Talk:Henry Mountcharles

Name

Henry changed his name by deed poll to Henry Mountcharles as voters would not have recognised him as Henry Conyngham on the ballot paper when he ran for election to the Dáil for Fine Gael - whereas he was universally known as Lord Henry Mountcharles. As such, unless he changed his name back by deed poll, his name is Henry Mountcharles still, so the article should read Henry Mountcharles, 8th Marquess Conyngham as that is now his legal name. His children however still carry the Conyngham surname. 109.79.152.110 (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

POV stuff that is inaccurate being added into some Irish articles

Someone keeps adding in the inaccurate POV stuff into Irish articles.

However Article 40.2 of the Irish Constitution forbids the state conferring titles of nobility and a citizen may not accept titles of nobility or honour except with the prior approval of the Government, present titles of peerage being considered anachronistic, titles of peerage are thus regarded as simply courtesy titles.

1. The article is about a person, not about constitutional law.

2. Article 40.2. does not cover inheritance of titles. It covers awarding of new titles. So existing titles are entirely unaffected. The constitution deliberately covered new titles, not existing ones because it law existing titles aren't accepted. They transfer automatically. X dies. Y inherits the title. In Britain they may disclaim it. They may choose not to use it. But they don't have any say on whether it is inherited in the sense of saying 'I don't want it. Pass it on to someone else'. Nor can someone ask an Irish government for permission to inherit a title. Its inheritance is a matter of biology, genes and letters patent. (Suggesting someone ask permission to inherit a title is on the same craziness as suggesting a child ask the government's permission to inherit brown eyes. It is nothing something you control, so how can you ask permission?) De Valera, the constitution's author, and John Hearne, its drafter, made that clear to peers - that their article was about the creating of any more peerages, not the inheritance of those already created. The author of that bit of the article is pushing their own idiosyncratic point of view.

3. The Irish state openly accepts the use of such titles. The Earl of Iveagh served in Seanad Éireann. http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/1992/06/23/00004.asp The Earl of Granard was appointed by the President to serve on the Council of State. It doesn't give a monkeys whether Henry Mountcharles is referred to as the 8th Marquess Conyngham, or Lord Henry Mountcharles, or the Big cheese of Slane. So the state doesn't view titles as 'courtesy titles'. It doesn't view them as anything. It doesn't care.

4. The state has fully accepted the awarding of honours and peerages to Irish citizens by other states. It has no problem with it - all it requires is that its permission is formally sought. When permission is sought, it always says yes, sure, no problem. Go ahead. It has accepted honours and peerages awarded by Britain, France, Italy, the Holy See and tons of other states.

Republics deal with peerages from the previous monarchies in different way. Some explicitly abolish them. Some prohibit their use. Ireland's constitution does neither. In effect it just says that the Irish state cannot award any new ones, and if anyone else wants to award one to an Irish citizen, they first must get the agreement of the Irish state. That is all.

Also "although in the Republic of Ireland he is often (and erroneously) still referred to as 'Henry Mountcharles' " is wrong. Henry Mountcharles is the guy's name. It has been since he changed it by deed poll (unless he has changed it back. Has he?) It would be erroneous to refer to him as Lord Mountcharles or the Earl of Mountcharles since he inherited the marquessate. But 'Henry Mountcharles' isn't erroneous. I've changed the text to make it clear it is the reference to Lord Mountcharles that is erroneous.

Finally, United Kingdom Peerage of Ireland That makes no sense. The peerage of Ireland has nothing to do with the United Kingdom. It has nothing to do with anyone. It exists in limbo, since the king of Ireland who awarded it, ceased to exist in 1949. It cannot be awarded by anyone. It just "is", until the day when the last title in it runs out of people to inherit it, in which case it will simply become "was". Various old peerages of defunct states exist in that limbo. The person who put in the bizarre United Kingdom peerage of Ireland is the same guy who put in the Article 40 stuff. It seems as though they are pushing a rather strong POV. Articles aren't supposed to be pushing a POV. They are supposed to be NPOV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Requested move 27 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. (non-admin closure) Bradv 02:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Henry Conyngham, 8th Marquess Conyngham → Henry Mountcharles – per WP:COMMONNAME, and per WP:NCPEER.
This man is overwhelmingly known by the name "Henry Mountcharles". See Gnews searches: 101 hists for "Henry Mountcharles", but only 6 hits for "8th Marquess Conyngham" and 9 hits for "Henry Conyngham".
Note that while WP:NCPEER recommends use of the format "Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title" per the current title, it lists an exception for 'peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names: e.g. Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell")'. This is one such exception. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 01:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Notes:
  1. Deed poll I have found several comments on talk pages claiming that this man adopted the name "Henry Mountcharles" by deed poll. I have not been able to find any source for this claim, and in any case it is irrelevant to this discussion.
  2. Lord Henry A gnews search gives 79 hits for "Lord Henry Mountcharles", compared with 101 hists for the plain "Henry Mountcharles". That suggests that the plain form was used in 22 of the 101 hits, but that the title was used in the other 79. So it may be more appropriate to call him "Lord Henry Mountcharles". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: A reasonable suggestion, but on balance I am unconvinced. Bertrand Russell was a world-famous philosopher, whereas the present Marquess's position - and probably also his notability - rests to a large extent on his inherited titles and estates (though I appreciate that Russell was introduced only as an example - one can think of others, eg Thomas Pakenham (historian)). Secondly, Lord Conyngham only succeeded to the peerage in 2008, so it is unsurprising that there should be many internet references to his courtesy title. Thirdly, there is a well-established Wikipedia naming system for peers, which I think should be overridden only in clear and obvious cases. Fourthly, it's not as if Conyngham has abjured his title: he just prefers to continue with an informal version of a secondary title. 45ossington (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll take those points one at a time:
    1. Henry Mountcharles is notable overwhelmingly for using his estate for rock concerts, rather than his titles. The sources confirm that.
    2. The balance of usage has not changed since he inherited his title in 2008. Restricting the search to 2009 onwards, we find 97 Gnews hits for "Henry Mountcharles", but only 6 Gnews hits for "8th Marquess Conyngham".
    3. As to "clear and obvious cases", the sources are clear and obvious that uses of "Henry Mountcharles" massively outnumbers his peerage title.
    4. The question of whether he has abjured his title is a red herring. The exception in WP:NCPEER is for 'peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names'. The 2009-onwards balance of 15:1 meets that test. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

    That number is skewed because he only became the marquess a few years ago! So of course you are not going to find as many hits for him being referred to as the marquess. Please note even on his byline about the history of Slane Castle he is called Henry, Eighth Marquess Conyngham. He has certainly embraced his title. When people succeed to titles we don't try to argue common name by Google hits, it makes no sense to do so when they have only recently inherited the title. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

    @Wikimandia: please read before replying. As in read the post to which you reply, read the policies, and read the relevant background articles before making inaccurate assertions.
    His father died on 3 March 2009 (7½ years ago, not as you falsely say a few years ago), which is why I posted the above searches for the period from 2009 onwards.
    The question is not whether he has "embraced his title" (whatever that means) -- the test per WP:NCPEER is for 'peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names', which is the case here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I did read. The fact is he was Earl of Mount Charles/Lord Mountcharles/Henry Mountcharles/Lord Henry whatever for 25 years. That's how the public came to know him and so that is how the media frequently refers to him and it is going to take some time for them to switch over. They still refer to him as Marquess of Conyngham additionally. As 45ossington pointed out, COMMONNAME is when there is ONE common name and that is not the case here. WP:NCPEER are for cases like AJ Langer. Even Jamie Spencer-Churchill, 12th Duke of Marlborough is still primarily called "Jamie Blandford" but that doesn't mean that should be the title of his article. The article title and the lede are perfectly fine as is. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Please read the policy. WP:COMMONNAME is not just where there is one common name.
In this case, there is one common name: "Henry Mountcharles", which is an order of magnitude more widely used than the alternatives.
If and when the media does adopt another usage, then we can look again ... but so far there is no evidence that the media has begun to use his title to any significant extent. You write they still refer to him as Marquess of Conyngham additionally ... but of the 97 Gnews hits for "Henry Mountcharles", only 3 also use "Henry Mountcharles.
This discussion would be far more constructive if you would take the time to post only claims for which you have found some evidence, rather simply repeating unsourced and readily-falsifiable assertions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• • In the light of BrownHairedGirl's response, I think I have to downgrade my Oppose to a Weak Oppose. Off-topic, "Henry Mountcharles" is a bit of an abomination as nomenclature: his name has always been "Henry Conyngham", and his title was "Earl of Mountcharles", or (less formally) "Lord Mountcharles". "Henry Mountcharles" is neither fish nor fowl. Perhaps a peer should be permitted to be identified on Wikipedia by a nick-name if they can push it into the press successfully enough over the years (Michael Ancram, anyone?), but I do question whether the change is necessary.45ossington (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @45ossington: no change of article title is "necessary". All such changes are made because the new title is believed to be a better fit with the naming policy at WP:AT, and related guidelines.
      In this case, "Henry Mountcharles" meets the first 4 of the 5 WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision and Conciseness. The current title meets only two of the five criteria: Precision and Consistency.
      Your his name has always been assertion is a deceptive half-truth. This man has been known by several different names, and en.wp policy has never been to require that some notion of "official name" must always trump common usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Well, I'm sorry you think me both guilty of deceptive half-truth and ignorant of en.wp policy; I expressly prefaced my assertion with the observation that it was off-topic.45ossington (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per 45ossington: Many peers use their titles as last names and are also referred to this way informally. I don't see any pressing reason to change it in this case. It's not like he's astoundingly famous under the name of Henry Mountcharles. It's sufficient to say also known as Henry Mountcharles, ... which I added to the intro along with his previous title. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • By the standards of the mostly-obscure Irish peers, Henry Mountcharles is astoundingly famous. Since the death of IOC boss Lord Killanin, Henry Mountcharles is by a very long way the best-known peer in a country which pays little attention to them.
    The pressing reason to change the article title is to help readers, by using an article which is a whole order of magnitude more recognisable than the current title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Lord Henry Mountcharles is primarily known for the Slane Concerts, and secondarily as a columnist in the Irish Daily Mirror, where he is known as "Lord Henry Mountcharles" or "Lord Henry" (see here). His notability does not "rest on his title". Succeeding to the peerage did not change the way he was referred to in reliable sources. See 2015 and 2016 stories. Scolaire (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Note. Apart from his rock concerts, Mountcharles is known for having a column in the Irish Mirror, a tabloid newspaper. The paper refers to him as "Lord Henry" despite his formal title (see http://www.irishmirror.ie/all-about/lord-henry-mountcharles), and his byline is simply "Lord Henry": see e.g. 20 Feb 2016, 18 Sep 2015, 9 Oct 2015 and many more. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • And his byline for the history of on Slane Castle is Henry, Eighth Marquess Conyngham. The sons of Marquesses and Dukes are all entitled to be styled as Lord. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    • There's a grammar glitch there, which obscures your meaning. Where exactly is this history published? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Look at the External Links. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Sigh Why not just post the link? http://www.slanecastle.ie/castle/castle_history.php
          Having seen it, one self-published page is not the evidence of common usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. "Henry ConynghamMountcharles" appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME in Google News searches;[1] nothing else I'm seeing besides perhaps "Lord Henry ConynghamMountcharles" (or simply "Lord Henry", which is taken) comes close.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Cúchullain, did you mean to say "Henry Mountcharles" appears to be the common name? Scolaire (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Apologies for the typo.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support Henry Mountcharles per nom and Cuchullain.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. Similar situation to Michael Ancram, and exactly the situation that the exception was designed to handle. Mackensen (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.