User talk:Lord Emsworth/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.

Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted. Angela 02:22, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Privy Council

Is there a particular reason for your, for want of a better term, 'retraction' on the Privy Council article? It seemed, to me at the very least, a very good contribution...

James F. 23:19, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The material retracted on the Privy Council page was already on the page Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Ah, right, thanks.

James F. 22:26, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Opera box game

I've always known it as the "opera box game", but it's no big deal. I'm don't think "Opera Game" is an exact title though - it's just a name people have given to the game for the sake of convenience, it doesn't have any official status or anything. Anyway, as I say, not a big deal, I'm quite happy to leave the page where it is.

Just one thing, though - could you please not put up games in PGN format? PGN is great for computers, but I think that most humans would find it easier to read prose without all those tags and brackets. --Camembert

Yes, I've been meaning to change the Immortal game and Evergreen game so they're not in PGN - we don't have a policy to present games in PGN, it's just that people have made pages that way in the past. Don't worry about it too much, though - I'd say that if you put any more games up, do it in whatever format you feel most comfortable with, don't feel you have to put them in PGN format. Anyway, thanks for starting the article on the opera game! --Camembert

House of Commons

The page as previously created showed "House of Commons" but linked to "British House of Commons," I thought... john 23:21, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Precedence

Where are you getting the United Kingdom order of precedence from. See talk:United Kingdom order of precedence Mintguy

Peerage

I tried to generate some interest in establishing a common format for pages about peerage titles, on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage but nothing has beenstandardised yet. Rather than introducing yet another variation, perhaps you would like to re-ignite the discussion. Mintguy 22:51, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Precedence

You're doing a lot of good work on the order of precedence page. I do have a question: what's your source for the list of peers? The only good one I've ever found is at the Hull genealogy site, and as you get down the list of peers, it becomes less and less reliable. By the way, a list of life peers created under the 1958 act can be found [here]. Not sure about Law Lords. john 22:36, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think Jiang's right that the Order of Precedence page has gotten too long. I figure since you've done the most work on it, that you should probably be the one to decide how to break it up. Splitting off Scotland and Northern Ireland from England and Wales would be a start. So would splitting apart ladies and gentleman. john 19:02, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Division

Your last, on Division (vote), reads "Essentially, some divisions, or delayed, until the next Wednesday." Andy Mabbett 22:30, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Late Welcome

Hi Lord Emswoth and late welcome to the Wiki. I was amazed to discover that an old fogey like you had the time to write for an encyclopaedia. Shouldn't you be guarding Prudence the Pig in case anyone nobbles her before the Show? I just hope that the Drones don't descend upon Blandings Castle before the big event!!Norwikian 14:23, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Lord Hailsham

Regarding Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone - there's something a little unclear in the article, I pointed it out in my last edit - I'm unsure on who makes people life peers, or what circumstances it is done under, so I just made the uncertainty obvious in the article - but I figured you'd know. Pakaran 22:28, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ok thanks. After I get home from school (dealing with a lot of minor details right now) I'll modify peerage or british honors system to cover that issue. Pakaran 22:36, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If you want to fix Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone go ahead - it just wasn't obvious that he was created specifically to allow him to take the post. Pakaran 22:37, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Australian Governors-General

What is the purpose of changing "Baron Denman" etc to the less informative "Lord Denman" etc? Adam 00:42, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Canadian Governors-General?? Stone the crows, ya Pommy bastard, now I'm really offended. Adam 01:06, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Lord Stanley article move

Hi...did you just move the Lord Stanley article manually? All the history hasn't been moved, so it might be a good idea to delete what you did, and use the "move this page" function. Adam Bishop 22:35, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Moving the page should work if there was just a redirect...if not, I can delete the redirect :) Adam Bishop 22:40, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There you go :) Did you move any of the others like that? I thought I saw something had been done to Lord Lansdowne as well. Adam Bishop 22:47, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You just can't leave my Govs-Gens alone, can you? Adam 14:24, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

More importantly, he wasn't "1st Baron Casey of Berwick," because he had no heir. Adam 14:27, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There was no 2nd Baron Northcote, either. Adam 16:27, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Earl of Stockton

Hi. Just a quick note to let you know I've made Earl of Stockton and Baron Inglewood. Hope these don't contain any glaring errors? Morwen 14:57, Dec 31, 2003 (UTC)

Peerage

If I wrote 1st Baron in the Casey text I will change it, since it is wrong. Clearly Casey as a life peer cannot have an ordinal, since life peerages are not inheritable. I will accept your opinion in the case of Northcote, though it seems strange - but then the peerage is a strange institution. I notice incidentally that Disraeli appears simply as Benjamin Disraeli, without his title at all. This seems anomalous. Adam 01:52, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

On further research: I discover that none of Margaret Thatcher, James Callaghan or Harold Wilson has their life peerage indicated in the heading of their article. Nor for that matter does Harold MacMillan, although his was a hereditary peerage and he did have an heir. You're not being very consistent here. Perhaps we should have a convention that life peerages are not indicated in the headings of articles, although this would create a problem where a person is still active in public life and is known by their title. What heading does Lord Hutton have for example? Adam 02:03, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Speration of sucession tables

cross-posted to each others' talk pages - James F., Lord Emsworth

I really think that we should be making a visible separation between the sucession tables for offices (e.g., Prime Minister) and titles (e.g., Baron Kevesten), and the tables shouldn't fuse together. Indeed, really, I think that the tables should be completely seperate per office or title. Some examples:

Currently:

Preceded by: Blah	Prime Minister of Blah	Followed by: Blah
Preceded by: Blah	Governor-General of Blah	Followed by: Blah
Preceded by: Blah	Viscount Blah	Followed by: Blah
Preceded by: Blah	Baron Blah	Followed by: Blah

Should be:

Preceded by: Blah	Prime Minister of Blah	Followed by: Blah
Preceded by: Blah	Governor-General of Blah	Followed by: Blah

Preceded by: Blah	Viscount Blah	Followed by: Blah
Preceded by: Blah	Baron Blah	Followed by: Blah

... or, possibly:

Preceded by:
Blah

Prime Minister of Blah

Followed by:
Blah

Preceded by:
Blah

Governor-General of Blah

Followed by:
Blah

Preceded by:
Blah

Viscount Blah

Followed by:
Blah

Preceded by:
Blah

Baron Blah

Followed by:
Blah

Your thoughts?
James F. (talk) 00:03, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have seen the proposed succession tables that you have shown on my talk page. I was of the opinion that the first table, wherein all of the sub-tables are fused together, looks much neater, than the later ones, where separation is depicted. My general policy was to list the titles in order of "importance": first the titles in Government (Gov. General, Prime Minister, etc.) and only then a title in the peerage. Would you not agree that a fused table looks neater? -- Lord Emsworth 00:35, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

Listing in order of 'importance' is wholly appropriate, IMO; however, I think that fusing the tables together looks much less neat. So, in a word, 'no'.

James F. (talk) 22:30, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The fused tables are visually confusing. They should be kept separate. Adam 23:39, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Right, OK, will seperate tables into a single peerage titles one, and seperate office ones. Thank you.

James F. (talk) 10:43, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. Adam 00:12, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Peerage

Also, under your naming policy for peers, should he not be Stanley Bruce, 1st Viscount Bruce? Adam 00:12, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Have Lord Wilson's identifier as you will. john 03:01, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure about the dates of Wellington's other titles. From http://www.hereditarytitles.com I had Marquess of Wellington as 3 October 1812. Which is what I originally put on that page. It now says 1814. Mintguy 10:15, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Definitely 1812 - it was created before the Dukedom, otherwise what was the point? john 06:04, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the page Duke of Wellington notes 1812. -- Lord Emsworth 11:42, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

The edit conflict was probably a good thing - gave me time to cool down. Talking to people individually and asking them to reconsider might be a good thing. I'd think Stan Shebs (who seems to have been at least partially convinced by our previous discussion, since his original advocacy seemed to be fairly strongly anti-peerage, but who, when he voted, said that the title should be used in "almost all cases") and Adam Bishop (who's done a fair amount of work with peerage articles relating to Canada, seemingly) might be good people to approach. A lot of the people, though, have expressed no real opinion beyond their vote. I'm not sure what to do with them. I think approaching Hephaestos, Eclecticology, Cimon avaro, and Delirium is probably not useful, given the views they've expressed heretofore. john 21:15, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not really sure which side to take anymore...the articles I've worked on were Governors General or Lieutenant Governors, who in many cases were known to me only as "Lord So-and-so" before I looked them up to write about them. But then there are others like Bertrand Russell who I would argue don't need the title. I am willing to be converted to your way, I suppose :) Adam Bishop 21:28, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to put your case. I think your way is the best solution for the great majority of peers throughout history, and for those peers the existing rule - use the simplest name possible, subject to the needs of disambiguation - will produce that article title anyway. However, the useful tradition of "primary topic" disambiguation is also quite clear: pretty much anyone who makes a link to Lord Nelson will mean that Lord Nelson, so Lord Nelson should be that Lord Nelson, and as it's a simpler article title, that Lord Nelson shoulbe be written about at Lord Nelson. There's also really no need to move Bertrand Russell to some overlong posh title, or William Whitelaw or John Thurso, or whoever. The lords do not need the special exception which you are proposing; my vote stands. --rbrwr ˆ

I think I just prefer the difficulty of deciding each case (Grey, Devonshire, Nelson, Russell, Whitelaw) on its merits to the simple but rather blunt instrument that you propose. By the way, does the policy extend to your username? I think that would make my watchlist unreadable... --Citizen Brewer ˆ

...and what about fictional characters? I suppose most writers don't put the care and attention into "proper" titles that PGW did, and that would make it rather hard to enforce a blanket policy... --rbrwr ˆ

Kevin Millwood

Your article on Kevin Millwood looks fabulous. I'll transfer the wikimoney right away. (By the way, do you think 1ψ is fair? I'd considered bumping it to 2ψ but refrained out of a selfish desire to get the most bang for my wikibuck, and knowing the research required to do this, compared to some other offers, is minimal - it just requires the time. But I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say, as I have no idea what the standards are and whether people are currently scoffing at my wiki-cheapness.) -- Matty j 22:22, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

Peerage

I think most of the people on our side are people who actually have been following the discussion before the vote was called, and thus voted early. People voting now are more likely to be people who aren't particularly interested in articles on peers. At any rate, I still hope we can win the 2nd vote, but I think what's most important at this point is winning the 1st vote, and then, if we lose the 2nd vote, making sure to construe the exceptions as narrowly as we can. For instance "people in retirement when they receive their peerage and people best known by a courtesy title." or something like that. I think even if we lose the 2nd vote, we can still construct a set-up that would be mostly acceptable. I'm going to fight tooth and nail against articles at Duke of Wellington, Lord Nelson, and so forth, though. john 05:16, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh, shame. Yes, I understand your point of view. But surely the problem is that you haven't expressed your aims clearly enough for most voters (including me) to understand. Deb 18:34, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Alec Douglas-Home

Hi your lordship :-) I did some work on Alec Douglas-Home and something struck me. He was in as a Scottish politician. I changed that to British. Given the complexity in the UK now with different levels of politician and different political elites in each home rule state and UK-wide, it might make more sense to distinguish them by different terms. That Scottish be used exclusively for those active exclusively in the Scottish parliament or local government, ditto with Welsh and Northern Irish, and that those not active at home rule level but whose career was Westminster-based being described as British. As Home was exclusively Westminster based (even though there was no Scottish parliament in his day, British seems a lot more sensible than Scottish. Any thoughts? FearÉIREANN 20:07, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

P.S. as to JTD's question, I think that makes sense. But what about someone like David Steele, who was once a Westminster politician, but is now in the Scottish Parliament? john 20:11, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not taking a position on that matter, but "Scottish politician" could also mean "a politician of Scottish ethnicity", in which case it could still be accurate even if he's active from Westminster. --Delirium 23:35, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Peerage

Well, I don't see how we can win the second vote...it is unfortunate that it turned out this way. As far as how to proceed in the event of defeat, I'd say to keep the exceptions as narrow as possible: 1) people known primarily by courtesy titles (i.e. North and Castlereagh - I can't really think of anyone else where this is true to such an extent); 2) 20th century figures who received their peerage titles after retirement (all those prime ministers); and perhaps 3) people known in other fields who did not generally use their peerage title for their work in that field (e.g. Bertrand Russell, perhaps Edward Bulwer-Lytton, although perhaps we could try to restrict this to twentieth century figures as well). I'd also suggest that a) no article about an individual ever be located at [[Lord Suchandsuch]] or [[Duke of Suchandsuch]] or whatever; and that b) the full correct name, including highest peerage title received, always be present as the first thing in any article about an individual. I think this would be an acceptable back-up plan. john 20:11, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re: your comment on my talk page, I see your point. I'm mostly objecting to treating those with peerage titles in a different way than those without them (for article title purposes). I'm proposing instead we use the standard "use the most common name" criterion that results in, e.g., Tony Blair being at that location despite it not being his full official name. Certainly the most common name sometimes could be a title, especially for historical figures. I'll change my vote accordingly; thanks for pointing this out. --Delirium 23:31, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Re: your comment on my talk page: The first poll asks if the title of an article must include that person's peerage title; my answer is no: it should include the peerage title only if it is the way he is commonly known, or if needed for disambiguation. I oppose tacking the title on simply because he has one. I understand why "WikiProject Peerage" would want to do so, but an article so named should be a redirect. The "most common name"" is a wikipedia standard primarily for ease of linking: articles are far more likely to include a reference to Frank Pakenham than to Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford; Bertrand Russell than Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell; William Pitt the Elder than William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham. I also find the simultaneous use of a surname and a title disconcerting: surnames if used for clarity should be parenthetical: for example, William (Cavendish), 2nd Duke of Devonshire. And for absolutely disambiguous disambiguation, the two examples you give require the addition of the dates of creation of the title: William Cavendish, 1st Duke of Devonshire of the 1618 creation is a different person than William Cavendish, 1st Duke of Devonshire of the 1694 creation. -- Binky 23:57, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lord Longford and Lord Chatham are very frequently referred to as such. And the 1618 creation was of an earldom, so that's not a proper example. And it's not tacking on a title simply because the person has one. The title is a part of the person's name, and most people with peerage are commonly known by that title, including Chatham and Longford (Russell's a harder case, since his peerage and surname are the same, but he's frequently referred to as "Lord Russell"). At any rate, to Lord E, I think that given that we'll likely win the first vote, there's not much point in trying to convince people who've voted against us - there's a lot of people who simply don't agree with us. Best not to worry about it. john 00:17, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

National Geographic Bee

Your Lordship, thank you kindly for National Geographic Bee. As a three-time participant (I represented Alaska in 2003),I am very grateful. I owe you W4, so I will make that transfer now. --Merovingian 02:43, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

I suppose you found out my last name via the National Geographic site. You're clever. I like that. --Merovingian 02:51, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

You're most welcome. --Merovingian

Peerage

Hey, I've changed my vote on the 2nd question in our poll. Given that the purpose of wikipedia is to find consensus, I think it's pretty clear that there is absolutely not a consensus on the idea of referring to all peers by their peerage titles, and that even if we won the vote, there would be so much opposition to the decision as to be useless. Instead, I want to focus on the idea that there should be a presumption to use the peerage title, unless there is some reason why one should not, and that exceptions be as few as possible. I continue to think that using all peerage titles would be the best option, but I think that a victory in a poll on that question would do nothing but inflame people, and perhaps eventually get Jimbo to come down and make a decision against us which makes our whole endeavor to primarily use the peerage form untenable, which would be much worse than simply arriving at a system where we have to leave Harold Macmillan and Bertrand Russell at their given names. john 18:58, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

VfD notice

Lord Emsworth, I've removed the VfD notice on the article you noted. It was listed on VfD for a short time, but it appears someone removed it, no need for a notice if it's not on VfD. Thanks for the heads up. Flockmeal 20:24, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Peerage

I proposed something similar to what you sugges on the talk page. Delirium, at least, seemed to think that it was basically alright, as did Morwen, earlier, on her talk page. (I'd add that Duke of X should, ideally, be an article about the peerage title, although it could certainly redirect if there was only one holder of a particular title, like Duke of Sussex or Duke of Warwick. john 20:51, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Succession Tables

Lord E, I don't want to have a fight with you, but I really want to separate the sucession tables at the Governor-General of Australia pages (ie, separate the tables showing succession as GG from the peerage succession table). I think they look ugly and confusing the way they are. I will await your comment before proceeding. Adam 02:53, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Henry Percy

I've been trying to disambiguate Henry Percy. most of them are Earls of Northumberland, who are easy to disambiguate, but I'm not sure where Hotspur should go. Any ideas? john 04:45, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I think he was normally just called "Sir Henry Percy", even though he would technically have been "Lord Percy"... john 13:27, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Earl of Nottingham

Hey, I moved the 2nd Earl of Nottingham back to being under Nottingham. Given that a policy of all peers at highest title seems unlikely to pass, he's a clear example of someone who ought to be excepted - he is universally known as Nottingham, having only been Earl of Winchilsea for a few months before his death, many years after his retirement from public life. john 01:55, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lord Ypres

Dear Lord E, your edit on the Earl of Ypres reminds me of another question. I have always understood that when a peerage is "of" somewhere, that somewhere must be in the United Kingdom, which is why the three Australian peers all had double titles: Baron Forrest of Bunbury and Foret, Viscount Bruce of Melbourne and Westminster, and Baron Casey of Berwick and Westminster - an Australian placename and a UK placename. Likewise, the commanders who took their titles from foreign battlefields did so by means of their family names - thus Mountbatten became Earl Mountbatten of Burma, not "Earl of Burma." So - how did Sir John French come to be Earl of Ypres? Was that the full title? Was that an exception to the rule? Or is there no rule? Adam 03:06, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Earls of Warwick

The missing Earl is Anne de Beauchamp, 15th Countess of Warwick. She was the daughter of Henry de Beauchamp, 1st Duke of Warwick (also 14th Earl of Warwick). Her uncle Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick became Earl of Warwick by right of his wife (her father's sister, also called Anne) at the Countess's death in 1449. (Sorry about the last edit, I was confused by two many people called Anne.)

As regards the numbering system, the numbering of Peers in early times was rather haphazard, and people nowadays tend to call early Peers by the numbers that were used in their time, rather than applying modern numbering to them. For instance, modern practice starts numbering again at each new creation, but their are several examples in early times of people being given the title which, say, their brother was given, when he died without heirs, and calling themselves "2nd". In modern practice, they'd be "1st" again, but we just ignore this and use the contemporary practice. As regards the Warwick Earldom, it was inheritable through the female line (although not originally by females), hence the changes in surname. It didn't actually die out in those cases, nor in the Neville case (when it was actually created again, but more for the purpose of clarifying who the Earl was than for creating it anew). Proteus 15:38 GMT, 17th January 2004

Nobility

Dear Lord E: at the article Peerage, what is the difference in the opening paragraph between nobility and Continental system of titles? Do we need two articles on this? Is not "Continental" a rather old-world word? Is there a single "Continental system" of titles anyway? Adam 03:42, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Representative Peers

From Representative peer:

'Burke's suggests, "The idea that a person who receives a writ of summons to the House of Lords as a result of a mistake should ipso facto be created a hereditary peer is repugnant to common sense."'

Do you think it would be rude to Burke's to point out that this was exactly how the Barony of Strange was created? (An Earl of Derby's son was called to Parliament by a Writ in Acceleration in the name of Baron Strange, when the Barony had in fact fallen into abeyance on the death of a former Earl, thus creating a new Peerage by Writ.) After all, Lady Strange currently sits in Parliament because of this "mistake" (she's an elected hereditary peer) and Burke's apparently thinks she shouldn't. Proteus 14:42 GMT, 19th January 2004

Reference to House of Lords Act 1999

You're certainly right about adding those references to the various marquesses...I'll add some as I have opportunity, but feel free to add them yourself as well. john 01:28, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Forms of Address

I've edited Forms of Address in the United Kingdom a bit and was wondering what you think. I've changed the royalty section around, so it clarifies exactly who gets which style (including some ones that aren't used at the moment, like "King"), and I've made a few minor alterations elsewhere. I hope it's all right with you. Proteus 13:13, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re male line titles: You're right, of course. I've changed it to clarify that a bit. Proteus 20:43, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Your WikiCookies

Your WikiCookies! -->

:) Optim 18:50, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)

Kathleen Kennedy

You're totally English nobility, aren't ya? Anyway, I was hoping you could help out with Kathleen Kennedy, the sister of John F. Kennedy. She married a lord-ish guy and there's debate as whether to her married name should be Harrington or Cavendish. Is there any chance you could sort it out and link to any relevant lords and ladies who are already listed on the site? Thank you kindly! jengod 02:36, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the info! jengod 19:23, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

Viscount Cobham confusion

Could you possibly shed light as to whether I am wrong in the following:

Hester Temple was the second holder of the title, so she was the 2nd Viscount Cobham; that she was female meant that she was referred to instead as the 2nd Viscountess Cobham (but, actually, neither, as she had a superceeding title), so he heir was the 3rd Viscount Cobham, and all carried on as one might expect there after.

... and, even though she was the first female holder of the title, she was not the 1st Viscountess Cobham. Is this correct?
BTW, many thanks on behalf of... well, me, really, but your input in to the Wikipedia, especially in this rather complex field, has been great!
James F. (talk) 23:21, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Right. Many thanks.

James F. (talk) 23:45, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The new chart for Lord Great Chamberlain is far superior, but we do need to indicate who the deputies have been, I think, since they are the ones who actually exercise the office. i'll try to reinsert that, but don't know how to do all the nifty color things. I also am uncertain about the deputizing process in the mid to late 19th century. john

I've put some commentary at Talk:Lord Great Chamberlain, about the daughters of the Marquess of Lincolnshire and their descent. john 22:09, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)