Talk:Duke of Wellington (title)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should Duke of Wellington be a redirect to the 1st Duke?[edit]

What the hell? Mackensen (talk) 12:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Let's put this straight. john k 12:52, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have moved this page because most of the links to Duke of Wellington intended the link to be to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. The page was particularly confusing because it had a short Biography of the 1st Duke. To all intents and purposes this made it a double link. I am about to go through the list and fix those links to point to the correct one. But the system seems to be very slow at the moment. Philip Baird Shearer 12:55, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Given that there seems to be a lot of feeling about this then OK I will not move it again. But it needs stripping down so that it is not an alternative page for Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Philip Baird Shearer 13:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the correct path would be to change links referring to the 1st Duke that go to Duke of Wellington to go to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Just to add that while you are correct that many of the links are supposed to go to the first duke, many others are meant to go here. As to the stripping down, the second paragraph needs to go. There is no need for information on the parents of the 1st Duke on this page. The rest is fine. john k 13:13, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, most of the links that I've found are something like "this was done by Arthur Wellesley, later Duke of Wellington." That seems fine to me. john k 13:15, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, basically we need someone/some people (plural most likely - there are 250 links to here!) to volunteer to police it and look out for any that don't go like that and use Duke of Wellington as a synonym for the first Duke, and to relink them back directly to the first Duke.Neddyseagoon - talk 15:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please realise that this is not just a disambiguation page it is a page about the title (much like Monarch of the United Kingdom or President of the United States) and that it is still very much in use. Mintguy (T)

Points taken. As Churchill said of Chamberlain "he looks at foreign policy through the wrong end of a municipal drain". I was looking at it from the point of view that apart from the the Iron Duke who has ever heard of any of the others? The page at first glance looks as if it is about the Iron Duke, so any one writing a page who glances at it quickly will view it as a page about him. This leads to double redirects, which although they can be fixed now, will crop up in the future. So I think it is better to fix this page so that that does not happen. I suggest that the Duke_of_Marlborough, chosen as a template, because the title was created in similar circumstances. And that picture has to go! --Philip Baird Shearer 13:42, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There should be more detail about the succession, but this is probably still true of nearly all of the peerage pages. At one time I spent most of my time on Wikipedia writing up these details on pages such as the Duke of Hamilton but there are now many better qualified editors who regularly edit the peerage pages and I have moved on to other areas of interest. I don't think there is anything wrong in having picture of the 1st Duke on this page. No more than having a picture of Tony Blair, Thatcher or Winston Churchill on Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Further discussion of changes to peerage pages in general should take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage Mintguy (T) 13:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arthur Wellesley (Peninsular War) Duke of Wellington is the renowned owner of the title, any followers are relations who should form a subpage. Arthur Wellesley is commonly referred to as the Duke of Wellington and anyone searching would end up more confused by the separatepage. 17:13, 26 December 2006 User:81.1.100.46

Notability?[edit]

Who is this guy? Did he invent the boots which look remarkably like hessian boots? Not a mention of them if he did. From what I can garner he killed a lot of people. If he's worthy of an article at all, should it not be in the crime category? 86.42.95.215 16:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will find Napoleon killed lots more than Wellington ever did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.6.46 (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

does he have anything to do with chicken wellington? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.47.124 (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

86.42.95.215, I think you will find the answer for your question "Who is this guy?" by reading the article. The first Duke of Wellington asked his shoemaker to modify the hessian boot and this resulted in what is now known as the Wellington boot. This article is mainly about the title, and it is worthy of an article, and no, it should not be in the crime category. Yes, 75.19.47.124, Chicken Wellington and Cheese Wellington are named after the Duke of Wellington, according to the food names page on About.com. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2009[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was No consensus for moving –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

–Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Wellington → Duke of Wellington (title) — Or to "Dukes of Wellington", or some other name. So that "Duke of Wellington" can become a redirect to the primary topic (Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington). --Kotniski (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the standard en.wiki title for this should be Duke of Wellington (disambiguation)? Knepflerle (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is about the Dukedom, not title in our sense. Oppose until Wellington becomes a redirect to the Iron Duke; even then there would be a consistency question. The first Duke of Wellington is the most well-known; but that's true of most titles; should we move Duke of Marlborough on the same grounds? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Make that Strongly oppose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title is clearly not the primary meaning of "Duke of Wellington", but the individual who held it first. "Welllington", as Septentrionalis suggests, should obviously not redirect to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington because Wellington is also the name of the capital city of New Zealand, named in honour of the Duke. "Duke of Wellington", by contrast, almost always refers to the individual. Also, I don't see the relevence of mentioning the "Duke of Marlborough" article; see Wikipedia:OSE. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But people typing in "Duke of Wellington" are 99% (guess) certain to be looking for the 1st Duke, not the dukedom. Why is this not just a standard case of a primary topic? What we do elsewhere is hardly relevant - perhaps the same change should be made in the case of Marlborough, but with most dukedoms probably no individual duke is the primary topic, so the situation is not comparable to this one.--Kotniski (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's hundreds and hundreds of pages linking to Duke of Wellington; to me the problem doesn't seem to be that Duke of Wellington ought to redirect to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, but that a busload of disambiguation needs doing. Duke of Wellington is inherently ambiguous, as several people have held the title, plus it is at title. Rather than trying to paper over the problem, why not attack the root cause: all the articles linking here?
  • Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington has been viewed 32459 times in 200911
  • Arthur_Richard_Wellesley,_2nd_Duke_of_Wellington has been viewed 178 times in 200911
  • Henry_Wellesley,_3rd_Duke_of_Wellington has been viewed 549 times in 200911
  • Arthur_Charles_Wellesley,_4th_Duke_of_Wellington has been viewed 369 times in 200911
  • Arthur_Charles_Wellesley,_5th_Duke_of_Wellington has been viewed 273 times in 200911
  • Henry_Valerian_George_Wellesley,_6th_Duke_of_Wellington has been viewed 263 times in 200911
  • Gerald_Wellesley,_7th_Duke_of_Wellington has been viewed 937 times in 200911
  • Arthur_Valerian_Wellesley,_8th_Duke_of_Wellington has been viewed 327 times in 200911
If the 1st duke is moved in, pages wanting to discuss the title will now be pointing in the wrong place. No solution is clean, except cleaning up the problem. Josh Parris 13:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, the dabs will need repairing whatever the result of the discussion. But we need to decide where "Duke of Wellington" is going to be pointing to before we can start doing that repair. (The viewing figures above confirm what I think we all know - that the 1st Duke is unambiguously the primary topic.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposed move. The Duke of Wellington, in actual usage, nearly always refers to Arthur Wellesley the first Duke. There's no reason why the Dukedom itself, and its holders, shouldn't be covered at an article with a more suitable name. This whole carry-on about the title always being more important than the very illustrious people who have held it doesn't wash when one looks at the sheer weight of the First Duke in history. He's on the British five pound note, there are pubs named after him, he's one of the most recognisable Englishmen who ever existed and when I type in "Duke of Wellington" his is the biography I expect to see. Should I for some reason ever need to read about the title or another holder of that title, then I'll click a couple of buttons, but in most cases I, and nearly everybody else who comes here, would expect to read about the first Duke, both because of Waterloo, and because of his political career. --TS 22:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Could this article be moved to Dukedom of Wellington? That is what appears in the lede, and seems more accurate and precise than the current ambiguous title. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems to make sense. --Kotniski (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Foreign titles[edit]

Given that Portugal today is a republic, and has been for quite a long time, aren't the Portuguese titles obsolete? If I (and Google Translate) understand this correctly, the article on the Portuguese Wikipedia says that Arthur Charles Wellesley, 4th Duke of Vitória, was the last one. The Netherlands and Spain are still monarchies, so I suppose these titles still applies, with the exception of the times of the first and second republics in Spain. 152.94.81.1 (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Republics don't necessarily abolish titles - French titles are still valid, for example. john k (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Portuguese article only states that the nobility system ended when Portugal became a Republic IE: the system of awarding new titles of nobility by the monarchy. Those titles already in existence are still legitimate and thus handed down through the family. Therefore the current Duke of Wellington is the holder of the land / property and titles awarded to the 1st Duke. Note that there are a large number of Portuguese titles of nobility, see: Category:Portuguese nobility, To advocate that their titles are now 'obsolete' would be opening a very large can of worms. ;) Richard Harvey (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (--> Dukedom of Wellington)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Duke of Wellington (title). There is pretty clear consensus that the 1st DoW is the primary topic of this term. The discussion below seems to favor the title Duke of Wellington (title) for the article about the title, although the original suggestion of Dukedom of Wellington has some compelling support. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Wellington → Dukedom of Wellington – This move would allow “Duke of Wellington” to become a redirect to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, who is overwhelmingly the primary topic for this phrase, as you can see here: ”Duke of Wellington”. Everyone involved in the last page move discussion indicated that “dukedom” was acceptable, so this proposal is the logical next step. The Iron Duke is a historic figure of the first order with about 46,000 views a month.[1] The subsequent dukes are notable primarily as his successors, and none of them get more than 1300 views a month.[2] Kauffner (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, a clearer case of primary topic could hardly be imagined. (Or any other title - Dukes of Wellington, Duke of Wellington (title), whatever - just as long as the present title is released so it can redirect to the obvious primary topic.) Note also that many (most?) of the links to this title are actually intended to go to the first Duke, showing that editors (and presumably readers too) expect this title to refer to him.--Kotniski (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, This article is about the title 'Duke of Wellington' not a specific person holding that title. Those articles already exist, with this article tying them together for issues that are relevant to the title but not be relevant to any individual holder of the title. This title format is reflected in many other articles, such as the Duke of Cambridge, which based on the suggested reason for the move of this article would see the 'Duke of Cambridge' article moved to Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, the current "primary topic of the phrase". Though the first holder of that title was 'James Stuart' the eldest son of James II of England . To rename this article you would also need to rename all the articles listed in Category:Dukedoms for consistency. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency isn't the only factor - in fact it's highly inconsistent to depart from WP's normal naming practices in this case and give a title to a topic when the obvious primary topic for that title is a different article. (If all the other "Duke of..." articles were renamed to "Dukedom...", that would probably be a good thing too, as it would better reflect what the topic of each article is; but in most cases there isn't a pressing need as there isn't an obvious primary topic as there is in this case.) --Kotniski (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it wouldn't. Duke of Northumberland has to function as a disambiguation page, where the reader can find which Duke of Northumberland some source is talking about. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (changed from Oppose). I still think consistency is important, but hadn't fully appreciated the potential significance of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (apologies to Born2cycle for any exasperation caused as a result!). If there is to be a change, I would favour Dukedom of Wellington.45ossington (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for consistency and naturalness. But I would now consider a move to Duke of Wellington (title), which the pipe trick will make almost as useful as the present title. (Yes, I've changed my mind; so be it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So this is a Support for the move to [Duke of Wellington (title)]], yes? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Dukes of Wellington (preferred) or Duke of Wellington (disambiguation) to enable Duke of Wellington to point to the main man. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not Dukes, please. Duke of W. and Dukes of W. may be too close to be separate articles; Dukes also makes it difficult for somebody using our search engine and our conventions to find the article on the title. Duke of will find dozens of articles, so by the time the W appears, the search engine will have excluded the article wanted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as he wasn't the only Duke of Wellington & such titles deserve there own article. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The result would be misleading for those who come to wikipedia to expand their knowledge rather than reinforce their lack of it. Deb (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Arthur W's fame eclipses all later Dukes of Wellington and as such meets the critera as the primary topic. I take it there is no disagreement that he is the primary topic? And if he is the primary tpic then the guideline directs us to make the primary topic phrase direct to the article. There is an exception mentioned for "vital topics" but I don't see the Dukedom as that. Touching on the subject, the creation of a Duke of Wellington disambiguation page would also pick up HMS Duke of Wellington. (Not a famous pair of ships but still). And on a related note The Duke of Marlborough and Duke of Edinburgh are possibly also cases to be considered. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify - I am ambivalent (within reason) about the exact title this article moves to, but feel it should move aside. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should surely be supporting, then? The current situation is grossly inconsistent with the way primary topics are handled all over Wikipedia, and this results in inaccuracy (editors make links to the wrong article, expecting quite reasonably that the normal principle is being applied); while the proposal is not in any sense inaccurate.--Kotniski (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, mainly for the sake of consistency. Also, if this is moved, we're going to be inundated with similar arguments about other titles (many titles have one holder more famous than the others) which will result in countless hours spent debating page moves with, to my mind, no real benefit. Plus I think it's quite good that people who assume that "Duke of Wellington" can only refer to one person learn something by ending up here - redirecting it would only reinforce their ignorance. Proteus (Talk) 17:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fear that people might want to do the right thing in other cases should not be an argument against doing the right thing in this case. And the hatnote on the Iron Duke's article would solve the ignorance problem (as it does in exactly the same way on hundreds of thousands of other Wikipedia articles), without sending almost everyone who seeks information on this major historical figure to the wrong article.--Kotniski (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for the sake of avoiding foolish consistency. Hindering the readership in the name of article titling consistency is the wrong way round. Each title should lead to its primary topic (if there is one). Other topics that could be titled the same are then disambiguated from that title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ordinarily I support consistency in naming conventions as beneficial for helping readers find an article, but in this exceptional case, there is really only one Duke of Wellington that is of note by a fairly overwhelming margin. older ≠ wiser 13:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After-thought: I've already voted, but may I add this thought? The change presently being suggested would not square with the approach adopted either by the Dictionary of National Biography (first edition; I don't have access to the present ODNB) or by the Encyclopedia Britannica (1911 edition). The former, in particular, covered a much narrower field than Wikipedia and didn't need to cater, eg, for readers interested only in the dukedom of Wellington. Neverthess, the editors thought it appropriate to list the great man under "WELLESLEY, ARTHUR, - first DUKE OF WELLINGTON...". Of course, Wikipedia aims to do better than either of these works of reference, but there is no harm, when in doubt, in seeing what our great predecessors thought in the past.45ossington (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica 1911 gives him as "Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of" (s:1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Vol_28:8). That is still where he is in the current edition. A printed encyclopedia is restricted by the need the alphabetize entries and we do not need to follow this style. This RM wouldn't change the title of the Iron Duke's article anyway. Kauffner (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention 1911 Britannica didn't have redirects.

Exact title[edit]

I am mostly concerned with making this article conform to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the way other top-level subjects are handled, so I'm happy to leave the exact title to the people who care about it. This is basically a genealogy article, something that would be more at home in Complete Peerage than in an encyclopedia. The fear that renaming this article would spoil the consistency of peerage article titles strikes me as a peculiar notion. There are certainly other peerage articles that have titles in the form "Dukedom of XYZ": Dukedom of San Donato, Dukedom of Alba, Dukedom of Medina Sidonia, Dukedom of Osuna, Dukedom of Tetuan, Dukedom of Frías, Dukedom of Huéscar, Dukedom of Plasencia, and Dukedom of Veragua. Since a dukedom is the office of a duke, an article entitled Dukedom of Wellington should focus on the duke's powers and duties.

The list of dukes in this article suggests the title Dukes of Wellington. There is already Dukes of Silesia, Dukes of Holstein-Gottorp, Counts and Dukes of Bar, and Counts and Dukes of Angoulême. "Dukes of..." is commonly used in category titles, for example Category:Dukes_of_Austria or Category:Dukes of Florence. For an article that features a list of other articles, a category-style title seems appropriate. An article entitled, Duke of Wellington (title) should be about the title, how it is used and where it comes from. I don't care for parenthetical disambiguators since this practice is specific to Wikipedia. As near as I can tell, there are no existing article titles in a "(title)" format. Kauffner (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is in part a misunderstanding of what a British dukedom is: its only "power" was to confer a seat in the House of Lords (now replaced by a vote for a representative hereditary peer); it is almost entirely a title of honor.
Continental duchies (and they should be duchies, not dukedoms) do often have real powers, and should be treated as minor rulers.
But this entire thread ignores the principal utility of these articles, such as it is: If somebody finds a reference to a Duke of Northumberland in 1900, without first name, surname, or other identification, he can turn to that article to find out who it is. That page, which serves as a disambiguation page, will tell him it was Henry Percy, 7th Duke of Northumberland; if the date had been 1552 or 1700, the Duke would have been John Dudley or George Fitzroy. To fulfill that purpose, the page must be Duke of Northumberland.
Now here, the first Duke of Wellington is primary usage among the Dukes of that style; so we adapt PRIMARY USAGE, and make him the subject of Duke of Wellington; it saves readers who want to read about Talavera and Copenhagen a click. But for most titles, one holder is as well-known or as obscure as the next. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting readers to the right article is the job of redirects. The article title should be an accurate description of what is in the article. Since this article is basically a list of dukes, IMO the most accurate title is "Dukes of Wellington." But if that is not a satisfactory title, a sentence or two about whether the duke sits in the House of Lords or whatever can be added to the lede. Then "Dukedom of Wellington" would be an accurate title and not simply a disambiguator. Kauffner (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-vote discussion[edit]

Objection:Why has this been closed? I came here to comment, having noticed the discussion earlier, and found it done and dusted. The discussion doesn’t look anywhere near unanimous; and the last comment was four hours before closing, so I wouldn’t have thought the discussion had ended.
On the subject of the move, there is considerable discussion at WP:D about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so basing a move decision on it seems a bit shakey, to my mind. This looks like another in a series of RM's based on an over-enthusiastic application of WP:PT; No-one as far as I can see is suggesting we move the Arthur Wellesley article to DoW, so where is the ambiguity that WP:PT is supposed to address? And both the titles page and the individual biography page are (or were) consistent with others of their type, so why do these need to be different? Since when does WP:PRIMARYTOPIC trump WC:NAMINGCONVENTIONS? Xyl 54 (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I closed it because the time was over and it seemed pretty clear that there was strong consensus that the 1st is the overwhelming primary topic for the term; and that that consideration should outweigh the others. "where is the ambiguity that WP:PT is supposed to address" - it doesn't necessarily address ambiguity. The problem is that people search for/type in DoW and don't find the article they are looking for, or as is the case here, erroneously link to Duke of Wellington. Unanimity is often not possible, and I certainly don't think it's required before moving a page. Here there is a significant objection based on the consideration that it should be named consistently with other "Duke of ???" articles, and this goal is supported by WP:AT, but the opposition is clearly the minority. I think the two factors have to be weighed against each other, and due to #1 being so clearly the PT, that was the result of the discussion here. If you're just counting the votes, note that one of the "opposes" even seemed happy with this move. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page was getting about 400 views a day earlier,[3] but since the move only about 70.[4] Only a small percentage of readers use Wiki's search engine, so this must be a result of the way the links were done. There was no noticeable impact on the Iron Duke's page.[5] Readers must have realized they were at the wrong place and used the hat. If so, the move saved over 300 readers a day the trouble of figuring that one out. Kauffner (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm.. on which legitimate basis was the page moved from Duke of Wellington to Duke of Wellington (title)?? I do not see any consensus for that. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do. Would you agree that there is consensus above that the 1st Duke is the primary topic for the phrase "Duke of Wellington"? As in, when people say/write "Duke of Wellington", are they most likely to be talking about the 1st or the title? There is consensus at wp:PRIMARYTOPIC that the subject that is the primary topic should be what you get when you go to that phrase. Can you elaborate? Are you specifically complaining about the "(title)" disambiguator, or are you complaining that the page was moved at all? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarity on Douro title[edit]

The Duke is "Baron Douro", not "of Douro", because Barons generally omit the "of", no? But this site https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/peerage-news/YgiKMT1IAvM addresses the text "Marquess Douro" lacking "of", which has not been consistently adhered to by later title-users and is inconsistent in Wikipedia's pages too. Is it true that Dukes and Marquesses are both, typically, "of"? I can't find it now but did I read somewhere that King George III was reluctant to specify "Marquess OF Douro" because Douro is outside the UK, in Portugal, and the "OF" would be some kind of diplomatic insult to the other country? Can someone please do some GENERAL clarifying as to why a Duke of Wellington is sometimes Marquess "of" Douro while at other times is "Marquess Douro"? (Same question applies to Heirs Apparent who are NOT Marquess of anything but borrow a lesser title anyway.) For all I know the answer might be that the Duke is "Marquess Douro" and that an Heir Apparent borrows the title "Marquess OF Douro". Or vice versa. It could be anything. Thanks if you can help.2604:2000:C6AA:B400:FDA5:11BF:305D:C0FC (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

If you look at London Gazette where the title was announced, it is clear it is 'Duke of Wellington', but 'Marquis Duoro'. [1] Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/16894/page/936

Requested move 07 April 2015[edit]

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: not moved. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Wellington (title) → Duke of Wellington – Same logic as below. – —МандичкаYO 😜 03:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nominator, did you read the 2011 move discussion? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per WP:ASTONISH. Ninety nine percent of readers will assume that an article entitled "Duke of Wellington" is about the guy who fought at Waterloo. They will be most surprised to arrive at an article that consists of a list of dukes, most of them highly obscure. Man from Nephew (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, articles on individuals holding substantive titles are usually and should be found under their respective names with the title suffixed. The generic "Duke of Someplace" has largely replaced "Dukes of Someplace" and "Dukedom of Someplace" as the name of the article about a title's history, succinctly referring to that of the titleholders insofar as each bore the title. No reader need desist from considering any particular duke as the Duke in their own estimation, but why should Wikipedia play favourites when it can list and link to all of them, and show us how they are connected (or not) besides? The Dukedoms of Wellington, Marlborough and a few others are exceptional in having been first conferred on leaders of such renown that many do indeed conflate man and title. That is not true for most peerages which have been created, however, numbering in the many hundreds if not thousands: peerage scholars aside, few now remember which among them quintessentializes the title, if any, especially older titles that have been conferred on more than one family. Therefore, let's not make the exception the rule. FactStraight (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - on the principles of Common Name. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duke_of_Wellington_(title)&oldid=1204607370"