Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Proteus (talk | contribs) at 21:41, 24 June 2005 (→Honorific Prefixes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage/Archived talk 1 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage/Archived talk 2

Poll

First Poll

Ought articles on peers include in their titles a reference to the highest peerage title of the subject? (Note: this does not apply to life peers.)

  • Yes, the peerage title should be included (in the article's title), either in all cases, or when certain criteria are fulfilled.
    1. Adam 02:36, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    2. Mackensen 04:12, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC) (The peerage is part of the person's name. The Duke of Rutland was not John Manners. He was John Manners, the Duke of Rutland. This is not a question of office holding or some pedantic honorific. Please voters, consider the gravity of the matter).
    3. john
    4. Stan 06:27, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    5. PMA 06:32, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
    6. Hephaestos
    7. Lord Emsworth 11:31, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC) (For reasons, see here)
    8. Mintguy 13:22, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    9. Flauto Dolce 14:45, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    10. Adam Bishop 15:15, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    11. James F. (talk) 21:18, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    12. Jiang 22:35, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    13. FearÉIREANN 22:54, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    14. Angela. 12:03, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
    15. Vardion 05:41, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC); changed my vote in response to John Kenney's comment - I misunderstood the question, not paying enough attention to the "certain criteria" bit (which, in part two, I have voted in favour of employing).
    16. —Morven 07:11, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    17. Wik 10:37, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    18. Morwen 17:58, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC); but only so long as exception in vote 2 is followed.
    19. BCorr ¤ Брайен 18:54, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    20. silsor 18:57, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    21. Deb 11:43, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC) I'm changing my vote at Lord Emsworth's urging, assuming that what he really meant when he set up the vote was the same as what I believe - that there is no need for deviation from the "most common name" rule, but that titles are a valid part of an article title. I still favour the inclusion of titles only where the person is known specifically for holding that title and is referred to by that name. (I'm also opposed to the use of full names, unless the person is most commonly known by their full name.)
    22. —Eloquence 22:14, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC) (where commonly used)
    23. Delirium 23:33, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC) (where commonly used)
    24. SimonP 00:36, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    25. Valisk 04:39, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • No, the peerage title should not be included (in the article's title), except when necessary to disambiguate between two peers of the same name. (Note: This option indicates that the title should never be used, unless it is absolutely necessary to disambiguate - e.g. William Cavendish, 1st Duke of Devonshire vs. William Cavendish, 2nd Duke of Devonshire. It does not relate to the commonness of the titles in question; for this matter, see the second poll.)
    1. Follow the standard Wikipedia practice of "most commonly used name in English". If the version with the peerage title is more common, use it; if not, don't. --Delirium 08:52, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC) -- vote changed; see above --Delirium 23:33, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    2. Total agreement with Delirium. Maybe I would go even further, and state that the inclusion of titles should be a rare occurence, and only done, when doing anything else would be even more idiosyncratic and clumsy. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 09:57, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
    3. Menchi (Talk)â 12:06, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    4. ☮ Eclecticology 18:08, 2004 Jan 10 (UTC) Antiquated appendages
    5. Kokiri 18:12, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    6. Evil saltine 20:48, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    7. Binky 07:16, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC); no need for exemption from "most common name" rule
    8. Secretlondon with all appropriate redirects, of course.
    9. Imran; redundant. Same reason as Binky.

Second Poll

Ought there to be exceptions to the general rule that articles on peers include in their titles a reference to the highest peerage title of the subject?

  • Yes, there should be exceptions, based on criteria such as the rarity of the use of the peerage title.
    1. Stan 06:27, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC) (but very few exceptions)
    2. Hephaestos
    3. Adam Bishop 15:15, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    4. Delirium 08:52, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC) (of course; this is Wikipedia standard practice)
    5. Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 09:57, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC) (fundamental, peers should only get special treatment where to do otherwise would be awkward)
    6. Menchi (Talk)â 12:06, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    7. Bill 15:07, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    8. rbrwrˆ 17:53, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC). If "Bertrand Russell" was good enough for the title pages of his works, it's good enough for the title of our article.
    9. Kokiri 18:20, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    10. ☮ Eclecticology 19:19, 2004 Jan 10 (UTC) At least where the ordinary name is more common
    11. Vardion 05:47, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC); common usage should prevail for people who are known by something other than their peerage title.
    12. Binky 07:18, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC); common usage should trump Procrustean uniformity
    13. —Morven 07:23, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    14. Deb 11:43, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC) Hear, hear.
    15. Secretlondon
    16. Morwen 17:58, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    17. —Eloquence 22:14, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
    18. snoyes 23:19, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    19. SimonP 00:36, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    20. john 18:49, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC) (changing vote, see below. But the presumption should be that the peerage title should be included)

Deadline: 16 January 2004
Quorum: eight voters. - Achieved.
Only users who have been registered for at least one week and have no less than twenty non-minor edits may vote.

Compromise?

Considering the failure to achieve a consensus, I suggest as a compromise that:

  • Peerage titles are generally acceptable as a valid part of a title.
  • Determinations of when they are appropriate or inappropriate be left to the editors of the pages in question, subject to discussion.
  • Generally, they be used for non-twentieth and twenty-first century personages as it is difficult to determine in most cases which name is more common, and we ought to err on the side of accuracy in such situations. (But it still would be possible for an earlier individual to not use the peerage title.)
  • Lord X or Duke of X be at most redirects, never articles.
  • If an individual holds a peerage title and must be disambiguated with others, then it is preferred to use that title, as opposed to parenthetical disambiguation. For example: use John Smith, 3rd Earl of Anyplace, not John Smith (politician), etc.

-- Lord Emsworth 11:38, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I have a question for Lord E - are the current Dukedom of York and Earldom of Wessex inheritable by daughters? Adam 11:57, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think that they are inheritable by sons only, like normal dukedoms. So the dukedom of York would probably become extinct, as it is unlikely that the Duke will have further children, and maybe also the earldom, considering the problems Lord and Lady Wessex have had so far: one premature birth, one ectopic pregnancy. -- Lord Emsworth 20:02, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

Isn't it strange that the Dukedom of York has been conferred on so many younger sons, yet it has always failed to become established as an inherited title (as Kent and Gloucester have now done) and has become available for re-use? Adam 00:15, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The last seven creations of the dukedom of York, and all three creations of the dukedom of York and Albany, yielded only one holder, as you suggest. Several Dukes of York or York and Albany died without heirs, while the others became Sovereigns: Henry VIII's, Charles I's, and George V's elder brothers predeceased their fathers; James II's elder brother died without heirs; George VI's elder brother abdicated. -- Lord Emsworth 01:37, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the York curse. Only the first creation passed to multiple holders - four, in fact, before the 4th Duke succeeded to the throne as Edward IV. Clarence is also supposedly cursed - all of its holders have died without heirs to succeed to the title (Lionel of Antwerp did have a daughter, though, and the Duke of Clarence and St Andrews became King William IV). It should be added that the future George V's elder brother, the Duke of Clarence and Avondale, had already died by the time George was created Duke of York. john 08:52, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Where is this "Clarence" from which the title derives? I read somewhere that it comes from County Clare, but that seems unlikely. Adam 14:49, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It derives from the Honour of Clare, lands in Suffolk originally held by the de Clare family, after which County Clare was named. There is still a place in Suffolk called Clare, incidentally. Proteus 15:42 GMT, 15th January 2004

Exceptions to the rule on life peerages

While it is correct that in general articles about life peers should not have the peerage title in the article title, this rule must also admit of exceptions. Examples:

  • The current Master of the Rolls is Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers. Perhaps his friends and family might know his Christian name, but 99% of lawyers, academics, and probably even other judges know him as "Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR". Supposing his Christian name is Tom or John (after doing a search on Google I am still unable to discover it), to name an article about him John Phillips would be lunacy.
  • Lord Kirkhill, Minister of State in the Scottish Office, used to be one John Smith. Obvious need for disambiguation. Perhaps life peers who abandon their surnames should be treated in the same way as ex-hereditary peers who have disclaimed their titles!
  • Baroness Trumpington, an active Tory peer in the House of Lords, was before her ennoblement known (or rather unknown) as Mrs Jean Barker. There are many other people who received peerages not as honours, but to allow them to represent their party in the Parliament, and as such are completely unknown in their pre-House of Lords form.

Andrew Yong 19:18, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...that brings up the fun issue of disclaimed peers who then get a life peerage. The Earl of Home becomes Alec Douglas-Home becomes Lord Home of the Hirsel. Viscount Hailsham becomes Quintin Hogg becomes Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone...In the latter case, at least, I'd imagine that he's probably better known as "Lord Hailsham" (in whichever incarnation) than as Quintin Hogg...ack, this could create a mess... john 19:31, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

To me it's pretty obvious: Alec Douglas-Home and Quentin Hogg, Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone, being the Wikified versions of the titles by which they were most commonly known. Andrew Yong 11:52, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Poll Closed

Well, the poll is officially closed. What have we learned?

  1. There is not a majority, and certainly not a consensus, in favor of always using the peerage title.
  2. A fairly strong majority, including just about everyone who works on these articles, seems to support the idea that peerage titles should be used if they are not especially uncommon.

I think that the suggestions that I made when I changed my vote, or that Lord Emsworth made above, would form a fair compromise that would allow work to go forward. Basically, I think a key idea is that in instances where it is hard to determine what the "most common" name is, we should stick with the peerage title. In cases where it's quite clear that the peerage title is not used too often, we should stick with the given name. And in cases where someone is known almost entirely by a courtesy title, that should be used. Is this satisfactory? I'm going to start moving the 20th century PMs back to their common names. john 19:40, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Questions

I have recently been adding several succession tables to articles on peers. I have, however, refrained from doing so for those who later became Sovereign or were members of the Royal Family. I beg to ask if there is any objection to adding succession tables to articles on such individuals.

Secondly, tables are missing for some individuals as a Burke's Peerage is not at my disposal. Therefore I shall be much obliged if any person could inform me as to the missing information, or to correct any errors in the following:

  1. Thomas Denman, 3rd Baron Denman
    • Predecessor: Thomas Aitchison Denman, 2nd Baron Denman
    • Successor: ???
  2. John Vereker, 6th Viscount Gort
    • Predecessor: John Gage Prendergast Vereker 5th Viscount Gort
    • Successor: ???
  3. Horatio Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener of Khartoum
    • Successor: ???
  4. Matthew Robinson, 2nd Baron Rokeby
    • Predecessor: Richard Robinson, 1st Baron Rokeby
    • Successor: ???
  5. Edward Burtenshaw Sugden, 1st Baron St Leonards
    • Successor: ???
  6. John Baird, 1st Viscount Stonehaven
    • Successor: ???
  7. Simon Fraser, 11th Lord Lovat
    • Predecessor: ???
    • Successor: ???
    • Numbering: ??? (Variously numbered as 11th, 12th, 13th - which is correct?)

-- Emsworth

Re 7. from Simon Fraser, 11th Lord Lovat was executed in 1747 and the title was attained. The 11th Lord Lovat's line ended with the death of his youngest son Archibald in 1815, without legitimate surviving issue.In 1857 when Thomas Alexander Fraser 10th laird of Strichen became 14th Lord Lovat. More detail on [1] Mintguy (T) 16:50, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC) - See also -http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/ff/fraser02.htm
For now, since it seems to appear that the attainder was only reversed for the laird of Strichen, I have suggested that Simon Fraser's successor was Thomas Alexander Fraser. -- Emsworth

Re: 6. The 1st viscount's wife was Lady Ethel Sydney Keith-Falconer, Countess of Kintore and the titles of Baron Stonehaven and Viscount Stonehaven now belong to the 13th Earl of Kintore http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/Contents/book/Scotland/FHP/Peerage/fhp-KEITH(EarlsofKintore).asp I'm unclear as to how though.[[2]] lists a son of the 1st viscount who died in 1943 with issue, but no mention of the title being passed on. Mintguy (T) 17:44, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. It would appear that the individual listed at Thepeerage.com is a younger son. The present Lord Kintore seems to be Lord Stonehaven's elder son. -- Emsworth
I think he is the grandson. http://www.bairdnet.com/portraits4.html says Michael Baird grandson of the 1st Viscount Stonehaven, is Chief of the Clan Keith and the list of succession for the earldom is here [3] I would guess his father changed names upon the death of the mother when the earldom was inherited. Mintguy (T) 18:17, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think that the second Viscount Stonehaven was the twelfth Earl of Kintore, according to [4], he died in 1989, and according to Burke's, the present Viscount succeeded his father in that year. -- Emsworth
Re 5. I have found a reference to a Frank Sugden, 3rd Baron St Leonards [5]. No other information. Mintguy (T) 18:17, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I managed to consult Burke's from 1967 and establish who the second and third barons were, and have extrapolated based on the 1985 extinction the fourth baron. See Baron St Leonards. I'm going to try and firm this up a bit, if I can. Mackensen 05:57, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We can strike #3 from the list, as I have found that Earl Kitchener's heir was, by special remainder, his elder brother Henry. -- Emsworth

All but Lord Rokeby's successors have been identified. -- Emsworth

Piecing together - [6] and [7] and from [8] discovering that the title became extinct in 1883 we learn the following

  • Richard Robinson, 1st Baron Rokeby
  • Matthew Robinson, 2nd Baron Rokeby
  • Morris Robinson, 3rd baron Rokeby
  • Matthew Robinson, 4th Baron Rokeby
  • Edward Montague, 5th Baron Rokeby
  • Henry Robinson-Montagu, 6th Baron Rokeby
  • extinct
Mintguy (T) 10:10, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Other References

I'd like this project group to also consider an issue: Where else should titles or names be listed. As an example, I added to the List of People by name three entries: William Legge (twice) and Lord Dartmouth. Some history works just refer to Lord Dartmouth. To suuport this I created an entry as though that werwe a name, with a link to the peerage article. The William Legge entries give bith dates, etc. for the 1st and 2nd Earl.

Should there also be a redirect page created for Lord Dartmouth, or maybe a disambiguation page. The only one I've seen so far is Lord North which is a redirect. (I think the North one works well, and wouldn't want to change it.) But, in the Dartnouth case there are several prominent holders of the title.

Any suggestions? Lou I 07:05, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd say Lord Dartmouth ought to redirect to Earl of Dartmouth. For the list of people by name, I'd say that they should be listed at William Legge, 1st Earl of Dartmouth and William Legge, 2nd Earl of Dartmouth, and could be listed under both L and D. john 08:00, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I noticed that User:Proteus has made changes to a number of pages regarding the Duke of Wellington and the title Marquess of Douro, claiming that whilst the title conferred on the 1st Duke is Marquess Douro the courtesy title used by the duke's son is Marquess of Douro. Whilst Burkes Peerage gives the title as the former [9] very many other sources give the latter e.g. Britannica [10]. So which is correct?

In a table listing Marquesses not using "of," one finds Marquess Douro. [11] -- Emsworth 22:43, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

It's definitely "Marquess Douro". It may have something to do with the fact that the title is named for the river Douro in Portugal, for which Wellington's barony was also named, and having a "Marquess Place" is not claiming sovereignty over that place whereas "Marquess of Place" is. The abundance of websites claiming it to be "Marquess of Douro" (a Google search reveals 119 sites with "Marquess of Douro" and only 13 with "Marquess Douro") is more a result of ignorance than any definite disagreement with Burke's (which is the accepted authority on this subject), especially as Earldoms and Marquessates without "of" are frequently written with them (further Googling reveals, for instance, 101 sites with "Earl of Ferrers", 58 with "Earl of Waldegrave", 32 with "Marquess of Camden", 192 with "Earl of Bathurst" and 152 with "Earl of Cadogan", when none of these peers have "of" in their title). The fact that the current heir uses an "of" can't be helping matters, either. Proteus 23:38, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Template:SampleWikiProject

7th Baron Harris

Does anybody here know who the seventh Baron Harris (of Seringapatam and Mysore) might have been? He died in 1996, and according to [12] (a post on a.t.r. dated 25 October 1996), he was born in 1916. -- Emsworth 19:27, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I can't find anything, but I'll look in Burke's when I get the chance. john 19:40, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He was Derek Marshall Harris, 7th Baron Harris. He was born on 23rd July 1916, and died on 30th June 1996. Proteus 19:48, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Emsworth 20:03, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Random peerage musings

Sorry to bring this project up again, but I feel it needs some clarification on certain aspects of the peerage.

Firstly, the current system for article naming is excellent in many respects, but I feel the system for life peers needs altering. I think a system very much like that for hereditary peers would be useful: the vast majority of life peers are known mainly or exclusively by their peerage titles, and it is only a few people who were famous before their ennoblement (for being an MP, normally) that are known by their actual name. In this category, for instance, we have people like Jeffrey Archer, Paddy Ashdown and Andrew Lloyd Webber, and it would be silly (in my opinion) to have them at their peerage titles. However, the current system puts people like Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Lord Woolf, Lady Amos and Lady Scotland of Asthal at their real names, when very few people know what they are. (For instance, the only one of those whose name I knew before I came to Wikipedia was Lady Amos, and that only because the PM's website calls her "Baroness Valerie Amos".) I think John Smith, Baron Smith of London as a standard form, with John Smith for the Jeffrey Archers and Paddy Ashdowns of the HOL, would be far more helpful and clear for users. We could then have redirects from John Smith, Lord Smith of London and Baron Smith of London.

Secondly, I'd like some kind of decision to be made on "Lady" vs "Baroness". "Lady" is undoubtedly the correct form, and is recommended by most respected British news organisations.

(A couple of examples:
Guardian Style Guide: "barons, baronesses - we call them lords and ladies, even at first mention: Lady Thatcher, Lady Blackstone, Lady Jay, Lord Callaghan, etc"
Economist Style Guide: "Life peeresses should be called Lady, not Baroness, just as barons are called Lord.")

However, "Baroness X" is increasingly being used, even though it is completely incorrect (and seems almost to be the exclusive form used on Wikipedia), and I don't want to go around changing everything unless there is some form of consensus. I feel strongly that "Lady" should be used, since encyclopaedias should aspire to complete correctness, and it would be a shame to ruin the otherwise amazing accuracy on peerage matters displayed here by using an incorrect form, but I was wondering what everyone else thinks. (I do however think that "Baroness" should be put in article titles, as Jane Smith, Baroness Smith of London, and in the first line when the full name and title is given, because we should make it consistent with John Jones, 1st Baron Jones of Birmingham.)

Thirdly, I think this page should make some mention of how peers are to be referred to in the actual content of articles, as it's a bit inconsistent at the moment. The best way, I feel, would be to refer to all peers at first mention by their full title (with numeral only if absolutely necessary), and by "Lord Title" or "Lady Title" (or "the Duke" or "the Duchess") for any subsequent mention. (e.g., "In 1890 the Earl of Selkirk fought a duel with the Duke of Devonshire. After only 20 seconds of fighting, the Duke slew Lord Selkirk with a vicious slash to the chest.") The full name and numeral would of course be contained in a link. I feel that the system used predominantly at the moment, that of giving the full name and title at first mention, breaks up the flow of the narrative and gives unneccessary information (if I'm reading an article in which my imaginary duel is mentioned in passing, I don't need to know Lord Selkirk's full name, or whether he's the 5th or 6th Earl, and if I'm curious I can always go to his article to find out). Under this system, if "Lady" is used as I've suggested above, life peers would be "the Lord Smith" or "the Lady Jones" at first mention and "Lord Smith" or "Lady Jones" thereafter. I'm not particularly bothered what system is preferred here, but I think it would be useful to have some form of policy, both for the sake of consistency and because I think this project should have all the information necesssary for any Wikipedian wanting to write about a peer.

Fourthly, one minor question: under the current policy, should life peers be "John Robert Smith, Lord Smith of Manchester" or "John Robert Smith, Baron Smith of Manchester" on the first line of their article? Proteus 21:45, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To address the points brought up by Peter Tilman in order: I think that it would only be sensible to use the same standards of nomenclature for those holding hereditary and life peerages. The justification for not using life peers' titles in the titles of their articles is, according to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles), "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..." Unfortunately, this statement fails to take into account those life peers who have a long career after the grant of their peerages. Thus, I think it would be sensible to apply the same standards to life and hereditary peers in determining whether their title should be included or not.

Secondly, I concur that Baronesses should be referred to as Ladies. As to the third point, I think that it would be acceptable to refer to peers by their title including or excluding the rank. For instance, one could write about the Duke of Wellington as just "Wellington". "The Duke," etc., seem inappropriate. I think that the usage of the definitive article (where appropriate) should be stressed. As to the final point, there is no current policy, but it would be desirable to refer to such persons as "A B, Baron X" at the commencement of the article. -- Emsworth 22:11, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should propose a vote to allow exceptions to the no life peerages in titles rule. Andrew Yong 22:47, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that another poll is necessary. The poll we recently had expresses the general desire to include peerage titles except when the individual is known almost solely by their personal names. The justification provided for the present rule is not accurate. Thus, we should simply replace the clause in question with one that is consistent with the vote we've recently taken, namely: articles titles should include references to the peerage unless the peer is by far better known by the non-peerage title. To recapitulate: no further poll is, in my opinion, necessary. -- Emsworth 22:58, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Baroness vs. Lady

Perhaps because the styling of Baroness for female life Peers has become common practice (much as Marquess instead of Marquis) we should not be changing all the references from Baroness to Lady. Mintguy (T) 14:04, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't believe "common practice" should override correctness. If we went by the total number of usages of each form, we'd be calling people "Earl Charles Spencer" and "Baroness Helena Kennedy", and The Queen would be "The Queen of England", since those are the forms used by the most people throughout the world. In my opinion, instead of counting how many people use each form, we should use the correct one, which in this case is "Lady". (e.g., from Burke's, "lady: general honorific designation for wife of a lord (of which word it is the female version), baronet or knight. Alternatively the substantive title of the female holder of (1) a Scottish lordship of Parliament, (2) barony.")
In the case of Marquesses, "Marquess" is the correct form, and "Marquis" is the incorrect one. (I believe "Marquis" used to be used in Scotland to express connections with the French [who do have Marquises], and is only used for the sake of tradition by a few holders of old Scottish Marquessates, like the Marquess of Huntly, who calls himself the Marquis of Huntly.) Proteus 14:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Marquess in the modern spelling. Marquis used to be used extensively, hence why so many pubs are called Marquis of Granby (an English Peerage). - As for Baroness - Debretts say "A life peeress may choose to be styled either 'Baroness' or 'Lady'." [13]. If this is the case then when Baroness is the common form it should not be changed to Lady. You should also look at column 352 on [14] and also[15] Baronage.co.uk says on [16] "It was once considered incorrect to refer to a baroness as "Baroness Xxx" rather than as "Lady Xxx", but modern usage among the life peers appears to have changed this." forms of address are not written in stone they are mere conventions, and if the convention has changed it is incorrect not to reflect that in Wikipedia. Mintguy (T) 17:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In its book, "Correct Form", Debrett's prefers "Lady", and says that "Baroness" should only be used if you know that the peeress concerned insists on it. Of course, they have to say that to avoid offending people, which they would do if they said "Baroness X is wrong", since they rely for much of their information on writing to peers and asking for it. We have no such restraints on our correctness, and should strive to be accurate. The other sites are less than reliable, and show some rather basic mistakes (the DCA link says that "The Rt Hon." is only used by Privy Counsellors, when all barons, viscounts and earls can use it, and Baronage says that "Baroness Helena Kennedy" would be the correct form for a peeress who was the daughter of an earl, marquess or duke, which is nonsense), and so their authority is rather limited. "Baroness X" seems almost exclusively to be used by Labour life peeresses created by Tony Blair, and unfortunately their obvious prominence as the only Baronesses in the public eye has inclined some less expert areas of the media to adopt their custom (it was "Lady Thatcher" until very recently, and she's now called "Baroness Thatcher" by most people when her title is mentioned), but those inclined to accuracy still use the correct form, and I feel strongly that we should too. Unfortunately, there are many sites on the internet saying that "Baroness" is correct, due to the chain reaction caused by such mistakes, but it is still a solecism, and I feel that if Wikipedia insisted on using the correct form, as we do with all other aspects of the peerage, it would reflect well on our accuracy on these matters, and help to cement Wikipedia's ever more clear status as the internet authority on the peerage. (If it would help to clarify what we are doing, I could write an article on the issue...) Proteus 19:40, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I stand on the question of Baroness vs. Lady. Otherwise, all of Mr. Tilman's proposals sound good to me. But I do think that we ought to present the question of life peers for discussion on, say, Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles), so that people can't say that anyone's trying to do an end run around consensus building. john 19:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A proposal has already been made, but has received little attention. -- Emsworth 19:57, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'm convinced that the arbitrary change from Baroness to Lady is wrong for female life peers. The first female life peer after the 1958 act was Barbara Frances Wootton Wright who became the Baroness Wootton of Abinger. She is consistently referred to as Baroness Wootton and not Lady Wootton. If you look at the text for the Wootton Report of 1968/9[17] you wil see that in 1968/9 she was being referred to as Baroness Wootton. You can't say this is someting purely introduced by New Labour peers. Mintguy (T) 20:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Everything I've read (on the newsgroup alt.talk.royalty, for the most part, along with numerous etiquette books and peerage guides) has indicated that the switch to Baroness is very recent and not awfully correct. I've just asked my mother, a dedicated newspaper reader and television news viewer who has obviously been around for a lot longer than I have, and she said (when I asked her why Lady Thatcher was now called Baroness Thatcher) that Baronesses were consistently called "Lady" in the media until Tony Blair's time. I'll have access after about 3 o'clock to an extensive collection of peerage guides, and I'll have a look at them to see what they say. Proteus 13:38, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I know I personally have been absent from the UK since just after Tony Blair's election, and I distinctly recall 'Baroness' being used before then for female life peers. Incorrect, maybe, but I think it's an older incorrect than you assert. Maybe it's a change that's been creeping up for some time and only recently has become more prevalent. —Morven 19:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well its usuage has definitely existed since Baroness Wooton was created a life peer on 8 August 1958. This suggests that not all of the female life peers used it from the off, but most later references to Lady Elliot of Harwood (the first Conservative female life peer), use Baroness. Mintguy (T) 19:23, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

After doing some research, it seems that the usage of "Baroness" is far older than I had been led to believe (it is given as an alternative to "Lady" in the 1922 Debrett's, for instance). I apologise unreservedly for what I said previously, and admit that I was jumping to conclusions on not enough information. I do, however, think that it should be used only at first mention, with "Lady" used thereafter (as is the practice with all other non-ducal peers - e.g. "The Countess of Sutherland", thereafter "Lady Sutherland").

The way I see it, we have three types of list which include peers in Wikipedia - formal lists with prefixes and post-nominals (as in e.g. the government department articles, like Ministry of Defence), formal lists without prefixes and post-nominals (as in e.g. the Cabinet article), and informal lists (like in the Cabinet lists of former PMs, like Lord Salisbury). I think the first should have "The Rt Hon. The Baroness Amos PC", the second "The Baroness Amos", and the third "Lady Amos". Comments? Proteus 11:38, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. On the other hand, the Cabinet list has "The Baroness Amos" but only "The Lord Falconer of Thoroton". Should he be "The Baron Falconer of Thoroton"? (They're the only two peers in the cabinet at the moment...who'd have thought?) john 17:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Whereas "Baroness" seems to be an acceptable and usual alternative for "Lady", I don't think "Baron" has ever been used in that way (except perhaps in the first couple of centuries after the conquest, when "the Barons" were often mentioned), and I think "The Lord Smith", while admittedly looking inconsistent alongside "The Baroness Jones", is the correct form. (It's probably, as I said above, because a "Lord" is probably a peer (or at least a close relative of one) but a "Lady" isn't. As you know, I'd rather have "The Lady" than "The Baroness" in order to be consistent, but I think going the other way would be a mistake.) Proteus 20:35, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If a man receives a Knighthood, his wife will be called Lady. If a woman is made a Dame then her husband does not get the courtesy title Sir. So calling a woman Baroness in a newspaper article indicates that she has the title in her own right,(and that she can sit in the House of Lords,) something which can be ambiguous with the title Lady. Philip Baird Shearer 11:38, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll just quote something I posted to alt.talk.royalty recently, which sums up my opinion on the matter:
I happen to dislike the "Baroness" convention immensely. No other rank of the peerage provides a special form of reference for suo jure peeresses, and it makes the system very unbalanced. Why should the conversational form of reference for the Lady Amos be "Baroness Amos" when her superior in rank the Countess Mountbatten of Burma is referred to simply as "Lady Mountbatten of Burma"? Why should the Lady Kennedy of The Shaws be overtly differentiated in status from the Lady Archer of Weston-super-Mare when the Countess of Mar is not from the Countess of Shrewsbury? It's not as though they are otherwise indistinguishable from the wives of knights, since the definite article is ample indication of their status as peeresses (and, in any case, even if it were not, the same problem would exist for the wives of barons, who are not supposed to use this form). At least, if Burke's is to be believed, it has not spread to the suo jure baronesses in the Peerage of England, who all seem to prefer "Lady" to "Baroness".
Proteus (Talk) 12:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The convention of using "Baroness" for suo jure baronesses has existed for quite a while: even the 1911 Britannica recognizes it. However, the convention may be applied consistently. If one uses "the Countess of Mar" or "the Marquess Camden" (as on letter envelopes), then one could accept the usage of "the Baroness Amos." On the other hand, when one speaks of "Lady Mar" and "Lord Camden," it would be consistent to use "Lady Amos." -- Emsworth 14:23, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But even on an envelope the wife of a Baron is "The Lady Title", so using "The Baroness Title" for suo jure peeresses and "The Lady Title" for the others creates a distinction between them in formal usage that doesn't exist in any other rank. If the Countesses of Mar, Dysart and Sutherland and the Countess Mountbatten of Burma are all indistinguishable on an envelope from every single Earl's wife, why should any such distinction exist for suo jure Baronesses? There's nothing special about the rank of Baron that provides a reason for setting it apart from the usual system like this. Proteus (Talk) 16:05, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that one can expect too much consistency in the Peerage. For instance, one might also ask why on addresses letters to "The Lord X" rather than "The Baron X." -- Emsworth 17:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, originally, IIRC, Lords were Lords, and ranked above the feudal Barons who were not Peers of the Realm, and were so termed officially (as "Dominus" rather than "Baro"). There's a case for arguing, I believe, that the titles of the senior Barons are not "Baron de Ros", "Baron Mowbray", etc., but rather "Lord de Ros", "Lord Mowbray", etc., (well, actually, "Lord Ros (de Helmsley)", but that's a different matter entirely) - hence Burke's "Lord (Baron) Beaumont" formulation. Thus it makes sense to continue calling them "Lord" rather than "Baron", as they've always been called that. It would also be a little pointless to point out their exact rank in the Peerage, since they are of the lowest rank. Proteus (Talk) 23:47, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think that two peers in the Cabinet is the minimum (there has to be a Lord Chancellor and a Leader of the Lords), but it would seem that Mr Blair is trying to reduce even that small number to one, as I can't imagine he'd be in a hurry to appoint another peer as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs after Lord Falconer of Thoroton (if his reforms get through, that is, which seems unlikely at this point). There are a couple of peers in minor ministerial positions, but then he has to have some supporters in the Lords, I suppose. Proteus 20:35, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There were three, of course, before Lord Williams of Mostyn's death. As to your other point, sounds good to me. john 00:09, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Peers with the same title, ordinal and name, but different creation

.. copied from Lord Emsworth's talk page.

We have a problem of how to disambiguate the 1st two barons of each creation for Baron Foley. There will probably be many other similar instances. Mintguy (T) 10:36, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps make a notation for the first creation? Thomas Foley, 1st Baron Foley (I), or something to that effect. Mackensen 12:27, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Or even Thomas Foley, 1st Baron Foley (1st Creation). I think this should be discussed on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage. I'll copy this stuff to there. Mintguy (T)

Thomas Foley, 1st Baron Foley (1st Creation) sounds good to me. (I'm inclined to wonder whether it should be "creation", not "Creation", but I'm not familiar with Wikipedia capitalisation guidelines.) Proteus 17:20, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One only capitalises the first word in the title and any subsequent words that would normally be capitalised within a sentence (that is, proper nouns and adjectives.) Thus, the word "creation" would not be capitalised. -- Emsworth 17:47, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Was the locale of the two titles different? The current Lord Foley is Baron Foley of Kidderminster, according to Burke's. I think that's a better disambiguation, if possible. Only if that's not possible (as in the case of earldoms, for instance) should we go to the (1st creation) (2nd creation) route. john 18:12, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well I think they were, that's the problem. See [18]. This could be an error of course. Mintguy (T) 20:18, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In that case, "(1st creation)" or whatever seems like a good disambiguator. Or else you could just have both of them in the same article. john 21:12, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Companions of Honour

I know that the Order of Companions of Honour is not part of the Peerage, but does anybody have a list of current Companions of Honour, or members of other orders of chivalry not covered so far? Also, does anybody have a better image for Template:HonoursUK? -- Emsworth 22:11, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I looked through a few pages of google searches and didn't find any long, easy to copy lists of Companions of Honour, so I've taken the long route - use What Links Here and a Google search to individually find Companions of Honour. Feel free to add to my ever-growing list: User:Ugen64/Companions of Honour. ugen64 22:49, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Peerage Pages

The listing of peerages is becoming extremely intricate, and perhaps even messy. We have so far:

Does anyone have any ideas for simplification? -- Emsworth 00:04, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

I put the Earldoms in separate articles because putting them all in one page would make that page far too long.

I don't think simplification is necessary because the different types of articles all serve different purposes, and they're all useful for different things: the "Peerage" series would be most interesting if you wanted to know, for instance, who'd be in a reconstituted Irish House of Lords, the "List of Dukes" series is obviously useful for precedence, and the "List of Dukedoms" series is of (I think) great historical value.

I would recommend two things, though. Firstly, we need some form of guide or links page to the peerage articles, so that people know which one they want. Secondly, I think the "List of Dukes in order of precedence" articles should have their names simplified to "List of Dukes", as we're hardly likely to create articles listing them in any other way. Proteus 09:34, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that the proposal is acceptable, but the problem of the long page is solved by dividing the page into different sections. -- Emsworth 11:43, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

I've merged the articles into List of Earldoms and redirected them to there. Proteus 22:44, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've made a start on a List of Viscountcies, finished the English ones. Mackensen 01:55, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, not finished, since it only has extant viscountcies, for the most part, and those pages are supposed to have all titles created. (Oh, and Grandison is an Irish title)... john 02:13, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Commonly known as Lord ...

There are a number of articles on peers that state something like "commonly known as Lord ...." I don't like this. It's like saying John Smith is commonly known as Mr Smith. Anyone got any opinions? Mintguy (T) 08:54, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would agree. Every peer is commonly known as "the Lord ..." or "the Duke ..." -- Emsworth 11:42, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. A separate name should be used only when someone is known by a courtesy title, as in Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry, commonly known as Viscount Castlereagh. john 15:18, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Right, can we agree remove the superfluous instances of "commonly know as Lord ... " then? Mintguy (T)
Note that "Commonly known as..." is specifically used in legal documents in reference to courtesy peers,because courtesy peers are not substantively peers and there are times in law when the distinction must be drawn.It's confusing to use it for substantive peers as well.Sometimes a peer is more widely known by a title other than his formal highest title,such as the 2nd Marquess of Londonderry...what to do then?--Louis E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com
Hmm...but what about people who are "known as", say, lower substantive titles early in their career (as, for instance, Lord Danby/Carmarthen, who became Duke of Leeds), or by their given name (as Lord Henry Petty/3rd Marquess of Lansdowne)? How should that be explained? john 03:59, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry, (June 18, 1769 - August 12, 1822), known until 1821 by his courtesy title of Viscount Castlereagh... (Viscount Castlereagh) - I think that's how you'd explain it? ugen64 01:07, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Nobility

Can people please take a look at Nobility(talk:Nobility) User:Kenneth Alan is trying to introduce stupid anachronistic comparisons to US generals, the US president, and the middle classes. Mintguy (T) 09:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Life Peers

I find the current naming for life peers to be an utter nightmare. If X politician gets pushed up into the Lords then I strongly support the article being under the name they have always been known as - ie Jill Knight stays at Jill Knight, not Jill Knight, Baroness Knight of Foo. The baroness bit can stay in the first line but in a title it is a nightmare to link to. Secretlondon 11:17, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Isn't that the system in use at the moment? The only change I'd want to make would be to put people who weren't famous before their ennoblement, and so are only known by their peerages, at an article title that reflects this. If I came to Wikipedia for information on the current Lord Chancellor I'd be looking for "Lord Falconer" or "Lord Falconer of Thoroton" not "Charlie Falconer", and yet the last one of those is his current article title. I completely agree, though, that Betty Boothroyd, Sebastian Coe, Paddy Ashdown etc. should remain where they are. Proteus 11:44, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What Secretlondon refers to are only redirects at present. -- Emsworth 14:03, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Just as an aside (and to continue the discussion) friends of mine who are life peers tend to introduce themselves as 'Baroness ...' as opposed to 'Lady'. Similarly, another friend who was made a life peer last week (I move in such interesting circles!) has not chosen where she will be Baroness of as yet as she has to meet with Garter King of Arms, etc, although she still counts as a Peer. You then also have married names (as Peer) -v- kept-maiden-name (as MP) issues. --VampWillow 20:43, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

Some life peers introduce themselves as "Baroness Firstname Surname" (Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, I'm looking at you), so I'm not quite willing to accept their usage as automatically correct and proper. Also, just a small quibble: she doesn't "count" as a peer until she actually becomes one, which she doesn't until the Letters Patent making her one have been issued. Proteus (Talk) 20:55, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial Designations

I notice quite a few articles have included territorial designation which are not part of the formal peerage title. When a peer is made, they have to take a territorial designation but it is not necessarily part of their title - hence Baroness Thatcher, of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire. Some Peers do have a territorial designation in the title which is in addition to the one from which the title derives - eg Baron Young of Dartington, of Dartington in the County of Devon. Sometimes it's not the same - eg Baron Jenkins of Hillhead, of Pontypool in the County of Gwent.

Some of these 'after the comma' designations have been finding their way into articles. There is a case for mentioning them in the text if significant but not in the title. I have been correcting these as I find them but there may be more. Dbiv 00:06, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is certainly correct. john 00:25, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The "Thatcher of Kesteven" one is certainly the most common, and I think we've just about managed to eliminate it, but I've had several others crop up, including "Young of Farnworth", which someone actually reverted to after I corrected it, saying "there is more than one Baroness Young!". The only thing I can think of that might help would be a List of Life Peerages, complete with territorial additions, that we could refer people to. In fact, I might just go and make that. Proteus 20:51, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There we go. It could probably do with some links, but I'm tired and have to go to bed. Proteus 22:27, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is a duplication of list of life peers Mintguy (T)

Very good! I've been doing something very similar on my website at [19]. Dbiv 23:26, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A superb site is [20] which is invaluable not only for the territorial designations, but also the dates of the various creations. Andrew Yong 00:49, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

temporary fill-ins

filling in redirects for empty pages on holders of peerages; most users desire unspecific information atleast. replace with biographies as possible. Badanedwa 00:16, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

Spiritual Peers

Please take note of the question at Talk:Peerage. --Emsworth 15:17, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)~

Disclaimed peers

At the moment we have articles on

I guess to be consistent we would want to move the latter to Anthony Lambton?

Morwen 16:56, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

That seems sensible to me. (The other option, I suppose, would be Anthony Lambton, Viscount Lambton, but I'd rather not give him the courtesy title that isn't rightly his.) Proteus (Talk) 17:26, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Baronets

What do people think about compiling a List of Baronetcies? The necessary information is on Leigh Rayment's page already, and I'd be willing to have a go at it. I think the usual format for a peerage list would apply, except I'm not sure how one would name the individual articles. Let's take, for example, Sir Robert Peel's baronetcy:

Personally, I'd favor the first one, but I'm open to suggestions. Mackensen 14:54, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know. The first of those doesn't include the fact that it's a Baronetcy, which probably isn't helpful, and the second and third just seem as if they'd make it look like we didn't know the correct style of a Baronet. I seem to recall that the territorial aspect of a Baronetcy is rather informal, and doesn't appear on the Letters Patent - it's more of a general indication of where the first holder came from. Perhaps Peel Baronetcy (1800) or 1800 Peel Baronetcy would be more appropriate, but they both look rather odd, and I don't think I like the year appearing in the title. Perhaps Peel Baronets, with all three Peel Baronetcies on the same page, similar to the peerage lists. Actually, if we wanted different pages for each Baronetcy, Peel Baronets of Clanfield might be okay. (Whatever is used, I don't think the County should be included.) Proteus (Talk) 17:52, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd prefer Peel Baronets of Clanfield, since the only common thread with Peel Baronets would be the surname. That was my main concern, at any rate. Mackensen 18:53, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Would Peel of Clanfield Baronets or Peel Baronets of Clanfield be more appropriate? -- Emsworth 19:01, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
The former rolls off the tongue better, I think, but I'm unclear on the actual proper naming convention, if there is one. Mackensen 19:08, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Peel of Clanfield (baronet)? john 19:24, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think about it, I don't think including the territorial bit is a good idea at all, because they're never used. Whereas someone might come to Wikipedia looking for information on the Duke of Norfolk, no one is going to be looking for the Peel of Clanfield Baronets, because they'll just have heard of "Sir John Peel, 6th Bt" or whatever, and won't have the faintest idea what his territorial bit is. It'd be a bit like having a page at Baron Bloggs, of Newtown in the County of Kent. We'd end up having to have a page at Peel Baronets anyway just to direct people to the individual titles, so we might as well put all the information there to start with. Proteus (Talk) 19:37, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps indicate the territorial designation on the actual page then? (Baronets Peel of Clanfield (date)) Mackensen 19:52, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we certainly shouldn't ignore the territorial designation - I just don't think it's the sort of thing we want in the actual titles of the articles, because it would make them harder to find. Proteus (Talk) 20:01, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
How about [[Baronet Peel]], with [[Baronet Peel (1234)]] (year-based) disambiguation when needed, and just noting the territorial designation in the article text itself. I think that it should be [[Baronet [...]]] rather than [[Baronets [...]]], like we have [[Duke of Normany]] not [[Dukes of Normandy]] (though a redirect wouldn't go amiss); I know that they're somewhat different things, but it seems to me a more useful and sensible place to put the articles.
Of course, year-based disambiguation assumes that there has never been, and will never be, created two Baronetcies of the same surname in the same year. If there were, we could further disambiguate by month, then day, then hour, then... but it seems a little odd (and utterly inconsistent, of course ;-)).
James F. (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Baronet Peel looks very odd to me, as has the same problem as Baronet Peel of Clanfield in that it looks like we don't know what to call a Baronet and so have extrapolated the peerage naming system. As you can't talk about a Baronetcy in the same way as a peerage title (you can't say "he's the X", like you could say "he's the Duke of Norfolk" or "he's the Viscount Hereford"), there's nothing that can be compared to Duke of Norfolk as a format for an article title. When a line of Baronets is referred to, they are almost always called "the Surname Baronets", but you can't generally use that in the singular. (A Baronet can be "of the Peel Baronets", but he is not normally called "the Peel Baronet". No one is ever called "the Baronet Peel".) Thus, as there's no normal singular way of referring to a particular Baronetcy, Peer Baronets strikes me as the only sensible way of titling the article. Proteus (Talk) 20:41, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see two general options. We can have every baronetcy with its own page, or we can group by surname. I'm tending toward the latter, for simplicity's sake if nothing else. The page [[Peel Baronets]] would be subdivided thus:
  • Peel Baronets of Clanfield (1800)
  • Peel Baronets of Tyersall Hall (1897)
  • Peel Baronets of Eyworth (1936)
Mackensen 20:49, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds ideal to me. Proteus (Talk) 21:10, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Test article is up at Peel Baronets. Probably needs extensive reworking. The fact that there are six Sir Robert Peels complicates matters. Mackensen 01:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what should the policy be for naming articles on Baronets? Surely they bear more resemblance to hereditary Peers (whose titles are included) than to Knights (whose titles aren't included)? I always thought Knighthoods weren't included because they were generally awarded at the end of someone's life, but the same can't be said of Baronetcies. Perhaps Sir John Smith, 1st Baronet should be used for all of them. Proteus (Talk) 18:20, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me.
James F. (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I see no particular reason to do this. Use it for disambiguation, or for not very well known people, maybe, but it only makes for an unnecessarily long article title to do this for Robert Peel, or whoever. john 21:11, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think the number of the baronetcy should be noted somewhere in the article, but including it in the article name is perhaps unneeded (certainly in the case of Peel). Mackensen 22:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, having the first line say Sir Robert Peel, 2nd Baronet (1788-1850), or whatever, is fine with me. But the article should be at Robert Peel. john 02:03, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

But in non-famous cases (the greater part of them, I'd imagine), a good place to put would be at [[Forename Surname, nth Baronet]] - this would include the other 6 Robert Peel Baronets...
James F. (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Test - is this how I add comments to this page (or has my total lack of computer knowledge defeated me yet again)? ~~

Test number 2 Sea Lion

Well, hello Leigh. Mackensen 16:03, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Leigh! Nice to see you here! Proteus (Talk) 22:55, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if any of you frequent rec.heraldry, but Clan Akins has been mentioned there, and seems to be being abused slightly. I have no knowledge of Scottish clans, but thought that one of you might be more familiar with this topic than I am. I just thought someone in the know (or with specific knowledge of the history of this particular "Clan") might want to take a look at the article. Proteus (Talk) 22:55, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


I have read with interest the discussion above regarding baronets and, in particular, the discussion on a baronet's territorial designation. There is no doubt that most (but not all) patents of creation include the baronet's address, usually in words along the lines of ".......have erected appointed and created Our trusty and well beloved ---------- -------- of --------- in Our county of -------- Esquire to the dignity state and degree of a BARONET........"

It is my belief that the use of such a territorial designation (such as Peel of Clanfield) is a relatively modern innovation and therefore has no historical justification, unlike the territorial designations used in the peerage. As a body, baronets have been over the centuries very touchy and protective of their position, especially in regard to the necessity of differentiating their position from "mere" knights. When the Standing Council of the Baronetage was first established, one of its aims was to "clear it of all resemblance to Knighthood." Not until the establishment of the Standing Council was there any official steps taken to safeguard the status of the degree of baronet.

In 1910, following investigation by a Commission, a Royal Warrant was issued ordering that an official Roll of Baronets be compiled and kept and that no person whose name is not inscribed on the Roll should be received as a baronet or should be addressed by such title. At present, around 170 extant baronetcies are not listed in this Roll. It is my belief that it was solely for the purposes of convenience that the practice of adding a baronet's address was adopted when the official Roll was first established in 1910, when it was found necessary to differentiate between creations with the same surname, a practice which was adopted throughout the entire Roll. It is interesting to note that some of the territorial designations are quite meaningless - for example, when General William Birdwood was created a baronet in 1919, the territorial designation was given as Anzac - any Aussie and Kiwi will tell you that there is no such place as Anzac, it being an acronym for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps.

As to the style to be adopted in any articles on baronets, I feel that it should be "Sir Robert Peel, 2nd Baronet" (or Bt - but NEVER Bart). If there is potential confusion caused by two or more baronets with the same surname, perhaps it could be "Sir Robert Peel, 2nd Baronet (creation of 1800)"? It was largely to distinguish between baronets of the same surname that I included territorial designations in my listings in the first place. This is also the practice that seems to have been adopted over the years by Burke's Peerage - i.e. if there is a baronet who does not have a namesake, no territorial designation is given ; if there are two or more baronets with the same surname there is invariably an added "of ------" [Sea Lion]

I have a navbox query. What should the links be in the Navbox? My understanding is:

Template:PeerNavbox

Of course, Previous and Next can be null if this article is the first/last holder. Here's my problem:

Template:PeerNavbox


This Navbox is on Ernest Rutherford and links to Baron Rutherford, which is a non-article, recently vandalized. Shouldn't the link be Baron Rutherford so that on the Ernest Rutherford page it shows up as a non-link? Or is the idea that someone will create an article about the barony (which in this case would simply be Ernest Rutherford and so should not be a link anyway, but in other peers would be an article about the history and significance of the title)? - UtherSRG 12:28, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

PS: I've just created Template:PeerNavbox. - UtherSRG 12:36, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Members of the Wikipedia community (and especially those who contribute to this page) will be aware of my page at http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/. A number of people have been kind enough to say to me that they consider my page to be valuable to their work in this area. Although each of my pages has a copyright notice at the foot of the page, I am happy for the contents of my pages to be used,quoted or published by other people, PROVIDED THAT IN ALL SUCH CASES PROPER ATTRIBUTION/CREDIT IS GIVEN TO ME FOR MY WORK. I am however not prepared to accept wholesale breaches of my copyright - I stumbled across such a case yesterday and I am more than a little p*ssed off that this has occurred. I have added a post to the individual's talk page demanding that the offending pages be removed immediately. If this person had asked my permission to use my research prior to posting the offending pages, it would have been freely given, subject to proper attribution.

Some of you may be familiar with a practice long used by certain industries (especially by publishers of maps and street directories) of including, for example, a non-existent geographical feature on a map or a non-existent street in a street directory so as to be able to tell whether another company in a similar industry is merely stealing their work and passing it off as their own. Be aware that my pages follow a similar practice - somewhere in each page there is a hidden pointer which enables me to tell at a glance whether someone has stolen my work. In the case in point, the tell-tale deliberate error appears on the offending pages, something that would not happen if the owner of that page had done their own research instead of simply stealing mine. [Sea Lion]

I've posted your comments and responded at Wikipedia:Request_for_immediate_removal_of_copyright_violation. I'll say that while I'm not sure of the legal issues here, I'm somewhat dubious of your ability to copyright the material on your page. You can't copyright factual information, as far as I am aware. john k 03:51, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created {{Rayment}} for an easy cite of his pages. Mackensen 15:51, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
So far as copyright in lists is concerned, FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) seems to be a current bellweather judgement in the US, and contains a good discussion of the difference between the facts in a list, and the list as a creative expression. Mr. Raymont's listing of peerages or privy council memberships does, in my opinion, contain the bare minimum "originality" called for in copyright law: originality may be seen especially in the conjunction of the dates of ennoblement, and the birth and death dates, alongside the raw list of "this person sailed under this title". Despite this, IMO it *is* permissible to mine Mr. Raymont's site without attribution. It is IMO *not* permissible to copy his lists as they are currently composed; and so if the "infringing" page was simply a direct cut and paste, then we are banged to rights. IINAL, and I am a little concerned that since 1991 there may well have been nasty things of the ilk of DCMA which further encloses what was in the past in the public domain. --Tagishsimon

Peer titles without territorial designations

Whilst I perfectly understand and for the most part agree with the policy of not including territorial designation where they are not part of a peer's title, I do not like the fact that in many cases these territorial designations are been expunged from articles. I find it quite amusing and interesting for example the Jeffrey Archer is Baron Archer of Weston-Super-Mare and that John Birt is Baron Birt (of Liverpool), The former is in the title but the latter is not. I would like to see these territorial designations indicated somewhere, if not in the opening sentence of a peerage page. A particular reason for my desire for this is that I had some recent confusion over Baron Renton. The one who lives near me is Baron Renton of Mount Harry, he is almost always called Lord Renton in the local press etc.. When I created an article on him I was unaware of David Renton, Baron Renton and my research led me to write information about the latter on the page about the former. If Wikipedia is to be a useful resource then providing indicators of territorial designations will help prevent similar confusion by users of this site. What do people feel about this?

The territorial designations are listed on List of Life Peerages, if you want to find out what they are. I think it would be quite nice to have them in the text of an article, but not in the opening bit. For example: "John Smith, Baron Smith (born 1 January 1950) is a Labour life peer ... <about his early life> ... In 1998 he was created a life peer as Baron Smith, of Kensington in the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and was a Government whip in the House of Lords from 1999 until 2003." That would probably avoid confusion about the actual title, while still providing all the information possible. Proteus (Talk) 08:30, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A couple of issues

First of all, this page is 68 KB :). But that's a relative non-issue. First of all, I already asked Lord Emsworth, but what do I do with long titles? Eg. John Smith, 5th Duke of London, 4th Marquess of London, 4th Marquess Smith, 3rd Earl of London, 4th Earl of Cambridge, 2nd Earl Grey of Oxford, 5th Viscount Camden of London, 18th Viscount of London, 10th Baron London of London, 11th Baron Smith of Oxford, Knight of the Order of the Garter, Privy Councillor? What I've been doing is condensing into the following: Sir John Smith, 5th Duke of London at the beginning of the article, as Emsworth suggested, then putting that long verbose title somewhere in the middle of the page, like what was done at Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, but now I'm not so sure...

Also, what are the standards for position navboxes:

Preceded by:
The Earl of Wiltshire 		Lord Steward
1551-1553 		Followed by:
The Earl of Arundel

Specifically, what positions warrant a navbox? Right now, I've been doing the obvious (Secretaries of State, Great Officers of State, etc.), but do other positions (Lord Steward, Lord Chamberlain, etc.) warrant a box too? I r teh conf|_|$3d... although I have learned much about peerages writing articles about obscure people with long names :) ugen64 01:23, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I don't believe that it is correct to use "Sir" with peers. As to the positional navigation boxes, it was decided somewhere else (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Government) that the following officials warrant them:

  • Prime Ministers
  • Governors-General/ Viceroys/ Lord Lieutenants of Ireland
  • Chancellors of the Exchequer and of the Duchy of Lancaster
  • Secretaries of State
  • Great Officers of State (incl. Great Officers of Ireland)
  • Postmasters-General
  • Paymasters of the Forces
  • Secretaries at War
  • Attorneys-General
  • Masters-General of Ordnance
  • Commanders-in-Chief of the Forces and Captains-General
  • Chief Secretaries of Ireland
  • Masters of the Mint
  • Treasurers of the Navy
  • Presidents of the Poor Law Board, the Board of Trade, the Local Government Board, the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Education
  • First Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and First Commissioners of Works
  • Leaders of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons
  • Leaders of the main parties
  • Ministers of Health and other important ministers
  • Important judges (Lords Chief Justices, Masters of the Rolls)
  • First Ministers of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland
  • And finally, to answer what you asked: officers of the Royal Household (including Lord Chamberlains, Lord Stewards)

-- Emsworth 02:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I used the Sir mainly to indicate his knighthood, although I suppose The Rt. Hon. would have been more informative in this case... and thanks for that long and informative list of people in the British government :) ugen64 16:15, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Naming Convention for Law Life Peers

I know the convention is for hereditary peers to be given in the form Arthur Brian Culpeper, 4th Duke of Plaza Toro, and that life peers under the Life Peerages Act 1958 are just given their name. What about life peers under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876? I've just compiled a list of them, and there isn't general consistency. Dbiv 11:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, given that they are normally most famous for being Law Lords, I suppose Alfred Denning, Baron Denning would be most apt.
James F. (talk) 12:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
P.S.: Obviously the normal rules about most-commonly-known name still hold for at least the non-titular part (i.e., "James Brian Edward Hutton, Baron Hutton" would be "Brian Hutton, Baron Hutton", as it currently the case.
James F. (talk) 12:06, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Life peers under the 1958 Act are now John Smith, Baron Smith of London anyway (unless they are never known by their peerage, like Harold Wilson or Paddy Ashdown). Proteus (Talk) 12:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Categorizing Peers

Some odd things happen, the way we are categorizing peers right now. For example, at Category:Lord High Admirals, the Dukes of Exeter are listed backwards, because their first names happen to be ordered reversely. The way we have it, John Smith, 1st Baron Smith of London would be Category:Blah|Smith of London, John Smith, 1st Baron; something like Smith of London, 1st Baron, John Smith would work. It would be, unfortunately, a LOT of work if we adopted a new categorization scheme this late in the game... :-\ ugen64 23:06, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I believe it is standard bibliographic practice to use "Title, Forename Surname, xth Rank." The point is that after the title, the first name—not the ordinal—is the important component. -- Emsworth 23:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I think this is right. But I have another point, based on the name of this section. Should we divide the peers category into multiple categories? We could either do it by peerage (Category:Peers of England, Category:Peers of Scotland), by rank (Category:Dukes, Category:Earls), or by both (Category:Dukes of England, Category:Earls of Great Britain)...presumably, peers would be categorized by their highest title, rather than under all titles they held. john k 23:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How would you categorise individuals such as the Dukes of Richmond? -- Emsworth 23:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, if we just have Category:Dukes, I suppose they could go there. If we had it split up by peerage, presumably they'd go in all the places where this is appropriate...on the other hand, we might just put them with their highest rank. Thus, since the Duke of Richmond ranks as a Duke of England, he'd be categorized as such, even though he is also a Duke of Scotland and a Duke of the United Kingdom. john k 23:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been wondering about that for awhile. Category:Great Officers of State was just split, and it would probably be prudent to do the same for Category:Peers.

We could try: Category:Dukes, Category:Marquesses, Category:Earls, Category:Viscounts, Category:Barons, Category:Lords of Parliament, Category:Life Barons (or Life Peers), Category:Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. For good measure, we could add Category:British Princes or Category:Peers of the Blood Royal or some similar category. (Question: how should we deal with suo jure peeresses? The categories proposed do not seem gender-neutral, but Category:Barons and Baronesses and the like seem rather awkward. At the same time, Category:Baronesses would encourage the inclusion of peeresses by marriage. Category:''Suo jure'' Baronesses would accomplish the desired aim, but would be unrecognisable by some.) -- Emsworth 00:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's Category:Peers, not Category:Peers and Peeresses. Honestly, I don't thinkt here's a feasible way to get around the gender problem, without awkwardizing the whole thing. Even if the first Earl of Mornington had been a Countess of Mornington, we'd still put the article there. I think we have to, unfortunately, go with simply "Duke", "Marquess", etc. ugen64 04:00, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

While Category:Marquesses and Category:Earls probably work fine, Category:Dukes, Category:Viscounts (to an extent), and Category:Barons seem ambiguous - Should a Duke of Brunswick or a Duke of Orleans be listed in Category:Dukes, for instance? john k 05:38, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. We could split it into Category:Peerage Dukes, Category:Peerage Marquesses, Category:Peerage Earls, and so on, but that's not a little ugly. I think using the male versions of the terms is fine, personally.
James F. (talk) 14:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think I like Category:Peers of England etc., with each peer going in every Peerage he is in (so someone like the Duke of Richmond and Gordon would be in England, Scotland and the UK), which would also provide an easy way of seeing whether an Irish or Scottish peer had a seat in the British House of Lords. Proteus (Talk) 17:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggest we have, in addition to any other categories as may have been agreed upon, two separate categories for "Life Peers" and "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary" (or "Law Lords"); the rank is always baronial and the Peerage always of the United Kingdom. (I would suggest that life peers not created under the Life Peerages Act or Appellate Jurisdiction Act—eg. William Douglas, Duke of Hamilton—be categorised with hereditary peers.) -- Emsworth 19:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So: 

Category:Peers
|
+ - Category:Peers of the Blood Royal
|
+ - Category:Life Peers
|
+ - Category:Lords of Appeal in Ordinary
|
+ - Category:Peers of England
|   |
|   + - Category:Dukes of England
|   |
|   + - Category:Marquesses of England
|   |
|   + - Category:Earls of England
|   |
|   + - Category:Viscounts of England
|   |
|   + - Category:Barons of England
|
+ - Category:Peers of Scotland
|   |
|   + - Category:Dukes of Scotland
|   |
|   + - Category:Marquesses of Scotland
|   |
|   + - Category:Earls of Scotland
|   |
|   + - Category:Viscounts of Scotland
|   |
|   + - Category:Lords of Parliament
|
+ - Category:Peers of Ireland
|   |
|   + - Category:Dukes of Ireland
|   |
|   + - Category:Marquesses of Ireland
|   |
|   + - Category:Earls of Ireland
|   |
|   + - Category:Viscounts of Ireland
|   |
|   + - Category:Barons of Ireland
|
+ - Category:Peers of Great Britain
|   |
|   + - Category:Dukes of Great Britain
|   |
|   + - Category:Marquesses of Great Britain
|   |
|   + - Category:Earls of Great Britain
|   |
|   + - Category:Viscounts of Great Britain
|   |
|   + - Category:Barons of Great Britain
|
+ - Category:Peers of the United Kingdom
    |
    + - Category:Dukes of the United Kingdom
    |
    + - Category:Marquesses of the United Kingdom
    |
    + - Category:Earls of the United Kingdom
    |
    + - Category:Viscounts of the United Kingdom
    |
    + - Category:Barons of the United Kingdom

... yes?
James F. (talk) 19:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Would it be better if one uses, "Category:Dukes in the Peerage of Ireland," &c.? Category:Dukes of Ireland might lead to confusion with the Duke of Ireland. (On the other hand, there has only been one person to hold the Dukedom of Ireland—and he was later attainted. So this problem may be quite trivial.) -- Emsworth 20:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like James's suggestion, although I think that Category:Dukes of the United Kingdom Should be both in Category:Peers of the United Kingdom and Category:Dukes, or some such. I don't think the Duke of Ireland issue isn't particularly important (the Dukedom of Ireland was in the Peerage of England, though, right? So the Duke of Ireland was a Duke of England...). I also agree with Emsworth that Life Peers and Lords of Appeal in Ordinary should be their own categories, but I think these should be subcategories of Peers of the UK. I think Dukes of the Blood Royal should be used in addition to whatever the actual peerage category of said individual is. I would also suggest that for someone with titles in various peerages, we should put them in categories for a) their highest peerage; b) their highest peerage in the Peerage of England, Great Britain, or the UK, if different. That is to say, if someone is a Viscount in the Peerage of England and a Marquess in the Peerage of Great Britain (as, for instance, the Marquess of Bath), we should just put them in Category:Marquesses of Great Britain, rather than both that and Category:Viscounts of England...I could be persuaded that, say, the Marquess of Ailsa should also be in Category:Earls of Scotland as well as Category:Marquesses of the United Kingdom, but I'm not really sure about this. john k 23:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm worried that there will be too many categories on some pages (esp. royal peers). To take an extreme example, HRH The Prince of Wales would be: a Duke of the Blood Royal, a Duke of England, a Duke of Scotland, and a UK Prince (if the Principality of Wales is considered a peerage dignity). -- Emsworth 00:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, tons of people have that many categories...I also don't think "UK Princes" is a worthwhile category - although Category:Princes of Wales would likely be worthwhile... john k 02:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd be fine with it either way. Category:Peers has 939 articles at the moment, which is admittedly large, but would these smaller categories be useful for people accessing the encyclopedia (granted, that might be a dangerous question in our line of work)? Also, like John, I'm worried about crowding and confusion. A modern Duke of Hamilton is going to fit numerous cats, and for older ones we have to worry about when titles were created/inherited/attainted ad nauseum. This will be a lot of work. Mackensen 03:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, just making sure I've got everything correct. Earl of Oxford would belong to Category:Earls of England and Category:Earls of the United Kingdom, and Herbert Henry Asquith would now be a member of Category:Earls of the United Kingdom as well. Also, would Lords of Appeal in Ordinary be put in Category:Life Peers (or not, because the only reason they're a life peer is because of the Appelate Jurisdiction Act or whatever)? Additionally, we are putting people in the highest peerage they possess, if I am correct; someone who holds an Earldom in the Peerage of Scotland and a Viscountcy in the Peerage of Great Britain would go in Category:Earls of Scotland and Category:Viscounts of Great Britain, correct? Just clarifying some points... ugen64 02:56, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think that titles, like Earl of Oxford, would not go into these categories - only individual peers, not peerage titles, would go there. As to the rest, I'm not completely sure - it's so complicated. john k 03:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ugen, the category "Life Peers" was meant (at least by me) to include those life peers created under the Life Peerages Act 1958. I would imagine that Law Lords (created under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876) could go in only "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary," and not in "Life Peers."

I believe that, for peers with dignities in multiple peerages, only the highest rank overall could be listed. Thus, the Earl of Shrewsbury would be an English Earl, GB Earl and Irish Earl. But, for instance, the Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair would just be a Scottish Marquess, not also a UK Earl. -- Emsworth 10:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lists of life peers

I see that we now have three separate lists of life peers: List of Life Peerages, List of life baronies, and List of life peers. Each list has varying amounts of information. It seems to me that we ought to consolidate these three lists and come to agreement has to how much information such a list requires. There's little use in a separate status column; except in extremely rare cases the peerage is either extant or extinct. Notes is sufficient for hereditary peers who've gained life peerages or the rare cases where a life peerage is stripped (has that even happened yet, I know Archer kept his)?Since we're really listing people, not titles, I'd prefer a list like so: Mackensen 03:32, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Peer Date of Creation Date of Death Notes
Edward Shackleton, Baron Shackleton 1958 1994  

Update: I've finally noticed List of Law Life Peerages. We now have four lists with much the same information. I'm re-opening the floor for discussion on how to merge all these lists into one. I'd prefer the format above, with day and month eliminated for purposes of brevity and clarity. As for the permanent location of the list, I think List of life baronies would be the most accurate. Mackensen 06:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think Law Lords should be listed separately, as they have been created under the Appellate Jurisdictions Act of 1876, while other life peers were created under the Life Peerages Act of 1958. john k 15:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But I think they could still be listed on the same page, like we do on List of life baronies. Otherwise, I suppose we could keep list of life baronies (although perhaps with the refactoring I suggested), and List of Law Life Peerages. Mackensen 16:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we should keep List of Life Peerages and List of Law Life Peerages and create links to everyone in the "Name" column. (I think LPs are sufficiently commonly created to make exact dates and times of creation useful, and the territorial designations are sometimes useful as well.) Proteus (Talk) 17:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can live with that; could we at least merge either name and title or title and territorial designation? Mackensen 17:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We could merge title and ter. desig., I suppose, as long as we put the latter in italics to make it quite clear that it's not part of the title. (I think merging name and title would present problems with life peerages given to hereditary peers.) Proteus (Talk) 19:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"The" in courtesy titles

To quote from Valentine Heywood's British Titles - The Use and Misuse of the Titles of Peers and Commoners, with Some Historical Notes (published 1951), reproduced in part in Cracroft's Peerage:

The College of Arms, representing the Earl Marshal, I understand, holds that these prefixes [i.e. "The"], whether in full formal style or consisting of the definite article, should be applied only to actual peers and peeresses.  But various Lord Chamberlains, when consulted on this point, have ruled that their use is in order not only for the eldest sons of peers who bear courtesy peerage titles, but also for all children or grandchildren of peers entitled to prefix the courtesy style of Lord or Lady to their names.  This rule is followed by the Court Circular, an official publication, which you will find referring to "the Lady Herbert" (wife of a peer's eldest son) as being in attendance on the Duchess of Kent, and to "the Lady Constance Milnes-Gaskell" as attending Queen Mary.
But the Earl Marshal - who, it is claimed, is the higher authority in questions of dignity - holds otherwise, vide the Coronation ceremonial issued by him, in which "the" is omitted for all courtesy titles.  The Court Circular, it is argued, may be an official publication but it is not the official publication, because those who compile it are not the ultimate authority.  "The", maintains the College of Arms, indicates the person who holds the titles, just as you say "The Lord Mayor" or "The Bishop of Norwich".  The person who holds the title is the peer, not his son who is only so styled by courtesy.

I'm rather inclined to side with the Court Circular and the Lord Chamberlain of the Household in this matter, but my point is that at the moment we are half way between the two viewpoints, giving "The" to "Lord Firstname"s and "Lady Firstname"s but not to courtesy peers, which strikes me as rather inconsistent. (It also produces some odd-looking results, like "Succeeded by: Marquess of Lorne", which to any but someone familiar with the Peerage would look like a mistake.) I thought that the situation might have changed over the past few decades, but a few months ago the now Lord Lothian was referred to in the Court Circular as "the Earl of Ancram MP", so the present Lord Chamberlain seems to hold the same viewpoint as his predecessors have done for a long time. (The College of Arms's justification seems a little odd, as well, since they seem to have no objection to the definite article prefixed to "Honourable", which is just as much a courtesy title as "Lord Firstname".) I'd quite like for us to change our policy in this matter to include the definite article for everyone, and I'd be interested to hear what everyone else's views on the subject are. Proteus (Talk) 00:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From the more recent Burke's Peerage & Gentry:

The practice has revived in recent years of adding a 'The' to 'Lady' when referring to her in the third person (also to 'Lord' where he is a duke's or marquess's younger son). It emanates from Court Circles but is deprecated by some members of the College of Arms. This is on the understandable grounds that it not only encroaches on the definite article which more properly pertains to a full peer but also implicitly places in an inferior position not just the eldest son and heir of an earl, marquess or duke since he has no 'The' to his courtesy title but a Prince or Princess who is not a child of the sovereign since they too are not accorded a 'The'. But the practice may well commend itself inasmuch as it presumbly has the sanction of the Crown.

Thus, we do not seem to be the only persons who use this seemingly inconsistent rule on the definite article. On the other hand, from [21]:

Our second reservation is in the style advocated for some courtesy titles ~ the use of the definite article as in "The Lady Hermione Basketcase" instead of "Lady Hermione Basketcase". Apparently the Lord Chamberlain's office persists in the former usage, while the College of Arms does not, but there is no authority for the use of such a prefix and it is a pity that the New Burke's Peerage will appear to many to give such authority.

Sadly, there is no consensus on whether "the" should be used only for younger children, or for both eldest sons and other children, or for neither. -- Emsworth 00:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fake and Fictional peerages

We have Screaming Lord Sutch not Screaming Lord Sutch, 3rd Earl of Harrow which is what David Sutch legally changed his name to. However in this case he's best known without the Harrow bit, regardless of what right he has to it but there may be less well known individuals who cause problems.

And amongst fictional peers we have Lord Emsworth (not to be confused with the user by the same name), not Clarence Threepwood, 9th Earl of Emsworth. What standards should we adopt for handling articles about such characters? Timrollpickering 15:21, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I dispute that David Edward Sutch legally changed his name to "Screaming Lord Sutch, 3rd Earl of Harrow". No such name change was ever notified to the London Gazette, and if it was ever made privately by deed poll then that is beside the point as he did not use it on any official document. Unfortunately English law allows a person to use any name they want, so long as it is not for the purposes of fraud. Sutch always contested byelections using the names "Lord David Sutch" (which makes him the younger son of a fictional higher peer, if read literally - and demonstrates why one should not read jokes literally). Personally I would put his article at David Sutch on the grounds that it only encourages them. Unfortunately there is no article on Titus Groan nor Titus Groan, 77th Earl of Gormenghast, neither on Cedric Errol, ?th Earl of Dorincourt. Dbiv 03:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Law Lords

There is a move to rename the article on Lord Denning see:Talk:Alfred Denning, Baron Denning. Is there any guidence on how to name the pages for Law Lords? -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Years of peerages

I had been making some changes to some of the monarchy and peerage pages, changing the succession tables at the bottoms to use Template:Succession box et al, and James F. was wondering whether or not it is appropriate to include the years of the peerage in the succession box. His comment was, "Only slight hitch is that we don't generally use years for inherited offices like peerages and kingdoms," which he then followed by saying, "Having said that, actually, I started converting the kingdom ones to all use years a month ago."

So, is it appropriate to use years for monarchs where available (I think that it is)? If so, is it also appropriate to include years for peerages? --timc | Talk 13:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would think it unnecessary to mention the years in these cases. However, there is no argument against it, per se, unless one suggests that a lot of pages need to be changed! -- Emsworth 14:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have years for Kingdoms/Principality sucession boxes, as they're more of an office than just a title?
Obviously, the seperation breaks down when one goes back too far (to feudal times), but...
And we still split sucession boxes into three groupings - kingdoms, offices, and peerages, yes?
James F. (talk) 14:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that division of succession boxes still exists. -- Emsworth 14:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I must have missed something. What do you mean by a "division of succession boxes"? --timc | Talk 14:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Succession boxes for kingdoms, for peerages, and for offices do not all form one table. Instead, each category is grouped separately. See, for example, Clement Attlee. -- Emsworth 15:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mediaeval Royalty

Currently, most sons of the Plantagenet Kings of England are at their plain names (John of Gaunt, Edmund of Langley, Thomas of Woodstock, etc.), but they're at least some of the time known by their peerages (in this case, Duke of Lancaster, Duke of York and Duke of Gloucester). We then have the grandsons etc., most of whom are at "Name, Rank of Peerage" or "Name, Numeral Rank of Peerage" (with no apparent reason for the difference); Edward of Norwich, 2nd Duke of York, for instance, is at Edward, 2nd Duke of York (with a redirect from Edward, Duke of York), and Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge, is at Richard, Earl of Cambridge. Is this the way we want to do it? I know we don't use numerals for modern Princes, but their peerages don't normally last very long, and Royal peerages in mediaeval times regularly had several holders, so I'd prefer it if we had John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster and Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge, etc., for sons and grandsons, and Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York, when we start to get actual surnames with the great-grandsons of Kings. (This policy would also allow us to put the current Richard, Duke of York and Richard, Duke of York (Prince in the Tower) at Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York and Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York, with a disambig page at Richard, Duke of York, which seems more slick to me than the current situation.) Proteus (Talk) 08:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it would be best to name the mediæval Royal peers this way, yes, but I don't doubt that some will complain at our further departure from "most common name", especially for people very commonly known by their plain name, such as John of Gaunt.
James F. (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with this, either. john k 03:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recategorization

Just wanted to let everyone know that, given the absurdly large size of Category:Peers, I've (foolishly?) embarked on a mission to categorize all peers more specifically by rank and type of peerage. Thus, I've created Category:Peers of England, Category:Peers of Scotland, and so forth, as well as Category:British dukes and Category:British marquesses. At the intersection of these, I've created Category:Dukes in the Peerage of Ireland, Category:Marquesses in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and so forth. So far, I've gotten through dukes and marquesses. Any help in the task would be appreciated, though. john k 03:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've asked a relevant question on John's talk page. – ugen64 19:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honorific Prefixes

At the moment, we don't include The Right Honourable etc. for peers. This strikes me as problematic on two fronts:

  1. It's inconsistent with our policy on other honorific prefixes, i.e. "they should be included even when obvious (Popes, Sovereigns, etc.), because they form part of a person's full and formal name".
  2. People keep adding them, especially to life peers who have had them in the past as common members of the Privy Council, and it's very tiresome having to remove them constantly, especially when I can't see any good reason for doing so other than "common practice".

Therefore I'd suggest we include them for all peers. Proteus (Talk) 12:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Including dead peers? I don't particularly care either way, as long as it's defined one way or the other. What about post-nominals? – ugen64 19:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For both honorific prefixes and post-nominals, I'd be inclined to use both for those living in periods when they were used, which is effectively the last few centuries. Lord Nelson was certainly called "The Right Honourable The Lord Viscount Nelson, KB" in his lifetime, so I see no reason not them to use them for at least the 19th and 20th centuries. Certainly I think using them anachronistically is something we should avoid. Proteus (Talk) 21:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage&oldid=15779092"