Talk:John Stuart, 1st Marquess of Bute
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Recently the file File:John Stuart, 1st Marquess of Bute after Sir Joshua Reynolds.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 23:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Baron Cardiff
editI am having a problem with the statement that the subject of this article continued to be called by his courtesy title of Lord Mount Stuart after his creation as Lord Cardiff. This was a substantive title, whereas the substantive title of Mount Stuart was hedl by his mother Mary Stuart, Countess of Bute in her own right until her death in 1792. site and a manuscript source certainly describe him as Baron Cardiff. Should we add "sometimes"? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Having found a WP:RS on this point, I have made a suitable change. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- The courtesy title he bore was his father's Lordship (as heir apparent to the Earldom of Bute), not his mother's Barony. And of course he ranked higher as Lord Mount Stuart (the eldest son of an Earl of Scotland) than he did as Lord Cardiff (a Baron of Great Britain). It is also usual for courtesy peers to continue to use higher-grade courtesy peerages rather than lower-grade substantive peerages. For instance, the current Marquess of Salisbury continued to be known as Viscount Cranborne by courtesy even after he became substantive Lord Cecil (by writ in acceleration). However, the situation is sometimes different when the grade of the courtesy peerage and the substantive peerage are the same (I say "grade" rather than "rank" because Lord Mount Stuart had the rank of a Viscount as the eldest son of an Earl despite the fact that the grade of the courtesy peerage he bore was merely a Lordship). For instance, the current Lord Brabourne ranks higher as the eldest son of the Countess Mountbatten of Burma than he does as a result of his own Barony, but he still uses the substantive title rather than remaining Lord Romsey. I don't know what the practice was in the 18th century, but I don't think it's possible to say that either "Lord Mount Stuart" or "Lord Cardiff" were wrong ways to describe him. Proteus (Talk) 17:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- I was not now suggesting that either was "wrong". I had not spotted the point about the courtesy title ranking higher. As I found the article, it said that he was known as Lord Mount Stuart even after the grant of the barony. This gave me difficulties becasue I found references to him as LOrd Cardiff. On looking harder, I found both titles used for him in the corespondnce that I have cited. If there is a problem with my edit, please correct it. I tried not to take a view on which was the "right" title, only to express what happened in practice. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- The courtesy title he bore was his father's Lordship (as heir apparent to the Earldom of Bute), not his mother's Barony. And of course he ranked higher as Lord Mount Stuart (the eldest son of an Earl of Scotland) than he did as Lord Cardiff (a Baron of Great Britain). It is also usual for courtesy peers to continue to use higher-grade courtesy peerages rather than lower-grade substantive peerages. For instance, the current Marquess of Salisbury continued to be known as Viscount Cranborne by courtesy even after he became substantive Lord Cecil (by writ in acceleration). However, the situation is sometimes different when the grade of the courtesy peerage and the substantive peerage are the same (I say "grade" rather than "rank" because Lord Mount Stuart had the rank of a Viscount as the eldest son of an Earl despite the fact that the grade of the courtesy peerage he bore was merely a Lordship). For instance, the current Lord Brabourne ranks higher as the eldest son of the Countess Mountbatten of Burma than he does as a result of his own Barony, but he still uses the substantive title rather than remaining Lord Romsey. I don't know what the practice was in the 18th century, but I don't think it's possible to say that either "Lord Mount Stuart" or "Lord Cardiff" were wrong ways to describe him. Proteus (Talk) 17:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)