Talk:Duke of Manchester

Untitled

We should get an article on the 12th Duke, BTW, he seems like he was an, um, interesting character. What purports to be his obituary (although the newspaper it comes from is not cited) can be found at Paul Theroff's Internet Gotha, a normally reliable site, at least for genealogical information. If it can be confirmed, it seems like it'd make an interesting article. john k 04:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Confirmed it - the LexisNexis obituaries in the Telegraph, the Guardian, and the Times say basically the same thing, although none of them seems to be the same as this obit...Perhaps I'll write it at some point. john k 04:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Manchester

I read somewhere that Manchester actually referred to Godmanchester in Huntingdonshire.--Anglius 06:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

--It says this in Brian Master's book 'The Dukes' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.107.249 (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Rule Lord Kimbolton

I can't quite decide if this needs more explanation. Many other peers are in the same situation ie no lower titles/courtesy titles but don't breach the 'rules'. I wonder if the article has a danger of appearing to suggest that there are 'rules' and that he has some exemption. At most there is custom which he certainly breaks and many other peers follow.Alci12 15:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

duplication

Most peerage articles say nothing about individual holders of the title other than something to suggest why it was created. Given the existence of separate articles for each of the first nine dukes, why deviate from that practice? —Tamfang 04:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Table

"I have decided that my version is better" is clearly not an acceptable argument. It sounds very arrogant and pushy. I made an effort to explain my action and expected the other user to do the same, not to say something like that. I've already explained why "my version" is better than "his version"; it's not his turn to respond. Surtsicna (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Origin

"The Royal and Ducal House of Montagu is descended from Drogo de Montaigu, who was a companion of William, Duke of Normandy alias William the Conqueror..."

Total rubbish. Their family doesn't go back to the Conquest; it starts with a yeoman named Richard Montagu alias Ladde, who lived at Hanging Houghton, Northamptonshire in 1479. The Ladde family had been tenants there since the 14th century. See 'English Genealogy', p. 62, by Sir Anthony Richard Wagner (1972) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.174.86 (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

'Viscount Mandeville'

I believe that Lord Alexander Montagu, son of His Grace the current (13th) Duke of Manchester was ruled to be illegitimate due to His Grace's present marriage having been bigamous at the time of Lord Alexander's birth. As far as I understand it, this now means that Lord Alexander, who had hitherto been styling himself as 'Viscount Mandeville' by courtesy, as heir to the dukedom, is now legally no longer entitled to succeed to the dukedom or subsidiary titles and the lawful heir is His Grace's brother, Lord Kimble Montagu. Sir Digby Kennel (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

13th Duke

The link for Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester, just goes back to the top of the page 'Duke of Manchester'. Valetude (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The 13th Duke doesn't like Wikipedia so he asked his admin friends to delete the article for him. There's a big web footprint for him, if you're interested in his colourful past. Or you could visit him at Wikipediocracy, where he's very active "hastening the day" when Wikipedia collapses. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the circumstances, such information is still covered under WP:BLP and needs high-quality sourcing. Activated BLP-info tag. GermanJoe (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Prompted by the legal threat on the Help Desk? I added a couple sources in response to that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes - even articles with only partial information about living persons should have it. GermanJoe (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I was curious about the non-existent entry too and checked. For the record: after a formal vote (15 voting Keep,17 voting for Delete) the Wikipedia page for the 13th Duke was deleted in 2013 (by user: Nick - archive of discussion here), and a redirect created to the general Dukes of Manchester page. The reason given was the spurious argument commonly employed by leftists, the envious and the bitter to justify the deletion of Wikipedia entries for aristocrats: that the individual did not achieve Wikipedia's "notability" bar simply by inheritance of title. (Also, that in the UK a title no longer guarantees a legislative seat.) This is despite the fact that holding a title still automatically makes the individual notable in British society, and the score of dukes are especially, as one user wrote, "implicitly notable." There is also the notability of the Montague trust legal case which reaffirmed the fact (established by the Legitimacy Act of 1959) that children from a marriage deemed or presumed bigamous can inherit from a family trust. (Interestingly however, if Wikipedia's Hereditary_peer article is correct in its statement "an English, Irish, or British (but not Scottish) peerage can only be inherited by a child born legitimate, not legitimated by a later marriage", it may be that the heir to the Duke's titles is not his existing issue, but his younger brother.)

Given the Duke's media profile, another user made the splitting-hairs suggestion that 'notoriety is not enough for notability'; others argued that Wikipedia is 'not a scandal sheet'. A casual check shows that two of the Duke's wives maintain websites (here and here); both the Duke (listed as "Duke Alexander Montagu Manchester") and Duchess (listed as "Duchess Laura Montague Manchester") appear to maintain Facebook pages; and there is an extensive backlog of newspaper articles on his life. There is also Debretts. However, a read of Wikipediocracy confirms that the Duke doesn't wish to have an entry, giving the privacy of his children as the reason. One user on the Deletion thread wrote: "we do not have a policy of deleting articles based on the subject's being unhappy with the book and news coverage he has received". Unfortunately, Wikipedia is far from being a bible, and the wishes of living persons need to be even more carefully heeded than they would be by a truly accountable publishing house. In any case, a restored entry would likely spark an editing war. Contributors' energies would surely be better expended elsewhere. Engleham (talk) 06:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Mancunium himself is of course still busy blanking coverage from this article. Special:Contributions/Puto_servos_fugitivos_esse Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Lord Kimbolton (again)

Just reverted the eventual courtesy title for the grandson to "Lord Kimbolton" and not "The Hon. X. Montagu". The source was a general one with no specific info about the Manchester titles, I replaced with another one who adresses specifically this issue. 93.21.40.101 (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Succession as duke in 2002

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. According to sources such as The Guardian and The Telegraph (cited in the article), Alexander Montagu succeeded his father as duke in 2002. I have not seen any sources stating that he did not succeed to the peerage in 2002.

It is true that he apparently hasn't taken any steps to be included in the Roll of the Peerage, established in 2004, by "proving his succession" to a specific authority maintaining that register (note the difference between the actual succession in itself and simply proving it to that specific authority for that purpose). The roll didn't exist in 2002, and there were no such procedures at that time. There is no evidence that non-inclusion in the roll means that he "isn't duke". But even if there were, it wouldn't apply to the time period 2002–2004; Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is not focused solely on the present time, and also covers the past. If that were really the case (which it isn't, of course), he would still undisputedly have been the duke from 2002 to 2004, and then somehow have been "removed" as duke. For Wikipedia's purposes, the proof of the succession are the reliable sources stating that he is the current duke and that he succeeded upon the death of his father in 2002. Views that he "isn't duke" because of non-inclusion in the roll, created two years after his succession, are simply original research with no supporting evidence, and also don't address the time period 2002–2004. --Tataral (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed Tataral, your logic stands. There is absolutely no indication that Alexander Montagu didn't succeed to the dukedom in 2002, nor is there evidence to suggest that the dukedom was revoked in 2004 upon failure to be included in the Roll of the Peerage, not until verifiable evidence is provided that proves otherwise. A.Val.sol (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

full style in intro?

The article's introduction includes the line: "As with other British dukes the full formal style of the Dukes of Manchester is "The Most High, Noble and Potent Prince His Grace." I don't see this in any other ducal article, and sounds almost boastful to include it in the intro (even though it is true). It should be included in a subsection, not in the article's introduction. A.Val.sol (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:JAMES DROGO MONTAGU has repeatedly edited this article to state that:

• the heir presumptive (the current Duke's younger brother) is entitled to the courtesy peerage Viscount Mandeville;
• the heir presumptive's son (the current Duke's nephew) is entitled to the courtesy peerage Lord Kimbolton and (inconsistently) the courtesy prefix Lord; and
• the next heir is the current Duke's sister's son.

All of these are manifestly incorrect under very long- and well-established rules:

• only heirs apparent (and heirs apparent to heirs apparent, etc) are entitled to use courtesy peerages; heirs presumptive are not;
• the sons of a younger son have no courtesy titles at all; and
• this is a title limited to heirs male, and cannot pass through the female line. Proteus (Talk) 12:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)