User talk:Proteus/Archive 13

Victor Child Villiers, 7th Earl of Jersey

Dear Sir/Madam:

You changed the surname from Child-Villiers to Child Villiers (as you claim "there is no hyphenation"), however you neglected to do the same with other members of his family and relations (prior Earls), almost all of whom retain the hyphenated surname on Wikipedia in their text. There is a lack of consistency.

Yours, 216.194.4.200 14:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your new page, Earl Panmure

I believe that the page Earl Panmure should redirect to Earl of Panmure. However, I don't want to do this without your permission. So please reply below. In the future, please search Wikipedia before creating a new article. --Chaffers ^(talk)/_{(contributions)} 22:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Help on title issue

Dear Proteus I am new to Wiki and not at all sure if I can reach you this way, but please tell me how is the divorced wife of a younger son of a Duke or Marquis titled? What does "Lady Edward Smith" become upon divorce, is it "Katherine, Lady Edward Smith"? Obv it can't be "Lady Katherine Smith" as it would if his title were Mr. and not Lord.

Many thanks

Louise L

She stays "Lady Edward Smith" (like Lady Colin Campbell). Unfortunately there is no special form of address for them, but it's considered less crucial for these titles to be unique anyway. Sorry about the (possibly enormous) delay in answering, but I hadn't noticed this question up the top, and I don't know how long ago you asked it. Proteus (Talk) 22:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarity

Not sure what you're saying/trying to say here: "This table presents the situation from the Jacobite perspective, and so titles granted after 1689 by the de facto successors to King James II, whose authority was not recognised by Jacobites, are represented in inverted commas." Did you mean to say 'successors to the British throne after James II'? David Lauder 18:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sean Connery not a KBE?

Sean Connery seems to be a KBE, please check the following links:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Tekin 09:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

They are wrong. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And Wikipedia is not a source. Proteus (Talk) 10:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew_Lloyd_Webber

I note your last edit supra. While I certainly would remove Mr as you did I'm not aware of any precedent or wiki policy for generally adding Esq to all male names. While I can see a argument for adding them to say the eldest sons of baronets we probably ought to have a wider discussion on project peerages etc for something broader. Alci12 13:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd looked quickly at a few random articles and Esq. seemed the exception not the rule which is why I thought perhaps we needed some sort of collective decision for one or the other or indeed I supposed a policy of specific people we would add it to. Alci12 14:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alci12 that the addition of 'Esq.' in this instance is probably not a good idea. I really cannot see any mileage in promulgating the term, which has no contemporary currency as a 'title' (any more than 'Gentleman' or 'Mister' does) and will just lead to fruitless argument. As it happens, even under the somewhat ill-defined and now redundant rules governing esquireship, Lloyd Webber would not qualify, at least during his early life.... but this is exactly the kind of argument I was hoping to avoid! Flozu 18:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll happily post, if you think best, to project peerage so a consensus can be sought though I'm not sure that is really an ideal place for it to be settled but I can't think of anywhere better Alci12 10:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see we've lost another one

Looks like Phoe has had enough, not that I don't understand what with the constant battles. Been losing rather too many of recent sadly. Alci12 15:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Lord Reading

I see that you changed the full name given for the 1st Marquess of Reading from "Rufus Daniel Isaacs" to "Rufus Daniel Rufus Isaacs". What is the basis for this? I've never seen such a thing, and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography has "Rufus Daniel Isaacs." I'm going to remove the extra "rufus", but I thought I'd shoot you a note since you usually know what you're talking about. john k

Ah, I suppose. Personally, I think that later changes to surnames which were never really used should not be given particular prominence. Can we do Rufus Daniel Isaacs (later Rufus Isaacs), 1st Marquess of Reading? john k 23:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Question from a passing guest: Why not ask the Rufus Isaac's themselves? As far as I know the name Rufus Isaacs doesn't exist, Rufus was the 1st. Marquess' christian name and 'Rufus Isaacs' became a generic term during his lifetime and his descendants became known as such. Was it ever changed to a surname by law?

A query: why is The Lady Jacqueline very rarely mentioned? Wasn't she a World Champion Show-jumper in the 60's or 70's? You think the family would be bleeting that from the rooftops. She was also a photomodel in the 60's but I can't find any photos of her. Said to be a right cracker. I knew the Swedish Equestrian expert TV commentator, Anders Gernant, and he said she was part of his family, a lovely girl. He said she was disowned by all her family bar The Lady Stella, famed for starting the WVS . Disowned, what for? (According to Gernant for being human and enjoying life to the full. Destitute, she had to sponge off Lord Snowdon for a year before she got on her feet again, using the money from her modelling to start a boutique in Knightsbridge).

You may publish my www address, I've nothing to hide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.123.186 (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming

Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) where you will see we should use simple names when possible, and with both Jeffrey Archer and Sebastian Coe we are talking about people who are primarily known as a writer and an athlete and only secondarily as nobility. Also please note there is a clear consensus on the Jeffrey Archer talk page re calling the article Jeffrey Archer. Your refusal to engage in that discussion and your insistence on using anti-vandalism technology in order to label me a vandal while reverting fits in neither with your defiance of the Archer talk page consensus nor with the naming policies commonly used on wikipedia. It may be that because these people are Barons you are thinking that is the most important facet of them whereas in these 2 cases that is demonstrably not so. Please can you stop this pointless edit warring, SqueakBox 01:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me important that they are de facto ennobbled now. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well take it to the talk pages. I would agree in almost all cases but both htese chaps were well known before they became ennobled and we shopuld stick to the common usage, for which there is current consensus on the Archer page, SqueakBox 16:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

bad faith nomination?

Please see here where Kitty himself states that he forced the AfD and that it was not a bad faith nomination. Can you please now strike through that statement.--Vintagekits 13:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

that is fair enough and just goes to highlight who in this situation is really acting in bad faith.--Vintagekits 13:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Rt. Hon.", "Rt Hon", and "Rt Hon."

Hello.

I know I've run into you on this before, but it hasn't gone away and I'd like to solve it. I noticed you've been changing articles on Privy Councillors recently to read "Rt Hon." When we had our other talks about this a while back, the consensus seemed to be that either "Rt Hon" or "Rt. Hon." were correct, but that "Rt Hon." was an incorrect neologism based in the otherwise-valid British practice of putting full stops after abbreviations and leaving them out after contractions. Please tell me if and how I'm wrong on my talk page. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 07:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See this and this, both on my talk page. Thanks, -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 23:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yoghurt

I want to start out by saying I'm really sorry that this happened - I did my best to stop it, but sadly I have been overruled by 4 people who are obsessed with name changing (regardless of whether or not I agree with them), and there is a new debate on the Yoghurt talk page about the move - I just felt it would be best if most people who had voted in the past knew about this.danielfolsom 23:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Viscount Dillon

I note you have done much editing regarding nobility, peerage etc; so I am respectful of your views.

I was wondering why you have deleted my ditty for the pages of each viscount: Viscount Dillon, of Costello-Gallin in the County of Mayo, is a title in the Peerage of Ireland. It was created in 1622 for Theobald Dillon, Lord President of Connaught.

The question I ask myself when I read about any 'aristocrat' is 'Why are you a noble when I am not?. The answer lies with the first in the line. To remove this answer to is detract from the article in my humble/arrogant opinion.

The ditty has previously been removed on the grounds that if someone is that interested thay can find the information anyway. My answer is twofold (1) Don't assume every reader is as computer savy as you - you have destroyed a nugget knowledge that they might not be able to retrieve themselves (2) For a computer savy person: Why are you making him do this donkey work?

Obviously, if your reasons are different , please excuse this verbosity. Aatomic1 16:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please clear this up.

There is a discussion here that I would like you to have a look at. Its my understanding that this guy isnt actually a Baronet. He may or may not have the right to become one if it is proven but at the moment should not to titled as such - can I get your take on the situation please.--Vintagekits 13:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

Kind and respectful salutations, dear Madam. The article on Her Majesty the Queen Mother appears likely to be "featured" in the near future. In the past you have somewhat urgently (indeed, I hope you will forgive me, lovely lady, extremely rudely!) objected to Her Majesty the Queen Mother being referred to at birth as "The Honourable." And indeed to any member of the nobility being referred to for convenience or otherwise at every single remove other than by his or her full title of nobility. You may wish to weigh in on the discussion. One hopes that you can contain your oft-noted inclination (one is reluctant to say!) to incivility: one realises that matters of proper address for the British nobility are extremely dear to your (with all due respect) elderly female heart. It is such a pity that Swiss finishing schools, of the kind you doubtless attended and where you doubtless picked up your expertise on these important matters, are increasingly no more. We certainly need more ladies — whether elderly or otherwise — like yourself, dear lovely Madam. Masalai 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Rogue Admin

Please see my User talk:68.110.8.21 and User_talk:Akhilleus#WP:POINT.2C_WP:HOAX.2C_WP:PN.2C_WP:BIAS. Wikipedia seriously needs your help Proteus. Thanks. 68.110.8.21 03:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Lord Campbell of St Andrews

Isn't the territorial designation necessary? My understanding was that "Lord Campbell" was a title held by the Dukes of Argyll. john k 06:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but I've always seen him listed as "Baron Campbell of St Andrews." The ODNB listing, for instance, is "Campbell, John, first Baron Campbell of St Andrews (1779–1861), lord chancellor." What's your source? One of the peerage guides, I imagine? john k 13:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess (although, I will note, that "Baron Stratheden and Campbell" doesn't, I think, provide much evidence one way or the other - "Baron Stratheden and Campbell of St Andrews" is incredibly awkward, and presumably wouldn't be used even if it were technically correct.) john k 14:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Petty-Fitzmaurice

As far as I can tell, you are the one who moved all references to the surname of the marquesses of Lansdowne from "Fitzmaurice" to "FitzMaurice," a couple of years ago. As far as I can tell, this is simply wrong - every major reference work I can find spells the name "Fitzmaurice." I am remedying this. john k 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Hon. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

Dear lady, I am very well aware of how outrageous you find it and how exercised and irate you become when Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother is referred to as "The Hon. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" as to the four years between her birth and her father's accession to the Earldom of Strathmore and Kinghorne. I am surprised and disappointed that you did not enter the discussion when the article on the Queen Mother had featured status. Or have you perhaps conceded that point? It seems most unlikely in view of the vitriol with which you have expressed your opinion on this subject in the past, often quite taking leave of the ordinary canons of genteel and ladylike behaviour, so urgently do you feel these things. Kind and respectful regards, dear madam. Masalai 13:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

B-P

I am obviously confused on baronet vs. baron. Since you appear to be the subject matter expert here, could you elucidate a bit on this? Preferably on the B-P talk page, where we can all understand. Thanks, --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Earl Vane

Hello Proteus. I have a question which I thought you might be able to answer. Charles Stewart, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry was created Viscount Seaham and Earl Vane in 1823, with remainder to the male issue of his second marriage, and was succeeded in these titles by his eldest son from this marriage, George (later 5th Marquess). According to Wikipedia's own article on the latter and also according to Leigh Rayment, George was styled Viscount Seaham from 1823 until his succession in 1854. Is this correct? This despite the fact that he was a younger son and that his elder half-brother was styled Viscount Castlereagh at the same time (of course, he was heir apparent to the earldom through the special remainder, but this was not a substantive title). If this is correct it must have constituted a special case in the history of the Peerage (I can't think of a similar case). Your thoughts would be appreciated. Regards, Tryde 18:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add something about this to the Marquess of Londonderry article. Tryde 06:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSBIO: People known by a middle name

I have just re-opened discussion on this issue, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Revisiting_people_normally_known_by_their_middle_name. I am notifying you since you participated in an apparently inconclusive discussion on the same topic in January 2007.

Your thoughts would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Lord Guildford" vs simply Guildford

I have read the Wikipedia Naming Conventions "rules," including the subsection on Other Non-Royal Names, paragraph 6 on Courtesy Titles. I stand partially corrected. However, I feel compelled to reiterate that though Guildford Dudley may have been "universally recognized with" the title "Lord" during his lifetime, he is also today fully recognized and recognizable without it. As I noted on the article's Talk page, few modern writers of biographies and history texts refer to him as "Lord." The majority refer to him simply by his name. So the naming conventions are in this case disputable. If one adheres strictly to the wording of the Wikipedia Naming Conventions rules, the fact that he is NOT "unrecognizable without" the title "Lord" mitigates against including that honorific in the article title. But it makes no real difference to me in the end. Regardless of what Wikipedians do, I will continue to refer to him in my own work as simply "Guildford Dudley." But I'm one of those horrible Americans ... culturally averse to and Constitutionally barred from titles of nobility. PhD Historian 13:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For my opinion on the "correct" spelling of Guildford's name, please see the Talk page for the Lady Jane Grey article, discussion item number 21: Guilford or Guildford? My apologies for not embedding a direct link, but my expertise is in Tudor history, not computers. PhD Historian 23:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Lords

Okay, I can accept that I am wrong about some of the entries on the disambiguation page I created, but there certainly are other people who are commonly referred to as Lord Henry Percy, one being Hotspur and the other being Henry Percy, 6th Earl of Northumberland. If you google on Lord Henry Percy, these are the first two you come up with. Why could you not simply have put your Lord Henry Percy at Lord Henry Hugh Manvers Percy to make it clearer? Or even moved the disambiguation page to Lord Henry Percy (disambiguation)? Deb 19:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to compromise. I do appreciate it. Deb 17:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher

Please desist from reverting the edit made by User:Roger Davies at 12:39, 15 September 2007. What Roger has done is to put in a useful footnote and a few minor corrections. If you know of a good reason for the article to not have these, please explain your point on the talk page, instead of reverting.--Toddy1 20:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear Madam, are you up to your old tricks again? Tsk. It is precisely lovely that a dear lady of certain years participates as enthusiastically as you do in what most people would consider a young person's project, but you must try harder to empathise with the more usual run of participants in Wikipedia.Masalai 00:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)