Talk:Glenys Kinnock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

[edit] The Honourable is right; the Right Honourable is wrong

It's OK, I don't charge for evening tutorials!

Neil Kinnock was elected Leader of the Opposition in 1983. Thereby, Mr Kinnock became a Privy Council member, and remains so for life. His formal title was then the Rt Hon Neil Kinnock MP PC. Glenys remained Mrs Glenys Kinnock (ie she wasn't a PC member, so couldn't be described as the Rt Hon Mrs Glenys Kinnock) until she was elected as an MEP in 1994. Then, she became Glenys Kinnock MEP.

Neil Kinnock was ennobled in 2005. He is still a member of the Privy Council, and can thus be addressed Rt Hon The Baron Kinnock etc. Glenys could, I suppose, insist on being addressed as The Hon. Baroness Kinnock etc but, apart from on formal embossed invitations, that would sound a bit naff. So, I think you should drop the silly Hon. (certainly forget all about her husband's Rt Hon) title, and just call her Baroness or Lady Kinnock. Then, we can all go back to sleep!Phase1 22:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I refer you to http://www.debretts.co.uk/peerage_and_baronetage/peers.html which states that "A baron is styled Right Honourable and formally by the Sovereign Right trusty and well-beloved cousin (and counsellor when a Member of the Privy Council)." This applies equally to a baroness in her own right, which is what a Life Baroness is, and this is why peers who are Privy Counsellors have the letters PC appended to denote their membership.--Westminsterboy 23:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this Debretts reference. The extract you quote seems to resolve the point at issue, until it continues:

"The Life Barons' wives rank as Baronesses, and are entitled to the prefix of 'Lady', while their children, and those of Life Baronesses, are styled 'Hon' for life and hold special precedence. The husband of a Life Baroness, however, does not receive any special prefix or style by virtue of their wife's title."

We are, I think, agreed that Neil Kinnock became a Life Baron in 2005, which ranks Glenys Kinnock a Baroness and entitles her to the prefix of 'Lady'. Where we disagree is whether Lady Kinnock is a Life Baroness in her own right. I don't think she is a Life Baroness: could you please confirm.

Since the husband of a Life Baroness is not styled Right Honourable, I doubt (but am open to persuasion) that the wife of a Life Baron can be styled Right Honourable—ergo, she is plain Baroness Kinnock, as I have been arguing above.Phase1 15:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Phase1 is wrong. Peers and Peeresses below the rank of Marquess or Marchioness, whether in their own right or by right of their husband, are "The Right Honourable" by virtue of the peerage. Proteus (Talk) 14:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the chapter and verse for your assertion, Proteus? According to Debretts, the husband of a Life Baroness is not "The Right Honourable" so where is your evidence about the styling of the wife of a Life Baron?Phase1 17:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Every book on etiquette ever written. Perhaps you should try reading one before giving "evening tutorials". (And perhaps you should start by looking at what Debrett's says before declaring that it supports your random assertions.) Proteus (Talk) 18:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, Proteus: I said earlier that I was open to persuasion on the matter. You give a valid reference to Debretts Correct Form which says that, on an envelope, the wife of a Baron should be addressed "The Right Honourable". I therefore stand corrected. Does the wife, however, have a say in all this? For example, could Glenys Kinnock MEP decline to accept the style and title that goes with her husband's peerage?Phase1 23:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

She could, of course, decline to use it, as is the case with all titles and styles. Legally, however, she has it whether she likes it or not, and would be styled with it in official documentation, and we always start articles with official names, regardless of the personal preference of the person concerned. Proteus (Talk) 11:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baroness

The title 'Baroness' is reserved for Baronesses in their own right, and not for the wives of Barons. The wife of Baron X is 'Lady X'. David | Talk 00:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. Wives of Barons are Baronesses, they're just known as "Lady X", in exactly the same way as their husbands are known as "Lord X" not "Baron X". I suggest you go and read up on the Peerage. (And "reserved for" suggests some kind of legal restriction, which simply isn't the case. If Lady Kinnock wanted to call herself "Baroness Kinnock", she wouldn't be complying with the conventions of correct form but she wouldn't be incorrect.) Proteus (Talk) 12:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The number of current reference books which refer to the wife of a Baron as a Baroness is zero. Practically no-one concerned with the subject uses this form of address. There is no 'technical' right answer to this question since forms of address are merely custom and practice. I suggest that it hardly helps to inform people who may be unfamiliar with the subject to make what is a misleading reference, and it is also particularly unhelpful to have no way of distinguishing between those two entirely different concepts: a Baroness in her own right, and a wife of a Baron. Finally, it might be better if you expressed yourself in a more moderate way. David | Talk 12:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not about "forms of address", it's about legal names. I really don't believe I'm going to have to quote Debrett's Correct Form again:

Legal Documents

Peers and peeresses (in their own right, and wives and widows of peers) are accorded their full formal styles with their forenames but with no surname:

The Most Noble Charles John, Duke of Blank

The Most Noble Anne Frances, Duchess of Blank

The Most Honourable Charles John, Marquess (of) Blank

The Most Honourable Anne Frances, Marchioness (of) Blank

The Right Honourable Charles John, Earl (of), Viscount or Baron Blank

The Right Honourable Anne Frances, Countess (of) Blank, Viscountess or Baroness Blank

Peers by courtesy and their wives are not accorded the prefix 'Most Honourable' or 'Right Honourable' (unless they are members of the Privy Council).

And of course there's a "technical" right answer: what is used in legal documents. Proteus (Talk) 12:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a legal document. It's an encyclopaedia. And Debrett's People of Today always puts on the bottom of entries for the wives of Barons "Style– The Rt Hon Lady Blank" whereas for Baronesses in their own right it is "Style– The Rt Hon Baroness Blank". I also note this issue was debated on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage#Baroness vs. Lady some time ago and your preferred usage was somewhat against consensus. In any case, on this specific page there is a case for eliminating even "Lady Kinnock" as it is a style she never uses. David | Talk 13:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is an encyclopaedia that uses people's full names at the beginning of articles — try reading the Manual of Style. And we don't start articles with styles, we start them with names, which is why Barons' articles start with "John Smith, Baron Smith of Wherever" even though they are called "Baron X" just as often as their wives are (i.e. never, outside legal documents) — and the Duke of Westminster is always called that, never "Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster", yet that's what his article starts with. You can't have the correct term for Barons and the wrong one for their wives: it's wrong, it's inconsistent, it looks absurd and it results purely from your imperfect knowledge of how such things work. (And mentioning my preferred usage on that page is rather disingenuous — I advocate "Lady X" for suo jure peeresses as well as the wives of peers, and consensus is to follow common usage and call them "Baroness X", so not only is it a completely different issue to this but it's the opposite point of view to what I'm saying is correct here.) And removing the title and style completely is almost vandalism. You obviously don't understand the Peerage, you obviously don't understand the Manual of Style, and you obviously don't understand how Wikipedia treats titles, so please stop acting completely against consensus and leave this article alone. Proteus (Talk) 17:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. We do not use full titles where the subject does not use them (see Richard Needham) because that would breach WP:NPOV. We note the alternate versions of names. The comparison with Dukes is misplaced because the reason for referring to "Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster" is to disambiguate him from previous holders of the title, which is not an issue in printed peerage guides. Nor do I accept that the consensus on Wikipedia favours your version; as I read the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage#Baroness vs. Lady, no-one directly supported the concept of wives of Barons being Baronesses, while several editors explicitly objected. David | Talk 21:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"We do not use full titles where the subject does not use them (see Richard Needham) because that would breach WP:NPOV." - you've just chosen an article that doesn't follow conventions, probably because none of us (Emsworth, Proteus, etc.) have come across it - look at Michael Ancram, Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, Frederick North, Lord North, and Bertrand Russell for examples of people who didn't use their titles but have them mentioned in bold at the beginning of the article anyway.

"The comparison with Dukes is misplaced because the reason for referring to 'Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster' is to disambiguate him from previous holders of the title, which is not an issue in printed peerage guides." - we do that for consistency; whether there are 28 holders or just one holder (Henry Fitzroy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset, John Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle, William Whitelaw, 1st Viscount Whitelaw, etc.), we use the number.

"Nor do I accept that the consensus on Wikipedia favours your version; as I read the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage#Baroness vs. Lady, no-one directly supported the concept of wives of Barons being Baronesses, while several editors explicitly objected." - well, for what it's worth, I support his view :) – ugen64 05:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh, it seems it doesn't matter. Congratulations - you have driven away a brilliant editor. – ugen64 05:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The comparison with Richard Needham is misplaced since that article refers to an Irish peerage where different rules of address apply.

---