are secondary sources but they tend to include direct quotes from contemporary and primary sources.  They are certainly more credible sources than the USA version of cricinfo, for example.  The primary sources tend to use a mixture of nomenclatures depending on context and these range from "Lord John Philip Sackville" to "Lord John P. Sackville" to "Lord Sackville" to "Mr Sackville" to "Sackville".  Interestingly, I cannot see "Lord John Sackville" but I admit I have only done a quick scan just now.
 * You have still not said why you changed the opening line of the article to "The Lord John Philip Sackville": please explain.
 * Your view that middle names are not used in titles is incorrect. There are nowadays a number of actors, footballers and the like who use their middle names: José Antonio Reyes, Sarah Jessica Parker, etc. so are their article titles incorrect?  --BlackJack | talk page 12:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Where have you given a rationale for the opening line? What do you have to say about the credibility of the sources quoted in the article itself? Your inference re middle names is that they should not be used in your opinion, however you may try to claim you are being misquoted. Would you please provide an objective rationale for your actions re title changes and answer the questions put to you. I have not been rude or condescending, I am merely trying to find out if you have evidence about this man's name that overrides the primary sources I have seen or if ther is an actual Wikipedia policy around titles that I might not know of. Would you please therefore give me a full answer and outline your reasons. --BlackJack | talk page 12:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the sources you have quoted is seriously flawed. This is Sacred texts which states:


 * "Kent was one of the earliest counties where the game throve under the lead of Lord John Sackville. In 1746 a match was played on the Artillery Ground, London, by Kent against All England, eleven a side, when the latter won by two wickets. A newspaper advertisement announced a match on the same ground on July 24th, 1749, between five of the Addington Club and an All England five. The advertisement gave the names of the players, and thus concluded: "N.B.--The last match, which was play’d on Monday the 10th instant, was won by All England, notwithstanding it was eight to one on Addington in the playing."


 * First, the game in Kent "throve" for over a century before Sackville was born. Second, the match it is talking about took place in 1744, not 1746, and the result was a win by one wicket, not two wickets.  The five a side game it quotes did at least take place but that was hardly a major fixture.  I have read the rest of the article too and it contains serious factual errors.  Wikipedia requires sources but they are to be credible and preferably primary, such as those quoted in the article.  --BlackJack | talk page 12:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You win. I've decided to concede the point after looking at the book by Timothy J McCann about Sussex cricket (Sackville was a Kent man) which surprisingly has numerous references to Sackville and all directly quoting contemporary sources. You will be pleased to know they all say "Lord John Sackville" and there are enough to form a majority over the alternative versions so I'll accept that he should be called John only with perhaps a reference to his full name in the body of the article. --BlackJack | talk page 14:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Durin
You may want to keep an eye out for a User:Durin. He's another of these self-proclaimed experts on copyright law (and like most of them hasn't a clue). He is now deleting images from royalty templates such as House of Oldenburg (Glucksburg-Greece). FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 15:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't proclaimed myself as an expert in any law, much less copyright law. What I did was entirely proper and within Wikipedia policy; the image had no source, no license, and was merely tagged as coatofarms, leaving its status in limbo and the best interpretation of it as fair use. It was properly removed per Fair use criteria item #9. The uploader has been informed, and indeed has quite a number of other images that suffer from the same problems. The uploader, despite extensive experience, has frequently made erors in tagging of images, as can be seen by a review of his talk page and archives. I've asked him to look into all of his image uploads for similar problems. All the best, --Durin 17:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it is now open season on these templates. All the British templates, having had their images removed, are now being proposed for deletion at Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 21 (not by Durin, BTW, in case that impression is given). No wonder people leave this project in frustration. FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Province of Maryland
Need your help. Please share your knowledge and/or resources on aristocratic conventions. Hasbro 17:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Province of Maryland
(N.B. I added a new section from the top of the page without noticing that Hasbro was already here.) Hello Proteus. User:Hasbro has been making a bit of a noise over at Talk:Province of Maryland and appears to assume that editors who are asking for verifiable citations to reliable sources are part of some cabal with an anti-Irish agenda. He has mentioned you as an editor he apparently has some respect for. Perhaps you could drop by and help sort out fact from heated rhetoric. I've no special knowledge or interest in the subject, I only noticed an unsourced edit that seemed a little odd to me. older ≠ wiser 17:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's merely a matter of naivete coloured by Anglophilia and/or United Irish nationalism, which have sadly distorted the nature of Englishmen as Irish aristocrats and the special case of one such Irish peer of English ancestry who founded American colonies. My opponents, like the one above, would like to erase all Irish connections to the Catholic nature of these palatine lords and remake it as a completely unrelated English issue. One must wonder if it is worth it to the Irish purists to remove any and all contributions Englishmen have had in "coopting" Irish identity by "going native" or becoming "more Irish than the Irish themselves". I never claimed the Calverts were ancestrally, but only politically, religiously and governmentally Irish. They embraced Irish culture as it has been known to the world. Please do not allow revisionism to swamp an historical topic such as this, which is a rare gem. Hasbro 17:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am coming at this from a generic and populist/majoritarian "social movement" perspective (e.g. British and Protestant vs Irish and Catholic), while my opponents have an individual perspective about the interplay of the Calverts. I think that the background political events make it possible to broadly group the Calverts with the Irish and Catholic side.  Hasbro 21:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Advice on UK peerage article title
Hi, Mackensen suggested that I run the following issue past you:

- Cutler 11:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter and Zara
Thanks for the answer. Cheers.  young  american (ahoy-hoy) 12:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Patronage Secretary
I notice that the 1911 EB frequently uses the term; is it in any sense "official", or simply a convenient tag for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury? Choess 04:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Baronetcys
I assumed changes weren't allowed (though when you think about it there is no reason as it's not like a peerage that needs a act of parliament to change it. Bts can be stripped of their title just like a knight) but I've seen a few things where odd things have happened. It could be down to the use of name designation -v- title designation but scottish titles as a whole are somewhat of an oddity Alci12 11:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, but as I said I believe that there is no legal need for an act to change a baronetcy - only peerage case law has been deemed to require changes in that area to be by act of p. If peerage law and baronetcy law were the same then you'd need an act for extinguishing a btcy and you don't. That link may be talking about a TD seperate from the title but the way it's written it certainly reads as though the btcy itself was altered. Frankly it's such an obscure area it's very hard to find sources to discuss it in the detail needed to claify such matters Alci12 16:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Numbering UK Prime Ministers
"Prime Ministers

British office-holders are not sequentially numbered. That's an American custom never used in the UK."

Citation? I've noticed a few of them numbered (Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair), but don't want to remove those without a citation in the edit summaries and/or talk pages. TransUtopian 15:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I was hoping for a source mentioning the United States numbering political office holders and the UK not, but I'll link to your mention on my talk page if I come across such in the future. A good thing I noticed your note, because I briefly considered numbering them in a column of List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom before I realized it would be a considerable job. (I would've proposed it on the talk page before undertaking it, but still a good thing.) TransUtopian 15:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's a general problem on wiki that because the majority of users come from countries (mainly the US) where such things are numbered, that it is just not considered that this might not be the case elsewhere. We have the same problem with parliaments being numbered another constitutionally strange notion. In both instances the numbering becomes a farce as it's next to impossible to establish the exact numbers or even perhaps agree on a definition of how to try. Perhaps the talk page needs an explanation of why the numbering has been removed though so it doesn't return. Alci12 19:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The talk page of the List of UK PMs, you mean? Agreed. Plus a commented out part prominently on the actual page. Adding such notes to the talk & a commented out part to the last 3 PMs' articles might also help too, since they're often accessed. TransUtopian 04:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Earl of Warwick
Hey Proteus, the article about George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence says that he was Earl of Warwick jure uxoris throught his wife Isabel ... and some sources in the net state the same (I quote: "March 1472 was created by right of his wife earl of Warwick and Salisbury".  lists him as Earl of Warwick and  gives him his own creation. Perhaps you are able to find out what of this is right. Greetings ... Phoe 16:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Colin_Moynihan Baron_Moynihan
Do you perhaps have any more details on this. I don't like the article for reasons I gave User talk:JRawle essentially you can't or rather don't terminate a 'dormancy' it's just a description of the status of the title but the title when proved or a writ granted is legally considered to have been held from the moment of the previous peers death. However that all said there must be more to this claim than suggests because otherwise I can't see why Moynihan wasn't forced to resign his seat or disclaim his title (as the Earl of Selkirk had to in '94 ) even before the disputed claim was ajudicated upon. Alci12 16:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

John Borlase Warren and Walter Butler, Marquess of Ormonde
I reverted your moves of the above articles. In the first case I believe the subject is far better known by his name the form you chose. In the second case, being the only Walter Butler, Marquess of Ormonde on WP, the disambiguating numeral 1st was unnecessary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies
Please would you resolve and determine queries 5, 6 and 7. - Kittybrewster 12:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Lady Howard of Effingham
Thank you, Proteus, for doing this. The original title 'Lady Effingham' was incorrect. Her step-mother-in-law, Madeline, Countess of Effingham, could be addressed as "Lady Effingham", but not the wife of the eldest son of the the Earl of Effingham. She was "Lady Howard of Effingham", to show that she was not the wife of a peer, but the wife of his eldest son, who had the courtesy title of "Lord Howard of Effingham". Thank you, again, Proteus.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manci_Howard%2C_Lady_Howard_of_Effingham"