Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 8

Religious Titles

I have noticed that religious titles are causing a problem. Using a name and leaving out a title works where that title is not so closely associated with a person that they become unrecognisable without it, or where the title usage does mean that the person's first name is not widely known. But religious titles do have a habit of doing that. For example, how many people know what Cardinal Cushing's first name was? Or Cardinal Richelieu's? Cardinal Gasparri's? Cardinal Wolsey's? Archbishop Carey of Canterbury's? Not using 'cardinal/Archbishop/Bishop', etc) may well produce unrecognisable names, unless we constantly set up redirects.

This is an issue that seems to stretch across the denominations but particularly affects those faiths that place particular emphasis on title, but most notably the higher up one goes in the hierarchy of Roman Catholicism, particularly the rank of cardinal. We do use hereditary titles in the form [[{name} {surname}, {ordinal if one} {peerage}]] (eg, Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma) so that every scrap of necessary info is available for a word-search, to cover every probable version of a name is accessible in the title. In contrast, knighthoods and damehoods do not cause that problem. Bob Geldof is easily recognisable without the prefix 'Sir'. But where we have courtesy titles that are so linked with a name that the name is naked and unrecognisable without it (eg, ex-UK PM Lord John Russell was never ever called John Russell anywhere and is recognised by 100% of history students only as Lord John Russell!) we do use titles with the name also.

Cardinal Names

Producing recognisable names would suggest that in religious names we should use the reference to their title. Otherwise we are going to have people thinking "what the hell was Cardinal Cushing first name?" and when they do a search not sure with one of the references to Brian Cushing, Geoffrey Cushing, Peter Cushing, Anthony Cushing, etc is actually the one they want. And what of Cardinal Heenan (and he was only in the 1960s/70s)?

Catholicism traditionally used the form {name} Cardinal {surname} for cardinal's names; eg. William Cardinal Conway, etc. Since Vatican II that has declined, with people generally saying Cardinal Basil Hume, Cardinal Desmond Connell. etc even though the Church still officially uses the earlier form, so it is technically correct. If we use titles, and it would solve the sort of problems not doing so could create, there are three alternatives:

• [[Name Cardinal Surname]] eg, Desmond Cardinal Connell
  • + strictly correct
  • + would place the word cardinal next to surname and so would be immediately visually recognisable
  • + is the form all cardinals pre-Vatican II were known as
  • + would cover the occasions where someone's cardinal name is different to their actual name, for example, Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal Richelieu
  • - is not generally used by ordinary people

• [[Cardinal Name Surname]] eg, Cardinal Desmond Connell
  • + the generally used modern form
  • - might not work as easily in general searches as number 1, which has the instantly recognisable Cardinal Surname together
  • - is not to correct form in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church and so might make wiki look like it did not actually know the correct form, which as an encyclopædia it should to have credibility
  • - would involve renaming all pre-Vatican II cardinals all of whom were known in the [[Name Cardinal Surname]] format
  • - is unworkable where someone's cardinal name is different to their actual name. It would turn Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal Richelieu into Cardinal Armand Jean du Plessis Richelieu, which would be inaccurate.

• [[name surname, full title]] eg, Desmond Connell, Cardinal Archibishop of Dublin
  • + absolutely accurate
  • - long
  • - what do you do if someone is not known by their diocese, eg, Cardinal Richelieu, has an obscure diocese, or has none (eg., they work in the Vatican)
  • - how far do you go in terms of accuracy with a long title, eg Paul Cullen, Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin and Glendalough?

Personally, I think the form [[Name Cardinal Surname]] is the best choice. It avoids renaming every cardinal before 1965 (like turning William Cardinal Conway to Cardinal William Conway - which he never ever used - or Paul Cardinal Cullen to Cardinal Paul Cullen - which Cullen never ever was called and over which he would probably hit you if you dared call him that in the 1870s!), is strictly correct, is not too different from the generally used modern form, avoids confusion over just where 'x' was cardinal of (which only history anoraks like myself would know) and keeps the most recognised words, Cardinal Surname, together.

Any observations? STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:38 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, of the alternatives I prefer the same one as you, but I'd be in favour of more flexibility. I can't deny that "Cardinal" is a title, but it's a bit different from "Sir" or "Dame". Deb 17:02 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

What do you mean by more flexibility? I'm interested to hear the details so that we can come up with a broadly workable solution. ÉÍREman

Well, it's difficult to be specific, mainly because I can't think of many scenari where I might want to refer to a cardinal. I suppose what I'm really saying is that I'm not sure that a hard-and-fast rule will work in this case - although obviously I'm in favour of standards. Or rather, "conventions". Here are some examples:

• Cardinal Richelieu - I'd expect him to be called "Cardinal Richelieu", because you never hear his first name.
• John Henry Newman - although he's often called Cardinal Newman, it seems somehow more appropriate to give him his birth name, maybe because he's a writer.
• Thomas Cardinal Wolsey - I'll go for that one, which, if my memory serves me correctly, is what we already use as the article title.

I guess I'm just prevaricating. Can we try it out for a while and see how it goes? Deb 20:47 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

The thing about the system I suggested is that if we don't know what someone's name is, we still have enough to fill out the information. So we could have a page about [[Cardinal Richelieu]]. Or as [[Armand Jean Cardinal Richelieu]] or to be strictly accurate [[Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal Richelieu]] because his birth name was different to the name he used in the cardinalate. ÉÍREman 21:52 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

---

I've never entirely understood when king and such should be capitalized. I did so at 864 in the line below because it seems to be describing a specific king of a specific kingdom, but it doesn't look right. Am I wrong? Why? Tuf-Kat

• Halfdan the Black, King of parts of Norway

It is a bit of a blur. A good rule of thumb is whether it would be preceded by a definite or indefinite article. So one writes about a king but the King. If one is referring to a specific title or person, most political scientists, historians and grammar experts say capitalise. So Queen Elizabeth, Queen of the United Kingdom. But where one is writing generically about a king, don't capitalise. The above sentence could be written either way, meaning Halfdan the Black, (a) king of parts of Norway, or Halfdan the Black, (the) King of parts of Norway. I would tend to go with the second.

Some newspapers don't follow these rules and write about 'the king' rather than 'the King'. Though publishing rules for some publishing houses advocate that, english language teachers don't; one english language university professor I know calls The Irish Times's use of lower case 'illiterate bollocks'. I know some newspapers in Britain who also follow that house style are regularly condemned by english teachers for 'dumming down language. The best rule is usually : formal title or where a definite article (the) is implied even if not used, capitalise. Generic reference where an indefinite article (a) is implied even if not used, use lowercase. ÉÍREman 21:21 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

---

One thing I don't see addressed here is people principally known by a courtesy peerage title. For instance, by the official standards set out here, Lord Castlereagh should be. Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry, as he inherited the Marquessate of Londonderry from his father in 1821. However, he is universally known by the courtesy title he held during his father's lifetime, Viscount Castlereagh. There are various other figures like this. The 8th Duke of Devonshire, a Whig and Liberal Unionist politician of the latter part of the nineteenth century, is probably better known by his courtesy title of Marquess of Hartington. Viscount Althorp, who led the House of Commons during the Reform Bill fight, became the Earl Spencer. Lord North, the British PM during the American revolution, became 2nd Earl of Guilford...the whole thing can quickly become a tedious mess.

Also, perhaps it should be more clear that people who attained hereditary peerages late in life should probably be known by their earlier names. Like all those twentieth century British prime ministers who were made earls. Balfour is currently Arthur James Balfour, not Arthur James Balfour, 1st Earl of Balfour. Asquith's article doesn't include his Earl of Oxford and Asquith title in the heading. (One might note that Britannica does do this - all peerage titles held by the person are listed in the header). Perhaps the page itself should indicate that any peerage attained very late in life ought to not be in the article title.

And then one comes to completely baffling cases. Take Charles II's advisor Thomas Osborne, for instance, who was raised through each level of the peerage. Not sure what his baronial or viscountial titles were, but he became, successively, Earl of Danby, Marquess of Carmarthen, and Duke of Leeds. With all of these different names he played a significant role in British politics. Or look at Disraeli, who becomes "Earl of Beaconsfield" in the middle of his second premiership. Most older books will immediately start referring to him as Beaconsfield at that point. (A.J.P. Taylor does it, and he was writing in the 60s). Other always call him Disraeli. Personally, I'm a stickler for a person being referred to by whatever their peerage title says they should be called, but I can see why people would want to go the other way (this, I'd note, is probably more a question of usage within the article itself than of article naming conventions). Anyway, just thought I'd bring this stuff up, as it doesn't seem to be discussed much on the page.

P.S. Really, wouldn't it be better to have "Duke of Wellington" be a general page on all the Dukes of Wellington, with a link to "Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington"? john 08:17 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. In cases like Disraeli, we should keep it covered by having a redirect from Earl of Beaconsfield (so that people who find that title in a book can search for it and discover that it's Disraeli without any effort. Most of our "conventions" are exactly that: guidelines in case of doubt, with inevitable exceptions. Deb 17:46 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

---

I'm bringing this discussion here from the "Sophie" talk page, which seems to have fizzled out. On reflection (and I know we've partly gone over this ground before), it seems to me that there are three kinds of royal women:

1. Those born into the royal family, eg. monarchs in their own right - such as Elizabeth II - and their daughters - such as Anne, Princess Royal. They need to be known by their royal title.

2. Those who marry into the royal family and have to "borrow" a title from their husbands, a title which may well be shared by others at different periods of history. This includes royal consorts, and the easiest way to treat these is to use the name they had before they married - as we do for Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon et al.

3. Those who marry into the royal family but later leave it, either through widowhood or divorce, and acquire a unique "title" as a result. That category would include Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester; Diana, Princess of Wales; Sarah, Duchess of York.

One ought to note a fourth kind - those who have both their own royal title, and a royal title acquired by marriage... particularly confusing would be such a person who divorced. For instance, anybody know what Victoria Melita "Ducky" of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was known as between her divorce from Ernst Ludwig "Ernie" of Hesse and the Rhine and her marriage to Grand Duke Cyril of Russia? Once again, a fine argument for use of maiden names... john 08:12 16 May 2003 (UTC)

This would, of course, mean that Sophie should be known by forename and surname, either as "Sophie Wessex" or "Sophie Rhys-Jones".

Hands up anyone who agrees with me... Deb 21:36 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

I disagree and doubt if it is user-friendly. Applying the maiden name makes sense and so is applied in history books to deceased or widowed spouses, but I think it is deeply unadvisable for currently living spouses, for a number of reasons.

1. Many royals marry 'commoners' whose names may be known within that country but would be largely unknown outside it. How many non-Belgians can name the wife of the Crown Prince Philippe, the wife of exiled Crown Prince Paul of Greece? Even the late husband of Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands would be a mystery to most non-Dutch people. Using pre-marital or maiden name is general approach in history for one reason only, because as non monarchs they do not have ordinal to distinguish which Queen Catherine or which Queen Mary. Even there it is complicated and can be difficult for those who do not know what how Queen Alexandra or Tsarina Alexandra should be called. Adding another complication by making current royal-in-laws known by pre-marital name is messy, difficult to follow and using what outside there own state may be the least well known nomenclature for them;

2. It would be wrong IMV to demote current consorts to pre-marital names. Consorts are generally referred to by their consort name, if their partner dies by special titles. Only after death are they generally reverted to their pre-marital name. It would be breaking convention and would produce edit wars from people in those states who understandably would see such a naming policy as insulting to their queen or prince consort by apparently demoting them. Spain has a king and queen, not a king and a princess of Greece. Britain has a queen and a titled husband, not a queen and a Greek prince. And how then do you refer to the Duke of Edinburgh? As [[Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark]] (his birth title)? By his name immediately prior to marriage, [[Philip Mountbatten]]? Who outside Sweden (or inside Sweden for that matter?) can remember the surname of Queen Silvia?

3. The danger is that this sort of debate would re-open the demand of a small but determined minority to start using surnames again in the titles of pages, an idea that made most of wiki's royal pages a right royal mess until we began to use the generally recognised titles.

The best solution is to match colloquial use as close as possible to offical title. So while there was actually nobody called Princess Diana (something I for one didn't know until we had this discussion elsewhere and checked with Buckingham Palace, in the event for Diana not having been divorced (oh, and of course dying!) she should have been on wiki as [[Diana, the Princess of Wales]] to solve the problems that would have been caused if being strictly accurate by saying simply the Princess of Wales. After all, we do say Charles, Prince of Wales even though that is strictly incorrect, he is simply the Prince of Wales. (Technically, Prince Charles does not exist; that form of address disappeared when he became Prince of Wales. - Again more info from BP!)

He is referred to as HRH Prince Charles, The Duke of Rothesay, in Scotland. Which would suggest, to me at least, that he does exist. (Also, "Prince Charles" does exist, he is just never referred to correctly as such, except in Scotland. Which is different)

The rule should be simple:

1. If untitled, then page at the official name with a redirect at non-marital name, eg. page at Princess Edward, redirect at Sophie Rhys-Jones;
2. If titled, use the form [[{personal name}, the {title}]]
3. When divorced, use the above minus the word the.

The is very important because if not used, it implies a divorce. So Sophie, Countess of Wessex actually would be Sophie's name if she divorced. She is actually the Countess of Wessex, and the Palace is quite clear that 'the' should never be left out. Technically, combining colloquial use of her own first name (as with 'Charles') would produce [[Sophie, the Countess of Wessex]]. (Even though it should technically be in it, we hardly need changing Charles, Prince of Wales to [[Charles, the Prince of Wales]] because he is hardly likely to be divorced from the Prince of Wales, is he? :-)

However...for courtesy titles, this would not work. For instance, Lady St. Andrews is simply "Countess of St. Andrews", not "the Countess of St. Andrews", because her mother-in-law, HRH The Duchess of Kent, is actually "the Countess of St. Andrews", since Lord St. Andrews only uses the title by courtesy. How would this be indicated? In normal practice, I believe, Lady St. Andrews is officially "Countess of St. Andrews", while if she and Lord St. Andrews divorced, she would become "Sylvana, Countess of St. Andrews". But obviously, if an article about her were to be written (or about any other wife of a courtesy peer), there'd be no distinction, since her name would have to be mentioned in the article...

Much as though I highly respect Deb's views, I think her idea is unworkable, undesirable and unnecessary and would mark a step back from clarity to confusion. The main text should be unambiguously on the page with their current name. A redirect could be set up at the pre-marital name. (BTW 'Sophie Wessex' is simply a business name (now unused since she left her PR firm). It is the equivalent of my wiki business name Jtdirl or Éireman. I may use it in this business, but it isn't actually my name. It appears on no certificate and no electoral register. Sophie Wessex was simply a business nom de plume, ÉÍREman 02:05 16 May 2003 (UTC)

As far as it goes, I'm ambivalent about this. On the one hand, in some ways using maiden name would be far simpler, in that it would be fairly clear by what name any royal woman should be known. But, as JTD points out, many royal women (and consorts of female sovereigns, as well), are not widely known by such names. Further, this opens the question of what name any woman should be known by. Why should the late Queen Mother's article by under "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon", while, say, Margaret Thatcher is known by her husband's name? Why is "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" (or "Mary of Teck", for that matter) any different a usage than "Margaret Roberts" would be? The late Queen mother was never called "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" after her marriage, but HRH The Duchess of York, HM Queen Elizabeth, and HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. Surely the last title would, in many ways, be a superior article title? It seems to me that no hard and fast rules are really workable, and one ought to play it by ear. I think JTD's suggestion of "Sophie, the Countess of Wessex" is perfectly good. john 08:12 16 May 2003 (UTC)

Somewhere up above, I totally lost track of who was saying what, but I did notice that no one was actually disagreeing that several different categories of royal women exist. I don't think it's appropriate to talk about male consorts in the same breath - they simply aren't treated the same in terms of applying titles. This is a problem we really only have with females, and the reasons for knowing queen consorts by their maiden names have been gone over several times previously. I don't object to "Sophie, the Countess of Wessex" - but it is no more correct than "Sophie Wessex" or indeed "Sophie Rhys-Jones", both of which are names by which she is widely recognised. The best analogy would probably be "Katherine Worsley", a name by which the Duchess of Kent is still widely recognised.

In other words, I'm happy to go along with it in Sophie's case, but please don't think we have resolved the problem. Deb 18:22 16 May 2003 (UTC)

The trouble is any other solution produces names that are less widely known outside their native state than the current form. Just because we know Sophie's maiden name doesn't mean that others out side Britain and Ireland automatically do, though given how high profile the British Royals, it may be reasonably well known. But other world royals would simply be unknown outside their state. As a royal watcher I don't know the details and if I don't know them when I keep a file of royal information, the odds of people who have not closely followed royal stories knowing the intricate details are slim. As to Katherien Worsley, I doubt if more than a handful of people in Ireland would know who that was. Nor indeed most ordinary people, certainly the younger people. I think what we have is the least worst result. (I am going to change the Sophie page to Sophie, the Countess of Wessex, BTW as that seems the best solution.) FearÉÍREANN 21:10 16 May 2003 (UTC)~

Just to note, the varieties of ways male consorts are dealt with is at least as varied as for female ones. Prince Henrik of Denmark (Henri Comte de Laborde de Monpezat, or some such), was specifically made a Prince of Denmark. In some countries (e.g., Spain, Portugal), consorts of reigning queens became/become kings. In Belgium, Princess Astrid's husband, Archduke Lorenz of Austria-Este, was also made a Prince of Belgium, but already has his own titles. In Britain, each consort of a reigning queen has followed a different set-up. Philip II got to be King of England, at least implicitly. Prince George was given a peerage title (Duke of Cumberland), but generally was known as Prince George of Denmark. Prince Albert retained his original title, but was later given the title of Prince-Consort. The Duke of Edinburgh had to give up his foreign titles (unlike any of his predecessors), but was, unlike them, made a Prince of the U.K. (and also given a British peerage). The whole thing is basically a mess, and needs to be worked out on a case by case basis. And again, why should a British noblewoman who becomes a royal be known by her maiden name, when nearly no other married woman is treated in such a manner (besides natural born princesses, which are a different matter)? Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother seems a much better header than Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, just as Mary Shelley is better than Mary Godwin. Or am I missing something here? john 09:47 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid you are. (That last comment was by Deb. Because she goes on to summarise the discussion, it seemed a good point to cut.) FearÉÍREANN