I can has a day off

[geekchick]

My employer gives us "summer hours" between June and September, meaning one of our options is to work an extra hour for eight days during the two-week pay period and take a day off. Since I figure I'm usually in the office until 7 anyway, might was well take advantage of it this year. Yay, day off. Of course I still have to get up to take C. to work, but I did get to sleep in for an extra hour. Plans for today: do laundry, clean the house enough that I'm not entirely mortified when company comes over this evening, laughing at the cat sitting on the deck and guarding my tomato plant from the marauding squirrels (who recently stole and ate half of the one absolutely perfectly ripe tomato on said plant), and then a date night that will involve going to Grand Mart to pick up some bao for dinner. Tomorrow is a birthday party and perhaps the Simpsons movie, Sunday afternoon is the Fringe Festival performance of Much Ado About Nothing. Somewhere in there I should sit down and breathe.


Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you for your amusementWikipedia's lamest edit wars. Some highlights:

Eris (dwarf planet)
Was Eris named after the Greek goddess Eris or the Greek and Discordian goddess Eris? Does it matter that the IAU and discoverer Michael E. Brown referenced only the Greek aspect, even though the referenced mythological event was identical with The Original Snub? Is mentioning Discordianism POV because it gives the religion undue weight? Edit war results in loss of good article status and temporary article locking. War finally resolved by not actually mentioning what type of goddess Eris is. See also: Pluto.

Lady Jane Grey
Was she really a Queen of England? Should her page be at Jane of England or Lady Jane Grey? Should she be referred to as Her Majesty Queen Jane? Does her husband merit inclusion in List of royal consorts of the United Kingdom? Resulted in many cut-and-paste page moves, edit warring across multiple pages and flaming on those talk pages. Warriors did not come to their senses even when it was pointed out how long Jane herself had been dead.

REALbasic
Anonymous user with a bone to pick spends more than half year on a crusade to discredit the subject and to promote a boycott. Page is protected multiple times, several sockpuppets are blocked, threats are made to bring Wikipedians before an Attorney General for consumer fraud, blocking an entire ISP is tried. Edit war stops as abruptly as it started, with the anonymous editor's final edit summary stating that he was personally defrauded by the company because they betrayed Macintosh customers by supporting Windows, or something like that.

Comments

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

I don't really see that the fact that Jane's been long dead means that her style and title are unimportant. We would do the same for pharaohs, wouldn't we? And besides, there's no neutral way to refer to her. I'd prefer "Jane of England" because she was definitely called Jane and definitely was English, even though it's not really such a neutral term because the only people after the Middle Ages who are at "foo of bar" are royalty. We certainly can't call her "Lady Jane Grey" if she was a queen because queens don't have surnames (and can't be Lady anything because they also can't be peeresses).

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

and can't be Lady anything because they also can't be peeresses

Actually, I take that back. Jane's "Lady" was a courtesy title as daughter-in-law of the Duke of Northumberland; she was a commoner, if she wasn't a queen.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

It was a, "courtesy" title, but no less so than calling the daughter of any titled father.

Her father was Sir Henry Grey (KB, KG), Baron Harrington, Lord Bonnville, Lord Ferrers of Groby 3rd Marques of Dorset (which title has been created three times, the Grey's were the second interation), all of which he succeeded when his father died in Oct. 1530,and finally, created Duke of Somerset, in 1551.

Henry's second wife, Lady Frances Brandon, was the daughter of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, and Mary Rose Tudor, sister of Henry VIII.

So the style of Lady was hers by right (just as Guildford was styled Lord Dudley), because she was not "common."

It was her not common status which caused her to to be made queen; because she was a cousin of Henry's, and so a (very weak) claim to the throne could be made.

The flaw, from the standpoint of legitimacy, was Henry's will. The fatal flaw was political; the conspirators failed to move against Mary immediately, and the memories of the Wars of the Roses was still fresh enough in the cultural mind to prevent anyone from flocking to her banner, but those are digressions.

TK

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

It was a, "courtesy" title, but no less so than calling the daughter of any titled father.

The title of any daughter of a titled father, if she has the title by virtue of being the daughter of that father, is a courtesy title, yes. That's what "courtesy title" means. How is that not what I was saying?

So the style of Lady was hers by right (just as Guildford was styled Lord Dudley)

Her father was Duke of Suffolk, and the daughters of dukes are afforded the title of Lady. She also had the title Lady because her husband held the courtesy title of Lord Dudley since his father was Duke of Northumberland.

because she was not "common."

This is blatantly false. She was not a peer, nor even married to one. I think perhaps you misunderstand what the word "commoner" means.

It was her not common status which caused her to to be made queen

Where do you think I've said that "her common status caused her to be made queen"? How does that even make sense?

because she was a cousin of Henry's, and so a (very weak) claim to the throne could be made.

Yes, of course. I've not disputed this anywhere.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

There are lots of "courtesy titles" Everyone who isn't a peer, in their own right is possessed of a title by courtesy. I expressed it badly, because the presentation you made gave the impression that Jane Grey's was somehow special in that regard.

But anyone who is entitled to style, (Lady, Lord, etc.) isn't common.

Had she lived, and not married a peer (be it hereditary, or merely life) her children would be common. But she wasn't.

Had she lived, and her siblings died, she would have become a peer in her own right (because England didn't have a salic law.

English law recognises a peerage is an incorporeal and impartible hereditament, inalienable and descendable according to the words of limitation in the grant, if any.(7) As a descendable dignity, it was covered by the Statute of Westminster the Second 1285 (Eng) (De Donis Conditionalibus).(8) A peerage is descendable as an estate in fee tail, rather than as a fee simple conditional,(9) whether it is conferred with any territorial qualification or not.(10) The naming of a place is not essential to the creation of a peerage.(11) A peerage does not have any connection with the tenure of land,(12) but it is customary for viscounts and barons at least to have a territorial designation(13) ("Baron [ xxx ] of [ xxx ] in Our County of [ xxx ]").(14)

The estate in fee tail, also called an estate tail, is limited to a person and the heirs of his body, or to a person and the particular heirs of his body. Each successive heir to a peerage succeeds to the peerage in the terms of the original grant.(15) A limitation to "his heirs" will not carry the peerage to collateral heirs(16) though a grant to the grantee and his heirs male will.(17) A peerage cannot be created with a limitation of descent which is unknown to the law of real property.(18) A subject refuse a peerage, even if it is conferred in infancy.(19)
(Blackstone)

The order of precedence is the easiest way for me to show that the non-peer offspring of peers aren't common.

The Queen
The Princess of Wales
Princesses, Daughters of the King
Princesses and Duchesses, Wives of the King's Sons
Wives of the King's Brothers Wives of the King's Uncles
Wives of the eldest Sons of Dukes of the Blood Royal
Daughters of Dukes of the Blood Royal
Wives of the King's Brothers' or Sisters' Sons
Duchesses
Marchionesses
Wives of the eldest Sons of Dukes
Daughters of Dukes
Countesses
Wives of the eldest Sons of Marquesses
Daughters of Marquesses
Wives of the youngest Sons of Dukes
Viscountesses
Wives of the eldest Sons of Earls
Daughters of Earls
Wives of the younger Sons of Marquesses
Baronesses
Wives of the eldest Sons of Viscounts
Daughters of Viscounts
Wives of the younger Sons of Earls
Wives of the eldest Sons of Barons
Daughters of Barons
Maids of Honour

It goes on, quite a ways, ending with

Wives of the younger Sons of Knights Bachelors
Wives of Gentlemen entitled to bear arms
Daughters of Esquires entitled to bear Arms, who are Gentlewomen by birth
Daughters of Gentlemen entitled to bear Arms, who are Gentlewomen by birth
Wives of Clergymen, Barristers at Law, Officers in the Navy and Army
Wives of Citizens
Wives of Burgesses

The Wives of Clergy, Barristers, and Military Officers, Citizens and Burgesses are at the bottom, they are common.

But the daughter of a Duke, has precedence over an actual Countess (be it by marriage, or in her own right).

Q.E.D. the daughter of a peer isn't common.

TK

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

a) You don't know what you're talking about. Let's take a look at the alt.talk.royalty FAQ, III.4 (http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p3-3a): 4. Who is a commoner in Britain? Anyone who is not the sovereign or the holder of a substantive (as opposed to courtesy) peerage. This includes all members of the royal family who are not peers, and all members of peerage families except the actual peer: for example, Prince William of Wales, the Princess Royal, the earl of Arundel (son of a duke) are all commoners. While this definition is legally correct, it seems counter-intuitive to many, in part because it is so different from the continental usage. This tends to generate confusion and debates, and use of the word should perhaps be avoided where possible. If you won't accept that FAQ, fair enough; I can find other citations. The quotation you gave from Blackstone merely defines "peerage", which wasn't something in dispute; it doesn't tell us anything about whether the daughters of peers are commoners or not. (The last sentence doesn't even appear to parse, but maybe that's just me.)

b) For what it's worth, which as I'll explain below is very little, that isn't actually the order of precedence-- at least, it isn't unless you can convince me that Camilla Parker-Bowles is immediately after the Queen. Since it also includes entries like "daughters of the King", I'm assuming it's at least fifty years out of date. You should take the time to familiarise yourself with what the standard reference Burkes is saying on their website at the moment (http://www.burkes-peerage.net/articles/Peerage/page62-4a.aspx), if precedence is so important to you.

c) You seem to have got it into your head that anyone who precedes a peer in the order of precedence cannot be a commoner. But the order of precedence has nothing to do with being a commoner: it has do with matters such as who marches first in a procession. Do please note that in Burke's list, "Speaker of the House of Commons" is entry number 37, but dukes outside the immediate Royal Family begin at number 47. Are you, then, trying to convince me that the leader of the House of Commons is not a commoner?

d) Don't you think it's rather amusingly self-referential that you've picked a fight about a matter declared to be one of "Wikipedia's lamest edit wars"?

[geekchick]

I don't really see that the fact that Jane's been long dead means that her style and title are unimportant. We would do the same for pharaohs, wouldn't we?

True, but the descriptions of the edit wars are all meant to be entirely snarky as best as I can tell.

We certainly can't call her "Lady Jane Grey" if she was a queen because queens don't have surnames (and can't be Lady anything because they also can't be peeresses).

I've never actually heard her referred to as anything other than "Lady Jane Grey", although usually followed by something like "queen for nine days", but then again I'm not even remotely an expert in that area.

"Lady Lillibet Windsor, queen for 55 years"

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

I've never actually heard her referred to as anything other than "Lady Jane Grey", although usually followed by something like "queen for nine days"

I've usually heard it that way too, though I think the way that people usually refer to someone is grounds for a redirect at most (as, for example, "Princess Diana" is a redirect to Diana Spencer's page, even though she never actually held the title).

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

(oh, and I was involved in the dispute over "libertarian socialism" being listed for deletion because it was a contradiction in terms. That people can say that a term doesn't exist, which has existed for at least 150 years, exists in some form in their own culture, and exists primarily in a culture other than their own which they haven't bothered to read up about even though they are actually logged in to an encyclopedia rather pissed me off at the time, and still does, actually.)

Wikipedia. It's like high school, only maybe a little less petty. But not much.

[geekchick]

Wikipedia. It's like high school, only maybe a little less petty. But not much.

One of my friends recently got into a huge, nasty flamewar on Wikipedia when somebody objected to some edits, and I was astounded at the size of the mountains people decided to make out of tiny little molehills.

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

This, which is actually about people doing crazy things to make a point in trivial debates, would be my favourite page on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_climbing_the_Reichstag_dressed_as_Spider-Man

if it wasn't for the fact that people have tried to delete it twice, and of course there was a debate on this both times, and of course it got self-referential because people started doing crazy things in order to make a point in a trivial debate.

The standard deletion discussion page header was modified to read:

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a man climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, please note that this is not a vote... And if you've brought climbing equipment and a spandex outfit with you to the MfD... well, we all already know where that's headed, don't we?

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

(link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:No_climbing_the_Reichstag_dressed_as_Spiderman), oops.)

Re: "Lady Lillibet Windsor, queen for 55 years"

[geekchick]

Wikilawyering about how high up the Reichstag you climbed (or about what qualifies as a "popular" comic book character) is right out.

*snort*

[chelona.livejournal.com]

That whole "day off" thing really rocks, in my opinion. I have worked places that did it two ways. One of them did a 9-9-9-9-8/9-9-9-9-0 schedule, and the other did a 9-9-9-9-4 all weeks.