User talk:Alci12

User_talk:Alci12/Archive 1 May 2006 User_talk:Alci12/Archive 2 Dec 2006

Lord of Parliament ?

I looked at the article on Lords of Parliament and found it extremely helpful, but regarding the final sentence: Is a Scottish lord automatically a member of the British (London) parliamentary House of Lords if not automatically a member of the Edinburgh parliament? --Ashley Rovira 19:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord vs. Baron

Now that I understand how this "talk" system works... Thank you for correcting me about Lord Huntingtower several days ago. I have a question about it. If you look at the page for John Grant, Lord Huntingtower you will notice that one or two of my citations (London Times) refer to him as a Baron, and also say his mother is "Baroness Huntingtower." Is it correct for an English publication to call a Scottish lord this way? --Ashley Rovira 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange

I was just going to ask you whether you could supply a reference for that claim in the Order of St. Patrick, when it suddenly appeared. Thanks, Yomangani ^talk 11:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix it if you like. Yomangani ^talk 11:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. You don't have anything for the claim that the stall plates are left in place in St Patrick's cathedral by any chance? I'm struggling to track anything down for that. Yomangani ^talk 12:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that one, but it looks to me like those banners are just left because the Order is dormant as it says standard practice was to remove everything (except perhaps the stall plates). I've found references for the names being displayed on wall plates in Dublin Castle and the picture in the article shows that the names are recorded on boards in the Cathedral, but nothing to show that it was the practice to leave the stall plates in place. If we can't find anything to back that up, I'll replace it with the information you just posted. Yomangani ^talk 12:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"cancelled"

Scots law seems to have had much more scope for the revocation of titles — several titles (the Earldom of Strathearn, for one) seem to have been "cancelled"/"revoked"/"withdrawn"/"recalled" (which all seem to indicate some kind of cessation of the title without the formality of an attainder required by English law), and it would seem this was not as final a thing as it would have been in England (other titles often being exchanged for the ones taken away). But, at any rate, however it was termed or enacted, it seems to be pretty common ground that this Baronetage ceased to exist, and the only person who appears to believe otherwise has decided that any source that says otherwise is (by virtue of that fact) mistaken... Proteus (Talk) 18:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So many things like this seem to be unclear in Scottish cases (the CP is full of things like "X is presumed to have been created a Lord of Parliament as Lord Y at some point between June 1684 and August 1685") that it wouldn't surprise me if there simply isn't a record of how exactly it happened, so I wouldn't get too worried about it. Proteus (Talk) 18:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Is it possible that the letters parent are still extant and could be looked up somewhere? And how, incidentally, does this compare with our numbering of the Dyke Acland Baronets? Choess 20:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it was a British baronetcy you could look it up in the London Gazette, but afaik the Edinburgh gazette doesn't have entries online that early - all assuming they are even published prior to 1707. I've never had need to find out. The DA baronets does seem wrong. A quick look seems it's a new creation and it can't be numbered correctly. The precedence might be of the earlier creation but the numbering can't. I think someone has just made an error. Again it's one of those 'how was the old creation extinguished' questions. Alci12 13:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knight of Glyn

Sorry I've been behindhand about this. Yes, those should perhaps have another place than the Knight article. See this article, which states that "In Ireland, at an early period, those who possessed knight's fees were called knights, and often took the name of the land they held by military service." In addition, they don't seem to use the style of "Sir X" but "X, Knight of...". So it's really more closely connected with knight service than anything else. Choess 06:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Hylton (of Hylton)

No, it's not. I've changed it. Proteus (Talk) 15:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is slightly risky, yes, but it's happened a couple of times (the Barony of Grey (of Howick) now held by the Earl Grey, for instance, was created whilst the Barony of Grey (of Codnor) was abeyant, and of course in that case the latter is now extant). Proteus (Talk) 15:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heirs male

If property is held in trust for the heirs male of X, would it pass only to male descendants through male descendants? - Kittybrewster 18:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fun with writs in acceleration

Let me see if I understand this correctly. John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland at one time bore three subsidiary titles: Earl of Warwick, Viscount Lisle, and Baron Lisle. All his titles perished upon his execution and attainder in August 1553 except the Earldom of Warwick, his son John Dudley, 2nd Earl of Warwick having been summoned to Parliament in that title in January 1553. However, when the second earl died, leaving no issue of the body, the Earldom of Warwick was consumed by the attainder as well. Therefore, should we not move Ambrose Dudley, 3rd Earl of Warwick to Ambrose Dudley, 1st Earl of Warwick, he having received the earldom by a new creation rather than inheriting it from his father? (I've been disentangling the histories of Viscount Lisle and Baron Lisle, which led me here.) Choess 06:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seymour Henry Bathurst, 7th Earl Bathurst

Thank you for your recommendation. However, I did not understand your point.

I have written an article STUB about the above peer because of the historical interest which he and his wife held as owns of The Morning Post of London.
However, in the article on the title, Earl Bathurst, the name remains RED, showing the link did not take.
Can you help me correct this?
Thank you.
Yours truly,--Ludvikus 14:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: [1]

I've done it, and even given his Lordship, Seymour Henry Bathurst, 7th Earl Bathurst, his Coat of Arms that is due him:

Yours truly,--Ludvikus 14:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It all seems to have been fixed now. Proteus (Talk) 15:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Burke's loves making TDs part of the title (mainly because they copy the CP, which does the same thing). Proteus (Talk) 16:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postnominals

Hi, thanks for the correction - sometimes I need somebody who looks on my fingers. The link is very interesting, I have already searched for something like that. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 15:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Hey, thanks for the compliment. I known it is the time for the presents soon, but it was nevertheless far too exaggerated :-). Greetings and have a beautiful Christmas. ~~ Phoe _talk 10:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Paul McCartney

You might like to contribute to this talk page, topic MBE if you have a view. - Kittybrewster 16:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Strathclyde

Hello. I saw your question on Talk:Baron Strathclyde. According to Who's Who 2003 edition Hon. Charles William du Roy de Blicquy Galbraith (b. 1962) has three sons. I don't have their names, though. Perhaps you can add his name as the hp to the Baron Strathclyde page. Tryde 11:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Cary

Yes you're right, it would be very extraordinary and so I think it was only a number lathe operator. 1951 would make more sense, since then the knightship was connected with his appointment as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Lord Privy Seal, while in 1915 neither he nor his father had done something what such an honor would justify. Thanks for the notice and please keep your eagle eyes further about my contributions. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 22:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Earl of Findlater

Hello again. My source was Debrett's. They state that the new patent of 1641 was with remainder to the Earl's daughter Elizabeth and her husband Sir Patrick Ogilvy and list the third holder of the earldom as (3) Elizabeth and Patrick. They don't say explicitly that they held the title jointly, but I presume this was the case (although my knowledge regarding the legal aspects of peerage titles is very limited, so I don't know if it is legally possible for a husband and wife to hold a title jointly). However, there is no doubt that Patrick was a peer in his own right. It would be interesting to known what Burke's and The Complete Peerage say on the matter, but I don't have access to them, unfortunately. Tryde 10:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Methuen

Hello. I think I have spotted a mistake by you (a rare thing, indeed). I believe the heir presumptive to the barony of Methuen you added, Christopher Paul Mansel Methuen-Campbell, is deceased. According to this source he died in 1998. The correct hp should be his son James Paul Archibald Methuen-Campbell (b. 1952) (source: Who's Who 2003 edition). I think we have to be very careful regarding info on contemporary people as something like this might be considered offensive to family members and others. Regards Tryde 09:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5th Earl of Lauderdale

The article seems to be extremely confused. He is recorded as Member of Parliament for Edinburghshire from March 12, 1685 to 1686 and was on the Convention in 1689, all as Sir John Lauder of Haltoun, and again in parliament from 1689 to 1693 as Sir John Maitland of Ravelrig. But it says he changed from Maitland to Lauder in 1693, so what was he doing as Lauder in 1685? Or am I missing something? Cracroft's doesn't mention a name change, but does say he had two different styles as a Lord of Session, firstly Lord Ravelrig and later Lord Halton. But at any rate, before becoming Earl of Lauderdale he was John Maitland for almost 40 years and supposedly only John Lauder for 2, so it would seem natural to put his article at the Maitland name. Proteus (Talk) 16:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the names just got switched in that particular sentence. I quote from his ODNB entry: "In March 1685, as Sir John Maitland of Ravelrig, he was elected to parliament as a commissioner of the shires for Edinburgh, and he represented the same constituency in the 1686 parliament...He was also appointed a lord of session on 28 October, with the title of Lord Ravelrig...In July 1691 Maitland received a charter of the barony of Hatton and took the name of Lauder. He sat for the shire of Edinburgh in the parliamentary sessions of 1693 and 1695 as Sir John Lauder of Hatton, but following the death of his elder brother Richard, succeeded in the latter year as fifth earl of Lauderdale." Choess 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it doesn't either way alter the the primary name used which is probably that which the article should be renamed. Alci12 11:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Welsh Peers

Thanks for editing the page! If you come across any other Welsh peers please add them. I have been scouring Wikipedia for them thus far. Drachenfyre 17:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Carnwath

It should be okay now. Proteus (Talk) 18:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Walter Kerr

Hi I didnt release I had made that error. Ill try to be "a touch more careful" in the future. Ive done a few other articles on the First Sea Lords but ive just made sure its "Admiral of the Fleet" in all of them and have included the link to British Admiral of the Fleet rank in the Lord Walter Kerr (and others) articles. Thanks for pointing it out. LordHarris 23:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

button

arbuthnot is sinister? - Kittybrewster 10:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New titles

I've been using the s-new template for things lately; perhaps that should be changed so we can customize it with a variety of messages for offices, titles, etc. As you point out, the message at present is not exactly one-size-fits-all. Choess 01:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've proposed a fix at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. I'll leave it open for comment for a while, then test in the sandbox and find an admin to make the edits. Choess 00:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honorable

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it.--Eva ^bd 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airlie

No, but Cracroft's indicates that the Act of Parliament reversing the attainder is now considered (rather unusually) to have been intended to reverse the attainder retroactively, effectively saying "the people who would have been Earls but for the attainder are now to be considered as if they were Earls". I wonder if, in this case, we should therefore use the old numbering. Proteus (Talk) 17:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so. I mean, we're not obliged to follow what Parliament says, but in this case it seems more to be an acknowledgement that the original denial was wrongful than an actual reversal, so on balance it's probably better to include them. Proteus (Talk) 21:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldic translation: help needed

Please can you translate a blazon. I drew the coat of arms of Coubron but I don't know how to describe in English the hunting horn on which some elements are of an other colour: the little pipe in which you blow, the lace and the metal ring at the end of the horn. Can you help me, please? Bruno Vallette 19:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the blazon you posted to Bruno's page is great. It's the best we can do, me thinks. Well done.--Eva ^bd 12:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milford Haven

Indeed, very interesting, and very odd indeed. I'm not entirely sure what's being talked of, though: they talk about "stamping" and "passing under the Great Seal", and it's possible the two are different things (the latter happening first). David Beamish says the peerages were created on 16th, 17th and 18th July, so I suppose it's possible that they passed the Great Seal on those dates and the LG announcement was delayed for some reason (possibly until this stamping thing had happened). I'd imagine that if stamping and passing the Great Seal are the same thing, then (as they seem to be insinuating) it wouldn't be entirely legal for him to take his seat until November. Proteus (Talk) 12:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt. The refusal would presumably be on the basis that the fees weren't paid (I'm not sure when the requirement to pay those fees ended, but it seems it must still have existed then). And re what you say about summoning people to Parliament without peerages, I wonder if it could be argued that Lord Milford Haven's possible summoning without an actual peerage could have created some kind of peerage by writ. (A bit off the wall, doubtless, but then I find quirky instances like this intriguing.) Proteus (Talk) 15:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High Sheriff of Dorset

I don't like bold wikilinks, therefore I have inserted none till now. I had further assumed that with the time, text also would be added there, so that sufficient material would exist for links. Good examples for this might be High Sheriff of West Sussex or High Sheriff of Berkshire. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 19:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

I will try to write a little text to them in the next days. Thanks for the link. ~~ Phoe _talk 17:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

What do you think about High Sheriff of Devon - can one let this as a beginning? Please feel free to improve it. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 20:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Barons Ponsonby

They should be fine now. Thanks for the heads up. Proteus (Talk) 11:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added comments to talk:Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly Flozu 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hume of Berwick

Cracroft's has it as dormant in 1611. It was recreated as a British peerage in 1776 for Alexander, Lord Polwarth, only surviving son and heir of the 3rd Earl of Marchmont, which would suggest it was considered extinct then. I can't imagine it was an English peerage, and any supposed inheritance by the Earls of Home seems very suspect to me. Proteus (Talk) 14:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There doesn't seem to be any legal basis on which it can be said that this title is held by Lord Home. Proteus (Talk) 16:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Debretts, a pretty standard modern source - as cited on discussion page. If you're interested I can email you correspondence from the Lord Lyon on this peerage. I can't think how else to reference it.Flozu 20:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Inverforth

Hello. You have added that Hon. Benjamin Andrew Weir (b. 1997) is the Heir Apparent to the barony of Inverforth. What is your source for this? According to my own notes (taken from Who's Who) the present baron has only one daughter and the heir presumptive is his uncle Hon. John Vincent Weir (b. 1935). Regards Tryde 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the heir from the page for the time being. Tryde 12:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan

There's an update on User talk:Phoe I think you'll enjoy. :-) Proteus (Talk) 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Mackenzie-Stuart

Thanks for the additional link. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 16:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Sir Evelyn Delves Broughton, Baronet

Where might I find a colour depiction of his crest please? - Kittybrewster 18:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of St John

Alci, Several months ago you commented on a reorganization of the St John Orders articles. I'm trying to figure it out again, and your help in reaching a consensus is most welcome here. This is an effort to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks a lot.--Eva ^bd 19:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Ashdown

Hi, nice to read you once again. You are right, some people really might well look for Paddy Ashdown under this search string, so I have taken up your suggestion and made a disambiguation page from it. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 18:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Your Question

The credits, as listed, are based on those shown at the end of the film and not the plays. I would also hazard a guess that at least some of the playbills for the multitude of performances of the play over the years have listed them with the first names included - whether that be the correct way to do it or not. Both the wiki filmproject and the wiki Doctor Who project have standing style policies of listing the credits as seen onscreen (and this is where I have done the bulk of my editing at wikiP) and I am just following what they have set up. But, as you say policies are flexible here (they film projects may even have changed since I encountered it 14 months ago when there was a conflict over the way that the credits were being listed in the Star Wars films) and all I can suggest is that you take your case to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films page and if they are okay with you changing this pages listings then I have no problem with it either. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esq.

I just used it because it's what we generally use (as far as I've seen) on lists of titles throughout someone's life. Proteus (Talk) 13:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you like. I'm not sure it's too important, though. Proteus (Talk) 09:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoe

:-((( We'll have to hope he reconsiders, and that his departure is like one of mine. Proteus (Talk) 17:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Sandys

Hello. From other cases I have encountered the recipient of a "revived peerage" at least had to have done something to merit a peerage, for example sit in the House of Commons for a few years. In this instance the recipient was female and her younger sons who were in line to inherit the title were all children at the time, so that was what I found strange, especially as it was a UK peerage (if it had been an Irish peerage I would have found it easier to understand as this did not guarantee a seat in the House of Lords). The peerage after all carried a certain political influence in the H of L, which at that time was still very powerful and wasn't as crowded as it is today. But I guess it was still possible in the early 19th century for the Sovereign to award a peerage after his or her liking.

I might also ask you, as an expert on these matters, about the Lord X, Baron of Y peerages of the 18th century. Do you have any knowledge why the patents were in this form? Is it technically correct to use the form Samuel Sandys, 1st Baron Sandys, or should it rather be Samuel Sandys, 1st Lord Sandys. Regards, Tryde 17:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shield shape

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Does_the_specific_shield_shape_of_e.g._US_highways_have_a_name.3F - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzling arms

Please can you identify for me [2]. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lord Hume of Berwick (again)

Hi Alci, Kittybrewster has suggested you as a possible intermediary in the dispute at the above page. I don't actually think the disagreements between myself and David Lauder are all that great, and a further viewpoint might help clear the log jam. Flozu 13:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Gowrie

Hello, I updated the talk page on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Gowrie entry, you said something about if I was born after or before my parents married, in answer to this question - I was born after my parents were married. :) You're talk page is very interesting. Heathcoteheat 01:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)

Judging by your talk page, it seems you may have a valuable contribution to make on this claim. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you?

I doubt you'll get this seeing as you don't seem to have been around for a while, but, where'd you go?? Hope you're well. Craigy (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Alci12! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 4 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Arthur Wellesley, Earl of Mornington - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Arthur Wellesley, Earl of Mornington for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arthur Wellesley, Earl of Mornington is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Wellesley, Earl of Mornington until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Uhooep (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]