User talk:Proteus/Archive 14

Lord Trimble

Your help at David Trimble, Baron Trimble would be appreciated. An anonymous user is insisting that the territorial description is part and parcel of the title in the info box. Timrollpickering 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ladies' Precedence re: Duchess of Cornwall

Hi Proteus, I've been absent from Wikipedia editing for a while. Do you still support the notion that the Order of Precedence was only changed for private functions, and that officially The Duchess of Cornwall remains above The Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra. I just noticed that someone has again put them above The Duchess of Cornwall, I am just going to edit it now, but if you could keep on eye on it. Eddo 17:08, 08 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Madam

Could you please take a look at my talk page? I have another Wikipedia user threatening to write a letter to my ISP because he believes I have committed sockpuppetry. If you don't have time to handle this, could you please forward my request to another admin who could help investigate this? Thanks very much. Rockdiedout 09:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. I have repeatedly told Martial75 to stop patrolling my page and harrassing me, all the while carrying himself as if he himself is an administrator. Rockdiedout 09:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Proteus here are some reasons for this report: User:Martial75/rockdiedout. Bye. Martial BACQUET 09:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I admit that some of what I have done has been inappropriate, and I was blocked accordingly. However, this tracking of everything I post--as if Martial75 is an admin trying to solve something--is what I have asked him to stop doing multiple times by now. I truly believe that what Martial75 is doing is a form of harassment. For me, I have not posted a single thing to Martial75's page since I was blocked the first time a week ago. Even if this situation probably wouldn't be worth legal proceedings, I don't think it's worth sending a letter to my ISP either. That, to me, is a continuation of harassment, especially if my ISP contacts me over it and I have to explain myself to them. I should also add that I am new to Wikipedia editing--although I have been an avid reader for several years now--and I have learned my lesson from being blocked three times now (the most recent for 48 hours). I admit, having not read the rules--and getting involved in edit wars--was a mistake. However, I also believe that Martial75 is taking this too far. I want him to stop tracking everything I do on here, because that should be left to an administrator. If you could, please ask Martial75 to reconsider his brash and unwarranted action. Rockdiedout 10:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely you must be embarrassed at addressing this dear old English lady as "Dear Sir"! She is an extremely prickly and irascible (though at times amusingly so) old thing! And we should be forbearant as to the sensibilities of the elderly! But tricky though this amusing old lady assuredly is, she is a lovely old darling, despite her acute (and frequently aggressive) sensitivity as to the minute niceties as to the British peerage! One must assume that she is the younger daughter of an extinct Irish peerage. Do please try to be kind to her: despite the aggressiveness she evinces when she often loses it — when she is crossed she can be extremely rude and abusive — she really is at heart a lovely old thing when she is fully in command of herself, and she really is astonishingly knowledgeable as to the minute particularities of her family's ancient involvement in the peerage. Masalai (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Martial75 and I have come to terms with our argument. I do not wish anything against Martial75 anymore. I just wish for this argument to end, and it seems that it has (so long as I obey Wikipedia rules in the future). So, please disregard my earlier request. Rockdiedout 11:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Lowry, Baron Lowry

I do suspect you are right but just curious why you removed the Knight batchelor thingy; is it verifiability? (I know judges get a 'sir' automatically; but I must have read he has one proper or I would not have put it in. Aatomic1 (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Cheers as ever I've learnt something new! Aatomic1 (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Bollocks

This edit [1] seems to me total hooey. Do you agree? If so, you might like to respond there. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Pleased to see you editing again. You've been missed. Choess (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The Wessex Children

Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, DBD 16:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Franz Josef Strauß

Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi. As you just recently changed the Margaret Thatcher page, I was wondering if you could please comment on a discussion I have started here? Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Grand Chief the Right Honourable Sir Michael Somare

Dear Madam, you appear not to be aware of the Papua New Guinea honours system. Please, dear, kind and doubtless wonderful lady -- we are certain you are indeed a kind and wonderful and lovely lady -- do not impose your erroneous views on others. The British honours system is not universal. All compliments of course to your consummate loveliness, dear, kind and charming woman. Masalai (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)

[2] - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Proper date

Hi, Proteus, hope you're well. I am currently rewriting an article about Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll (User:PeterSymonds/Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll) and I'm currently researching the dates for her appointments to various orders. Her appointment to the Order of St John occurred on 10 June, 1927, but it came into effect two days later. Which would be the correct (appointment / effective) date to use in the list of honours? Thanks very much in advance. PeterSymonds | talk 18:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much :) I agree with you. I've thus decided to go with the 12th. Best wishes, PeterSymonds | talk 15:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Heya!

Hey,

Just spotted your fixes to the articles on the new and most-recently-former Chief Whip in the Lords that I altered last night (tsk, I should have spotted them myself) - presumably when it first came up in the '70s, "Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms" when the office-holder is female wasn't changed despite the implied sex of the holder?

Noticed that I'd not actually seen you around for a very long time, and felt guilty for not spotting you before (it probably means I don't work on articles enough). Anyway, "hi". Really good to see you back. :-)

James F. (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandwich courtesy title

Should it be spelled Viscount Hinchingbrooke? Hinchinbroke? I've wondered about this for a while. Choess (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you for a prompt and polite reply to a rather brusque query. Choess (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sir Edward Louis Spears

I'm adding to the Wiki page about the above and would like to establish the heading of the entry. He was definitely a KBE (knighted in 1942 before taking up the post of "Minister to Syria and the Lebanon"). He was addressed as "Sir" after this. However, the existing title page describes him as "1st Baronet". So is it the case that a KBE is always a 1st Baronet? If anyone has the necessary reference works, I would be grateful for clarification. The present page gives "Louis Spears", but I am aiming to change this to give all 3 names. However, I want to make quite sure about the "1st Baronet" before going further. Mikeo1938 (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Marquess vs Marquis

Hello Proteus- I saw your posts at Talk:Marquess#Marquis_vs._Marquess and wanted to alert you that I put a comment there. -Eric ^talk 12:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

'Jock' Campbell

Why do you think it should be "Jock Campbell, Baron etc" rather than "John Middleton Campbell, Baron etc, nicknamed and widely known as Jock Campbell"? Certainly everybody knew him as Jock, but should we use his formal name? What is the norm? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A few questions about monarchy/peerages

Hi could you possibly answer the following for me?

1. With the creation of Royal Family members as peers, was there any particular protocol for choosing the territorial designations? I have noticed that on the whole many non-royal & royal dukedoms were created using substantially big and important territorial designations, such as Devonshire, Connaught, Edinburgh, York, Norfolk, Somerset etc. Why then were such large designations relegated to earldoms eg Prince Alfred, Queen Victoria's son, being created Earl of Kent, or the Earldom of Dublin on the Prince of Wales, Earl of Sussex on the Duke of Connaught? Surely Duke of Dublin would have been more appropriate as the capital of Ireland? Is there any correlation between the size/importance of a territory and its designation of a dukedom, marquessate, earldom etc? I have noted some dukedoms eg Clarence come from tiny parts of territory, yet they are made dukedoms nonetheless.

2. Similarly to above, can a dukedom be named after a family name or does it have to be a place? Examples being the dukedoms of Windsor, Gordon, Hamilton, Brandon, Schomberg.

3. Why did some dukedoms contain two territorial designations, eg Duke of Kent and Strathearn? Is it a "double dukedom"? Did it indicate higher status for the holder?

4. Why did Queen Victoria not create her second son Duke of York? And why instead was it relegated to the younger (indeed not the elder) son of the Prince of Wales?

5. Why are royal Dukes given courtesy titles when their sons do not use them and are known as Prince?

6. Does Prince Charles ever use his titles of Earl of Chester and Carrick? Are there any arms, shields or insignia for these titles as there are for his dukedoms and his principality?

7. Is it likely Prince William will be created a Duke upon marriage? Or could he be an earl or a marquess? If so, what title might be used?

8. Could the Queen create a new dukedom of Connaught or a peerage using the territorial designation of the now Republic of Ireland? Do peers who hold titles derived from there pre-independence still use these Irish titles in the UK?

9. What happens if a Head of State makes a state visit to Canada or Australia for example, where Elizabeth II is the head of state but not resident? Does the Governor General meet the head of state in her place? Or does the Queen fly over to be hostess?

10. Is Prince Charles a prince three times over? (Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Prince of Scotland)?

11. Why has Cardiff not been used in a peerage as the largest city in Wales?

12. How come the Queen is Queen of some territories that would normally denote as principalities? Equally, how come Wales as a principality nears in size to some European kingdoms?

13. Why was the title "Crown Prince" never used in England as in European monarchies?

14. Finally, surely if the Queen were to create new peerages, she would be running out of territories?! Many, many designations have been used, how is it they decide on new ones?

Many many many thanks!--Kenwood2008 (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much, a super help!!--Kenwood2008 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Tudor page names

Could you please put on the discussion pages of those you changed why they needed to be altered? It means people are less likely to feel they need to change them back if they know your reasons. Also for the change of Mary Howard to Mary Fitzroy, could you please check if a redirect is in place? When I typed in 'Mary Howard' in the search, nothing came up. She is (rightly or wrongly) usually referred to by historians by her maiden name, and so people will search under that as well. Thanks,Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)

Your expertise would be most appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Exception_redux_arbitrary_break. We're having to rehash the old Sir/Dame issue again. Best, Mackensen (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy)

remove "sort by surname" column, and enable name column to be sorted by name
Very nice! Very nice indeed. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(P.S. Is there an easy, automatic, or semi-automatic way to do it? Or do you just have to do lots and lots of editing? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

Earl of Shrewsbury

Well done, that puts paid to that bit of nonsense. Mind you we can probably expect the argument to continue (probably with greater cause) over the name of the townOrdyg (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Gwyneth Dunwoody

She was not The Honourable, that is merely a prefix MPs use in debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahowell (talk • contribs) 17:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is the style of the daughter of a Baroness which she was; however I think that in the case of a life peerage, the title "the Honourable" for sons and daughters ceases to be used after the death of the holder of that life peerage. Rahowell (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they can continue to use it for life, just as a younger child of a hereditary peer would after their older brother had succeeded. For example, my local MP is still The Hon. Ed Vaizey, even though his father, Lord Vaizey, died in the '80s. JRawle (Talk) 23:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

List capitalization

Hi, I noticed that you reverted a large number of my recent capitalization moves (which is, under WP:BRD, of course perfectly allright). I have had some discussion with another user, and I can see the point for a title (Archbishop of Canterbury, Mayor of Bolton, ...) to retain it with capitals in the plural as well (although in plural, examples of both uppercase and lowercase can be found in books, newspapers, ...). However, for instances where it is not a title (X of Y) but a noun or a description, I don't believe that uppercase has perference or that both options are interchangeable. Lists like List of baronies in the peerage of Ireland could be argued to perhaps be better at List of baronies in the Peerage of Ireland (althoug I fail to see why the Peerage of Ireland should be better than the peerage of Ireland), but I can't see any argument to capitalize "baronies" in this instance (or barons, marqueses, viscounts, viscountsies, ...). X is a baron in the P/peerage of Y, not a Baron in the P/peerage of Y. And if we have list of popes, then we shouldn't have list of murdered Popes, unless it concerns Alexander Pope and his family. I'll not re-revert any of your reverts, I don't feel like edit-warring over capitalization, but I wanted to poiint out that while a number of my moves were obviously debatable, some of yours seem to me even harder to defend. If you agree with my reasoning (for baronetcies and so on), please undo your reverts. Fram (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Succession box

it's our standard practice to include succession boxes even for "1st and last" peers - Tell it to the user who keeps removing succession box for Anne Boleyn, who was the 1st and last Marchioness of Pembroke, saying that nobody had the title before or after her, so the succession box is useless as a navigational aide. I thought that was the standard practice, so I decided to remove succession boxes for other first-and-last peers. Surtsicna (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)