Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Grey Cooper

The article on Grey Cooper MP (c. 1726 – 30 July 1801) says that "he assumed Baronetcy of Gogan in 1775", sourced to Venn's Alumni Cantabrigienses.

The unsual wording caught my eye, but the ref to Venn checks out. However, I cannot find any such entry in Leigh Rayment's list of baronets, neither under Cooper nor under Gogan.

Does anyone have any sources which would allow them to either expand the details of the baronetcy, or delete it as an error? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The entry from The Complete Baronetage on the supposed baronetcy of Couper of Gogar is reproduced here (about halfway down the page). Opera hat (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Looks murky to me: a claimed baronetcy where which no records exist. I'm not sure that I want to get stuck into the details, so I'll leave it be. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I would always take the position that unless we have good sourcing of the genuine nature of a title they must be treated as false. Indeed we should probably go further if we doubt the validity of the title leaving "he assumed Baronetcy of Gogan" without nothing the lack of official evidence for the titles existence would tend to give readers potentially false information. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford DNB (that is, the current edition) says: " In 1775 he assumed the baronetcy of the Coopers of Gogar, supposedly created in 1638, on the grounds that he was the great-grandson of the Revd James Cooper, brother of the second baronet, but both the title and his claim to it are disputed" (citing Complete Baronetage). This should be a sound source for the triple assertion:

• He called himself Sir Grey Cooper, Bart.
• Whether the baronetcy ever existed is doubtful.
• Whether he was heir to it (if it existed) is also doubtful.

(The principal reason for doubt is not the absence of evidence, unsurprising in Ireland on the eve of the Civil War, but that the Rev. James Cooper never appears to have used the title.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I follow your argument in parenthesis. The Royal Sign manuals used to create titles were not lost and post the restoration hereditary titles created during this period were recognised easily enough - though I would agree ordinary knighthoods were very poorly documented. Lack of use by one or many 'holders' doesn't seem material either way. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Even the Irish peerage is poorly documented, especially during the Interregnum; the Irish baronetage of 1638 must be intolerably poor (unless the patent survives) - and Cokayne's exact language is on the far side of the link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fiona Shackleton

Talk needs input from other editors re infobox title. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Baron Sinha

RFC on talk page. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There seem to have been two issues:

1. The House of Lords requires certificates of marriage (of the claimant's parents) and of birth. Neither were available in Bengal in the 1880s and a commission was sent out to enquire. All this is sourced; but birth and marriage certificates didn't exist in England in the 1440s either. When did the House first require them:?
2. The article claims that there was an issue that no offspring of a "potentially polygamous marriage" could be legitimate. It gives no source; is there one? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I remove the tag on the second item; I assume this to be a quotation for the proceedings in the peerage claim (which will be the source). I think the answer is that a potentially polygamous marriage contracted abroad was not recognised in English law.

You may well be right, but I am doubtful of the fact without a source; and we should not suppose a source none of us have seen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact there is an account of the peerage claim (which the article summarises) in "rayment", which is cited in the article. Obviously neither of us had checked that, so that we are both to blame. I expect that the proceedings are also reported in Hansard, but I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What the House of Lords requires is proof of pedigree. Among papers deposited by Baron Dudley with Worcestershire Record Office are a series of extracts from the Public Record Office, duly certified, which look as if they were obtained in connection with getting the title called out of abeyance. This included inquisitions Post Mortem, where a jury declared what land a person had; from whom held and by what tenure; and who was the heir. However this procedure disappeared with the abolition of feudal incidents during the Civil War. Since the introduction of Parish Registers in 1539, baptism and marriage records would have been available; indeed proof of pedigree was a reason for introducing registration. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

More or less what I expected - and my concern was that birth and marriage certificates cannot have been required before 1539, or indeed until a generation or so afterwards; can you set a precise date when proof of pedigree was required by the House of Lords as it was in this case? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Royal Marriages Act 1772

I'd be interested if anyone here has any thoughts on the question I asked a while ago on this article's talk page, concerning the Act's application to the suspended Dukedom of Albany. Proteus (Talk) 17:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/George Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll

The above FPC nomination has not received much attention- comments either way are appreciated, hopefully we can get a clear consensus. J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Epidemic error

I posted some remarks about the potential for the propagation of errors in Wikipedia, using the incorrect numbering of some of the early Earls of Liecester. My interest is how to deal with the general problem that this illustrates. Another Editor commented that I should note the actual error on this talk page. The link is Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Wikipedia Epidemic error Michael P. Barnett (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the root problem is that this, like many Wikipedia articles, has grown by accretion. The erroneous information was put in in 2004; the rest of the article has grown up around that. I'm sure people added references as they patched in additional pieces of information, and never cross-checked the entire article; for instance, Leigh Rayment's pages, which are referenced there, number the earls correctly. (I'm pretty sure he uses TCP, among other sources.) The secondary problem is that the numbering scheme is retrospectively imposed, and that inheritance of earldoms at that period didn't necessarily follow the absolute hereditary principles that have since been codified; see Earl of Pembroke for similar issues. But since, as you point out, there exists a satisfactory authority in The Complete Peerage, moving the Montforts to 1st and 2nd Earl instead of 5th and 6th seems a reasonable thing to do. Choess (talk)

Baron Latymer and Baron Latimer

From my talk page:

I noticed that this page Baron Latymer is linked to Baron Latimer -- Exactly what is the difference between Latymer and Latimer? If they are the same, why are there two different pages? Also, that would out the people whom are being claimed as the current de jure Barons on the Baron Latimer page (David Verney, 21st Baron Willoughby de Broke is being called the current de jure Baron) as the barony remained in abeyance after John Neville, the 4th Baron Latimer had no male heirs, until 1913, when the abeyance was terminated in favour of Francis Money-Coutts, who became the fifth Baron. He was the only son of the Reverend James Drummond Money and his wife Clara Maria Burdett, fourth daughter of Sir Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet, and claimed the peerage as a descendant of Frances, eldest daughter of the Hon. Lucy Neville, third daughter of the fourth Baron Latymer/Latimer. As of 2009, the title is held by the fifth Baron's great-great-grandson, the 9th Baron who succeeded his father in 2003.

The barony of Latimer/Latymer was handed to the Neville family, to George Nevill, 1st Baron Latymer who was summonded to Parliament as Baron Latimer in 1432. As stated, it went into abeyance after the 4th Baron Latimer.. could you explain this to me and if there is a huge mix up how can we fix it? I noticed that there was a huge addition made by User:Plucas58 and he seems to be the one who added most to all of the Barons Willoughby of Broke with NO sources, just tudorplace entries which say nothing about them being the de jure Barons of Latimer. The article doesn't even acknowledge that if the two baronies are the same, that in 1913 it was terminated in favor of Francis Money-Coutts, 5th Baron Latymer -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It was back in 2006 that Baron Latymer article was altered from a redirect to Baron Latimer to a page in its own right.[1] Could someone with more expertise on this name please have a look and see if the information on the two pages is correct. -- PBS (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Barony of Latimer was created by writ in 1290/1299. Elizabeth Latimer, only child of William Latimer, 4th Baron Latimer and suo jure Baroness Latimer, married as his second wife John Nevill, 3rd Baron Nevill. They had two children, a son John Nevill and a daughter Elizabeth, who married Sir Thomas Willoughby. John Nevill succeeded his mother as 6th Baron Latimer and died in 1430.[2] In 1431 his nephew of the half blood, George Nevill (son of Ralph Nevill, 1st Earl of Westmorland, son of the 3rd Baron Nevill by his first wife) was summoned to Parliament as Baron Latimer,[3] despite not being descended from the original Barons Latimer and despite the existence of issue from the marriage of Elizabeth Nevill and Thomas Willoughby. Thomas and Elizabeth's great-grandson Robert Willoughby was summoned as Baron Willoughby de Broke in 1491, and petitioned to be recognised as 9th Baron Latimer of the 1299 creation. The case was not continued after the Lords heard counsel for Richard Nevill, 2nd Baron Latimer of the 1431 creation. The claim to the 1299 creation went into abeyance on the death of Robert Willoughby, 2nd Baron Willoughby de Broke in 1521.[4] The 1431 creation became abeyant on the death of John Nevill, 4th Baron Latimer, in 1577.[5] Richard Verney was recognised as 11th Baron Willoughby de Broke (but not as 19th Baron Latimer) in 1696. The abeyance of the 1431 barony was terminated in favour of Francis Money-Coutts in 1913. The two titles would be distinct under modern understanding of peerage succession, but in 1431 were probably viewed as continuous. I wonder what argument caused the Lords to deny Lord Willoughby de Broke's claim - that the peerage was held by tenure? Opera hat (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

So they are seen as completely different now? On the Talk:Baron Willoughby de Broke page someone said "It makes perfect sense. You've just assumed (I don't know why) that the Baronies of Latimer and Latymer are the same. They're not." and then again on the Talk:Baron Latimer page the same person wrote "Erm, the difference is that they're different peerages. They just happen to have similar names."... and in response I put what you wrote here.. so I hate to sound blunt here -- but are they different or are they not, yes or no? -- Lady Meg (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But then so are seven different creations of the title Baron Bergavenny, even though practically speaking they're all the same peerage. Opera hat (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I gather here.. it is the same title only a new creation of Baron Latimer as it states 'NEVILL -- BARONS LATIMER', not Latymer, made for Sir George Nevill (Neville), son of Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland, by writ of summons dated 25 Febraury 1432 was summoned as Lord/Baron Latimer. "Memorable also is this Richard Lord Latimer for the dispute he had with Robert, Lord Broke touching the Barony of Latimer to which as next heir in blood to John Lord Latimer of Danby who died sp the 9th Henry VI he claimed a right But to end the contention the Lord Broke was informed by an herald that Sir George Nevill grandfather to Richard was created Lord Latimer by a new title which therefore lineally descended to Richard by Henry son and heir of the said George and that the Lord Broke had made a wrong claim who should have claimed his style from William Latimer first created Lord Latimer of Danby the head manor of his barony temp Edward L on this the Lord Broke perceiving his error and having a title of his own was contented to conclude a match between their children and Richard suffered a recovery on certain manors and lordships demanded by the Lord Broke in with which adjustment both parties were well satisfied-- BANKS." - from Burke Peerage -- Lady Meg (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Also found this -- Baron Latymer/Latimer and Leighrayment Peers and statement from Burke's Peerage which was written in 1838, before the abeyance was terminated in favour of Francis Money-Coutts in 1913 - "WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE BARON Henry Peyto Verney b 5th April 1773 inherited the title as eighth baron the decease of his brother 1st September 1820 and as heir general to the barony Latimer created by writ of summons December 1299 his lordship is by Lord Latimer although he has has not established his right m in March 1829 Margaret third daughter of Sir John Williams bart of Bodelwyddan" -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have asked user talk:Proteus to expand on his/her comment here. I have also User:Moonraker2 to expand on his/her comment here. -- PBS (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Moonraker2 replied on Talk:Baron Willoughby de Broke [6]:

See Banks's Baronia Anglica concentrata, vol. 1 (1844), p. 277, which distinguishes between "the ancient barony of Latimer" and "a new barony of Latimer". Moonraker2 (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It is necessary to start reading Banks's book a couple of pages before page 277, but I think it indicates that the pages should be combined and then sectioned off as is normal with more than one creation. Does anyone disagree?-- PBS (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't. But it is a bit tiresome that the article would have to be under the modern spelling Baron Latymer even though the original creation is always known as Baron Latimer. Opera hat (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking PBS. Why are there two separate pages when other baronies have one page, but divide the page into 'creations' -- like the Baron Cobham page. Can't we do a re-direct from Latimer to Latymer and then explain on the page? Is that a big no-no? -- Lady Meg (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Complete Peerage finds three baronies of Latimer; but they are all in the same family - and all three were (in the late Middle Ages) intended to be the same peerage (and GEC spells them all Latimer). They should be merged; one of them is still in abeyance; one is a subordinate title; and one is an active Barony. I will do so when I have time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

And a fourth, for a cousin, one of the peerages created (in modern law) by a single uprepeated summons in 1304. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment - I don't think there's much more I can add. The sources make it clear they're separate titles (regardless of what they were intended to be - the Peerage is full of things that aren't what they were intended to be). However, I don't see why they should be merged - one is "Latimer", and always has been, and one was "Latimer" and is now "Latymer" (titles changing spelling is also not that unusual). It would be bizarre to have the first at Baron Latymer when that spelling has apparently never been used for that title. A note at Baron Latimer that that spelling was once used to refer to the newer title should be sufficient. Proteus (Talk) 14:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Which one is now "Latymer"? CP uses Latimer for all four of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The 1432 one. See the Roll of the Peerage, for instance, where the heading is "LATYMER" and the current holder is described as "Crispin James Alan Neville Lord Latymer". Proteus (Talk) 18:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(PMA see Crispin James Alan Nevill Money-Coutts, 9th Baron Latymer and Baron Latymer) We have lots of family names and titles that change spelling over time, this not what usually differentiates and entry. I say put them all at Baron Latimer redirect Baron Latymer there and spell the more recent Latymers that way. -- PBS (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

But wouldn't that make Lord Latymer the only peer whose main title is not at its current spelling? Whatever it once was, the 1432 Barony of Latymer is currently undeniably spelt like that. It seems rather odd of us essentially to be implying "yes, but that's wrong". Proteus (Talk) 23:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This is presentism. At the moment, we are calling Catherine Parr's husband John Nevill, 3rd Baron Latymer. As far as I can see, every modern reliable source on the man himself calls him Lord Latimer - and many of them use Neville; our title is wrong. I therefore deny that the 1432 barony, which he held, is "currently spelt" with a y; it is currently spelt both ways - and we must decide. I propose to call the Money Coutts peers Latymer; most, but not all, sources do so (Complete Peerage does not so call any of them, having limited tolerance for Ye Olde English); but we are not more interested in the twentieth century than in the sixteenth. We are an encyclopedia, not a Court Circular. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The title for John Neville is wrong along with many others with the surname Nevill -- every book on Catherine Parr written so far states that his name is John Neville, Lord Latimer. See here for her latest biography by Linda Porter Katherine: the Queen (spelling for Katherine Parr is also off if one is going by her signature, totally different subject though). The same spelling of Neville, Lord Latimer is used in Alison Weir, Britain's Royal Family: A Complete Genealogy, page 154. The Francis Money Coutts Latymer is a new creation. I second deciding, and I would go with Neville, Lord Latimer which is what most sources say, I mean everything that needs to be said has been said. And FYI I think User:Moonraker2 has taken over and added "This barony should not be cponfused with the even older barony of Latimer." citing Banks's Baronia Anglica concentrata, vol. 1 (1844), to the Baron Latymer and Baron Latimer page. He has not been in on this discussion -- perhaps someone needs to enlighten him on what we have been discussing? He insists that the Willoughby creation still holds the title as de jure over on the Baron Latimer page even though it has been shown in this discussion that the new creation which went to George Nevill, 1st Baron Latymer was firmly invested upon him as the new Lord Latimer. And see *"Memorable is this Richard...." which discusses what actually happened with the barony and how the Willoughby's tried to claim the barony back in their favour but were denied. -- Lady Meg (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to this discussion. As to whether there should be more than one page for the baronies of Latimer, it clearly isn't essential, but having separate pages does at least remind us that it was possible for different creations of the same title to descend in different directions. My own view is that the Latimer titles were in effect different peerages: as I pointed out elsewhere, a rather similar mix-up in the Dacre family had the result that there were two Barons Dacre in parliament simultaneously. If that doesn't show that the same title can end up as more than one peerage, I don't know what can. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish to add that I do not understand the statement "User:Moonraker2... insists that the Willoughby creation still holds the title as de jure over on the Baron Latimer page even though it has been shown in this discussion that the new creation which went to George Nevill, 1st Baron Latymer was firmly invested upon him as the new Lord Latimer. " That may or may not prove to be correct, but I haven't said anything of the kind. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these have been separate titles, which have gone different directions; oddly, this is one reason I propose a single article, to provide a place to say that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I take your point, and the Dacre peerages don't suffer from being all together on one page. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes again

We need to sort out the infoboxes in articles like (to take one of many hundreds of examples) Michael Lord, where the information in the infobox concerns the subject's pre-peerage career (usually as an MP), yet the infobox templates we have ({{Infobox MP}} is a special case of {{Infobox officeholder}}) don't seem to offer a convenient way of including the information about his later peerage title in addition to the name he had as an MP. (It seems to be common, though obviously quite wrong, practice to simply head the MP infobox with the peerage title - I've tried to find an alternative to that at Lord's article.) Any ideas on how to resolve this neatly? --Kotniski (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

One way would be to use the biographical data rather than the office portion. Parameters could be added to {{Infobox officeholder}} for title, territorial designation, and date of creation. For instance, Oona King could have the following

|peerage=Baroness King of Bow
|territorial_designation=Bow in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets
|creation_date=26 January 2011

Thoughts? -Rrius (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be an excellent solution. How do you envisage this information being displayed in the rendered infobox?--Kotniski (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think all we'd have to do is ask at Template talk:Infobox officeholder. I guess it should be immediately after the nationality and citizenship parameters, but I'm not really sure. -Rrius (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Before those, I would have thought - they come in the general biographical sub-box at the bottom, whereas the peerage is equivalent to another "office" or Commons constituency, so should probably have its own sub-box (and since it seems to be practice to list the constituencies in chronological rather than reverse chronological order, the peerage sub-box ought to come after the constituency sub-box(es).--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it "quite wrong"? I don't think it's obviously incorrect to say, for example, "Lord Mandelson was member of parliament for Hartlepool from 1992 to 2004." john k (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, extremely sub-optimal, at least, given that infoboxes are supposed to convey the key information quickly and unambiguously. (I'd actually be happy to see no infobox, or much reduced information in them - do we really need to give successors and predecessors when we already have specialized templates for that at the end of the article? do we really need names of spouses in the infobox? or the fact that a British MP's nationality was British? - but if we're going to do it, we can't omit key information like the person's name, or assign names wrongly to periods in his career). --Kotniski (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Anne Cobham, wife of Edward 'Borough' Burgh, daughter of WHOM?

There is an issue with Anne Cobham who married Edward Borough Burgh, 2nd Baron Borough of Gainsborough. There is ONE source which states that the baron before her was Reginald Cobham, 5th Baron Cobham of Sterborough who married Anne Stafford, daughter of the 1st Duke of Buckingham. The rest of the sources state that his name was Thomas (whether he was baron or not, not entirely clear) and that Anne Cobham is his daughter to which the barony passed -- and I now have found a source which states his name was Thomas Reginald. Perhaps he was known by his middle name which is strange because according to Burke he had an elder brother named Reginald who was the father of Margaret, the 4th baron whose uncle [Thomas] inherited her properties. Topographical History of Surrey and Volume 4, Part 1 of the above Topographical History of Surreystates a Sir Thomas Cobham. Chronicles of England says that Thomas was the heir of his brother the 5th Baron. That Thomas married Anne Stafford and had daughter named Anne. Genealogical History by Burke states Anne Stafford married Thomas Cobham, son of Reginald, Lord Cobham of Sterborough. Topographer of Kent states Thomas Reginald Cobham, husband of Anne. Anyone want to do extensive research on this? There is also some talk about this on my talk page if anyone is interested. -- Lady Meg (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sir Reynold de Cobham, spelled "Reginald" by modern archaizers. His holding of the peerage (and arguably the peerage itself) is a modern legal fiction. (So saith Cockayne). Double names in the fifteenth century are a sign that your source ain't reliable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Cobham of Sterborough at Cracroft's Peerage, which I assume relies mostly on Cokayne. Opera hat (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Thomas Cobham, 5th Baron Cobham -- PBS (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Life peer stubs

I have proposed creating a new stub type for life peers: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2011/February#Life-peer-stub, where your comments would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation Template?

I was trying to clean up an older, orphaned article without inline citations. One of the sources is thepeerage.com. Isn't there a source-specific template for this site? I thought there was one but can't find it. Did it get deleted? I'll just use the web citation template if I can't find it, but I think the source-specific template is better for consistency. Do we have a list of citation templates anywhere? How out of date is the List of Possible Sources on the project page? Thanks for any pointers. Edited to add: I found four templates for Genealogics; perhaps that's what I was thinking of? The "name" one is here: [7] and the others can be found by searching the Template namespace. I also found a category called British peerage templates but it does not include any citation templates. Laura1822 (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Baron according to modern doctrine, but who was never so styled

See Cokayne, George Edward, ed. (1913). Complete peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, extant, extinct or dormant (Canonteign to Cutts). Vol. 3. London: The St. Catherine Press, ltd. p. 353-355.

There is an entry for COBHAM (of Sterborough) Baron by writ 1347

• I. 1347 1. Reynold de Cobham, of Sterborough, C') in Lingfield, Surrey
• II. 1361. 2. Reynold (de Cobham), Lord Cobham, only s. and h., b. 1348, being aged 13 at his father's death,

[After (1372) 46 Edw. III no writ of summons was issued to any members of the family. Presuming the writ of 1347 to have established an hereditary dignity, those that would have been entitled thereto are as under.]

• III. 1403. 3. Sir Reynold de Cobham, of Sterborough Castle, apparently, according to modern doctrine. Lord Cobham, but who was never so styled, 2nd() but 1st surv. s. and h. by 2nd wife. He was b. 1381 ...
• IV. 1446. 4. Margaret, Countess of Westmorland, and apparently, according to modern doctrine, Baroness Cobham, granddaughter and h., being da. and h. of Sir Reynold de Cobham
• V. 1460? 5. Sir Reynold de Cobham, of Sterborough Castle, apparently, according to modern doctrine. Lord Cobham, but never so styled, uncle and h., being 2nd but 1st surv. s. and h. of Sir Reynold de C, by his ist wife, Eleanor
• VI. 1471. 6. Anne Cobham, apparently, according to modern doctrine. Baroness Cobham, only da. and h.

1) Given that 3rd to 6th Barons/Baronesses of Cobham were "apparently, according to modern doctrine. Lord Cobham, but who was never so styled" Or in the language of Wikipedia articles like Thomas Cobham, 5th Baron Cobham de jure (but not de facto), What article titles should we give to the 3rd to 6th Barons of Cobham? (see also Baron Cobham).

2) But also how should the content of articles be addressed for de jure? as in articles linked to by these pages Baron Latimer, and Baron Burgh? -- PBS (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A fascinating question. One consideration is that the modern legal fiction is often our only reason to mention the Anne Cobhams of the medieval world, much less have articles on them (and some of the modern legal fictions have extraordinary consequences; Baron Strabolgi should say so). On the other hand, we should make as clear as Cockayne does that her contemporaries never called her Baroness Cobham, or we are spreading misinformation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We generally don't use de jure peerages in article titles. Those de jure Earls of Devon who have articles, for instance, are not referred to as such in the article titles, and the 1st Baron Brooke is not referred to in the article title by either of his de jure peerages. If someone was not recognised as a peer in their lifetime, we should always make that fact as clear as possible. Proteus (Talk) 23:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds sensible to me. Bolstering an anachronism doesn't sound like a terribly good idea. -Rrius (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Even if people legally did hold the title, if they didn't use it or weren't known by it, then it shouldn't be part of the article title. See also the 7th and 8th Earl of Annandale and Hartfell, who both sat in the House of Commons during the time they are now recognised to have been peers. Opera hat (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we sure that "de jure" is warranted for each of the uses at Baron Strabogli? Thomas clearly inherited, but didn't bother proving it, so I can see how it might be warranted there. Are we sure none of his heirs did before the abeyance in 1602? Is there a source? I ask because this is not like the situation where there is some doubt about the title and the lineage is only established generations later. His father held the title, but wasn't summoned because he was, apparently, insane. -Rrius (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we leave aside the specific case Baron Strabogli if you think it is questionable and just concentrate on cases were it is clear cut so that we don't get sidetracked? -- PBS (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The real problem with Strabolgi is that there is a reliably-sourced case that there never was any such title before it was "drawn out of abeyance" in 1916. It should be rewritten from scratch to include this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

So far we seem be agreed that an article title like Thomas Cobham, 5th Baron Cobham should not contain "5th Baron Cobham" (so this one will need moving). Should redirect exist?

What about the first line in articles like Thomas Cobham, 5th Baron Cobham, Robert Willoughby, 1st Baron Willoughby de Broke because in both cases the de jure title is mentioned in the first sentence of the article I think that it is likely to mislead people. I would suggest that such titles are either placed into a footnote or into a specific section towards the end of the article. What do others think? So example Robert Willoughby, 1st Baron Willoughby de Broke would change from:

Robert Willoughby, 1st Baron Willoughby de Broke, de jure 9th Baron Latimer (c.1452 – 23 August 1502)

to:

Robert Willoughby, 1st Baron Willoughby de Broke (c.1452 – 23 August 1502).

Notes

Not the best example, as the 1st Baron Willoughby de Broke did actually claim to be Baron Latimer (see above) - but as a general format, yes. Opera hat (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the de jure title should be in the prose but not in the restatement of the title; I'm thinking something like "He was also de jure Baron Foo, but....". I have no opinion on whether the title needs to be in bold, but that might be something we should think about. -Rrius (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Or is heir general, as many sources say. To assert de jure of something which has not be litigated is iffy (the Willoughby-Neville case decided a different question). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

We do actually have an example where "de jure" is in the article title: see Baron Hylton. Choess (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Two of them; one of the subjects was an MP during most of his "de jure peerage". If nobody objects - or forestalls me - I will put this on my to-do list. If I recall Cockayne correctly, there was another "de jure peer" who was Speaker of the House of Commons; I hope we do not call his article Baron X, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this will help but I thought I would put it in -- Corrections and Additions to The Complete Peerage: Volume 3, page 355, as corrected in volume 14. So Fyi. Also, if you are thinking of removing the de jure, why are we keeping that on the Baron Willoughby de Broke page for EVERY single person?! It should be stated on their page, not on the Willoughby de Broke page -- that is not the actual title of the article or person. -- Lady Meg (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? Because nobody has gotten around to removing it yet. Feel free to do so; I won't get around to it for a while, since I'm doing the Latimers first.

Btw, do you happen to know the exact relationship of John Willoughby "7th Baron Latimer", to the Lords Willoughby de Eresby? I'm sure it can be dug up from Cockayne if you don't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well the last time I tried to take off the de jure Baron Latimer someone went and put it all back up again. I can do it then. Thanks for helping with the Latimer ordeal. I just wanted to make sure before I did anything.

As for the relationship to John Willoughby "7th Baron Latimer" to the Lords Willoughby of Eresby.. the 7th Baron Latimer was the grandson of the 4th Baron Willoughby of Eresby through the 4th Baron's son Sir Thomas Willoughby from his previous wife. Thomas Willoughby's brother became William Willoughby, 5th Baron Willoughby of Eresby. The 7th Baron married Elizabeth Neville, daughter of John Neville, 3rd Baron Neville de Raby (father of Ralph de Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland by his first wife Maud Percy) and his second wife - Elizabeth Latimer, suo jure Baroness Latimer, daughter of William Latimer, 4th Baron Latimer of Corby. John Neville, 3rd Baron Neville and Elizabeth Latimer's son was the '6th Baron Latimer'. The barony was then passed to their daughter Elizabeth Neville, Baroness Latimer. Elizabeth Latimer married secondly the 7th Baron Latimer's grandfather, Sir Robert, 4th Baron Willoughby of Eresby and had a daughter, Margery, who had no issue. Therefore the Barony passed de jure to Sir John Willoughby, 8th Baron Latimer.

It is through the Earl of Westmorland that the 'new' creation of Baron Latimer was created for his son, George Neville, by his second wife, Lady Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland. George Neville was created 1st Lord Latimer [England] on 25 February 1431/32. Perhaps because she was the legitimized daughter of a Prince and granddaughter of a King because now that I look at it the heir to Elizabeth Latimer was/should have been her daughter Elizabeth Neville and family after Lady Latimer's son Sir John, the 6th Baron died. Genealogy is tough with the aristocracy and royalty as they were always intermarrying so things must have gotten mixed up?

Sources:

• Plantagenet ancestry: a study in colonial and medieval families by Douglas Richardson, Kimball G. Everingham
• Magna Carta ancestry: a study in colonial and medieval families by Douglas Richardson, Kimball G. Everingham
• Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, 106th edition, 2 volumes (Crans, Switzerland: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 1999), volume 1, page 14.
• G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), volume XII/2, page 660.

I also had a question --I know this has been squashed-- If the Earl's of Atholl claimed the title why are they not named as such? Most books continue the naming of them as 11th, 12th, until the 12th Earl had two daughters. They also continue calling them Baron Strathbogie, not Baron Strabolgi which is listed on Wikipedia, until the 3rd Baron (12th Earl of Atholl). See: Magna Carta Earl of Atholl; The Peerage.com; Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, p. 51. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Meg (talk • contribs) 00:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

See Complete Peerage on Strabolgi, at some length. They hold, repeatedly, that there never was any such title; the record of attendance at the English Parliament is a misplaced leaf from another document entirely. The later Earls of Atholl never claimed the title at all (its hypothetical creation was a century or more before the concept of a hereditary right to a writ). Strabolgi is a period spelling of "Strathbogie" (not surprising, considering what the clerks did with so simple a name as Latimer).

The Burghs were never Barons Strabolgi in reality - as opposed to legal fiction. If Henry VII had summoned a title out of abeyance for the father(in itself an anachronism), neither he nor his son after him would have sat in the Commons; nor would the son have been created Baron Burgh.

What really happened is an eighteenth-century gentleman died, leaving three titles and four daughters. All the titles went into abeyance, until in the early twentieth century the co-heirs petitioned that they be shared out: one for each of three, and the representation of this spurious barony for the fourth co-heir, who was Kenworthy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

@Meg, Strathbogie is the name of a lordship lying to the west of Garioch and Buchan, to the south-east of Moray proper. The Strathbogies were Macduffs from Fife, and the lordship of Strathbogie was obtained in in the Greater Moray region in the aftermath of the MacWilliam revolts of the late 12th/early 13th centuries. They obtained the Atholl title through marriage, but later lost it. Strathbogie never got attached to the earldom of Atholl. There is no Scottish peerage system until the 15th century, so titles to baronial level lordship would never have that importance. The lordship of Strathbogie was acquired by the Gordon family, English-speaking service barons of the Randolph earls of Moray. They were barons of Gordon and Huntly in the Scottish Borders region. Strathbogie got renamed Huntly in later centuries (though only in English I think, as the former Gaelic speakers of the region still called it Srath Bhalgaidh in recent times), for which see Earl of Huntly. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

We are not discussing any Scottish barony, much less a Scottish Lordship of Parliament. David of Strathbogie, Earl of Atholl, visited London and was duly recorded in the English records as dominus Strabolgi, which he was. By a series of misunderstandings, possibly unintentional, this has become the basis for an English Peerage, the ninth most senior Barony; a state of affairs clearly annoying to those who have inherited Baronies which actually existed (whatever this means for 1318). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

overly broad external links

Numerous articles have recently been adorned with links to Cracroft's Peerage, Leigh Rayment and thepeerage.com— none of which, you'll note, is a direct link to a page with any useful content. Cracroft's front page is six clicks away from content if you're aware of the difference between E/S/GB/I/UK peerages and know which one you want, several more if you don't. On thepeerage.com it's not so easy. Why provide such links at all?

Cracroft uses frames, so it may be an honest mistake to copy from the address bar without noticing that it is the address of the outermost frame. Now that you know better, right-click the content, choose "show only this frame" (in Firefox; presumably it's similar in other well-behaved browsers), and then get the address.

On thepeerage.com there are (I believe) no pages on titles, so why is that site linked from articles on titles? —Tamfang (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Dukes of Hamilton & the Earldom of Cambridge

I would be grateful for input at Talk:Duke of Hamilton. There is a dispute over whether the Dukes of Hamilton are still Earls of Cambridge in the Peerage of England. Proteus (Talk) 11:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

More input is needed at Duke of Hamilton, I'm afraid. Brendandh seems to have appointed himself the owner of this article. He refuses to cite any sources (despite the fact that I've now cited pretty much every aspect of this article), and simply declares anything he doesn't agree with wrong. (Apparently he's a member of the family, and so simply knows better than everyone else, including all the sources going back to the 18th century.) I'm not going to engage in an edit war with him, and would be grateful if someone else could cast an eye on this article and try to solve the problem. Proteus (Talk) 18:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Huntingdon Peerage

I've downloaded and started reading this book, which is a detailed account of the restoration of the Huntingdon Earldom after it fell dormant for 30 years. Essentially, when the 10th Earl died, the title went dormant until the man who was confirmed as the 12th Earl, a distant relative, came forward with a comprehensive and persuasive proof that he was the leigimate claimant.

The book is meticulous in detail, but somewhat tedious in part, as it consists of long recitations of the documentation required to prove that all the other potential claimants were deceased. I was surprised to find that we don't even have an entry on the 12th Earl.

I'm interested in input as to what other sources I might look for in writing that entry from scratch.

Further discussion should probably be at the talk page for the Earl of Huntingdon. I am posting this notice there as well, but thought I might get more experienced people interested by posting here as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Greens of Green Norton

We have a discrepancy with the lineage of Maud Green, daughter of Sir Thomas Green and Joan Fogge. I have two links here and a picture taken by an amateur, I'm guessing in the church where the Green's are buried, in St. Bartholowew's in Northamptonshire. If you scroll to the bottom of this book, to the Pedigree of Boughton you will find that an added generation of Sir Thomas Greene and Marina Bellers is added. I had my doubts about this before, but there are so many different versions of this pedigree as you will see here by Burke; there is no Sir Thomas and Marina Bellers. This amateur picture shows the pedigree of Sir Thomas Greene and in it there is a Sir Thomas Greene who marries Marina Beler in between Sir Thomas and Matilda Throckmorton and Sir Thomas and Joan Fogge. Would anyone happen to know the correct lineage as it would be off on quite a few pages, ie Catherine Parr, her mother, grandfather, and siblings page. Either way the lineage is correct on the paternal side, because it goes on to the right ancestors upon the next generation back - whether or not there is a Thomas and Marina Beler (meaning Sir Thomas and Matilda Throckmorton are either the parents or grandparents of the Sir Thomas who married Joan Fogge); but my question is, is there a generation missing? Hopefully someone will understand what I'm trying to convey here. I have already researched this over and over, but I just found that picture today and started to doubt what I had read on other sites and books. -- Lady Meg (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Beecham peer review

Thomas Beecham is having a peer review here. Comments are very much appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Research project

I am doing a research project to gather data on all the articles on the current members of the House of Lords. Starting with the letter 'A', I have some very preliminary results that I wanted to share.

Infoboxes - much variability. 1 has Infobox Peer. 4 have Infobox MP. 3 have Infobox Officeholder. 4 have Infobox Politician. 1 has Infobox Speaker. 7 have no Infobox.

Titles - as one might expect, the vast majority of articles are at the appropriate title. Of the two so far which aren't, one most likely does fit one of our "exceptions" (Jeffrey Archer).

Dates - in some cases we list the exact date of elevation to the peerage, in other cases only the year.

What I'd like to do is continue the project of data gathering rather than opening up a discussion on the substantive issues. My goal is to drive for consistency in both Infoboxes and article titles, to the maximum degree possible. Today's question for you, my esteemed colleagues, is "what other data should I be gathering"?

--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Jimbo. If the aim of this project is to achieve consistency in article titles and in infoboxes "to the maximum degeee possible", then the consistency in the article titles is the easy part of the project and the consistency in the infoboxes is the difficult part. You will need to look at all of the detailed information which is included (or not included) in the infoboxes — and that exercise might be quite messy, given your initial finding that there is such a dismally low usage of the 'Infobox Peer' template (the use of which I suppose is part of the consistency which is aimed at) and such a high usage of the wrong infobox and of no infobox! I wonder, would it be more fruitful to begin with a drive to instal 'Infobox Peer' in all 792 articles, or else in all articles in a certain alphabetical range of them, before proceeding? I am supposing that those with seats in the Lords all now have articles. If not, that would be another aim of the consistency drive, no doubt. Moonraker2 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

@moonraker2, I would suggest that in general the infobox used should be that which relates most closely to what the person is notable for. So for example, Michael Martin should continue to use {{Infobox Speaker}}.

@Jimbo, in terms of data-gathering, I think that the most important info is not the formatting issues such as infobox or title, but content. A significant number of articles on peers who were not previously MPs are miserable little stubs, and it would really help to have some sort of assessment of the quality of peerage articles. I recently proposed the creation of {{Life-peer-stub}}, and it and Category:Life peer stubs have now been created. The category has not yet been properly populated, but as it is populated it will start to give us a bit of that picture.

I know that your chosen focus is consistency of presentation, and if that's still the case might you be better to concentrate on those articles which do have something substantive to present? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

About the infoboxes (a subject I've raised here before), we should cover the subject's full notable career, using either one infobox that can handle everything (the solution I would prefer, though I'm not sure there currently exists such a template), or a series of applicable infoboxes. Many peers currently have the unhelpful and misleading solution of having the peer's form of address at the top, followed by information about their Commons career - omitting the information about the peerage (the actual title and when they were raised to it), while implying to the uninitiated that they were called Lord this-and-that when they sat in the Commons (or held whatever other offices they had before the peerage). Another thing (though not relevant to peers especially) is that infoboxes often contain excessive information about predecessors and successors in posts and seats, which duplicates the succession boxes that we come - more appropriately - at the bottom of the article.--Kotniski (talk) 09:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what BrownHairedGirl says about using the infobox "which relates most closely to what the person is notable for". The project's aim at consistency in infoboxes "to the maximum degeee possible" may even call for more consistency between infoboxes. The two main ones needed for the present members of the House of Lords are probably 'Infobox Peer' and 'Infobox MP', but I may be wrong. NB, there is a debate going on about reforming the House of Lords — in a few years' time, its members may be mostly (or even all) elected. Moonraker2 (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, apologies for the delay in responding, as I have been busy with other things. There are many good ideas up above and I'm happy to see that we're all more or less in agreement on the fundamentals.

1. First, Moonraker2, I fear that you are optimistic about consistency of titles of articles being the easy part. There is an easy solution: rename all of the articles to match the peerage title convention, but this will be fought tooth-and-nail by some, and perhaps most especially by people who have no interest in our little corner of Wikipedia. (To phrase it negatively for us: some would argue that only peerage buffs think the articles should be named in this way.)
2. Second, BrownHairedGirl, it sounds like my data gathering project could also involve adding the stub categories. I don't have much experience with adding stub categories, but I suppose it is up to us how we want to do it. What's the definition of stub that I should use on a first pass?
3. Third, Kotniski, I agree with you completely on everything you said. I am particularly intrigued by the idea of "one infobox that can handle everything", although I'm so far from an expert on templates that I'm not sure how difficult that will be. Once I have a good handle on which infoboxes are currently in use, we might have a discussion about how to upgrade Infobox Peer to at least handle the main cases. (I suspect that a few peers, particularly those from the entertainment sector like Lord Webber, who currently has the very broad Infobox Person, will be difficult to fit into the mold.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Lord Desai

What is the correct title for the article on Meghnad Desai? The current one doesn't sound right, even though there is a redirect. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NCPEER. The current article title of Meghnad Desai, Baron Desai is correct unless there is consensus that Desai falls into one of the narrow categories of exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK then. He seems a bit like someone known by his real name before elevation to peerage, but maybe it's only a few oddballs like me who have heard of him in his academic capacity. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Aside from his academic career, he did have a a following in Labour circles before his ennoblement, but he has held the peerage for 20 years and has at times been quite active in the Lords. --00:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This all assumes that what NCPEER says is "correct" - but the fact that a title it produces "doesn't sound right" to someone who knows about the subject is perhaps more evidence (if more were needed) that we currently handle the article titles of life peers in a suboptimal way.--Kotniski (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

However, I take on board what BHG says. He was well known as Meghnad Desai, is perhaps now better known as Lord Desai. What no-one in real life actually calls him is our article title Meghnad Desai, Baron Desai. Thanks for comments, hope this case informs your deliberations about policy. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

sorting in a family category

I happened to look at Category:Grey family and noticed that

• those with peerages are alphabetized by the peerage;
• most others are alphabetized by given name;
• some are inconveniently alphabetized in "Grey".

So I changed e.g. Ida de Grey to sort (in that Category) as Ida rather than as Grey, Ida de. But I'm unsure what to do with the various Earls Grey! Perhaps I need to read a policy page. —Tamfang (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Your solution makes sense. I'm not sure what to do about the Earls (and the rather more numerous Barons) Grey; perhaps under G since the article on the title itself must be there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Barons Grey of X can be put under X. (Or not.) —Tamfang (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible. However, many Barons Grey are not Grey of X; they are peerages by writ addressed to Sir Y Grey; this would also imply putting the only Viscount Grey of Fallodon under F, which does not seem helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Another reason to do this is that Ida de Grey may well be better placed under Ida Cockayne; she is much more likely to be notable under the name she bore all her adult life. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say to do everyone by first name. john k (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Earl of Cork

User:Generalwar has been adding false information to this article. I have reverted him twice and don't want to get into an edit war with him. Need some help here. Tryde (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Geoffrey Russell, 4th Baron Ampthill

Geoffrey Russell, 4th Baron Ampthill died on 23 April. Since his son David is his heir I presume he inherits the title? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-succeeding heirs

Is there consensus here to include non-succeeding heirs in lists of peers, which has been done in for instance Marquess of Bristol, Duke of Bedford and Baron Faringdon? If so, we should include this in the guidelines on peerage articles. Tryde (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I certainly think it's a very good idea. The article on a peerage is certainly where I'd go to find someone who had been an heir to that peerage, and it's much more elegant to list them amongst the actual title holders than it would be, for example, to have a separate "list of heirs who never succeeded". Proteus (Talk) 13:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

s/heirs/heirs apparent/, but yes, this is an excellent idea. Choess (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

agreed; good idea. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; I've been doing this. DBD 21:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no harm in including them if there is a reason to do so: for instance, if they are notable and deserve an article or have one already. However, I suspect that more than half of such non-succeeding heirs died in childhood, and if we were to aim to include them all it isn't clear what that would achieve. Moonraker2 (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Disagree on the limitation. My impression is that relatively few deceased courtesy peers/heirs apparent died in infancy or childhood; I would say that it's more typical for them to have died in young manhood, often of marriageable age, usually from infectious disease or sometimes war. Even though they are often non-notable (not having had a seat in the Commons or the Lords to establish notability), I think it's useful for them to have a line in these lists, even if they don't rate an article themselves, because it can serve as the target of a redirect, which lets them get genealogically linked in from the families into which they married. Choess (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

According to T. H. Hollingsworth's Mortality in the British peerage families since 1600 (1977), in the year 1700 life expectancy was thirty-seven, rising slowly to forty-one by 1820 and to fifty by the early 20th century. In these families, in the mid 16th century the probability of dying by the age of five was around 25%, rising to around 35% by the mid-17th century, when it began to decline again. Child mortality was always at its worst up to the age of ten, not five, and I do not have figures to hand for all child mortality, but it clearly isn't correct to say "relatively few deceased courtesy peers/heirs apparent died in infancy or childhood". My best guess is that the number may be fewer than half, but not by much. We can grasp the scale of this by looking at the number of those who died who would have inherited the throne. They include Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, Prince Charles James (1629), Prince Charles of York (1660), his sister Catherine Laura of York (1675), Queen Anne's son Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, Frederick, Prince of Wales, Princess Charlotte of Wales, and Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence. Moonraker2 (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble reconciling these statistics. It sounds as though for a typical peerage, a heir apparent should die v.p. about once every other generation for those periods, which is simply not consistent with what I actually see when I read through a peerage reference work. To generate a small dataset, I looked through Cracroft's online at the extant duchies of the English peerage (excepting Cornwall). There are a total of 10 articles, and 133 dukes. Among these, I found 16 heirs-apparent who died v.p. and who are definitely non-notable (died in infancy or in young adulthood without marrying); 4 non-notable but of possible genealogical significance; and 9 notable. Assuming these statistics are representative, we're talking about intercalating 1-2 lines for notable or marginal heirs-apparent and 1-2 for non-notable heirs-apparent, among 13 lines of peers.

I think notability is too high a standard for adding what is, after all, one line on one page for each person. After all, we don't enforce this stappeared andard for the peers themselves, some of whom are non-notable through being minors, imbeciles, or having acceded post-HoL reform. Furthermore, since the list of peers itself is comprehensive, I think it makes sense to meet people's natural assumption that the list of heirs apparent will be comprehensive as well. Bear in mind also that some of the peerage works (I think The Complete Peerage) comprehensively list heirs apparent without hopelessly diluting their entries, so we're not exactly venturing into uncharted waters here. I've pretty much said my piece; let's see what other people think. Choess (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't suggest notability as the standard. My comment was "I see no harm in including them if there is a reason to do so: for instance, if they are notable". I see no reason to doubt the statistics provided by T. H. Hollingsworth, who focussed specifically on what he called "peerage families" and whose work was peer-reviewed. For all I know, the ducal families may throw up different statistics. Hollingsworth's work includes 'A Demographic Study of the British Ducal Families' in Population in History, ed. Glass & Eversley, but I don't have access to that where I am now. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(left) Complete Peerage does list heirs apparent [in brackets].

It's occasionally useful information, and often essential; if the Marquess of X uses Viscount Y as the courtesy title for his eldest son, we often have Viscount Y redirecting to Marquess of X. If George, Viscount Y, did not live to succeed, people looking for him under Viscount Y (which is what books will call him) should be able to locate a link to him where they wind up. See Viscount Amberley for an actual example of this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think I was responsible for this innovation. I periodically use the peerage articles to find the accepted form for a peer. However, this does not work for courtesy titles of a non-succeeding heir apparent. There is likely to be an article on the title in question, but redirecting to the main title. It is then necessary to use some other source to identify the person concerned. I have placed the entry for such a person under the entry from the peer whom he would have succeeded (normally his father), but indented. I only see the practice as necessary, where the non-succeeding heir was himslef notable and thus has an article. Where an heir apparent died as a child, he will normally be NN. He might be noted, but not as a redlink. He may be noted in his father's article, in which case there might be a redirect to the section of the father's article where he is discussed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Substantial blanking with no obvious discussion

Please forgive me if this is an agreed change (it's not my field), but this series of edits looks suspicious:

• [8]
• [9]

In particular, it's emptying what appears (to this layman) to be valid categories, such as Barons Montagu of Beaulieu, and it's also blanking and emptying them, rather than deleting them. Surely this should at least have been noted at Category talk:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom first? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There was a rather acrimonious debate over the utility of these categories some months back (and I'm sorry to say I was part of the problem). Maybe we should try to draft an RfC and definitively settle what we want to do with them? Choess (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I support that suggestion. I remember Tryde also used to have a habit of merging biographies (usually stubs) to the pages on the peerage or baronetcy in question; or, in the case of peeresses, to their husbands or fathers. No doubt some of these people are indeed non-notable, but it appears people have often been treated as non-notable and merged simply because their articles were short and not fully cited. Does anyone know, is this still going on? Moonraker2 (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No I think not. The principle person behind it is now infinitely blocked. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

He's recovered now, but seems to be adding Bt. all over the place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting Tryde had been indef blocked. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• I do not think we need categories for people who held a particular peerage. They will inevitably be small categories, and the jopb is done much better by the articel on the peerage that they held. This invariably has a list of holders of the title, which will, unlike a category, be (conveniently) in chronological order. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Category question

Question about this edit: the individual is documented as having the described title (in addition to others). So why (assuming it is) is this category inappropriate? Magic♪piano 19:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The question here may be whether a Viscount who also holds an Irish Barony should be in Category:Barons in the Peerage of Ireland. The first page of the Category listing shows no one with a higher title, perhaps to avoid a thousand pointless overlaps with Category:Viscounts in the Peerage of Ireland etc. (It wouldn't hurt to say this explicitly on the Category's page.) —Tamfang (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, guidance on categorization should be contained here somewhere (as it is on article naming and other related subjects), for those of us who aren't peerage-knowledgeable. Magic♪piano 20:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A peer should only be categorised under his highest title. There have been hundreds of earls and viscounts that have also been barons. If we should categorise them all as barons these categories would lose their purpose completely. Tryde (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

What about individuals who hold multiple titles in the peerages of seperate states? Brendandh (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean countries (Scotland, England, Ireland, etc)? Kittybrewster ☎ 14:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Per Above. We may have had 'countries' within a single 'state' within these isles, rather than individual states, but that is only the case since the 1707/1800 acts of union and prior to 1922. Post 1922, there have been two states within these isles, as there was pre-1707 (albeit in different geographical areas), and who knows, in a year or so, there may be three. Brendandh (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, they all have seperate peerages, but also individuals with continental European or Latin American Peerages who hold titles in the peerages of the British Isles, such as the 1st Duke of Portland, the 10th Earl of Dundonald, the 4th Earl of Douglas etc. Also those who hold/held Jacobite peerages. Likewise with monarchs, such as Henry III of England, who is categorised as Duke of Normandy. I think it is rather mistake to categorise individuals by their higher ranking title, if they are more commonly known by a lesser one in a seperate Peerage. Brendandh (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Make the question then:

• should individuals who hold multiple titles in seperate peerages have a category in each peerage? (IMO, yes, in general)
• Should the peerages of England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom be counted as separate for this purpose? (IMO, no, it's the same House of Lords)Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Support PMAnderson's proposal. This is useful for Irish peers seated in Westminster by virtue of minor EN/GB/UK peerages. Choess (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Pmanderson's proposal. Categories are there largely to help us with navigation, and those who held titles in more than one peerage had more than one set of rights. Although not sitting as of right until the 1960s, unless they had English/GB/UK titles, too, all Scottish peers could take part in electing representative peers to Westminster from 1707 until 1965 (or thereabouts), and Irish peers elected representatives to the Lords (for life) from 1801 until 1922. Before that, all Scottish and Irish peers had seats in the Parliament of Scotland and the House of Lords of Ireland. (Before 1707 there must have been a small number of peers with seats in all three, although I can't think of any off-hand. Perhaps some of the dukes are the most likely candidates.) Moonraker2 (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. This would make the categories pointless. For instance, Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom would include six Earls of Crawford, five Earls of Gosford, six Earls of Ranfurly and nine Marquesses of Sligo, et cetera. This will only annoy readers. Instead of filling these categories with peers that held higher honours in other peerages, I suggest creating six new categories: Category:Irish peers with a seat in the British House of Lords by virtue of a junior title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, Category:Scottish peers with a seat in the British House of Lords by virtue of a junior title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom plus four similar categories for peers with titles in the Peerage of England and Peerage of Great Britain. Tryde (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That strikes me as awfully complicated, and indeed as not complicated enough. For instance, some of these overlapping peers were English peers who also held Scottish or Irish titles, and some sat in the Lords by virtue of a title of equivalent rank, not a junior title. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Both Choess and Moonraker2 proposed a solution to categorising Scottish and Irish peers who were members of the British House of Lords. I have suggested specific categories for this purpose which I find more useful than flooding categories such as Barons in the Peerage of the UK with peers with higher honours in other peerages. The six categories I proposed could be merged into two: Category:Irish peers with a seat in the British House of Lords by virtue of a junior title in the Peerages of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom and Category:Scottish peers with a seat in the British House of Lords by virtue of a junior title in the Peerages of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. There is a problem with Irish and Scottish peers who held English titles of equivalent rank, such as the Earls FitzWilliam. Perhaps the "junior" part of the category should go. Tryde (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Support A case in point, what do you do with Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, commonly known as Lord Cochrane, but with the senior title of Marquess of Maranhão? Where for ease of use should he be? Likewise with Princess Marie of Baden (1817–1888), categorised as a British Duchess (which she was not as Duchess of Hamilton, that being within the peerage of Scotland, as Duchess of Brandon that being a GB title she was but is never known as such) as well as being a princess of Baden? What to do with Michael Ancram , Marquess of Lothian, who sits by virtue of his life peerage, junior to his Marquisate but with the ability to attend the Lords? Further, since the fin de siecle government started playing around with the House of Lords, and hereditaries do not have mandate there any more, it seems cumbersome to attach the rather long-winded Cat suggestions above to them. Brendandh (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a question whether the article title should be Cochrane or Dundonald (on the analogy of Lord North); it should not be Maranhão, any more than Nelson should be Bronte; nobody calls him that in English.

As for the cats: If someone has Category:Irish earl and Category:United Kingdom baron then he sat in the House of Lords at Westminster (with the obvious exceptions about being of age, having held the titles before 1999...); we don't need long and clumsy cats to tell us what two cats will. It would be nice to have the category intersection tool that should be along eventually; but we will have to make do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no trouble with Lord Dundonald and his descendants being categorised as Brazilian marquesses. There are only a few British peers with foreign titles and that's not an issue. Princess Marie was not a peeress in her own right so I don't see how this case is relevant here. As for Michael Ancram, the categories I proposed should only include peers with hereditary peerages. Hereditary peers who have been granted life peerages should also be categorised as life peers. I don't think people here realise how many peers with higher titles in other peerages would clutter up a category like Barons in the Peerage of the UK. Probably a couple of hundred if not more. These categories would be pretty useless if the proposed policy was introduced. Tryde (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, it is exceptional for a peer of higher rank not to have a barony; if a man is raised from a commoner directly to a higher title, a barony is usually included, as an echo of feudal practice. A few hundred is minimal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify this comment. Of course it's not uncommon for a peer of higher rank to hold a barony as well. What do you mean by "A few hundred is minimal"? Tryde (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Almost all peers of higher rank also hold a barony; the Earl of Stockton is one of the very few exceptions. Therefore, I underestimated: since we are talking about individual articles, we must be discussing thousands of articles which would have a baron category from a subordinate peerage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

And that is why we should not categorise peers by their subsidiary titles... Tryde (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• I support the view that peers should only be categorised by their highest title. We might have a category for Irish Earls holding a British title (which gave them a seat in the Lords), but the significance of that should be dealt with in a headnote to the category, not in some verbose category title. British citizens with a foreign title are (I think) usually known by their British title, so that the artickes should be their, but their is no objection to theri being categoriesed as Brazilian Marquess or Sicilian Duke (as Nelson), etc. Who would know who Horatio, Duke of Bronte was? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, No 1, peers are not citizens. Citizens live in republics, if one is a national of a kingdom, one is a subject from top to bottom of the pecking order, Duke, Yeoman or Peasant. No 2,where would you put Archibald Douglas, 4th Earl of Douglas, at Duke of Touraine, which he was never referred to, apart from in officialese? James Hamilton, 2nd Earl of Arran is under his senior title as Duke of Chatellerault, yet is known commonly as Regent Arran.... Brendandh (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Earls of Surrey

While investigating the Earls of Surrey for background on this article I couldn't reconcile the specific earls so I checked with the ODNB. It appears that the wikipedia articles on the 6th and 7th earls were actually on the 5th and 6th, at least according to the ODNB. I made the moves, but I'm wondering if there's any reason to keep the redirect pages? Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Countess should not have been labelled 4th Countess. It needs to be sorted and isn't yet. Eg, who was the 7th Earl? Might as well retain the redirects at least for the moment. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The error has propagated; the 7th earl is the one we're currently calling the 8th, John de Warenne, 8th Earl of Surrey, but of course that can't be renamed because there's a redirect from the 7th to the 6th. Malleus Fatuorum 09:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I would apply for a move over a redirect. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks as though ErrantX made the move. I'll try to sort through the redirects later today. Choess (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Malleus Fatuorum 12:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think all the inbound links are pointing to the right place now. Glad to help. Choess (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

See WT:NCROY#Ancient earldoms, for a general proposal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

House of Dunkeld Family Tree

I'm not sure if this belongs in this topic, but we have an issue that has not been updated since May 2007; the Scottish Monarchs of the House of Dunkeld family tree that someone created.

• Magna Carta ancestry: a study in colonial and medieval families by Douglas Richardson, Kimball G. Everingham confirms that Isabella was the illegitimate daughter of William the Lion by a mistress, daughter of Richard Avenel who married Robert de Ros. Google eBook
  

Therefore the controversy is being taken out of the article Robert de Ros -- someone needs to update the Wikipedia trees obviously and use reliable sources because the template for 'no sources' has been on that page since May 2007! -- Lady Meg (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A mistake to call the lady above "of Dunkeld", that was an academic fix to assign a name to the pre-Norman/Wars of Scottish Independence royal house of Scotland, as descendants of Crínán of Dunkeld. As a byblow of William the Lion, she would have been known as Isibéal nic Uilliam. Brendandh (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

And in English, or even braid Scots (although that will be of interest to the Scots Wikipedia, rather than here)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Fairly simply: Isabel Mac William (Isabel son of William), a later construct as patronyms rather than surnames were in use at this period (Mac- being the masculine form, Nic- the feminine); Isabel FitzRoy although that was a surname adopted by later Angevin and Stuart monarchs for their byblows; Princess Isabel, the Lady Isabel? "Of Dunkeld" has no meaning for this lady, she may never of been there, excepting that her great great grandpa was the lay-abbot of the Monastery there. I see no probs with using a non English name for someone who is not recorded as having one. Cf. Maol Íosa V, Earl of Strathearn, known now as Malise, but only from an Anglicisation of the Latinisation of his Gaelic name. Brendandh (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If she's recorded as Isabella of Scotland in the Magna Carta that's probably what it should be. There is no page for her, but just pages that mention her, including both husbands. I was only putting what is recorded in that book, but what I was talking about is that the tree needs to be fixed because on Ros' page -- someone wrote that there was a controversy as to which Isabella "they" were referring to; which has been proved that she is the daughter of William. Anyway, I just found by putting [[ ]] around Isabella of Scotland you get Princess Isabella of Scotland -- so I'll put Isabella Mac William in the brackets along with (Isibéal nic Uilliam) next to it. Agreed? -- Lady Meg (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Magna Carta, being in Latin, generally uses the Latin forms of Christian names, but when translating from it we generally use the English forms. When it comes to Isabella of Scotland, she is probably called 'Isabel' as much as 'Isabella', and I'm surprised the lead there doesn't mention that, so I'll add it. (NB, it's one thing to say that this Isabel was "a princess", but she was certainly never called "Princess Isabel(la)".) Moonraker2 (talk) 08:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir James Harington, 3rd Baronet

ODNB styles this regicide as Harrington, James [formerly Sir James Harrington, third baronet] MacStep (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

A difference in approach. ODNB prefers not to consider people by title at all, a philosophy going back to Leslie Stephen, the republican. Also, they are not constructed so that disambiguation is a necessity.

We consistently treat peers and baronets by the title they forfeited, on the grounds that they are best known by it and it is distinctive. We do this for Tudor forfeitures, and for those who forfeited their titles in the '45; we should do the same here.

There is the complication that we don't insist on calling a man a baronet if it isn't useful; but James Harington is ambiguous, and I don't think (regicide) a better disambiguator. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Septentrionalis. Also, the 'Harrington' and 'Harington' spellings, like almost all such variations, were interchangeable in the 17th century. We are probably using 'Harington' because in the 18th century that settled down as the spelling the family preferred. The DNB/ODNB is a bit more inclined to use spellings drawn from its sources, but in my view it's inconsequential. Moonraker2 (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that at the end of his lefe he was attainted of regicide and thus forfeited his title should not affect how WP records him: he was a baronet until his attainder, so WP should use the title. I am sure this applies to amny other peers who were executed for treason. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

John Egerton, 2nd Earl of Bridgewater

Serious error here, according to the talk page. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the comment by Bernard Dennis MBE, the serious error appears to be his. Moonraker (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Multiple first names

I've just had to move James Sinclair, 19th Earl of Caithness to Roderick Sinclair, 19th Earl of Caithness because somebody assumed that James Roderick Sinclair, 19th Earl of Caithness would use his first name; there are other examples. Isn't it original research to pick one of a peer's Christian names and put the article there, implying that's the one he used? I still think that unless it's known which one was used (if any: many would only ever have been known by a title even to their families) then articles should be at the full name. Opera hat (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It depends; what do reliable sources call him (genealogies will almsot always use the full name, but they are unusual)? Since he inherited the Earldom well before the end of his active career, one should look at histories of the Sinhalese army, to see what they call him at second reference.

An example where we've gotten it right is Frank Russell, 2nd Earl Russell; he was Frank to his friends (like Santayana), his brother, and the biographers of his ex-wives; not John Francis Stanley Russell. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories

User:Kauffner is currently in the process of removing a number of categories from articles on dukes, Category:Dukes in the Peerage of England, Category:Dukes in the Peerage of Scotland, et cetera, and replacing them with a number of subcategories, such as Category:Dukes of Beaufort. Some of the categories will contain only one article, such as Category:Dukes of Shrewsbury and Category:Dukes of Ireland. Is there a lower limit to how few articles a category may contain? I know this has been discussed at length before and would like to inform the members of this project. Tryde (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a huge number of elements in "Dukes in the Peerage of England", well over a hundred. I assumed it was screwed up. The whole idea of categories is to divide up the world of knowledge into groups of similar items of comprehensible number. It now has 41 subcategories, mostly with titles in form "Dukes of XYZ". Before, there were articles on individual dukes that alphabetized according to title. The current subcategories alphabetize the same way, so the articles are still organized according to the same principles. I did the same for Spanish and Portuguese dukes earlier. Kauffner (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed at length in September 2010. Tryde (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:DIFFUSE approves the introduction and use of subcategories to reduce the number of items in a category that has grown too large. This is exactly what I did. Non-diffusing subcategories are allowed, but only to group articles that are thought to be of some special interest. To have both a subcategory system as well as direct links to every article is not a format approved in the guidelines: "the general rule that pages are not placed in both a category and its subcategory". Kauffner (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

An article on a certain peerage, such as Duke of St Albans, has all the information needed on the holders of this title. Categories such as Category:Dukes in the Peerage of England give a good overview of dukes in this peerage, not found anywhere else on Wikipedia. With your system a reader now has to trawl through numerous subcategories. We are consequently losing the overview and gaining sub-categories that contain the same information that can be found in a peerage article. I don't see how this would benefit the encyclopedia. Tryde (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It is normal way categories are done, what readers who understand categories expect, and what the guidelines recommend. What you are proposing is a directory. So you don't find the category system useful. That's fine. Categories are not for everybody. Kauffner (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

These categories have been in existence for about seven years and were serving their purpose well. Categories are useful when you want a list of articles that share a certain characteristic - call it a directory if you want to. Your new categories fill no real purpose as the holders of a certain peerage were already listed in the peerage articles. However, as you apparently know what readers expect perhaps your system is better... Tryde (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, not again. Kauffner, WP:DIFFUSE also says that "there is no limit on the size of categories;" and the fact that the rule you have cited is a "general rule" implies that there exist exceptions to it. (In fact, I see that you're quoting from the part of the policy that acknowledges the existence of exceptions, so when you say that "is not a format approved," you actually read the sentence that proves what you say is not true.)

The problem, as was discussed before, is that the "$TITLEs in the Peerage of $COUNTRY" categories are larger than desirable, while breaking them down by title creates categories that are mostly smaller than desirable. It seems to me that non-diffusing subcategories are a good way to split the difference. Why not create non-diffusing subcategories for titles that have had a significant number of holders, like "Duke of Wellington" or "Earl of Essex," rather than trying to push obscure one-time titles like "Duke of Surrey" down into one-member categories? Choess (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As WP:DIFFUSE says: It is possible for a category to be only partially diffused – some members are placed in subcategories, while others remain in the main category. We can have a subcat for the several dozen Dukes of Norfolk without having one for every dukedom whatsoever. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

But why do we need a category for the dukes of Norfolk when we have Duke of Norfolk? john k (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Because some people like to navigate by categories; and Category:Dukes in the Peerage of England would be well over 200 pages without some subdivision - that's too big. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Duke of Beaufort

The article, Henry Somerset, 6th Duke of Beaufort has no references and requires clean-up. Anyone here interested? You are mentioned on the Talk page. Cheers!--Stormbay (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done, except for the list of his children, from Complete Peerage. His date of death was wrong; this should be watched for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks!Stormbay (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

page move

http://www.baronetage.org/unproven.htm has been moved to http://www.baronetage.org/succession-to-baronetcy/ - Kittybrewster ☎ 19:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Stewart/Steuart Baronets of Coltness and Kirkfield

I keep coming across mentions of the above baronets of Nova Scotia, the most famous being the economist, Sir James Denham-Steuart, but cannot find any reference to them on the Stuart or Stewart Baronets pages. The first one appears to be Lord Provost of Edinburgh, the 2nd a Lord Advocate, the 3rd a Solicitor General, 4th the Economist above, and the 5th the most senior general in the British Army when he died, therefore naming JDS the economist as 7th Baronet seems odd. [10] [11] Any thoughts? Brendandh (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oxford DNB lists his son as "eighth baronet and fourth baronet." It would appear (although they do not explain further) that two different baronetcies are involved, one of Coltness and the other of Westshield. Since the same article calls the father third and seventh baronet, the older title may have been inherited through the economist's mother; I see that we do list a Denham of Westfield baronetcy.

The same source says that it was the Lord Advocate who was created a baronet in 1695; the Provost just made the money. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The 3rd & 7th Baronet article says he was son of himself. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A bad link; somebody found that Sir James Steuart was a bluelink, and didn't notice that it is a redirect. If someone has nothing better to do, make it a dab page, at least with his father. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Denham Steuart or Steuart-Denham? See Steuart baronets. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

He changed his name from Steuart to Steuart Denham. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Changed that. Disparity in dates of birth. Was it not his father Alexander who changed the name? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It may have been his father who changed; the ODNB calls the father Sir James Steuart, second baronet, but this is at the time of the economist's birth. His son, the Major General, is said to have used Steuart in Scotland, and Denham in England. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What were the first names of the Lord Provost, the Lord Advocate and the General? Kittybrewster ☎ 14:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

ODNB had sn srticle on the Lord Advocate, by a different author, (calling him "Stewart, also Steuart") with a final paragraph on the family; unfortunately, it does not mention the baronetcies at all. But the five generations from the Lord Provost to the General appear to have been James, James, James, James, and James. I should be able to consult Complete Baronetage in a few days. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I am not attached to the rayment version but it is very different and is the basis of Steuart baronets. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll let you know what Cokayne says; it is (after all) conceivable that this is one of the plagiarism traps that Rayment says he has inserted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I have this worked out. There are two Steuart baronetcies involved; one of Goodtrees, of 1695, and one of Coltness, of 1698. Genealogy seems to be as follows:

• Sir James Steuart, of Coltness (1608–1681), Lord Provost
  • Sir Thomas Steuart, 1st Baronet, of Coltness (cr. 1698; of Coltness)
    • Sir David Steuart, 2nd Baronet (sold Coltness to Sir James, Lord Advocate in 1712)
      • Sir Thomas Steuart, 3rd Baronet
    • Sir Robert Steuart, 4th Baronet, natl. philosopher
      • Sir John Steuart, 5th Baronet, natl. philosopher
    • Sir Archibald Steuart Denham, 6th Baronet (d. 1773) (son by 2nd marriage)
  • Sir James Steuart, 1st Baronet (cr. 1695) (1635–1715), Lord Advocate, 4th son
    • Sir James Steuart, 2nd Baronet, of Goodtrees and Coltness (1681–1727), Solicitor-General
      • Sir James Denham Steuart, 3rd and 7th Baronet, of Coltness (1713–1780), Jacobite and economist
        • Sir James (Denham) Steuart, 4th Baronet, (1744–1839), general

Sir James, 3rd Baronet of Goodtrees, inherited as 7th Baronet of Coltness in 1773 upon the extinction of the senior line. (The Coltness estate itself had been sold to the junior Goodtrees line in 1712.)

The current Denham baronets page, which mirrors Rayment, is wrong. Sir William Denham, 1st Baronet (cr. 1693) died in 1712 without heirs of the body; he left his estates by devize to Robert Bailie, who adopted the name of Denham. At this point, the baronetcy must have become extinct. Robert was followed by his son Alexander, who seems to have died s.p.; Robert's daughter Susan made two marriages, first to William Lockhart and second to Sir Thomas Steuart, 1st Baronet of Coltness. Her son by the 1st Baronet was Sir Archibald, 6th Baronet, who d.s.p. 1773. Her son by her first marriage was William Lockhart Denham (d. 1776), who seems to have adopted the title of baronet without foundation. He also died s.p., and the Westshields estate went to Sir James, 3rd & 7th Baronet, who then adopted the name of Denham.

Does that leave anything unanswered? Choess (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.stirnet.com/genie/data/british/ss4tz/stewart11.php (subscription required, but if you're quick with the Page Down and Print Screen keys you can get round it) gives the Solicitor-General James (1681-1727) as 1st Baronet of Goodtrees, not his father the Lord Advocate. His son James (1713-1780) is listed as 2nd Bart and James (the general) as 3rd Bart. Just mention it for what it's worth, if anything - the only source the page cites is Andrew Crawfurd, who was writing in the early 19c. I would have thought The Complete Baronetage would be the best authority. Opera hat (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignore what I just wrote. The 1832 edition of Burke's gives the then-current Baronet (the general) as fourth of Goodtrees and says the Baronetcy was conferred on the Lord Advocate. I know early editions of Burke's aren't particularly reliable but it would be odd if he got that wrong. I don't know what that stirnet site are thinking, especially as the S-G would have been created a Baronet at fourteen if what they say is true (should have noticed that earlier). Opera hat (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks plausible. So the Baronetcy of Coltness had a special remainder to the brothers of the grantee? Have you checked to see whether there was one for the Denham baronetcy?

Much more significantly, we have five men called Sir James Steuart, three of them quite notable, the others non-trivial. The economist may well be primary usage; but how do we want to disambiguate the others? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that Sir James Denham Steuart, 3rd and 7th Baronet, to which Kittybrewster has just moved it, is a good choice. If Choess is correct, he was 7th Baronet at the very end of his life; he had already changed his name to Denham. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have resolved your previous point by being bold at James Steuart. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that was nicely done. How about James Denham Steuart for now? we can worry about disambiguation from his son when that is written? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not fussed. @Choess: Can we have a RS for Denham Baronets. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

See the Coltness collection, p. 78 [12] and The Scottish Antiquary of 1891, p. 5 [13]. Incidentally, on p. 348 of the Coltness collection [14], the patent of 1698 for Sir Thomas Steuart is said to have been with remainder to "the heirs-male of his body, and their heirs-male, forever". Notwithstanding, it claims on p. 358 that in 1773, the baronetcy of Coltness "merged with that of Goodtrees, then in the person of Sir James Steuart, the political economist," whom it elsewhere makes clear was only of collateral descent from the first baronet of Coltness. Perhaps it's one of those cases, like Anstruther, where the remainder was ignored by reliable authorities for some time, but it would be nice to see what some of the more modern authorities say. Choess (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Both quotes are in Cokayne, although he uses the original spelling. It may be like the Earl of Devon, when "heirs male forever" was held to include collaterals. If so, it is not extinct, nor can it be until the world ends. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Devon was created with remainder to his 'heirs male' omitting 'of the body' which was ruled to mean it could descend to collateral heirs. Taking Choess's wording above the meaning of the remainder including 'the body' excludes the Devon interpretation. In Scottish titles the standard form for such a interpretation is 'heirs male whatsoever'. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Cokayne

This largely confirms what Choess wrote above, but is interestingly different on several points.

Steuart of Coltness

Complete Baronetage, Vol IV, p.375. (all of these are Vol IV)

• Sir James Steuart, of Coltness (1608–1681), Lord Provost
  • Sir Thomas Steuart, 1st Baronet, of Coltness (c.1621-1698) baronetcy cr. 1698; of Coltness; married twice)
    • Sir David Steuart, 2nd Baronet ((1656-1723; sold Coltness to Sir James, Lord Advocate in 1712)
    • Walter Stewart (1663-bef.1723)
      • Sir Thomas Steuart, de jure 3rd Baronet (1708-1737), surgeon, d. St. Kitts
    • Sir Robert Steuart, de jure 4th Baronet, (1675-bef. 1758)
      • Sir John Steuart, de jure 5th Baronet, (-1759). Prof of natl. Phil,; Edin.
    • Sir Archibald Steuart-Denham, 6th Baronet (1683-1773) (son by 2nd marriage), also Advocate.

Succeeded in this barony by his distant cousin, the economist, Sir James Steuart of Goodtrees, who was (even later) to take the name Denham. Two more holders, in next section.

Steuart of Goodtrees.

p.435

• Sir James Steuart, of Coltness (1608–1681), Lord Provost
  • Sir James Steuart of Goodtrees (d.1713) Lord Advocate,
    • Sir James Steuart of Goodtrees, (1681-1727), 1st Baronet, cr. vita patris, on his marriage in 1705; to "heirs male forever".
      • Sir James Steuart of Goodtrees, 2nd Baronet (1713-1780) the economist, took name of Steuart-Denham [sic] 1776.
        • Sir James Steuart-Denham of Goodtrees, (1744-1839), 3rd and 8th baronet, General.
    • Henry Steuart-Barclay, (1697-?) m. the heiress of John Barclay.
      • William Steuart-Barclay, (1736-1783) of Collernie
        • Sir Henry Steuart-Barclay, last baronet of both lines (1765-1851)

After the economist, this is from p. 375; p. 435 ends with the crossreference and a note that the baronetcies are extinct or merged [with Allanbank?]

Steuart of Allanbank

p.353

• Sir James Steuart, of Coltness (1608–1681), Lord Provost
  • Sir Robert Steuart of Allanbank (1643-1707) 1st baronet, 7th and youngest son; cr. 1687
    • Sir John Steuart of Allanbank (c.1685-1753) 2nd baronet
      • Sir John Steuart of Allanbank (1714-1796) 3rd baronet
        • Sir John Steuart of Allanbank (1754-1817) 4th baronet
          • Sir John James Steuart of Allanbank (1779-1849) 5th baronet, b. at Rome.

Now dormant.

Denham of Westshield

p.363.

• Robert Denham [not of Westshield, which his son bought from the Earl of Carnwath]
  • Sir William Denham of Westshield (1630-1712), 1st Baronet, Master of the Mint for Scotland, cr. 1693. with special remainder to his assignees, failing the heirs of his body. Entail of his title and estate 1711, died without children 1 Jan. 1712.
  • Grizel Baillie, elder sister.
    • Sir Robert Denham, formerly Baillie (d. bef. Oct 1737) 2nd Baronet, per entail.
      • Sir Alexander Denham (d. bef Jan 1749), de jure 3rd Baronet.
      • Sir Robert Denham (d. 1756) 4th Baronet
  • Susan Lockhart, later Susan Steuart, younger sister, 2nd wife of Sir Thomas Steuart, 1st Baronet, of Coltness
    • Sir Archibald Steuart-Denham, (1683-1773), 5th Baronet, also Baronet of Coltness; son by 2nd marriage.
    • William Lockhart of Waygateshaw; son by first marriage
      • Sir William Lockhart-Denham (d.1776) 6th Baronet, d. without children; left his property to the economist, who took the name of Denham.

Now presumably extinct, since this is the end of the entail.

Of this, the account of Steuart of Goodtrees is controverted by ODNB; I think it's wrong, but it is presumably the source for Opera hat's site. The Denham entail is odd, but presumably Sir William didn't like the Lockharts.

Note that this denies that the economist ever had a middle name of Denham; he wasn't descended from the Denhams, and (although he was left all of his cousin's property, including theirs) had no real expectations from them until he returned from France. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of the differences are my errors. The 3rd Baronet was indeed the nephew rather than the son of the 2nd; see the Coltness collection, p. 64. Early editions of Burke's, a note in Notes and Queries [15] give 1695 as the date for the Goodtrees baronetcy; the Coltness collection and others give 1705, see this for an acknowledgment of the ambiguity. Foster's Members of Parliament (p. 327, [16]) gives a date of 22 December 1705 for the patent, so I suppose that is to be preferred.

I think I had the idea that Sir William could not have left heirs in the baronetcy from a letter in Notes and Queries, but if Cokayne confirms a special remainder for the patent, I don't object. Choess (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine; I report Cokayne, I don't insist he's right where disputed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Cat amongst the doos! good stuff! Brendandh (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Good thread, Brendan. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we conclude that the economist was 2nd & 7th Baronet? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't. He was (for a relatively short time) 7th baronet of Coltness; but reliable sources divide on whether he was 2nd or 3rd baronet of Goodtrees. I think the baronetcy article should list him as 3rd baronet, because we must say something, but if so, we must prominently note that the numbering is dubious.

For his own article, I regret to say that this is a case where disambiguation by baronetcy doesn't actually work; titles should not make disputed claims about the subject (unless, like Boston Massacre, the name has come into universal use despite being dubious). I am strongly tempted by James Steuart (economist). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Desmond FitzGerald, 29th Knight of Glin

A few weeks ago, just as part of random work, I had posted on the talk page about some questionable claims about this title being recognized by the Irish government. As the Knight has regrettably passed away yesterday, and he is, as I understand it, the last of his line, the last Black Knight, it would be lovely if the article could be improved.

I don't know the rules of succession for these unusual traditional knighthoods ("created by the Earls of Desmond, acting as Earls Palatine, for their kinsmen"), but sources seem to suggest that it won't pass to some other branch of the family, though surely after 29 generations such branches do exist.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: according to our general article on Knight of Glin, "In a recent decree, the Fitzgerald family has announced that a distant cousin, Sean Furlong of Wexford, would be next in line to take the title of Knight of Glin or "Black Knight"". But that is marked as 'citation needed' and I think it's highly questionable without a source. I'm removing it now, but it's a clue that I'll try to track down.

If the knighthood was created by an Earl of Desmond, itself a now long-extinct tite, I suppose it's really just a family tradition unless (as suggested in the New York Social Diary story that I'm doubting) the Irish government really does recognize the title, in which case they may have something to say about whether any family notions of succession are "real" or not. If it is just a family tradition, then the acceptability of them making up a new rule of succession is, well, it just depends I guess.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The history of the title is decidedly irregular. The best precedent we seem to have for the current situation is the Knight of Kerry, where the last reasonably direct male heir died in 1611, at which point the title became dormant. In 1822, the heir-general attempted to claim the title, but this was contested by the presumed heir-male, and the British government (in the person of the Home Secretary, Robert Peel) declined to officially acknowledge the title. The grounds were, first, that the exact nature of the title was not recognizable, and second, that if recognized, it would descend in the male line. [17]. It is probably best considered "dormant"; assuming collateral branches do exist, it would probably be impossible to definitively prove for any given branch that all the senior branches are, in fact, extinct. Such is the situation with the Knight of Kerry aforementioned and the Earldom of Ormonde. (Incidentally, one of the more recent collaterals of the Knights of Glin settled in Ogdensburg, New York, but they seem to be extinct now.) Choess (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems a pretty good summery of the situation as I understood it Choess. I would add for Jimbo that afaik the Irish Government recognises no titles after being advised that even recognition of Chiefs was unconstitutional (see the Irish Constitution 40:2). As the 'title' descended by heir male for hundreds of years I'm sceptical about any notion that it could have its succession rules changed to heir general or some form of tanisty.Garlicplanting (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There may well be a junior branch, who would be heirs male; the problem is that nobody is entitled to decide who should succeed. The Chief Herald of Ireland and his "courtesy recognition" were also involved in a major scandal (see these sections, which are pretty much supported by the sources I've seen); and the British have generally avoided such questions since 1921. If they evaded it before partition, they will certainly avoid it now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know this area is a mess legally. There are I suppose ways and means. If someone could establish the right to the arms by male line decent that would probably be seen as sufficient but I think it very difficult to do for any theoretically extant junior branch. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Duke of Manchester

Given recent events, what is the best way to identify the current heir to the Duke of Manchester title? Hack (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

We may have to wait for a WP:RS to document it, but I'm pretty sure this makes Lord Kimble heir presumptive. Choess (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Would a formal determination of the issue only occur at the death of the current duke? Hack (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually no or potentially not anyway. The crown no longer refers peerage claims to the HoLs and since 2004 we only have the Roll of the Peerage to go by. From memory heirs may put their proof on record at the College of Arms if the not with the registrar in advance of succession. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Despite the handwaving from the Telegraph, there's ample precedent that illegitimate children can't inherit peerages. I assume references like Burke's and Debrett's will acknowledge this as they update. Choess (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

To amend the Telemanything slightly: The young Alexander had been viewed as the heir [apparent], but the 14th duke will be determined by the House of Lords after the current peer dies. Is there a legal decision, as opposed to reporterly inference (valid though it seems to be), that the American marriage is invalid? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I presume that the original decision was that the children were NOT excluded from being beneficiaries of a family trust due to their illegitimacy. If the father had married the mother again after his divorce, the children would be legitimated, but as far as I know, only legitimate offspring can inherit a peerage. There may probably be an argument on the issue before the Committee of Priveleges, if either side is willing to pay the costs of seeking to establish their right to what is now a grand but empty title. I met a baron a few years ago, who referred to taking his seat in the House of Lords and making a maiden speech rather as if it was a right of passage. Even when they did have seats in the House, the majority of peers never attended. It may be that Lord Kimble aspires to a duchy, in which case he may wish to collect and presnt the relevant evidence to secure the title. The selection of ne'er-do-wells described in the article are unlikely to bother; they may well continue to call themsleves Lords and Ladies whatever the House rules. I would suggest that the issue should appear in a footnote, citing the newspaper on-line article until there is a better source. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to have been that the children were legitimate under Australia and California law, as the places of domicile. The dukedom should follow the law of the United Kingdom; we'll see what happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, in what sense do you mean that the children were legitimate under Australia and California law? I'm no expert on either, particularly not on Australian law. But as for California, it strikes me as unlikely that the children would be regarded as legitimate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Would an amendment to the effect that Lord Kimble Montagu is now the heir presumptive be justified in the absence of any formal determination? Hack (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that may be one step too far, but certainly we could based on both the newspaper article and our general knowledge of such matters, indicate without risk that the circumstances of the wedding place the succession in doubt, and that Lord Kimble Montagu is likely to have a claim. Reliable sources such as DeBrett's and Burke's are likely to be helpful in due course. But as the current Duke is not that old and apparently in good health, this is likely to not be settled for decades.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

See my point above about succession pedegree but in terms of sources things are starting to move see Cracrofts.Garlicplanting (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I forget now which newspaper reported the logic of the decision; but the argument was that the children would be legitimate in California and Australia (because it was a good-faith common law marriage on the mother's part? legitimated by subsequent marriage? I'm not sure); of course, this was a British judge's reading of those laws. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I recently created an article on Mr Justice Floyd, who was the judge in the case. Under 'notable cases' I have quoted him as saying in this decision "Alexander and Ashley acquired the status of legitimacy by reason of the law of the domicile of each of their parents. That is the case whether the 13th Duke was domiciled in England, in Australia or in California." We should need to read the full judgement to be sure, but on the face of it Floyd seems to be saying the children are legitimate, without qualification. Moonraker (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of the legal position see cases like Earl Cowley v Countess Cowley [1901] (House of Lords - Law Lords) is that the ordinary courts (ie the high court) has no jurisdiction in determining matters of honour. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I added a note to the article about the possible controversy; improvements welcome.--Kotniski (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a slow-burning edit war on the current duke's article regarding his legal difficulties. Some uninvolved eyes would be appreciated. Hack (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Berkeley

Charles Lennox Granville Berkeley and Grenville Charles Lennox Berkeley (that Wikipedia have listed as Parliamentary Secretary to the Poor Law Board) - is this the same person? I can't find any online sources for the name "Charles Lennox Granville Berkeley" except Leigh Rayment, Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. There are several sources with the name "Grenville Charles Lennox Berkeley". This source refers to a "C. L. Grenville Berkeley". Tryde (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is, as far as I can tell. Boase, Lodge, Adams and Williams say "Grenville Charles Lennox", Dod (1854) says "Charles Lennox Grenville". "Granville" does crop up now and then in the contemporary literature, but it seems to be a spelling error. I would check London Gazette for the Cheltenham and Evesham election returns and be guided by those in deciding how to write the full name on the first line: he seems to have been known as Grenville Berkeley to his contemporaries (see, e.g., his electoral defeat by his cousin Grantley Berkeley in 1847) and the article should probably be moved there, with redirects from the variant and full names. Choess (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The LG refers to him as "Grenville Charles Lennox Berkeley" here and here, as "Charles Lennox Grenville Berkeley" here and here and as "C. L. Grenville Berkeley" here... However, like you said it appears that he was known as Grenville Berkeley. Tryde (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Are royal dukedoms created on the advice of the Prime Minister?

Wikipedia seems to be ambiguous and unsure on this point. In Prime Minister of the United Kingdom we say "Peerages, knighthoods, and other honours are bestowed by the Sovereign only on the advice of the Prime Minister. The only important British honours over which the Prime Minister does not have control are the Orders of the Garter, Thistle, and Merit; the Royal Victorian Order; and the Venerable Order of Saint John, which are all within the "personal gift" of the Sovereign." But in Hereditary peer we say "Under modern constitutional conventions, no peerage dignity, with the possible exception of those given to members of the Royal Family, would be created except upon the advice of the Prime Minister."

Possible exception? Sounds plausible, but do we know? Clearly, since the hereditary peers no longer automatically members of the House of Lords, and since members of the Royal family by convention do not vote or stand for office, even where they may be technically eligible, the Royal Dukedoms are purely an honour with no real impact on anything, so it is difficult to imagine a circumstance under which the Prime Minister would not recommend to the Queen whatever she may wish on this matter. But I wonder whether, as a technicality at least, we are mistaken when we say that only a handful of knightly orders and similar are within the personal gift of the Sovereign.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Advice of the form "this has no political impact, and Your Majesty's Government doesn't care" is still advice. But I suspect it is a political question, and that, if we ever see a pure Tory Government or an Old Labour Government, they would have different advice on whether it is now suitable to create a perpetual peerage for junior branches of Royalty. We will see whether Prince Harry gets a dukedom as a marriage present; his uncle Edward had to make do with an Earldom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

As the British constitution is unwritten, different answers to the question are possible. It's hard to conceive of a prime minister who would stand in the Queen's way on a matter like this, but you never know.

On Uncle Edward, when the title of Earl of Wessex was created for him in 1999 it was said to be a temporary arrangement, as he will be created Duke of Edinburgh as soon as that title merges into the Crown. The official web site of the royal family, royal.gov.uk, confirms that here. However, Edward could have quite a long wait. Moonraker (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suspect that the matter arises from a discussion at the Prime Minister's weekly audience withe the queen. Since these are secret, we cannot know what is said or who brings a topic up. In practice it is necessary for a dukedom to be created, so that his wife can be a duchess. I do not think the British people would today stand for the Duchess of Cambridge being called something like "The Princess William", which is what would happen otherwise. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury

I left a note there about what I view as insufficient attribution to a public domain source, but no one seems to have noticed, so I'm posting here to bring more eyes to the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

New User page - which might be helpful

User:Kittybrewster/successions. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a copy across from the baronetage site. I suspect that a number of titles there listed as unproven are held by peers who have proven their peerage succession but not their bt - but we can read across the proof where that is the case.Garlicplanting (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Keane Baronets of Belmont (SCB) or Cappoquin (Rayment)? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the original entry in the LG but I can find a later entry of the Roll of the baronets for the 5th baronet describing him as: "KEANE of Belmont and Cappoquin - Sir JOHN KEANE, 5th Baronet." See LG Issue 2880420 February 1914 suppliments Garlicplanting (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

ODNB says Belmont in their entry for the first Baron Keane, a younger brother of the second Baronet; unfortunately, the sixth volume of CB will be moderately difficult to access. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Volume six is only notes and appendices; Cokayne did not live to complete his plan, and it was not revived after him. But CP, in the entry for Baron Keane, describes the father of the grantee as first Baronet of Belmont. I suspect a confusion between the estates (Sir John owned Belmont and Cappoquin, and was thus John Keane of Belmost and Cappoquin), and the title (Baronet of Belmont).

The barony is of Ghuznee (Ghazni) and Cappoquin, which suggests the second son was left the smaller estate.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Where should I ask my question?

I did some research just now on how we refer to wives of knights in Wikipedia. I thought I'd post the results here, but then I realized this is Wikiproject Peerage and Baronetage, which doesn't really include knighthoods. Or could it, should it? I don't see any other wikiproject that makes sense, although I may have overlooked something. Here's my little study. I saw an article in which the wife of a knight was referred to as "Forename, Lady Surname" and that seemed odd to me. "Lady Forename Surname" is clearly wrong, but I am not sure what is really correct.

Of the people knighted this year in the Queen's Birthday Honours and who have a wikipedia entry, 7 - no wife's name mentioned 2 - forename surname (but referred to at time of marriage, before knighthood) 2 - forename surname (referred to in present tense) 2 - forename only

None seem to refer to "Lady Surname".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You'll have seen Debretts on the issue. I have to wonder how often the wife should be named in the article. If she is notable in her own right, then we use the name she is commonly known by. If not, then there is no point in the Debrett's "Lady Brown", because it confers no extra information. Forename gives some extra information, as does forename and maiden name. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure we need an explicit codification here beyond "go with sensible outside sources and guidelines." Fortunately for us, a suitable excerpt from Debrett's Correct Form is available. In short, it appears that "Lady Surname" is correct for non-conversational but not legally formal writing such as ours. Choess (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The wife of a knight, in common with a baronet, or the wife the son of a Duke or Marquis is referred to as Lady (surname), or Lady (husband's Christian name and surname). Widowed or divorced ladies in that situation use their Christian name followed by their hubbie's honorific, eg Margaret, Duchess of Argyll rather than the Duchess of Argylll. Good for differentiation. Brendandh (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No! not in common with but quite distinct from! Younger Sons of dukes (etc) are Lady (husband's Christian name and surname) Wives of peers/courtesy peers are Lady (husbands title) and knights are Lady (husbands surname)Garlicplanting (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

How about if the wife was a Dame or Peer in her own right? Hack (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If the husbands title is higher that generally takes priority for usage except where the wife is universally known by her own title or say premarriage name Garlicplanting (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's avoid saying "Sir Bufton Tufton is married to Lady Bufton Tufton", or "Sir Bufton Tufton is married to Lady Tufton". Better than that is simply "Sir Bufton Tufton is married". If the purpose is to give information to the reader, we say "Sir Bufton Tufton married Frederika Bloggs in 1972". Itsmejudith (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Lady Edward Smith ...... wife of ygr son of duke or Marquess
2. Lady Elizabeth Smith .... dau of duke, marquess or earl
3. The Lady Smith ........ wife of Baron
4. Lady Smith...... wife of knight or Bart;. or unmarried widow of divorced wife of knight; or
.................... baronetess; or unmarried bart's widow who can also be either
4a Dowager Lady Smith or
4b Elizabeth Lady Smith
..................... unless he had a previous wife in which case the previous wife is 4b
..................... and the widow is 4a.
5 The Viscountess Smith............wife of viscount Smith
6 The Dowager Lady Smith .......... Viscount's widow.
Kittybrewster ☎ 15:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

So are we happy to all agree knights can be dealt with here (but lets not change the project to include knightage its a long enough name already!) that on first mention the wife needs her maiden name and thereafter by her title unless she is exclusively known by some other name/title Garlicplanting (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It seemed to me that Jimbo was raising two questions. My response is designed to help address part of one of them -- but I think it deserves its own section, perhaps under styles. It doesn't seem to be covered anywhere else and is relatively comprehensive ?? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking of the style guide as Forms of address in the United Kingdom seems to cover the details? Garlicplanting (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

iI have planted it in [[18]]. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Another related question - In these modern times, many wives of knights (and peers) will go by their maiden/birth name rather than adopting their husbands surname. According to DeBretts, "The wife of a knight is known as 'Lady', followed by her surname..." [19] but it seems clear that for wives of peers, they are known as "Lady" followed by the title, not surname. In Tina Brown we identify her in the first sentence as "Tina Brown, Lady Evans"; she is married to Sir Harold Evans. Is that right? Or should she be referred to - taking DeBrett's literally - as "Lady Brown"? Or (as seems likely and sensible to me) is it up to her preference socially, regardless of what her legal/professional name might be?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC) And a related note - Just an observation along these lines, Gail Rebuck is a Dame in her own right, and the wife of (recently deceased) peer Lord Gould. She's notable in her own right as CEO of Random House, and interestingly is most often referred to in the press as "Dame Gail Rebuck" and almost never as "Lady Gould" - indeed, I can only find one reference to that, from 2008, before she became a DBE. If I understand DeBrett's, then her title as wife of a Baron is higher than Dame, at least in a traditional sense, but the press and common understanding would seem to agree that being married to a peer is less of an honour than earning a DBE in her own right. Our article never attempts to refer to her as either "Dame Gail" or "Lady Gould" so there is no particular editing question here, only an academic observation some may find interesting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The wife of a knight is only entitled to be "Lady Husband's-Surname", but nowadays no one is forced to use a title they don't want (particularly one that would involve them losing their own surname). So Jane Smith marrying Sir John Brown could either remain Jane Smith (either Miss Jane Smith or Ms Jane Smith) or could become Lady Brown (or could use both, depending on the circumstances - there are plenty of people who use their title in private life but not in public or business life). Whatever her preference, she'd probably be described in a legal document as "Jane, Lady Brown". She couldn't become Lady Smith (unless of course her husband chose to change his surname to match hers, which is probably unlikely in my example but has happened in the past where an heiress has married). Similarly, Dame Gail Rebuck could choose to be Lady Gould of Brookwood, but she doesn't have to be (although, again, she'd probably be described as such in a legal document). Other examples include Dame Mary Arden (Lady Justice Arden), who could be Lady Mance as the wife of Lord Mance, and (an example not involving a switch of surname) Dame Norma Major, who ranks higher as the wife of Sir John Major (a Knight of the Garter) than she does as a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire, but who chooses not to be Lady Major. I suppose what I'm saying is that you can use your own title or your husband's, but not a combination of the two. Proteus (Talk) 11:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I defer to your greater experience and knowledge, but how do you reconcile what you are saying with the quote from DeBrett's: "The wife of a knight is known as 'Lady', followed by her surname..."? Not "followed by her husband's surname"...--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

They seem to be working on the assumption that all women take their husband's surname on marriage! The British Ministry of Justice appears to have taken down its guide on forms of address, but its archives indicate it didn't address this issue. The New Zealand Government, however, does still have such a guide, which clarifies the point: "The wife of a knight may use the courtesy title of “Lady” before her surname, provided she uses her husband’s surname." Proteus (Talk) 16:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Precedence and styles of the children of courtesy peers

I think I've found a rather big hole in Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom: children of courtesy peers are not addressed at all. I posted in the talk page a few weeks ago but received no response, so I'm bringing it up here (though I think it might be better for any resulting discussion to take place there?). This WikiProject certainly seems much more relevant than WikiProject Politics, though you wouldn't realise that from the talk-page banners. Waltham, The Duke of 16:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy peers rank as peers of the rank one lower than their father, but below substantive peers of that rank, so their children rank as the children of peers of that rank, but below the children of substantive peers of that rank. This then continues for their children. So the order is:

• Dukes
• Marquesses
• Eldest sons of Dukes
• Earls
• Eldest sons of Marquesses
• Eldest sons of eldest sons of Dukes
• Younger sons of Dukes
• Viscounts
• Eldest sons of Earls
• Eldest sons of eldest sons of Marquesses
• Eldest sons of eldest sons of eldest sons of Dukes
• Younger sons of Marquesses
• Younger sons of eldest sons of Dukes
• Barons
• etc.

As an aside, it is a slight oddity that the titles of the children of courtesy peers are taken from their father's title rather than his rank, and so a younger son of the Earl of Arundel would be an Honourable (addressed as "Mr Fitzalan-Howard" or "Sir") but a younger son of the Marquess of Tavistock would be a Lord (addressed as "Lord John" or "My Lord"), despite the fact that the former would outrank the latter (both would rank as Viscounts). Obviously the incongruity exists for a good reason with courtesy peers (the only alternative would be using peerages that don't exist), but there's no real reason why it should apply to their daughters and younger sons. Proteus (Talk) 20:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree in practice - though I think this is more by custom than by warrant as I've never seen a formal document to actually legalise this Garlicplanting (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And the whole question is largely theoretical, except for royal levees, which I hope don't rely on us. Precedence of infants rarely matters, except for royalty (not covered), and how many Dukes have had adult grandsons? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite a few - the point was that wiki needs to be a little careful in distinguishing between matters of law (perogative) and custom. We have something of the same with the wives of knights which are by custom 'lady' but legally 'dame' Garlicplanting (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Garlic, I wish your email was switched on. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a misunderstanding that "Courtesy peers rank as peers of the rank one lower than their father". The courtesy title can only be another title held by the actual peer, who often has a title of the next rank down, but not always. Also, the courtesy title needs to be different from the peer's main title. In the case of the Duke of Somerset, for instance, his eldest son is Lord Seymour. Moonraker (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sadly it's you who misunderstand the situation. Proteus is quite correct in stating "Courtesy peers rank as peers of the rank one lower than their father". It been the case for close on 500 years. (Lord Chamberlain's Order 1520/1595) In your example Lord Seymour ranks as a Marquess despite his father not holding such a title. As an additional point though it is generally true quite some peers use courtesy titles that don't exist or at ranks they don't hold.Garlicplanting (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You are right, I failed to read that as a comment about precedence and thought it was to do with the degree of a courtesy title. As it's about precedence, it would be more correct to speak of the eldest sons of peers, rather than of courtesy peers, as the table of precedence refers to eldest sons, some of whom might lack a courtesy title. (All peers' daughters also have much the same advantage of precedence as eldest sons, whereas other sons go not one rank lower but two.) Moonraker (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

My original question was not about courtesy peers but about their children; the styles and precedence of the various children of peers are well-documented in Wikipedia and elsewhere, but I did not know about either with regards to the grandchildren of peers (although the article on forms of address does indicate that the styles for peers' children apply equally to the offspring of courtesy peers, as I now notice). You are right that talking in terms of eldest children rather than courtesy peers would be better, but I didn't know about their treatment; rather, I hypothesised that, at the very least, the children of courtesy peers would have some style and a place in the order to go with it. I did think that the eldest son of, say, a baron's eldest son might also have a place in the order, but he would be fairly low and obviously has no style because his father has no courtesy title.

By the way, what you say on daughters touches on a realisation I had the other day, after studying the order of precedence a little closer: the daughters of earls are styled "Lady" because they rank as viscountesses, while their younger brothers are mere Honourables because they rank as barons. That difference always puzzled me. Waltham, The Duke of 19:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Daughters of Earls, Viscounts, Lords of Parliament or Barons formally and in correspondence are the "Hon xxxxx", or if married the "Hon Mrs xxxx". They are always referred to in common parlance as "Lady xxxx". Menfolk of that degree just have to deal with "Hon." or plain Mr. unless they are the sons of a Marquis or a Duke, when they would take the courtesy Lord. Brendandh (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Daughters of earls are Lady, not The Hon., as they rank as eldest sons of earls. Opera hat (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish, they are accorded the courtesy honorific of "Hon." for all normal correspondence, if one is a gentleman one might refer to such a lady as "the Lady [first name]". As non heritors they certainly don't take the pecking order place of the heir to an earldom. The daughters of a Duke or a Marquis are given that courtesy however, but still without a place in the system of precedence, unless they are a substantive peeress in their own right. Still it's nice to be nice to the ladies! Brendandh (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Daughters of earls bear the courtesy title of Lady before their Christian names - e.g. Lady Diana Spencer, daughter of the Earl Spencer; Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, daughter of the Earl of Strathmore. See also Debrett's.

Table of precedence
Gentlemen	Ladies
Viscounts	Viscountesses
Eldest sons of earls	Wives of eldest sons of earls Daughters of earls
Younger sons of marquesses	Wives of younger sons of marquesses
Bishops (in England)	no female Bishops in the CofE yet
Barons and Lords of Parliament	Baronesses and Ladies of Parliament
various offices including Secretaries of State
Eldest sons of viscounts	Wives of eldest sons of viscounts Daughters of viscounts
Younger sons of earls	Wives of younger sons of earls
Eldest sons of barons	Wives of eldest sons of barons Daughters of barons

Regarding where daughters rank, I have appended an excerpt from the tables of precedence which quite clearly shows that earls' daughters rank alongside eldest sons and some way above younger sons, and the same principle holds for daughters of viscounts and barons. Opera hat (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I was about to thank Proteus for his response and apologise for my delay in acknowledging it (I've been regrettably unable to follow my watchlist closely in the last few months) but I now see that the discussion is continuing. I have nothing to add myself, although it would be nice for this information to be added to the article in question if it can be cited; my curiosity has been satisfied, but the hole remains. Waltham, The Duke of 22:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need citation for the usage of titles by peers grandchildren. It visibly exists in practice as looking up individual peers gc in any reference or public news source shows. Wikis "sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" doesn't seem an issue here. Precedence is different as there is no easy way to see it. My earlier point still stands; I remain unconvinced without an official source that any precedence extends to gc (except royals) Garlicplanting (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the matter of citation relies on what can be safely considered common knowledge; most people have no clue about styles, but how much of a clue does one need to have so that something they do not know cannot be common knowledge?

Regarding the order of precedence, grandchildren are included anyway: the order at Debrett's includes the eldest sons of younger sons of hereditary peers (near the bottom). The eldest sons of eldest sons must therefore be included as well, and the fact that they are not mentioned points to the application of a sub-set of rules (as described by Proteus) which is apparently omitted for the sake of clarity in the list. In any case, reviewing the entire table reveals that anyone who has the style "Lord", for whatever reason, is included; common sense alone would therefore place the son of a courtesy marquess on it. (And the same thing goes for most Honourables, too.)

Then there is the internal consistency of the system described above. Precedence falls in a very specific manner as we move farther away from the peerage holder. One step away is the eldest son; two steps away are the eldest son of the eldest son and the younger sons of the substantive peer; three steps away are, in this order, the eldest son of the eldest son of the eldest son, the younger sons of the eldest son, and the eldest sons of the younger sons. With the exception of the very last case, the number of steps equals the number of ranks of lost precedence in relation to the peerage holder. If this order holds true, and knowing that the eldest sons of the younger sons are included in the table (as I have already mentioned), then all the preceding men are included as well, at least for dukes and marquesses and probably also for earls.

Most of this is original research, but it makes sense, no? Waltham, The Duke of 19:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Precedence rules don't always make sense so I'm not sure that argument follows :-). Either the table of p were drawn up at a time when gc very rarely reached adulthood (21 at the time) in their gf lifetime so the need for precedence didn't exist. It's only really the 20C that has seen this become reasonably common and no one seems to have ever bothered to amend the official precedence to take account of it. And/Or adult gc were/are treated socially and even officially as if they possessed a precedence as you suggest above so it was never thought necessary to codify it. 12:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garlicplanting (talk • contribs)

Related to this is the claim made at Duke of Manchester, but marked "citation needed", that: The heir apparent to the Dukedom takes the courtesy title Viscount Mandeville, and the heir apparent's heir apparent (when such exists) is styled Lord Kimbolton. (This is one of only two exceptions, the other being in the case of the Marquess of Londonderry, to the general rule that the heirs of Viscounts do not use courtesy peerages.) (The claim, and the plea for a citation, is repeated at Marquess of Londonderry.) Can anyone confirm or debunk this?--Kotniski (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I might have been the one who asked for the citation - I've certainly done so in the past. I think Valentine Heywood's British Titles has something on it but I don't have a copy. Opera hat (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Immediately after writing that I remembered it's reproduced at the online Cracroft's Peerage: see here. The relevant section on Lords Kimbolton/Stewart is here. Opera hat (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The above is accurate. Touching on this point and Duke of Waltham's there is an article in the 1827 Gentleman's Magazine (google) discussing Kimbolton mentioning its use and discussing the problem of no precedence being assigned to gc. Now I don't for a moment regard this as an authoritative source but it does indicate title use and the problem of precedence and gc not being covered in the tables being discussed for a long timeGarlicplanting (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That is here; which would suggest that there was no well-known rule under George IV. Since seating by precedence has noticeably decreased recently, this suggests that a Victorian source will be needed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Precedence of peers' grandsons revisited

The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica has a lengthy article on precedence (volume 22, pages 267 to 288) and specifically mentions this issue, as follows:

The sons of all persons, when any specified rank is assigned to them, are placed in the precedence of their fathers. Eldest sons of the younger sons of peers were ranked before the eldest sons of knights by order of the earl marshal, the 18th of March 1615, and before the eldest sons of baronets by order of the earl marshal, the 6th of April 1677. But no precedence has been given to the younger sons of the younger sons of peers, although precedence is given to the younger as well as the eldest sons of baronets and knights by James I.'s decree of 1616. Moreover, no precedence has been given to either the eldest or the younger sons of the eldest sons of peers. But in practice this omission is generally disregarded, and the children of the eldest sons of dukes, marquesses and earls, at all events, are accorded the same rank and titles which they would have if their fathers were actual instead of quasi peers of the degree next under that of their grandfathers. Sir Charles Young says that "by decision (Chap. Coll. Arms of 1680) if the eldest son of an earl died in his father's lifetime leaving a son and heir, such son and heir during the life of the earl his grandfather is entitled to the same place and precedence as was due to his father: so had the father been summoned to parliament as the eldest son of a peer the grandson would succeed to the dignity even during the grandfather's lifetime" (Order of Precedence, p. 27). And, of course, what applies to the grandson and heir of an earl applies equally to the grandsons and heirs of dukes and marquesses. But the grandsons and heirs of viscounts and barons are differently situated, and have neither honorary additions to their names nor any ascertained place and precedence even by the etiquette of society.

The whole article, though out-of-date in many respects, contains a lot of useful citable information on the order of precedence in general. I'm having a bit of trouble finding a decent online version, though; the one here is obviously just a direct scan with all the footnotes jumbled up in the text. There is a project to add the entire 1911 encyclopædia to wikisource, but it's in the early stages and the article on precedence hasn't yet been done. Scans of the individual pages of vol. 22 are viewable at wikisource here. I'm not a contributor to wikisource myself, but I might create a more easily-readable version of the precedence article on a user sub-page here on wikipedia if I get round to it. Opera hat (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Or I could just have read the wikipedia article on the 1911 EB which gives a list of online versions at the end! At archive.org starting here. Opera hat (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)