Talk:Charles Ritchie, 1st Baron Ritchie of Dundee

Proposed move

It has been proposed that this article be moved to the longer form of the title. This is an administrative notice. Septentrionalis 20:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose shorter form sufficient. The long form is in the first line, as it ought to be. Septentrionalis 20:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support as the correct title. We've got longer article names (or titles). Phoe 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Things like this make us look like we don't know what we're doing (as in we don't know which is correct so we'll use both in different places). Proteus (Talk) 09:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. For the reasons above, we can't have only part of his title. --Berks105 10:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. We don't include the territorial suffixes in titles, but "of Dundee" only looks like a territorial suffix; it's part of the correct title. Choess 22:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why is it not a territorial suffix? There's nothing on the page indicating that it's different. Please explain. Laura1822 01:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You can see on the page by the opening line, and where it says when he was given the peerage. Also, the page Baron Ritchie of Dundee would not be at that if it wasn't the full title. A source is Leigh Rayment's list of baronets and [1]. The latter shows the terroritial designation. Hope this helps. --Berks105 11:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

See also territorial designation for a full explanation. Proteus (Talk) 12:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why can't all the rules just be frozen in the 18th century?  :-) Laura1822 03:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. For the reasons above. It should be correct and follow the naming convention. Laura1822 03:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Page moved, per discussion above. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd much prefer to have people like this, who were only given their titles after retirement, at Charles Thomson Ritchie. john k 13:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

To be honest if we did that many, many people would have to be moved. I think, and I believe policy dictates, that they should only be under their name only if there are widely known by that alone. Anyway, the place for this discussion isn't here, so i'll stop! --Berks105 13:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A fair number of people would need to be moved, yes. Current policy (which I was involved in composing) is:

When individuals received hereditary peerages after retiring from the post of Prime Minister (unless they are better known for their later career under an additional/alternative title), or for any other reason are known exclusively by their personal names, do not include the peerage dignity.

It seems to me that Ritchie is known more or less exclusively known as "Charles Ritchie" or "C. T. Ritchie" or "Charles Thomson Ritchie." He received his peerage title in 1905, two years after his retirement from public life, and was in retirement for the whole time he was "Lord Ritchie of Dundee." The logic here is considerably stronger than that for his boss, Arthur Balfour, who was actually in office as Earl of Balfour. It is at least as strong as that for Herbert Henry Asquith, David Lloyd George, Stanley Baldwin, Clement Attlee, Anthony Eden, and Harold Macmillan. It's only that, at present, we make an artificial distinction between prime ministers and other politicians. I think that politicians who received peerage titles after retirement should always be excluded, unless there's some other reason they would be known by the title (Lord George-Brown is specifically known for having a ridiculous life peerage title, for instance, and at any rate needs to be disambiguated from other people called "George Brown"). I don't think this is a matter of policy so much as a matter of interpretation of policy. john k 19:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the distinction does make some sense, as PMs are generally very well known and their name whilst in office definitely sticks, whereas for other people (not just less major politicians) the title is often used retrospectively. An extreme example would be Lord Leighton, who held his title for the grand total of one day, and yet is very often referred by it retrospectively. Often this takes the form of "John Smith (later Lord Smith of London)", which is rarely used of PMs. Now this obviously doesn't apply to everyone, but it is a much more common phenomenon than I think you give it credit for, and I'd oppose a move to extend the general exclusion to all politicians. The current rule (use it unless it's absolutely never used) seems to work pretty well from where I'm sitting. Proteus (Talk) 20:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

But it's not really true that it's absolutely never used for anyone. Can we point to usage of "Lord Ritchie of Dundee" for Ritchie? What about "Lord Chilston" for his cabinet colleague Aretas Akers-Douglas? john k 23:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)