User talk:Lord Emsworth/Archive 5

The Coronation Chair

Dear Lord Emsworth - Could you help me out with some advice (again) I have just written an article on the coronation chair, which I have called St. Edward's Chair, I now see that on the Coronation of a British Monarch you have referred to it as King Edward's Chair.

I have found various references to it as both. However, in the official coronation books of both The Queen, and King George VI (which I have) it is St. Edward's Chair. Are both terms correct, or have I and the coronation books and several internet references erred. If this is the case I will move the page and references as soon as possible.Giano 13:57, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Interesting isn't it. That article from the Sun, does contain some inaccuracies though, e.g the chair was the one in which the Kings of Scotland were crowned, and the stone being marble etc. The internet seems to be split 50/50. The Westminster Abbey site does not refer to it other than as the coronation chair, but there could be hundreds of those around the world. I wonder who would have the definitive answer, it would be silly to change the page name and then have to change it back. I suspect, as you think, it is King rather than Saint as it was made for King Edward, but was kept in St.Edward's chapel. However, the Earl Marshal at the coronation was known as an expert of protocol and a perfectionist so would have been unlikely to have let such a mistake slip through on the order of service - so weighing things up, I think the best thing is to change the page name and put a redirect from St. Edwards Chair, and another from Coronation chair, then leave it to others to fight it out. This is not really my subject, however, architecture does lead one to some strange places!. Thanks for your helpGiano 15:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Apologies for eavesdropping, but could it refer to King Edward the Confessor? (I'm sure that he was later canonised: rather oddly, his page categorises him as a saint, but the text doesn't explain why or when. Perhaps, once you have finished with the early modern English/British monarchy, you could go back and complete the Saxons? :) )-- ALoan (Talk) 16:20, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If it is indeed named after/for (King and Saint) Edward the Confessor, then surely either (or both) is right? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:41, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Simon Schama's book confirms it is named for him. Pcb21| Pete 09:21, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Styling of royals etc

Hello, i noticed you added the HRH to the intro of my edit of Princess Anne's page. Although I initally would have done this, any time I have done so previosuly people have removed it saying it contravenes the naming and styling policy. Has the policy changed recently? Personally I prefer it the way you changed it to, but was just wondering for future? Cheers. Astrotrain

OK, cheers for that, will use this in future. The only suggestion I would make is bold italics for the HRH part. User:Astrotrain.

Lady Louise

My Lord, you might want to take a look at Talk:Lady Louise Windsor to see if you can shed any light on the discussion we're having there. Proteus (Talk) 10:12, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Prince Charles, Prince of Wales

I posted this comment on the talk page to PC, P of W.

Actually Ems, and I normally have the highest regard for your work, this is a major error. Charles has not been Prince Charles since 1952. I checked that before with Buckingham Palace and his then office in St. James Palace. (The only exception is Scotland, where he is, as his office explained, The Prince Charles, not Prince Charles.) They reckoned that Charles, Prince of Wales though somewhat inaccurate was the least inaccurate way of diffrentating between Princes of Wales. But Prince Charles, Prince of Wales is 100% wrong and has no place in an encyclopaedia. Andrew and the others were written using the Prince reference simply because their titles were less well known and people may not realise that their dukedom or earldom was an royal dukedom or earldom. But no-one on the planet over the age of 7 thinks Prince of Wales is anything other than a royal title. In addition, technically Andrew was Prince Andrew until 1986, Edward Prince Edward until the 1990s. But Charles legally and constitutionally ceased to be Prince Charles fifty-two years ago!

And doing what you did opens up the nightmare prospect of people writing Princess Diana in titles. There never was such a person. There was the Hon. Diana Spencer, Lady Diana Spencer, the Princess of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales. But there never was a Princess Diana - it was just populist media shorthand and should be explained as such in the article, not appearing in the article title as if a correct title. Moving from necessary inaccuracy to achieve a distinction between office holders to serious inaccuracy with a mythical title risks what happened before on wikipedia, a free-for-all of 'if you can make up a version, so can I' writing. (That's how this page, ludicrously, was once under Charles Windsor!!!)

I think you should change the names back to their accurate, or least inaccurate form from the dubious version here. (As to no response in the debate pages, I haven't been on for a while. If I saw it there I would have challenged it, as would the people who did the initial research that produced the original titles.)

But that doesn't in any way distract from the exceptionally high standard of your other work, which I have long admired. It is work of that usual calibre that makes wikipedia the incredible success it is. :-) FearÉIREANN 16:52, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Em for the reply. One thing I learnt to my cost when doing research is the importance of relying on primary documentation rather than secondary sources. It is correct to say that many websites, including those devoted to royalty, refer to the Prince of Wales as Prince Charles. I deliberately spoke to his own office to clarify what exactly is his title. They were 100% sure that the form Prince Charles technically disappeared when he received his first royal peerage, as Duke of Cornwall in 1952. That appears to be the standard form. Andrew ceased to be Prince Andrew when he became the Duke of York, etc etc. Prior to 1952 Charles was, in strict legal form, The Prince Charles of Edinburgh. Scotland follows different rules. Scottish heirs to the throne remained titled a prince. So Charles is not, and has not been for over fifty years Prince Charles in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and thoughout the Commonwealth. Only in Scotland is he The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay. It does not follow that because in Scotland he is The Prince Charles he is either Prince Charles or The Prince Charles elsewhere. Scotland's formal methodology for royal titles is of no consequence to England, and England's no consequence to Scotland. So say he own staff and staff in Her Majesty's Household. And I trust their opinions above those of websites. FearÉIREANN 17:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bohemian rulers

If you're still fixing up the lineage tables for various rulers of Bohemia... I think you should link the terms Duke of Bohemia and King of Bohemia rather than bothering with a pipe link to whatever the page is named these days (cf. its talk page). That way we also get a clearer picture in Special:Whatlinkshere as to which title is the most used one. TIA. --Joy [shallot] 21:47, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Louis XIV

I was just reading your brilliant epic on Louis XIV, which is amazing, however, a small point, does the phrase:- The Duc d'Orléans, however, ensured that Louis's willw as annulled in court, have a copy-edit, I think it should be will, but as a non-native English speaker hesitate to correct it, besides which it would be a shame to have anybody else's name on the history page. Regards Giano 13:32, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More Newbie Questions

Right, I've come back to annoy you! Mwahaha... anyway, I actually have two questions.

Say we have George Germain, 1st Viscount Sackville. Quite obviously, his category:peers link would be [[Category:Peers|Sackville, George Germain, 1st Viscount]]. However, when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies, he was known as "Lord George Germain". Now, are we supposed to do [[Category:British Secretaries of State|Germain, George]] or [[Category:British Secretaries of State|Sackville, George Germain, 1st Viscount]]? From what I understand (looking at Category_talk:Peers), you're supposed to categorize/categorise by article title (so Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh would still be Castlereagh on the Peers page, instead of Londonderry), but from what I've seen, most people, in this case, would use "Lord George Germain"...

Second, how come many pages have Category:Great Officers of State listed before Category:British Secretaries of State? I thought they were supposed to be in alphabetical order...

Thanks in advance. ugen64 01:53, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

With the categories, I was generally trying to do it in order of precedence - Great Officers are higher in precedence than secretaries of state, so the great officer category goes first. john k 02:39, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Viscount Harcourt

I have edited the Viscount Harcourt page to add information, and suspect that it now needs to be re-formatted, at which I would be in over my head. Could you have a look? Thanks! Steve Casburn 03:33, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Citing sources

Actually, the Wikipedia:Cite sources specifically says:

Wikipedia has no shortage of space, so you need not abbreviate names; a good guideline is to list them as they are written in the original article/book.

- Ta bu shi da yu 06:40, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RFC:Xed

I created an RFC for Xed: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Xed. I think you should certify this dispute. WhisperToMe 03:59, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arthur Wellesley's nicknames

Wanted to check in with you before I edited, since you're working on making it a featured article. He was also nicknamed "Nosey" by troops he commanded, the article needs to mention this to be complete IMHO. What are your thoughts? Zerbey 18:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding cabinet tables

My Lord, I must ask your opinion on a matter regarding cabinets. Specifically, what are your opinions on the issues I have described at Talk:Robert Walpole and, more comprehensively, at the bottom of User_talk:John Kenney?

And a completely different issue: are you, by any chance, a university student? Just out of curiosity :-). Sorry to bother you again, your most humble and servant and squire and whatever... ugen64 01:25, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

My Lord, I had actually been thinking about that. User:Wik actually did something interesting, see 1922 in the United Kingdom, but that's probably infeasible (a ministry page for every year, that is, which would also include under-secretaries, secretaries to the treasury, etc.). I do like your idea, perhaps we could append it to Wikipedia:WikiProject British Government or something?

And fifteen, eh? I thought you were like an English major or something, what with your flawless writing skills and such... meh, whatever, I was thirteen when I arrived, so I suppose I can't speak for myself... ugen64 19:20, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I am opposed to doing it by reign, although that's what I had originally thought of - you are quite correct, Victoria reigned for 60-plus years, that's a very long list. I am also opposed to categorizing by year, because among other things, it would be torture to write 300-odd pages of cabinet members. I do believe that ministry and/or parliament would be the best methods - see the first table at User:Ugen64/Cabinet to see the Townshend ministry.

Also, should we use the table format at my Cabinet page, Robert Walpole, and Spencer Compton? I stole it from the format used on US president pages (George Washington), but there is probably a better format to use. ugen64 19:43, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Right, as you're busy changing dashes to endashes, I've got a quick question: should ministries be laid out on a single page (List of British ministries), which I've already done for one ministry, or should they be on separate pages (First Townshend Ministry, for example)? Have fun editing all of those Lord Chancellors! ugen64 23:15, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

FAC noms

Emsworth - you currently have 6 FAC nominations. And while generally, your articles are some of the best written nominations there, having too many on the page makes it hard to give everyone's nomination enough consideration. Also, it sets a bad example, in that others have been doing the same thing, lately. In the future, I'd appreciate it if you didn't have so many simultaneous candidates. →Raul654 19:24, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Admin

Thanks! I'm honoured that you consider me suitable, and I'd be very happy to accept your nomination. Proteus (Talk) 20:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Robert Peel

I noticed that on Robert Peel the various succession tables refer to "The Lord John Russell" instead of "Lord John Russell." Now, he wasn't created an earl until much later, and I was under the impression that the simple courtesey "Lord" for the younger son of a duke didn't merit the pre-nominal "the". Mackensen 15:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Many thanks my lord. Mackensen 16:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Duke of Wellington

My Lord, sorry to bother you again, but would you mind taking a look at Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington? I have majorly refactored the header and first section, and I am receptive to any suggestions you may have. I will return to the article sometime tomorrow, but in case I am doing anything horribly wrong, I'd at least like you to take a look at it. Perhaps once I am finished, it will be suitable for featured article status :-). ugen64 03:41, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

For all of the hard work you have done expanding Wikipedia's articles on British nobility and royalty, I hereby award this Working Man's Barnstar to you. May the number of featured articles written by you continue to expand!

I hereby award you the Working Man's Barnstar for being an incredible Wikipedian. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:24, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, you live in the U.S.? I had no idea - I always thought you lived in Britain. Anyway, if you're planning on expanding articles on nineteenth century presidents, I'd be happy to help. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:29, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Irish peers

Hi. I just thought I'd write a line to draw your attention to the questions I've posed in Talk:Peerage of Ireland, since I suspect you might know something about them. Thanks. Doops 20:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just saying hello

Hello. EDGE 05:17, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

I've come to say hello too, mostly because my parents were born in Emsworth. I was going to ask you why you decided to call yourself that, but you preempted me at the top of your page. Well done for your prolific work, by the way. --Anonymous Contributor (and real-life colleague of JDF).

British Secretaries of State

If you could direct your attention to Category talk:British Secretaries of State, you'll see that I'm trying to figure out the best way to split this up based on the different offices involved. Your input would be appreciated. john k 06:26, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stars to our star writer

Look! So many articles! So many stars! For each of the articles you have written, I award you a star. ✏ Sverdrup 16:39, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Peerage question: "in remainder"

Our article on Harold Nicolson includes this sentence: "Harold Nicolson's younger and only surviving son is the publisher and writer Nigel Nicolson, of Sissinghurst who is in remainder to the title of Baron Carnock."

Alas, as of a few days ago, Nigel Nicolson is no longer surviving. I'll remove the reference to him as "surviving". My question for you is how the passage about "in remainder" should be handled. I'm taking a wild guess that it means that if the current Baron Carnock plus some other people (his heirs) had all predeceased Nigel Nicolson, then Nicolson would have acceded to the title. I'm further guessing that, with Nigel Nicolson having died without ever becoming Baron, the reference can be deleted from Harold Nicolson's article, and need not be included in any article on Nigel. I'm not familiar with the concept of being in remainder to a title, though, so I wanted to run it by someone more likely to know. Thanks for any help you can give. JamesMLane 21:46, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Based on what you've said, I agree with you that there's no need to make any reference in the article to the Barony of Carnock. (I suppose, in some instances, having spent some time as an heir-presumptive might have enough significance in a person's life that it should be included in the article even after the person's death or after the birth of an heir apparent -- for example, if the heir-presumptive was accused of plotting to murder the titleholder. Such cases would be rare, though.) I also agree that we shouldn't use unexplained phrases like "in remainder". I'll keep an eye out. JamesMLane 02:37, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lord Byron

Please don't remove Lord Byron from the opening paragraph of George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron. Almost everyone reading that article will be redirected from Lord Byron and they need to know immediately that they are in the right place. --Chinasaur 19:43, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ramses/Ramesses

There is a move afoot, led by User:Pjamescowie, to switch to Ramesses as the standard spelling here. You can see the justification/debate at Talk:Ramesses. In getting ready to implement this, I see you've done some moves to Ramses in the past; did you want to weigh in on this topic before we take off? Thanks! Noel 15:34, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Noel 21:01, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Squidgygate

Hi Emsworth,

I happened to come across a new article on Squidgygate written by an anon today. Their contributions look generally good. I wikified it, but knowing your predeliction for British royalist topics I thought you might enjoy correcting the references to the various protagonists. -- Solipsist 19:02, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Official invitation

Hi!

This is a message to let you know that there is now a UK-specific Wikipedia community page at Wikipedia:UK wikipedians' notice board. It would be great if you could come and get involved! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:52, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry with a name like Lord Emsworth and given your edit history I automatically assumed you were British. Oh well come along and join in anyway! And no, I haven't mentioned it at the village pump yet, and was about to go to bed - do you want to do it? I won't be online again until Sunday. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:30, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re: Industrial Revolution

Just thought I'd explain that the United Kingdom didn't really come into being until the 19th century, so it would be inappropriate to use that term when discussing a revolution that started in the 18th century. Also, there are not that many references to Irish involvement in the advances that are bing covered, other that the supply of Navvys who constructed the canals and railways. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 23:05, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Subpages

The list of Companions of Honour has already been put onto Order of the Companions of Honour. I should probably remove the reference from my user page... ugen64 22:40, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Style Matters

First, I assume your birthday was sometime this month, so congratulations! But anyway, I have yet another question to ask of you, being the de facto expert on the UK and all. I have, here, the 4th Earl of Southampton, on whom I wrote an article. He became Earl of Southampton in 1624, and was born in 1607. There were no subsidiary titles of the earldom. Would he have been styled "Lord Wriothesley" (being the eldest son of an earl), or "The Honourable Thomas Wriothesley"? Thanks, ugen64 22:18, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales

For the opening of Diana, Princess of Wales, what would you think of using the usual format for Royals ("Diana, Princess of Wales (Diana Frances Mountbatten-Windsor, née Spencer) (1 July...")? Proteus (Talk) 21:40, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Admin nomination

Hey, thanks mate. I didn't realise you were 16, btw! You have above average intelligence. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Australian Parliament

Emsworth, I hope you won't take too much offence at my reversion of your most recent edits to Parliament of Australia. While I generally have a high opinion of your edits (particularly now that I notice you are 16), you do have a fondness for long words and complex sentences, whereas I try to keep to plain English. I don't think your edits added anything to the article other than complexity. Cheers Adam 13:57, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A table of that type would be useful. Adam 14:18, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Peerage questions - Baron Runciman & Viscount Runciman of Doxford

Do you perchance know where to find the full name of the first Baron Runciman? At the moment the page of his son just links to Walter Runciman (father) which isn't terribly useful.

Also any idea how to show in the boxes a man being made a Viscount and then inheriting a lower title? At the moment Walter Runciman, 1st Viscount Runciman of Doxford looks like an upgrade. Timrollpickering 10:21, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Courtesy Titles

Ah, learning about the peerage is rather fun (in an idiosyncratic way, I suppose)... I have James Hamilton, 1st Duke of Abercorn. His grandfather was Marquess of Abercorn and his father used the courtesy title, Viscount Hamilton. While his father's alive, he is styled The Hon. James Hamilton. James's father dies. Does he remain "The Hon. James Hamilton" (because his father, before his death, was a courtesy viscount), does he become "Viscount Hamilton" (being the heir to the marquessate), or does he revert to "James Hamilton" (having no father)? Thanks, ugen64 20:25, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

I think, though, people only stick their first name onto their surname when it sounds reasonable. If I saw the name "John Alanbrooke" on a paper, I wouldn't look twice, but if I saw "Jane Bettyboothroyd", it'd look a bit odd... ugen64 02:25, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

a peerage article

Do you have any idea what the source of the new article on William de Ros, 3rd Baron de Ros is? I'm concerned about copyvio issues since it looks like a cut and paste job by an anon. Wasn't able to Google up any matches, but I thought you might know from the style, given your interest in peers. Thanks. Wolfman 14:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Forgive me butting in here, but there are a number of these, apparently all created by the same user, who has simply cobbled together a load of "facts" from miscellaneous sources. I am in the process of trying to clean them up, because, regardless of their origin, they are not in the recognised format for an article. Deb 17:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ditto...hopefully we won't collide! Mackensen 19:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

succession tables

What do you think of the following format for succession tables:

{{start box}}
{{succession box|title=[[Home Secretary]]|before=[[John Smith]]|after=[[Robert Walpole]]}}
{{end box}}

formats:

ugen64 14:51, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

We want the years of service, don't we? john k 15:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The years of service could be added; furthermore, how is this table to be adapted when an individual has served in several different positions? -- Emsworth 16:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also how do you show when an individual combined titles or positions and was succeeded in them by the same person? Timrollpickering 16:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Several different positions is easy to handle:

As to the combined positions... you will have to just use manual table code, I suppose... ugen64 21:30, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Excellent, then. As I see no reason to avoid the template's usage (it makes the page in question much neater), I will soon start implementing it. -- Emsworth 22:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PM of the UK

I'm afraid that I have succumbed to the objections and removed some information from the lead. I have reduced the detailed information in the lead section to broad outlines (preserving, for example, some information about recent controversies relating to the office). I hope you do not mind. -- Emsworth 19:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not at all; you seem to have done a fine job. (Of course being who I am I have fiddled with it a little.) But I wonder if it will be enough to satisfy the objectors — I suspect that their real aim may be a one-paragraph introduction. We shall see. Doops 21:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi

Even though you are sixteen can you come and assist us in the - India - page there is a dispute going on here - do historical justice and perserve the reputation of wikipedia

Thanks

Please read the following comments on that page there are many more like this the page has been restricted -

HAVE NOT HAD SUCH A GOOD LAUGH FOR A LONG TIME THANKS WIKIPEDIA

The entire 1500 years of Muslim rule in India seemed to be wiped out from the history of India - Good Grief!!

This is not history its the distortation of history by some half wit who claims to be a historian no doubt from the ilk who distort hitory as I can see things here from Mythology - Come on folks the past cannot be changed - You see it in the red fort and the many thousands of monuments all over Delhi and India includeing the Taj Mahal What about the Kilji Dynasty, The Tuglak Dynasty, The Delhi Sultanate, The Muguls - The Deccan Kingdoms - Mir Jafar and Tippu sultan and the wars aginst the E India Company -

This can be compared to wipeing out the entire British History from Queen Victoria to the depature of the Romans and adding King Arthur and Merlin as fact . Only write about Ancient India include some mythology then Jump forward to the present day because you don't like muslims. Ha Ha!

Lets get the Indian Historians in!!! this version is written by an illliterate who fancies himself an intellectual and scholar

But maybe better still keep it!!! Its a good example of creative history writing as a goo example and bit of a laugh for Indian Historians working in Universities all over the world.

Lalit Shastri