Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Ok. I've been a Wkipedia editor for about a year now and since then the number of historical articles has increased dramatically. The articles on royalty are now much more detailed and structured than they were a year ago. I think the efforts of a number of individuals, whose desire was to create unambiguously titled articles has been a success. The articles on the titles of the British and Irish peerage still remain a bit of a mess. Whilst we have standardised the general style of a peer and his title like so 'James Richard Cutherbertson, 3rd Duke of Mercia' there's no standard for how a page listing (or disambiguating) a peerage should be presented. There are a number of styles currently being used. e.g.

NB I'm using old versions of these pages so that if someone edits the page into a different format (as I've done with the Earl of Derby) the comparison still makes sense.

While many of these individual styles have their merits, I think it would make sense to agree on a standard format. I don't expect that peerage articles to be born wholly conforming to any particular format, but it would be nice to agree on something that we would like to aim for. I know some people who have a particular interest in the peerage have followed a similar format to that used in Debrett's, Burke's etc. but we do not have to limit ourselves to squeezing information into one page in the way they do. I'll leave the floor and see if anyone else would like to make a contribution to this discussion. Mintguy 10:08, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that our strength should be the ability to include details of the history of a title. But I also agree that we should have a basic format that is standardised. Deb 17:12, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a basic format for the articles on particular peerages. I somewhat partial to the format I used for the "Duke of Albany" article. I deliberated modelled this entry after the existing entries for the other dukedoms associated with the English, Scottish, and British royal families (e.g., Duke of York, Duke of Kent, Duke of Clarence). Perhaps one should reserve detailed biographical information about the holders of particular peerages (e.g., the 3rd Duke of Norfolk or the 8th Earl Spencer) for separate entries?

I would suggest: a) a succinct (or not, if so desired) description of the history of the title, with particular reference to multiple creations, if applicable, and some attention to subsidiary titles; followed by b) a list of holders of the title which ought, when applicable, to be separated out by creations. For articles on individual peers, do we think that all subsidiary titles should be listed, or not? john 17:35, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've been looking to craft an entry on the Earl of Derby, and I think he does deserve his own entry, as does the peerage itself. Besides which, keeping all the members of a house together (with say, the Cecils or the Bentincks), could get rather confusing. Mackensen 21:45, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've written up Lord John Manners, 7th Duke of Rutland. Should the page be listed as Lord John Manners, or as John James Robert Manners, 7th Duke of Rutland? Mackensen

The latter, or simply "John Manners, 7th Duke of Rutland", would probably be appropriate. On the other hand, we have Lord John Russell, 1st Earl Russell, so who knows? john 06:04, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Except that, technically, he was only "Lord John Russell" as a courtesy title while he was still merely the 3rd son of the Duke of Bedford. After being created 1st Earl Russell, the courtesy title no longer applied, and he generally shows up in book indexes, Webster's Biog. Dictionary, etc., as "John Russell, 1st Earl Russell." My personal taste would be for not using all of some peer's half-dozen forenames, as that would only make him harder to search, right? --Michael K. Smith 19:38, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Not much constructive comment on here for the general format of peerage title pages.

I was thinking, do people think it might be helpful to have a table at the bottom of the page for people holding hereditary peerage, whereby the the previous and following holders of their titles are shown. Similar to what we do for Prime Ministers? Mintguy 23:11, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That sounds like a fine idea, particularly with the Stanleys, Bentincks, Cecils, and Lennoxes, who show up frequently. I'd be all for it.

Mackensen 01:45, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea to me. Of course, what happens when someone holds several peerages which were inherited by different people. I think of, for instance, the 5th Duke of Sutherland. His Ducal title and related titles were inherited by his heir-male, a distant cousin, while his title of Earl of Sutherland was inherited by his heir-general, his niece. That kind of thing would have to be taken into account. Also someone like the last Duke of Portland - his Ducal title became extinct, but his title of Earl of Portland was inherited by his distant heir-male (a descendant of the 1st Earl of Portland, but not of the 1st Duke). And so on. john 05:36, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Well, it was precisely in these cicumstances that I was thinking it might be useful. Um... here's a ficticious example.
Duke of Romford
Preceded by:
Douglas Arthur Smith 		Followed by:
Extinct
&nbsp
Earl of Battersea
Baron Battersea
Preceded by:
William Michael Smith 		Followed by:
Michael Angus Smith
Earl of Medway
Preceded by:
New Creation 		Followed by:
Michael Angus Smith
Or something similar to this anyway Mintguy , might be a bit cluttered. 08:16, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

--- I beg to suggest as follows: ("associated titles"= Duke of Devonshire and Earl of Devonshire; Duke of Westminster and Earl Grosvenor; etc.)

  • The history of the title & associated titles
  • The reamainder, if different from the standard "heirs male"
  • A list of holders of the title & associated titles in the form:

--Earls of X, first Creation (1700)--

  • A B C D, 1st Earl of X (?-1725)
  • A B C D, 2nd Earl of X (1675-1750)

--Earls of X, second Creation (1800)--

  • A B C D, 1st Earl of X (1750-1825)
  • A B C D, 2nd Earl of X (1775-1850)
  • A B C D, 3rd Earl of X (became Duke of X in 1860) (1800-1875)

--Dukes of X (1860)--

  • A B C D, 1st Duke of X (1800-1875)
  • A B C D, 2nd Duke of X (1825-1900)
  • A B C D, 3rd Duke of X (1900-)

In order to standardize, the following must also be determined:

  • circa or ca. or c.
  • (?-1600) or (d. 1600)
  • (1950-) or (b. 1950)
  • 3rd Creation or third Creation

-- Lord Emsworth 23:34, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

Your suggestions sound good to me. In terms of standardization, I'd recommend "c.", "(d.1600)", "(b.1950)", and have no particular preference with respect to "3rd" or "Third". john 05:22, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Associated titles are often redirects which is why I've used a format in which they are displayed as a list in bold. Also when listing the peers, headings need to show the peerages that were created at the same time. Is it really necessary to list the same person under two (or more) titles as above where it says so-and so became so-and-so in XXXX. Look at Duke of Hamilton for a complicated example (that could probably be simplified or split up). Or Earl of Lichfield for a case where a peer of a completely different creation inherited the title. Mintguy

Instead of "Earl of X (became Duke of X in XXXX)", one could write: "Earl of X (later Duke of X)." The purpose of this is perhaps to indicate a continuity, rather than presenting the titles as unrelated. Lord Emsworth 17:31, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

Shall we now generally formalise what has been so far discussed? One could list the general ideas on the page, and then add details as they are debated and determined. -- Lord Emsworth 22:25, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

That sounds fine. john 23:59, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A couple questions

Why is the order included on some titles (XXXX, 2nd Duke of XXXX) and not for others (XXXX, Duke of XXXX).

Does Earl of Hopetoun need to be moved? [EDIT: It was moved a minute after I posted this.]

--Jiang 05:54, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Some people are not true holders of peerages and are listed under a courtesy title like John Manners, Marquess of Granby and Edward Adolphus Ferdinand Seymour, Earl St. Maur who both died before inheriting their father's titles. William Douglas, Duke of Hamilton became a duke on account of his wife being named the Duchess of Hamilton in her own right and doesn't have an ordinal. Some peers are also the only peer within that creation such as [Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset]] (I'm unclear as to whether these should have an ordinal or not). Others were named holders of titles at a time when it was unclear as to whether the they had the right to hold them and are therefore not truly the nth Duke or whatever and finally Royal princes do not generally have an ordinal for their other titles. Mintguy 09:50, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I concur with Minguy for the most part. I do think, though, that Robert Carr should have an ordinal, since the title which was then attainted was not Earl, but Duke, of Somerset. Others, like Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter, and so forth, probably shouldn't. I think that in all other cases, an ordinal should be used, even when it's "1st" for the only holder of a peerage. using "George Eden, 1st Earl of Auckland", instead of "George Eden, Earl of Auckland", means that the reader immediately knows that he was Earl in his own right, and not merely a courtesy peer. I've been moving some like that, although I probably should have discussed it here first... anyway, what do others think? john 20:46, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think that the idea of using the ordinals for only holders is fine. If one wished, then one could use the longer form: nth and last Duke of X, but the same could be relegated from the title to the first line of the article. -- Lord Emsworth 22:32, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think "2nd and last" or whatever should be used in the article title. john 23:10, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Listing

Do you believe that listings of peers should be bulleted or numbered? -- Lord Emsworth 23:11, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

I think bulleted - the numbering will be evident from the article titles.

Multiple Peerages of the Same Rank

For multiple peerages of the same rank, what should be the rule? My general principle has been that if someone has the same ordinal for both peerages, use both, as Charles Lennox, 3rd Duke of Richmond and Lennox, but if they have different ordinals for their different peerages, to just use the senior one, as Thomas Herbert, 8th Earl of Pembroke, rather than Thomas Herbert, 8th Earl of Pembroke, 5th Earl of Montgomery (which is awkward), or Thomas Herbert, 8th Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery (which is incorrect.) Other opinions on this? john 00:35, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree that the senior title should be used. -- Lord Emsworth 00:39, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)






"Baron" or "Lord"?

For barons, should we use "Baron" or "Lord" in the article title? Currently, it's rather a mishmash... john 00:35, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For barons, I would suggest 1st Baron, 2nd Baron, etc. But for Scottish Lords of Parliament, 1st Lord, 2nd Lord, etc. should be used. -- Lord Emsworth 00:39, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

I'm delighted that progress is been made with the format of peerage titles, and I must take my hat (not a coronet) off to Lord Emsworth for his relentless work. Mintguy 21:08, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Any reason for deleting the section on associated titles for Duke of Somerset? Mintguy

There were several problems. Firstly, it listed certain titles as still in existence, though, as has been noted, only one subsidiary title still exists. One is misled to beleive that the title is still associated with the dukedom. Another problem was with the Barony of Warkworth, which belongs to the Duke of Northumberland and not Somerset. -- Lord Emsworth

So when a user clicks on Earl of Hertford and is taken to the Duke of Somerset and finds that there is barely a mention of this title until fairly 3 quarters of the way through the title, it might be a bit confusing? I deliberately called the section titles that HAVE been associated with the title. Mintguy 19:34, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

re: Earl of Hertford, that should not redirect to Duke of Somerset to begin with, as that title is currently held by a different peer, the Marquess of Hertford. There were also numerous Earls of Hertford in the Middle Ages who had no connection to Somerset. Earl of Hertford should have a separate article. john 00:52, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have re-instated the section, with some minor changes. The Northumberland titles do not appear any more, for there is no indication of how they were severed Dukedom of Somerset, but if such information is known, then by all means one could place those titles as well in the appropriate place. -- Lord Emsworth

It probably belonged to the Dukedom of Somerset at one time, since the Dukes of Northumberland inherited many of the titles of the 6th Duke of Somerset, who died in the mid-18th century.
Fair enough, i'm sure I've made a number of such erros. I believe I took most of my information about who held what peerages when from http://www.thepeerage.com/. Unfortunately I'm not in possesion of Burke's or Debretts etc.. and paying a subscription for Burke's online seems like a bit of an extravagence. Mintguy 00:45, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It would appear that the 6th Duke of Somerset died one year before the creation of the Barony of Warkworth. [1]; [2] -- Lord Emsworth 00:18, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
Well, in that case, it's just wrong...


It is possible that the differences in years is due to the differences between the Julian and Gregorian calendars. -- Lord Emsworth 00:58, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

I have a question: Why does the eldest son of Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry use the title "Earl of Dalkeith," whilst the Marquessate of Dumfriesshire is available? -- Lord Emsworth 00:01, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

I am not completely sure. It may have to do with avoiding confusion with the Earl of Dumfries, the courtesy title of the eldest son of the Marquess of Bute. There's also the fact that the Dumfriesshire title is associated with the Queensberry Dukedom (I believe), while Dalkeith has always been the subsidiary title of the Buccleuch Dukedom. john 00:09, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The second reason appears likely; the Marquessate of Dumfriesshire was created in the same year as the Dukedom of Queensberry. [3] -- Lord Emsworth 00:21, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
Well, it was certainly a title belonging to the Dukes of Queensberry. I'm not sure that this means that that is why it wasn't used. john 00:28, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Linking place names etc in titles

What do peopel think about linking place names in titles of articles , such as Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone? Personally I'm against it as I think it breaks up flow the name and title. Mintguy

Generally, I am in support of your idea. However, sometimes, there are two different titles differenced only by the place names. Note, for instance, the Lords Archer of Sandwell and Weston-Super-Mare.
Furthermore, there are some titles in the form of "A of B of B," for instance: Baron Erskine of Rerrick of Rerrick. In such a case, the second use of the placename should be dropped, but perhaps the first could be retained. -- Lord Emsworth 01:50, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)


No. I think you mis-understand me. I'm talking about the linking in the article title. i.e. Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone instead Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone of at the top of Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone looks horrible to me. Mintguy
Oh, I understand what is meant now. I would agree that the place name need not be linked to. It could be noted later in the article, perhaps. -- Lord Emsworth 17:32, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

Earls of Essex

Does anyone know of the name and birth date of the present Earl of Essex? I have only been able to find information for Earls of Essex until the 8th Earl, who died in the middle of the 1960's. -- Lord Emsworth 01:50, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

According to [4], the 10th Earl (b.1920), succeeded his 3rd Cousin, once removed, in 1981. His name is/was Robert Edward de Vere Capell. But he may very well have died in the meanwhile, considering his age. He was apparently a postal worker before succeeding to the earldom, if you trust [5]


I would guess, though, that he hasn't died, because if he had died in the time since the Burke's online was put out, his death would probably be posted on alt.talk.royalty somewhere
According to [6], the 9th Earl of Essex was named Reginald George de Vere Capell, and lived 9 October 1906 - 18 May 1981. He was the son of the 8th Earl. john 05:29, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. -- Lord Emsworth 11:33, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

St. or St

Some articles, such as Edward Adolphus Ferdinand Seymour, Earl St. Maur, tend to use St. instead of St. Would the general policy be that the period be dropped when giving the title of a peerage, or should it be retained? -- Lord Emsworth 02:39, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

My understanding was that British spellings tend to drop the punctuation, but not being British, I probably shouldn't be relied on here. Whatever the British usage is should be maintained. john 05:29, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would not know, for I am not British either. I have seen the use of St without the period in most cases, though, so I would assume that the punctuation be dropped. I think that the general rule is that where the last letter of the abbreviation is the last letter of the word, the punctuation is not used. (Rt Honble, Mr, Dr, Bt). -- Lord Emsworth 11:33, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

LOL. So where do you guys hail from? I had assumed you were both British. Mintguy

I'm American. Back home in dear old Maryland, at the moment. john 20:44, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I am a resident of the US, but of the Republic of India. -- Lord Emsworth

Inclusion of titles in the article title

Much controversy surrounds the move of Benjamin Disraeli to Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, and the proposed move of Lord John Russell to John Russell, 1st Earl Russell. I think that Wikipedia ought to have a most clear convention on when it is acceptable to exclude the technically correct title. I think that, with the system of redirects in place, it would be best to have the "correct" title match the article title, and the more "common" title redirect to it. Here are some example articles that do not use the peerage title:


I think that we should aim for consistency and correctness generally, for redirects would take care of the more common titles. -- Lord Emsworth 18:02, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)


Consider also the case of Bertrand Russell. I bet few mathematicians or philosophers are even aware that he was 3rd Earl Russell (and a grandson of the troublesome Earl Russell alluded to above). Loren Rosen 23:32, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think if we are going to be consistent (which we should) then all peers should have the titles in their article headings. Lord E has expressed a fear of being accused of Anglocentrism if he moves Stanley Bruce to Stanley Bruce, 1st Viscount Bruce of Melbourne and Westminster. As an Australian I can assure him that no-one here gives a bandicoot's bum about Stanley Bruce, so he should make the change as he sees fit. Only three Australians were ever made peers: Bruce, (John Forrest, 1st Baron Forrest of Bunbury and Forret (note spelling: Forret is a place in Fifeshire whence came the ancestral Forrests), and Richard Casey, Baron Casey of Berwick and Westminster. All three died mercifully without heirs. Adam 01:24, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with the sentiment that all peers should have the titles in the article headings, with the sole exception of peers for life. -- Lord Emsworth 01:43, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...I think anybody who received a peerage after retirement ought to be listed under their proper name, without title. David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd George of Dwyfor would be bizarre. or Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton. Sigh...I think I'd prefer simply playing it by ear on a case by case basis. Certainly we should have William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, among other things... john 03:19, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that there would be anything particularly bizarre about, say, David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd George. Sure, the title would be very long and perhaps tedious to type out, but David Lloyd George would always redirect there. -- Lord Emsworth 20:05, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

Seeing as Lloyd George only held that title for a few months before his death, and long after he had ceased to play any significant role in public affairs, I think it's unnecessarily obscurantist to do that. Especially since there are people objecting to putting Pitt the Elder under Chatham (see Talk:William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham). john 21:15, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think there is a fundamental problem, in so far as some people are known by their title, some by their career of which their title was secondary. As this isn't Burke's Peerage, I don't think we should have a hangup about using exact titles in all cases. Lord John Russell, for example, is known 99% of the time in that format, not as a later earl. David Lloyd George is known universally as that, not by his later peerage. Ditto with Herbert Asquith and many others. Following peerage titles and format can in some cases produce absurdities. Francis Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford may be technically correct but it is nonsensical. Pakenham was an internationally renounced author, activist and politician, known at different times as Frank Pakenham or Lord Longford. But no-one, bar perhaps his mother, called him "Francis". To be recognisable, it has to be Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford. But (as the person who started the reorganising the royal titles on wikipedia to give them structure rather than the ridiculous Charles Windsor nonsense that was the wikipedia standard at the time) insisting that Frank Pakenham be called Frank Pakenham rather than Francis, I ran the gaunlet of people screaming "but you can't call an earl 'Frank'!" We need reality and accuracy here, not dogmatism. If someone is known universally by a lower title or none, they should not be placed in as a rarely known, theoretically more correct, higher title in the article title. That can be covered by redirects and in the article itself. FearÉIREANN 21:35, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Then we should have a clear convention about when articles are to be named without the inclusion of the title. Perhaps the criteria could be (note that these are but draft proposals):

  1. The individual played a very significant role in public affairs and held a public office prior to being elevated.
  2. The individual was not active in public affairs after being elevated.
  3. The individual was known by the peerage title for an insignificant amount of time.
  4. The lesser title is far more common than the peerage title.
  5. When the subject inherited a title, the title ought to be included in the article title, regardless of the above.

I think that the most controversial criteria might be the third and final ones. -- Lord Emsworth 21:47, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

You folk keep talking as if this was a paper encyclopaedia. The beauty of this format is that it doesn't matter what articles are called. Anyone who wants Lloyd George will search for "Lloyd George" and find the article whether his title is part of the heading or not. I would include all titles in headings. There should be redirects from other forms of their names. For example Lord John Russell should redirect to John Russell, 1st Earl Russell. Adam 23:28, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Why should someone in an encyclopædia as Lord John Russell, the British prime minister, be put in under a different name? It makes no logical sense to opt for a name 0.01% of people would recognise in preference to one that just about anyone interested in mid-19th century British or Irish politics would recognise. It is like putting in Jimmy Carter as James Earl Carter. It isn't as in monarchs where the formal title and ordinal is central. For people like Packenham, Russell, Lloyd George, Atlee and others their title was a minor footnote. I am all for as much accuracy in titles as possible, but there are commonsense limits, or else we should, in strict accuracy, have a page called Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand . . . I think Lord Emsworth's suggestion worth considering in detail. It makes perfect sense. FearÉIREANN 23:47, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

FYI, Russell was PM twice, the second time as Earl Russell. Most encyclopaedias and history books index him as Earl Russell. And Pakenham was much better known as Lord Longford (if that's who you're talking about) than as Frank Pakenham. Adam 23:53, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually no, Pakenham was known as Frank Pakenham in the 1930s and 1940s during his writing of his most important book and his political career. Long Longford was his brother the theatre impressario. Talk about Lord Longford in the 1940s and 1950s and people would instinctively have thought of the Gate Theatre manager. Talk about Lord Longford later and they would have thought of Frank Pakenham. Today's Lord Longford is universally known as Thomas Pakenham the historian. Even his friends don't think of him as Lord Longford. So simply talking about Lord Longford is meaningless, when you don't simply have many Lord Longfords, but two Lord Longfords who were internationally renouned historians. FearÉIREANN 20:37, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but on the other hand, Walpole or Macmillan were hardly known as Orford and Stockton...I think something like Lord Emsworth's idea should be used - the highest title by which the person was known during the time they were actually active in public life. That, unfortunately, leaves us with the Earl of Balfour (and I'm not sure where it leaves us with Shelburne/Lansdowne), but I think leaves us in a relatively satisfactory position for almost everybody else. And Adam's certainly right that it doesn't really matter where the article is located, so long as there's a redirect. So long as Jimmy Carter hits the article, I wouldn't especially object to an article at James Earl Carter. (James Carter, 1st Earl Carter of Plains would, however, be inappropriate) john 00:08, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Surely it is better to have a consistent rule, rather than have to make subjective judgements all the time? (What, incidentally, are we doing with Alec Douglas-Home, who was successively Viscount Dunglass, 15th Earl of Home, Sir Alec Douglas-Home and Baron Home of the Hersel, and active in public life under all four titles?) Adam 00:14, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Normally, one would have the highest title- Earl of Home. This rules out the courtesy title of Lord Dunglass. Then, we already have a rule that life peerages and knighthoods are not to be indicated in the title. So finally, we are left with Alec Douglas-Home, 14th Earl of Home, or Alec Douglas-Home. I prefer the latter because the former title was disclaimed. Similarly, Tony Benn rather than Tony Benn, 2nd Viscount Stansgate. -- Lord Emsworth 00:18, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
Private Eye always calls him "the former Viscount Stansgate" just to annoy him. Adam 00:22, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see how the addition of a title would detract from the article, though I can see how the removal of one would. Nonetheless, it has been pointed out that strictly accurate articles could have extremely long titles, such as the one on Elizabeth II. However, long-winded titles must of course be reduced in length. We have agreed to eliminate all but the highest title in the case of peers, as well as in the case of monarchs. For instance, we do not have Elizabeth II, of the United Kingdom ... Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. Instead, following a simple rule, we have Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. We further use the "primary" title - I don't think that many will argue that the UK monarchy is not Her Majesty's primary one - for the Queen. We are thus being accurate and consistent. Indeed, if we were to include every title, then even for peers the heading would become very long. Just as we have a reduced but accurate and consistent title for the monarch, we could have a reduced (to the highest title) but accurate and consistent title for peers. Ideally, I would agree with Dr Carr on this matter, and suggest that all articles ought to be consistently titled, with the inclusion of the peerage. However, there was vehement opposition to the idea, and not that much support; the practicality of getting my way was difficult, for which reason I have proposed the above criteria. -- Lord Emsworth 00:15, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

I also would not exactly oppose just using highest title, unless disclaimed, but seeing as there's people who want to move William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham back to William Pitt the Elder, when he actually is called Chatham a lot, I hate to see what people will do with Maurice Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton or Robert Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon. john 00:29, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What a pity... But I think that once we have some sort of consensus here, then we can perhaps move one or two of those controversial pages, and have people then directed here to debate the matter. Next, if we manage to convince such people, then we might adopt the convention. (I don't know about the formalities of adopting an official convention, though.) If, however, said people are unconvinced, then I will resign myself to the criteria that I have proposed. -- Lord Emsworth 00:35, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

I think you should just rename the pages as you see fit and then argue with anyone who objects on a case-by-case basis :) Adam 00:38, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here's a test case: Harold MacMillan, 1st Earl of Stockton Adam 00:40, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

For now, I will be satisfied with renaming Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon, who incidentally held the earldom for over fifteen years, making argument a bit easier there. I will try moving a few more a little later, but I am interested in first seeing reactions to the two moves already made. -- Lord Emsworth

Just to guage the sentiments of others, I intend to take an informal poll. I think that I will reserve a formal vote for later, probably for deciding finally on whether to accept the convention or not.
INFORMAL POLL: Ought all articles whose subjects are peers include the highest title of the peer in the article title?

YES (3): Lord Emsworth, Adam, PMA

NO (2): john (I think nearly all articles should do this, but I'd favor exceptions for people who received or inherited peerage titles after their retirement from public life) FearÉIREANN (yes in most cases but I think there has to be exceptions. Producing obscure and unrecognisable forms simply because they were their technically correct title could undermine the credibility of relevant title usage. As the experience over monarchical titles showed, there are a lot of people who vehemently oppose any titles being used. OTT 'in all cases' title usage could produce a backlash and re-invigorate the 'ditch imperialist titles brigade' lot who still whine about the work a few of us did to sort out the monarchical titles mess and try every so often to re-open the debate.

(Add three tildes - ~~~ - next to the previous voter's name in order to cast your vote.)

Note: In order to avoid cluttering the space, I removed the dates and times indicated next to the names. -- Lord Emsworth 02:15, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'm coming into this conversation a bit late, don't have time to read every talk page on the Wikipedia after all, but could we please make some headroads into changing Benjamin Disraeli to an article rather than a redirect, and Duke of Wellington into an article instead of a disambiguation page, in keeping with the caveat of "best known in English"? I don't think a WikiProject should attempt to trump something that fundamental. - Hephaestos 01:50, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield is already an article. Adam 02:00, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Really? You call him that in common conversation? This would be something I think is quite uncommon in the English-speaking world, as a matter of fact. The fact that he was 1st Earl of Beaconsfield is widely known, but seldom said outside Burke's. - Hephaestos 02:26, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Not so, Hep. Many history books taking about Disraeli's later career exclusively call him Beaconsfield. I don't see the point in calling Macmillan the Earl of Stockton as he was not called that except in his retirement. But Disraeli was known as Beaconsfield during his career so IMHO is a necessity in the article title. FearÉIREANN 20:29, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Seldom said? The encyclopaediae Britannica, Encarta, and Columbia mention the Earldom in the title of the entry, as does Bartlett's Quotations, and several other reference works. Not, of course, that I am suggesting that we should entitle our articles based on other reference works. I simply think that the idea that the fact is seldom mentioned is not particularly accurate. -- Lord Emsworth 02:51, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

I also think, with the greatest of respect to Hephaestos and others, that the mysteries of the peerage are something that Americans have very little understanding of, and that they ought to allow those with expertise in the field (such as Lord E) to establish protocols. Adam 02:05, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See, the thing about an encyclopedia is to remove "mystery" (I should mention I just mistyped "mysery") and get people to the proper name. This project has gotten completely out of control with regard to famous peers. I mentioned something along these lines to Jtdirl about a year ago with no satisfaction, but it seems to me the "naming conventions" advocated by this closed group will border on vandalism if unchecked. The full name and title in bold in the first line of the article should be enough. - Hephaestos 02:26, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Haephestos thus proves my point about Americans presuming to know everything about everything. The fact is that naming peers is a difficult issue, which does not admit of a simple solution. Lord E and others are rtying to devise a solution to this. Exactly what is being vandalised by calling people by the correct forms of their names and titles? I think this is just anti-British prejudice. If we were proposing to use correct but arcane titles of (for example) Native American chiefs, no-one would dare object, for fear of being called un-PC. But silly old dukes and earls are easy game. Adam 02:34, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Bull. I've made this same argument at Talk:Sitting Bull and come to an amicable conclusion quite quickly (certainly well under a year). - Hephaestos 02:48, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Without intending to be rude, I beg to suggest that the idea that we are committing vandalism to be quite ridiculous, and perhaps even insulting. -- Lord Emsworth 02:35, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
I appreciate keeping the conversation on a civil level, but I call it as I see it. It is rather these article names that are ridiculous. The article naming guidelines are here for American, British, Australian, Indian, Israeli, heck every English-speaking reader of the Wikipedia, and I think you folks here are forgetting that. - Hephaestos 02:48, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, I hardly think that calling individuals expressing the point of view that articles ought to include peerage titles vandals is particularly civil. Secondly, it is my considered opinion that we have not forgotten anything at all about who these guidelines are for. I pray to ask what, indeed, have I or anybody else said that would imply that we are ignoring American, Australian, Indian, or Israeli readers? -- Lord Emsworth
What's the exact issue here, Hephaestos? If we have redirects, what mystery is there? I think it would be awkward to have some people at their highest peerage title when they are never actually called that (as Asquith, Lloyd George, Baldwin, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Bertrand Russell), but I don't see how it would be confusing in any particular way. At any rate, accusations of vandalism are completely uncalled for. We've been having lively discussion of these issues for some time, and I don't think anyone has been trying to force the issue. Whatever position being arrived at is being arrived at through open discussion. That people who are generally not interested in contributing to articles on British politics or the peerage have not generally involved themselves is, I suppose, natural, but doesn't mean that we're some kind of cabal or clique. I do think that some deference ought to be shown to the preferences of the people who actually do work on this material, just as I don't tend to get into nomenclature arguments in areas of wikipedia to which I don't contribute. john 02:41, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would absolutely object to changing "Duke of Wellington" into an article on the first duke. Clearly, one cannot relegate it to the level of a mere disambiguation page? Indeed, I think that it is not a disambiguation page; rather, it is a page on the dukedom in question. I see absolutely no reason to change the article on the dukedom to an article on the first duke.

Secondly, the "best known in English" convention that you cite has its own caveat:
Note: Because of the complexities involved, monarchical titles and noble titles are covered by a separate naming convention, namely Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles).
Thus, I respectfully and humbly suggest that I don't believe that we are trumping anything too fundamental. Of course, there could be a similar requirement in the second page governing peers, but it would be such a requirement that we are trying to "overturn". -- Lord Emsworth 02:06, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

Hephaestos, in what sense does adding "1st Earl of Beaconsfield" to the article title, or whatever, lead to confusion among Indian, American, Australian, readers, or whatever? "Benjamin Disraeli" is still there in the article title for everybody to see (unlike the Sitting Bull example). Furthermore, English language histories generally do use the full peerage title for indexing purposes, at least, and for the time when the person held that peerage. Again, as long as there are redirects, I'm not sure what the problem is, especially since adding peerage titles does not actually obscure the person's more commonly known name, as Tatanka Iyotake does. john 02:59, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

To take an obvious example: few people call Asquith by his title, which he acquired late in life. But if anyone wants to find the Asquith article, they just search for "Asquith" and are taken straight to it. What difference does it make whether they are taken to Herbert Asquith or Herbert Asquith, 1st Earl of Oxford and Asquith? Both are perfectly clear titles, one just happens to be more fuller and more accurate than the other. What harm is being done? What is being vandalised? Adam 03:01, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well that is wrong. His name was Herbert Henry but Margot made him drop the Herbert, which she considered common. So he was definitely Henry from the time of his 2nd marriage, which was well before he was PM. Adam 03:08, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've always seen "Herbert Henry Asquith"...perhaps we should move the page? john 03:09, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Benjamin Disraeli was the 1st Earl of Beaconsfield because of what he did. I tend to think he would turn in his grave if the title were a defining item in an article about him. This whole scheme borders on the ridiculous. Certainly members of the peerage deserve articles solely on that basis; however, Horatio Nelson doesn't deserve to be belittled in such a manner, and I fear he might be next in this onslaught. Neither do any of the others, such as Disraeli. I think Disraeli might be turning in his grave to think that 21st century writers think "Beaconsfield" is worthy of more than a footnote.
We have guidelines here. Duke of Wellington should be an article about the first Duke, with a disambiguation line at the top saying "for others (etc. etc.) linked to Duke of Wellington (disambiguation). Unless all of the writers here feel they owe some kind of fealty to the dukedom.
I can assure you that I feel no fealty whatsoever to any dukedom. However, I do feel that I must not be innaccurate. To suggest that "Duke of Wellington" be on the first duke only is ridiculous. It is like suggesting that "Princess of Wales" be on Lady Diana Spencer, later Diana, Princess of Wales, just because she is the most famous holder of the title. Rather, I feel that the title deserves a separate article, just as the dukedom deserves a separate article. -- Lord Emsworth 11:31, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
(PS and here I got into two edit conflicts over "Herberts". It's quite ridiculous.) - Hephaestos 03:11, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The guidelines we have do not support the position you are arguing. Further, it is ridiculous to suggest that including someone's peerage title is somehow "belittling" Lord Beaconsfield, or Lord Nelson, or whomever. Further, why is it belittling to Beaconsfield to include his title, but not to the Duke of Wellington, who also received his title because of what he did. And why on earth should the Duke of Wellington article be completely different from every other article about a general peerage title? The Iron Duke was known as simply "Arthur Wellesley" for his earlier career. Why is it wrong to use Lord Beaconsfield's title in addition to his name, but also wrong to include Wellington's personal name in his article at all? john 03:17, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Basically because when one says "Lord Beaconsfield" few people know who you're talking about. Sheesh. And I invite other Britons to confirm this. - Hephaestos 03:20, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But nobody's saying "Lord Beaconsfield" except for the 1876-1881 period, which is fairly standard in historical works (not universal, but certainly at least as common as the other). A.J.P. Taylor calls him Beaconsfield after 1876, for instance, and he's hardly some sort of High Tory traditionalist. "Benjamin Disraeli" will still be present in the article title, and he's referred to as Disraeli before 1876. john 03:23, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think actually that's how all this started, with how the names were listed in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. It doesn't hold today. - Hephaestos 03:32, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I can assure you that Nelson would be grossly offended if his title, of which he was inordinately proud, was not used. Disraeli was a bit more cynical, but he was a great upholder of the aristocratic principle. Adam 03:24, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Used, in bold, on the first line of his article. As I said, I think that's enough. The hoi polloi read this thing. They're ultimately what we're geared toward. - Hephaestos 03:32, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Your argument is constantly changing. Again, please explain what exactly is confusing about the Firstname Lastname, #th HighestPeerageRank (of) Peeragetitle format? Would anyone really be confused as to whether we mean Disraeli or not? john 03:35, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think rather you should explain what exactly is confusing about Firstname Lastname, except in the case of a duplicate. - Hephaestos 03:40, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It is neither complete nor correct. Most peers are known by their peerage title. By your standard articles should be at Arthur Wellesley, Henry Temple, Robert Jenkinson, Frederick Robinson, and so forth. Using the full peerage standard leaves no ambiguity, and is clearly the best option for most articles. john 03:44, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Could one identify easily, without titles: Philip Mountbatten, Frederick Robinson, Edward Stanley, or even Arthur Wettin? -- Lord Emsworth 22:12, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, while Disraeli probably wouldn't exactly be offended to have the title deleted, he'd certainly be delighted if it was used... john 03:28, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

To be clear, there would be no problem in my mind in renaming the Horatio Nelson article as Lord Nelson or even Admiral Lord Nelson, both of which are more common names. To go with Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson is patently ridiculous. I would prefer that that the Wikipedia not be patently ridiculous. - Hephaestos 03:49, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why is this patently ridiculous? This form is uniquely identifying and frequently used in reference works and indexes. Furthermore, it is correct in a way that Admiral Lord Nelson or whatever, simply isn't. And using this standard means one always knows where an article should be, and doesn't have to make constant judgment calls about what the most "commonly used" version is. john 03:52, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Why is this patently ridiculous?" Let's try Richard Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, 1st Duke of Buckingham and Chandos. What does a general English speaker call him? Well, nothing, they've never heard of him. What do his friends call him, "Dick"? The point is nobody rattles that off their tongue when referring to a person, ever. "Benjamin Disraeli", "Lord Nelson" "Winston Churchill", that's what I always hear, and I guess I'm in a majority in the English-speaking world in hearing it. - Hephaestos 04:01, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, I agree that no individual "rattles off their tongue". However, encyclopedias do. Several individuals would tend never to use such English as is required in encyclopedic writing, but should we stop using correct grammar just because individuals would not? Now, addressing your points, firstly, Winston Churchill was never a peer. Secondly, to have an article on "Lord Nelson" would be to engage in terminological inexactitude, and it would be wholly uncencyclopedic to name an article thus. Thirdly, we have already addressed the point about Disraeli. -- Lord Emsworth 11:38, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

What Heph fails to grasp is that a peerage is not just a title. Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson was actually the man's name once he became a peer. A peerage involves a change of name. Once Arthur Wellesley became Duke of Wellington, Arthur Wellesley ceased to exist as a legal person. To omit the full name is to falsify history. Adam 04:03, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What Adam (bless you for having a four-letter name that I don't have to heavily type) fails to grasp is that it doesn't really matter a damn what someone calls themselves, it's what they're generally known as. Like Paul Simon or Kim Beazley, junior. - Hephaestos 04:12, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I imagine one would have called the fellow "The Duke of Buckingham" while he was alive (or "Lord Buckingham" before 1821). After his death, it'd be rather unclear. The "1st Duke of Buckingham" certainly wouldn't clear things up, since there'd been several of those. Perhaps "the 1st Duke of Buckingham and Chandos." But yeah, it's difficult. and those Buckingham&Chandosers certainly had ridiculous surnames (Richard Grenville, 1st Duke of Buckingham and Chandos would probably be appropriate, although not particularly correct.) In any event, your view of things would leave us in complete chaos. Every single article about a peer would have to be played by ear, and there'd be no possible way to have any logical progression of articles about peerage titles in general, since you'd force us to have Duke of Wellington or Duke of Marlborough or whatever be articles about an individual, rather than about a title. And all this, and you've still not explained what exactly is wrong with the system pretty much everybody else here has accepted (at least, for the majority of peers, with some exceptions, at least IMO), except that it means that articles aren't listed at the location where they're "most commonly known." Seeing how nebulous such a judgment is, I'm not sure what to make of it. Certainly, I'd expect William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham to be where an encyclopedia would list that gentleman, for instance. john 04:22, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think we will have to agree politely to ignore Hephaestos, and rename the articles accordign to the convention we have agreed on. Adam 04:42, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter a damn what they were called back in the day, it matters what they're called now. Sorry Adam, but this isn't an easily ignorable item. Some of these articles will be moved shortly, and it's probable that additional editors will agree and move others to their proper places. - Hephaestos 05:02, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The devil? I think you fail to realize the scope of the peerage project here. Ultimately, there will probably be entries on all of the major lines (certainly the major families are well represented already). What you suggest is administrative chaos. Do you realize how many Lords Derby there are? And how many were well-known? The current system safeguards against ambiguity, and several people have gone to tremendous effort to devise and implement it. Finally, as a history major, I have to say that what they were called "back in the day" is indeed what matters. We cannot go back and subjectively give whatever name we want. To do so would, among other things, render Wikipedia absolutely worthless as a research tool. Mackensen 20:44, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Avoid the passive tense. "will be moved" avoids responsibility. Do you mean to say "I will start an edit war over this issue"? john 05:12, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Surely what matters, Heph, is what they should be called. Adam 05:33, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Actually I think I have to disagree with Lord E on the Duke of Wellington question. I think Duke of Wellington should be a redirect to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, because that is what most people want when they go looking for "Duke of Wellington." The material which is currently at that article should be at an article called Dukedom of Wellington (or if that is thought too clumsy, perhaps Dukes of Wellington), and by analogy all articles which are about particular peerages rather than about individual peers should take that form. Adam 13:24, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that Duke of Wellington ought even to redirect. Perhaps, however, one could have a message of "disambiguation" at the top. Now, however, regarding the general move from the singular to the plural, I would not necessarily agree, but it would be something worth considering. -- Lord Emsworth 21:55, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
I think the fact that Wikipedia has redirects is being used as an excuse to put an article at odd places where it would never occur in any other reputable, modern encyclopedia. And I think it hurts Wikipedia's credibility. - Hephaestos 16:07, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? As people have demonstrated, most other encyclopedias include full peerage titles. For Disraeli, Britannica has "Disraeli, Benjamin, Earl Of Beaconsfield, Viscount Hughenden Of Hughenden," Columbia Encyclopedia has "Disraeli, Benjamin, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield," Bartlett's Quotations, rather oddly, has "Benjamin, Earl of Beaconsfield Disraeli". Encarta has "Disraeli, Benjamin, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield." The BBC has "Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield, Viscount Hughenden of Hughenden" [7]. Can you find a reputable encyclopedia which does not include Disraeli's peerage title, Hephaestos? john 17:42, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Notably Columbia [8] which you mention.
Er...it's not alphabetized under Beaconsfield, but Beaconsfield is part of the title. See here [9]. john 23:30, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Certainly the full name and title should be used in the first line, that's standard Wikipedia convention as well. Nor do I advocate dropping titles from the vast majority of the articles that have them; in many cases, that is the name they're best known by in English. However to quote from the naming convention for royalty:
If a person is best known by his cognomen, or by a name that doesn't exactly fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name.
(Bolding not mine.) This clearly applies to "Beaconsfield" and "Wellesley", as well as many others. Sometime, I don't know when, some people took it that for some strange reason this didn't apply in the case of the peerage. It should be changed back to be in line with the rest of the encyclopedia. Ideally, the article's name should almost always match what someone types into the search engine. - Hephaestos 21:26, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
As to Adam's comment, if someone wants to move all pages on peerage titles to Dukedom of Wellington, or whatever, that's fine. But that would require an inordinate effort, and I'm not volunteering (are you, Adam?) john 17:42, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
(re Heph)That's patently absurd. If anything, the redirects are being used because articles were put in odd places (like, Lord John Manners was moved to John James Robert Manners, 7th Duke of Rutland). There have been any number of Lords John Manners throughout history, and we cannot afford to show any one precedence because the scope of the wiki is not limited to the 19th century. We have to consider these people in a broader context. There is more than one Duke of Wellington. Mackensen 20:44, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have to completely disagree with Hep on this one. I think Hep's argument is flawed in theory and would be dismissed out of hand by all historians, academics, researchers, authors and biographers I have ever come across. (And I come from the Republic of Ireland, not the UK.) Adam is correct in pointing out that a title is someone's name. The argument of using what is commonly thought of as someone's name, rather than their actual name, is absurd. And far from hitting wikipedia's credibility, I know that in the area of royal and titled nomenclature is very highly regarded, with one of the US's biggest encyclopædias, in preparing their next edition, seeing wikipedia's accuracy with titles as being something they hope to aim to match. FearÉIREANN 20:55, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If using what is commonly thought of as someone's name, rather than their actual name, is absurd, then why don't we just set about moving Gregory Peck, Jimmy Carter, Alfred the Great, and dozens of other straightforward, unambiguous article titles to their "proper" names, since as things stand now apparently peerage rate a special exemption that Wikipedia does not even grant to royalty, as noted above. - Hephaestos 21:26, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, I fail to see where one would otherwise have the article on Gregory Peck. Secondly, in the case of peers, nicknames seem to be allowed (see Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford, for example). Thirdly, in the case of Alfred the Great, one would make an allowance for him and certain others under some proposals allowing the common name to be used in certain cases - see the draft criteria that I proposed allowed. Finally, it does not matter whether royalty merits something or not: there is no special exception to "merit". Let me ask Hephaestos: Is it your proposal that all references to the peerage be dropped in the title? If not, what is your proposal? -- Lord Emsworth 22:01, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
My proposal is simply that we use the naming conventions that have been in place all along, such as using English and common names. These are general guidelines for Wikipedia, and predate the change made for peerage in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), which being a specific convention should never trump one of the general ones.
For instance, I think the first Duke's article should be titled Duke of Wellington, because that is how he is overwhelmingly known, and when speaking of other Dukes of Wellington it's usually necessary to specify "no, not the Duke of Wellington". It should have a disambiguation block at the top:
This article is about Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. For other holders of the title, please see Dukes of Wellington
Why would we want to do this? Most every peer is best known as simply "Lord Suchandsuch" or the "Duke of suchandsuch". It would invite chaos to try to put all their articles at those locations.
...or whatever is decided that the disambiguation page currently at Duke of Wellington should be titled. Likewise Lord Nelson, Lord Salisbury, etc.
Dear Lord, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Marquesses of Salisbury have all been notable figures in politics. So was Robert Cecil, the 1st Earl. All were known as "Lord Salisbury". Your suggestion is a recipe for chaos. john 23:30, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
For others who are best known by their name rather than their title, their biography should be titled with that name (for example Jackie Fisher, which is currently in the wrong spot for completely different reasons). And I think this applies to Benjamin Disraeli as well. Just a look at what links to that article should be a sign: currently over a hundred, as opposed to fourteen that link to any variation of "Beaconsfield". Naturally in cases like this the full name with the title should be in bold in the first line of the article.


For persons whose main claim to fame is the title, the way things are presently being done is just fine, and those articles should be left where they are. This probably constitutes the bulk of the articles in question. - Hephaestos 23:06, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Firstly, I absolutely disagree with the idea that we should in each and every case have to make a subjective judgement as to whether an individual's title is his "claim to fame." I would be willing, as I have earlier indicated, to compromise on the matter of whether titles ought to be used, but as you can see my criteria are a little stricter than yours. Most encyclopedias tend to favour the position that, for example, the earldom of Beaconsfield deserves a mention.
Secondly, you keep repeatedly pointing out that Duke of Wellington is a disambiguation page, when it is no such thing. Does it to you seem impossible to have a page on a title? Can we not have Prince of Wales, Princess of Wales, Holy Roman Emperor, and so on? Would you propose that each of these be redirects, or at least that the first two be, because we all know who the most famous holders of those titles are?
Thirdly, when there are several peers with the same title but are still famous, one would have to make an extremely subjective and perhaps controversial judgement call as to which deserves the title, and as to which deserves to have some sort of disambiguating remark: for instance, two Earls Grey have been famous, the second and the fourth. Are we to decide, well, the second was more famous, so he should be at Lord Grey, while the fourth was less famous, so he should be at Albert Henry George Grey, 4th Earl Grey?
Fourthly, you are being terribly inconsistent. You suggest that we have Lord Nelson because he is thus known commonly, but you at the same time point out that "For persons whose main claim to fame is the title, the way things are presently being done is just fine". Now, which is preferable to you? Lord Nelson, being known as Lord Nelson often, would have a "claim to fame" thaat would include the title. Then, however, in a seemingly contradictory manner, we are to follow the present convention, and at the same time follow your suggestion that the article be at Lord Nelson. -- Lord Emsworth 23:27, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)~
Yep, technically Bill Clinton is not the actual name of the person who is legally named William Clinton, and I'll bet Tony Blair's legal documents say Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. It's a judgment call as to what is the most familiar name. When I see a Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson I have to stop and think - is this the Nelson, or some obscure guy whose only claim to fame is the title? But, the excessive article titles are very educational for Americans - a good reminder of the reflexive bowing and scraping that still goes on in Europe. :-) Stan 21:58, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In most cases, I would not call the article titles "excessive". -- Lord Emsworth 22:18, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
Stan, why is Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson any more confusing than just Horatio Nelson would be? Either way one has to stop and think about it, since he's generally called "Lord Nelson", which is, I think, inappropriate as an article title.
After 20 years of studying naval history, the first phrase that pops to my mind when thinking of Nelson is "Admiral Nelson", then "Lord Nelson", and after that "Horatio Nelson". So to me "Horatio Nelson" is the first unambiguous identifier for the person I'm thinking of. I've read two bios of him, but still couldn't say from memory whether he's Viscount or Marquess or Baron (Yeah, I know, senility is setting in.) So the additional titling bits look like a disambiguator, and when I see disambiguator I think "OK, must be somebody obscure, because there's a qualifier attached to a familiar name." It's sort of like an article titled Bill Clinton (Southern politician) .... for a moment you were wondering if it's about the US president or somebody else, eh? Stan 01:36, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well, I can assure you that "Viscount Nelson" is not a disambiguator. If your second thought is "Lord Nelson", then you would probably conclude that the reference to the Viscounty might be related to the title "Lord Nelson". There is a difference between "Southern politician" and "Viscount Nelson". The former is a description, and could perhaps be regarded as a disambiguation. However, the latter is not a description: it is a title, it is a name. -- Lord Emsworth 02:12, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
You're missing my point, which is that the titles look like disambiguators to people who are not familiar with the minutiae of the peerage, which is going to be almost every reader. I was describing my mental workings, faults and all. Stan 04:19, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Adding my opinion: I think that articles on well known people whose title is seldom mentioned should have their articles at their commonly used names. That is where most people will commonly look first; IMO uniformity of titling should not come at expense of usefullness. I feel this is particularly so with people who were already well known before gaining peerage, such as Bertrand Russell. -- Infrogmation 22:55, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


To get back to general thoughts, I tend to think that in most cases Name, Peerage Title, ought to be the format for such articles. I do think that there should be exceptions, in particular, for people who are almost never called by their peerage title. 20th century Prime Ministers who were made Earls upon retirement, or Bertrand Russell, or Lord North, or Robert Walpole, are pretty much never known by their peerage titles. I think it's fairly clear-cut to say that such people should not have articles at their peerage title. But then we come to more confusing issues. What about Arthur Balfour? For the vast majority of his career, he was simply Mr. Balfour, but he did serve as Lord President and Leader of the House of Lords as the Earl of Balfour in the 20s. I think it could be argued that this was merely a post-script to his career, but this takes to dangerous places. What about Disraeli or Russell, who served as PM first as commoners, and later as peers? What about the 1st Earl of Ripon, who is probably best known by a peerage title, Viscount Goderich, by which he was only known for 6 years, but under which he served as Prime Minister, but who continued to serve in various governments for decades thereafter as "Lord Ripon"? Even more strongly, the 1st Marquess of Lansdowne is best known to history as 2nd Earl of Shelburne, but this was not his highest title. What to do? What about people who generally aren't very well known at all, like Michael Hicks-Beach, 1st Earl St Aldwyn, or Thomas Spring Rice, 1st Baron Monteagle? Both are probably better known by their pre-peerage name, but how are we to make the determination? Or what about the 8th Duke of Devonshire, who led the Liberal Party as Marquess of Hartington, a title entirely lost from the article title. There's no simple answer for this, and no simple way to determine what the "most common" name is. Most paper encyclopedias always include the peerage titles, so far as I can tell, but they have some difficulty deciding where to alphabetize them. Thus you have Disraeli, Benjamin, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, but Salisbury, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of...Fortunately, we don't have this problem, since we don't have to alphabetize. Leaving the only real issues as those people who are known by two completely different peerage titles, as Ripon, or Devonshire, or Lansdowne (Goderich, Hartington, and Shelburne). Alas, no easy answers, but doing as Hephaestos suggests would only lead to mass confusion. john 23:30, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If what I'm suggesting will lead to mass confusion, don't use it. Probably I'm just not making clear exactly what I'm suggesting (or just being ignored; for example I never said that an article couldn't do double-duty as a disambiguation page). In many cases I think the best route would be to go with the consensus on the article's talk page, which was pretty much ignored with Bertrand Russell, and somewhat silly in the case of Benjamin Disraeli (anyone who's wrestled with the purple prose of the 1911 Britannica should guess that 1898 Pears Cyclopaedia is probably not a good role model). - Hephaestos 00:39, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The number of internationally familiar peers is really small, probably less than 20, so those are the only ones whose titles could be problematic. Stan 01:36, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry, but there is a simple solution. And that is: everyone who ever held a peerage at anyh time in their life gets that peerage added to the heading of their article, since that was their name. Thus Ripon is George Robinson, 1st Marquess of Ripon, and Hicks-Beach is Michael Hicks-Beach, 1st Earl St Aldwyn. Why is this difficult? It is clear, it is logical, it is consistent, it is accurate. It makes the articles no harder to find for readers. The only complication is for people who were known for most of their career by a courtesy title, such as Hartington, who appears as Spencer Compton Cavendish, 8th Duke of Devonshire. Obviously in these cases there must be a redirect from Marquess of Hartington. But even this should not be too taxing for the average reader. I honestly do not see why there is such a fuss about this. I think Hephaeston is just being obstinate for the sake of it, and because as an American he thinks all these titles are silly anyway. Adam 00:49, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I will thank you to stop putting words in my mouth. - Hephaestos 01:12, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm imputing motives. Feel free to deny my imputations. Adam 01:25, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, there's also the complication for people known most of their career by a title lesser title than the one they ultimately receive (e.g. Shelburne/Lansdowne), but yeah, I basically agree with you. Certainly I think Hephaestos is being unnecessarily obstinate. My main point was actually against him - he seems to think it's easy to determine what the "most usual" name is, and that we should do that. I was pointing out that it's not too simple, and mostly arguing for just using the highest title. But Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford still sits ill with me. john 00:57, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Provided there is a redirect from Lord North I don't see a problem. One of the purposes of an encyclopaedia is to teach people things. I didn't know that North was Earl of Guilford (as opposed to Guildford), but now I do. Other readers will equally be enlightened. Adam 01:22, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...I've usually seen Guildford - the spelling seems to be unstable on that one. john 01:24, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A lot of English placename spellings were unstable in the 18th century. Google gives 500 "Earl of Guilford" and 200 "Earl of Guildford". Adam 01:32, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It all may seem simple to Adam, but for average readers, peer titles are mystifying, complicated, and misleading. It can't be a good sign when editors knowledgeable about Wikipedia are unsure what the rules should be, as witness some of the preceding discussion - the poor readers will be completely in the dark as to why familiar names connect to unfamiliar ones. (I should move Tony Blair to his proper name, just to watch the fireworks, heh-heh.) Stan 01:36, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

With respect, that is totally incorrect. If a reader wants to read about (for example) Lord North, they will search for "Lord North" and will be redirected to Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford, where they will learn about the relationship between his name and his title. The analogy with Blair is totally bogus. Adam 01:42, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The difference between the Blair case and the North case is the difference between a personal name and a title. Personal names should given in the form by which the person is publicly known. Blair has always been Tony Blair not Anthony Blair, and therefore his article should call him Tony. The same rule applies to peers. If, for example, Anthony Eden had been publicly known all his life as Tony Eden, then I would argue that his article be called Tony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon. This a quite different question to the use or non-use of titles in headings. Adam 02:19, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lord Avon was Robert Anthony Eden, but the personal name was always rendered Anthony Eden, and he was so called. Thus, we should have Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon, not Robert Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon. Lord Emsworth 02:47, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

It is probably "Guilford". See Burke's - [10]. -- Lord Emsworth 02:01, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

By showing me my mistaken understandings, y'all are actually helping make my basic point, which is that if a semi-knowledgeable person with some experience here is getting it wrong, then the less-knowledgeable are going to have even more trouble! This segues into another reason not to get too elaborate with the titles attached to familiar names - how are you going to prevent the hordes of new users from hacking up the articles? You have to have rationales that random non-expert editors can understand and support, otherwise the text is going to be moving back and forth between different article titles forever. Stan 04:01, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Clearly Mr Shebs exaggerates the problems relating to the movement of articles, suggesting that such a problem will continue "forever." I disagree that articles will be moving back and forth for eternity. Rather, they will move once to the highest title, and forever stay there, as they ought to. It is rather your proposal which would force back-and-forth movements: for instance, Lord John Russell will constantly shuffle between Lord John Russell and John Russell, 1st Earl Russell, as people will go on and on arguing about which name is more common or about which is more correct, and so on. -- Lord Emsworth 11:29, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

This discussion has attracted my attention partly because I have had occasion to link to articles on peers and royal persons, and partly because I find titles of nobility and royalty interesting for their own sake. Some of the questions that have been raised here -- how to determine the form of name by which a person (noble, royal, or neither) is generally known, whether to include a title of nobility or term of honor in the heading, which to choose if he or she has been known by more than one, how to formulate it, what to do when a title is added, changed, or dropped, what cross-references to make, etc. -- have been faced by librarians as well. They have the additional task of deciding whether to enter the person under title or surname, something which, as John noted, is not an issue for Wikipedia, since all names are entered in direct order and there is no filing sequence to take into account.

The cataloging code currently in force is the 2002 revision of AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition), the joint property of the national library associations of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada (and not a public-domain resource, incidentally!). Would it be helpful if I summarized the relevant portions? It is not that I want to impose AACR2 on the Wikipedia, or that I think it is the perfect solution even to the problems of library catalogs. I merely wonder whether a look at how another group dedicated to organizing the world of knowledge is handling the situation might provide food for thought and go some way toward reconciling the opposing views expressed above. Actually, I think that your evolving policy is approaching AACR2. One thing that your system provides that AACR2 does not is the grouping of all individuals who have held a title, together with the history of the title and various details (e.g., Duke of Wellington). In my opinion, that is a great feature. The links to immediate predecessors and successors at the bottom of pages on individual holders of titles are another good idea, I think.

A place to see AACR2 being applied is Library of Congress Authorities, a creation of the Library of Congress and numerous cooperating libraries, including the British Library. Although it might make a useful reference source, I have hesitated to add it to the list of public domain resources. It has many shortcomings, most of which will become evident as soon as one begins to search it, and all of which I could explain without defending them.

-- Flauto Dolce 04:15, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Another way to gain some understanding is to do user testing; find family, friends or colleagues at different levels of knowledge/experience, give them a question to answer using WP ("when was Lord North born", "where is Nelson's Pillar", etc), then just stand there and watch them click around. It can be very illuminating to see where people get stuck, or ask you to rescue them, or just say "screw it" and type the question into Google. :-) Stan 04:26, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Stan, I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at. For Nelson, I don't see how including the peerage title would make it particularly difficult in any particular way. I do think that it's unfortunate that with some people, the name they're best known by will not be found as the main title on Wikipedia, or, at least, that one of the names they are frequently known by will not be there - but I think that redirects, judicious bolding in the first paragraph, and so forth, can minimize the problems. Lord North, for instance, redirects to Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford, as do Frederick North, Lord North, Frederick, Lord North, and Frederick North. On the article in question, that he is commonly referred to as Lord North is prominently displayed in the first line. I'm not sure why this is so extraordinarily confusing. I don't see any particular need to put it at Guilford, but I'm not sure who it will confuse. john 05:09, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You could very well be right, and a user test would vindicate that. But if the naming is confusing, you'll see users doing things like going to the article, saying "no, this must be the wrong place", hitting the back link and looking for a different article. Stan 15:10, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
A further comment: I don't think this is very elaborate, and I think that adopting a "everybody at their highest peerage title" rule would make naming of such articles much, much simpler, as Adam points out. There would be no need to weigh what somebody was "best known" as. All one needs to do is put in the name and slap on the highest peerage title. If this is clearly written out on the naming convention, it would, I think, eliminate a great deal of confusion. That's not to say it's the best solution, necessarily, just that it would be incredibly simple. john 05:09, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing it spelled out - right now, faced with about a dozen British admirals for which I've recently acquired a good source book, I am completely unsure how to determine the correct article title (what's "highest"? do I say "1st Viscount" or "Viscount" or "Lord"? does it depend on 18th c. vs 19th c. vs 20th c.?) Stan 15:10, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, the order of titles is simple: Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, Baron. If the individual is a viscount, you say "1st Viscount" or "2nd Viscount". If he is a baron, you say "1st Baron", etc. You are trying to imply that the naming is far more complicated than it actually is. -- Lord Emsworth 20:02, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely oppose any suggestion that the Duke of Wellington hold the page about the first duke. The page (like all peerage title pages) is about the title; it is not a disambiguation page. If nothing else it would be unfair to Arthur Valerian Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington the current duke. The current sset up is unambiguous and educational. Why change it?Mintguy 13:46, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Heaven forfend we should be unfair to Dukes. Adam 14:02, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well yeah, don't want to be thrown in the dungeon! Or worse, snubbed at official events. :-) Stan 15:10, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think Mintguy's (unfortunately phrased?) point is that the Duke of Wellington is the 8th Duke, technically. It would thus be incorrect to have a pge on the 1st Duke at "Duke of Wellington," which ought, by rights, to refer to the current Duke if it's not a general page. As far as Stan's question, I'm with Emsworth - the order of peerage titles is not especially difficult, and this very page we are discussing will presumably have style guidelines as to how to name pages what with the numbering, and so forth. At any rate Stan, if you don't want to deal with it when writing pages, you can always put it under their common name, and somebody else will move it to the proper place. john 21:31, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

All that I know about peerage titles is what I've read here, and there is some pretty arcane discussion above! Existing articles add to the confusion too, since for instance some seem to have the ordinal and some don't. And isn't there a distinction between "real" peerages and "life" peerages? I've typed Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom about 500 times, so I can handle anything :-), just need to know how to implement the rules. And yes, some will undoubtedly have to be left for a more knowledgeable person to move! Stan 21:38, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I can tell you, Stan, that life peerages are just as real as "real" (I think you mean hereditary) peerages. Yes, there is a distinction that is here made. The convention on the life peers is quite clear - never indicate the title. The convention, however, on hereditary peers is at present wholly ambiguous, for which reason we are trying to clarify it. Incidentally, typing out the entire phrase Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom may not be necessary as often as you say it is: Elizabeth II will probably suffice in most cases. -- Lord Emsworth 21:56, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
In terms of ordinals, I think we've agreed to a convention where all actually held peerages require an ordinal, with the exception of ambiguous medieval/early modern cases where assigning a number becomes difficult. (numbering the Earls of Arundel, for instance, is a nasty, nasty task, although we can probably figure it out). Courtesy titles, not being actual titles held by somebody, don't get numbered. In addition to the five peerage titles, "Lord" is to be used for Scottish Lords of Parliament and courtesy barons...yeah, relatively complicated, but as Lord E says, there's not been any real convention, and this should make things better. john 22:59, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think a pre-condition for not having Duke of Wellington be an article about the famous one that _most links will link to_, is that he be listed with a link in the top paragraph. This goes for Lord Lucan, Lord Byron, etc. Certainly we don't want an unannotated list of all Dukes of Wellington and give the user no idea which one they probably clicked a link for... Morwen 23:05, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC) (corrected)
There is indeed a link for the 1st Duke in the first paragraph of Duke of Wellington. Lord Wellington does not exist (although Wellington would have been commonly called this from 1809 to 1814). Lord Byron currently redirects to George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron. As to Lord Lucan, the vanished Earl's ancestor who fought in the Crimean War is also quite famous... john 23:18, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes, there is a link for the 1st duke _now_. There wasn't before I made there be one. These disambiguation pages need to be friendly. Morwen 23:20, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
If you do not mind, could you not refer to Duke of Wellington as a disambiguation page, since it is not one? -- Lord Emsworth 23:31, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
My apologies. If you go there, and click 'what links here'. How many of those links do you think are referring to the actual title rather than the first holder? A handful, i wonld think. Morwen 23:50, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
I have changed, I believe, all links to the page Duke of Wellington to links to the page Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington where the latter is the one to whom the article refers. However, I have not touched talk pages. This still leaves more than a "handful" of articles that relate to the title rather than the holder. -- Lord Emsworth 00:06, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

Voting

I think that soon, we ought to have a vote on the proposal. I suggest two options for the voting:

Option One: A single poll, with four choices:

  • Use the peerage titles in all cases.
  • Use the peerage titles, except when the individual was almost always known by the commoner title, and perhaps certain other criteria are fulfilled
  • Use the commoner title, except when the individual was almost always known by the peerage title, etc.
  • Use the commoner title, except when disambiguation is necessary

Option Two: Use two separate polls.
First poll:

  • Use the peerage title in all cases or except when certain criteria are fulfilled.
  • Use the commoner title unless disambiguation is necessary.

Second poll, if the first choice is successful in the previous poll:

  • Use the peerage title in all cases.
  • Use the peerage title except when criteria X, etc, are fulfilled.

I would prefer the latter option.

-- Clarence Threepwood, 9th Earl of Emsworth

Are we now voting on the form for a vote? Either way seems okay with me. john 23:19, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we are trying to frame the questions approrpriately. We must also determine voting qualifications if any (eg, a minumum of 20 posts, like the votes for deletion pages), and a deadline. -- Lord Emsworth

Okay. i think I'd probably prefer a single vote, but it doesn't really matter. I trust that any voting arrangement come up with will be fine. john 00:42, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, pretty much (one round is simpler); though multiple rounds has the added advantage of greater gradation given what is probably going to be a relatively small number of votes (as this is rather a specialised topic)...
As for dates, the standard length of time is a week, having been posted to the Village Pump, Requests for Comment, Votes, Ongoing Votes, and the talk pages of all those who have written on this page; having voting qualificatins as on VfD sounds fine; to achieve quorum, I think that we should requre at least 25 votes to be cast; I assume that it is intended to use a simple majority system (rather than double, or STV, or ... ;-)); other than that, I can't really think of anything, or at least not right now.
Thoughts?
James F. (talk) 01:01, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think that separating the polls would be better because it would reduce tactical voting. Something similar could be accomplished if a preferential voting system were used for the first option, but then the voting would become much more complex. As far as the deadlines &c are concerned, I think that the poll should close within five days. -- Lord Emsworth 00:54, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

There is the possibility of tactical voting, but the problem with non-elementary voting systems is that, as most people don't understand them, nor wish to, they can feel somewhat isolated and/or removed from the process, and suspiscion of 'voting rigging' &c. is that bit easier to come by.
James F. (talk) 01:01, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
So I think that the two-step method would work well, for the reasons that have been already mentioned, and also those that Jdforrester (James F.) has brought up. Furthermore, since there will only be two options in each case if the two-step method is used, no special voting system will be necessary: a simple majority system would be in use. The only disagreement I have is that a quorum of twenty-five votes is rather high, since, as you suggest, this is a specialised topic. -- Lord Emsworth

... and therefore only people who know what they're talking about should be allowed to vote :) Adam 01:38, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I move the inclusion of a £10 compounder franchise for the purposes of the vote...Mackensen 02:00, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
So long as I get to be member for Old Sarum. Adam 02:11, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage/Archive_1&oldid=1031874534"