Talk:Duke of Newcastle

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Duke of Newcastle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.

Untitled

Lyme not Lyne

I made my typo change earlier today without checking and simply because I have until recently lived for 36 years in that 'Loyal and Ancient Borough' and I am fed up of correcting that particular error. Originally 'Novum opium sub lima', at no time from its first charter in 1173 has the town been 'under lyne' and the Dukedom of Newcastle has since 1757 been closely/remotely associated with that northern city and that Staffordhire town and nowhere else. If at some stage, the name was erroniously altered, perhaps a note to that effect would be more appropriate than a simple yet unhelpful reversal. NoelWalley 18:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what the town is or was called, the title was "Newcastle-under-Lyne". If it was a mistake by the person drawing up the patent, then it would not be unique as such — Lord Annesley has been stuck for centuries with a Viscountcy called "Glerawly" when no such place exists, the "n" in "Glenawly" having being mistakenly replaced by an "r" in the patent of creation. Proteus (Talk) 19:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...even if there was a misspelling on the letter patent, I don't see how that condemns us to use the mistake (although we should certainly note it). For instance, I believe that the Duke of Atholl's principal subsidiary title is, for some reason "Marquess of Tillibardin". Nevertheless, the heir to the dukedom is known as the "Marquess of Tullibardine." john k 22:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as if "-under-Lyme" was commonly used, though: they were generally just called known as the Dukes of Newcastle. (And it probably wasn't a misspelling — "-under-Lyne" matches Ashton-under-Lyne, so it was probably just a variation on the name.) Proteus (Talk) 10:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wiki article '-under-lyne' was a 19th century addition to Ashton to avoid confusion with some other towns. NoelWalley 12:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And 1757 isn't all that long before the 19th century. Proteus (Talk) 13:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, from the London Gazette:

Whitehall, November 13.

The King has been pleased to grant unto his Grace Thomas Holles, Duke of Newcastle upon Tyne, the Dignity of a Duke of the Kingdom of Great Britain, by the Name, Stile, and Title of Duke of Newcastle under Lyne, in the County of Stafford ; to hold and enjoy the said Dignity, to him, and his Heirs Male, and in Default of such Issue, to the Right Honourable Henry Earl of Lincoln, and his Heirs Male, by Catherine his present Wife.

Proteus (Talk) 16:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undid redirect

Duke of Newcastle link which had been directed to Dukes of Newcastle had been moved to the 1st Duke (Pelham) of the latest creation. This broke succession boxes, and made all the Dukes pages reasonably accessible. Undone for that reason. If it needs to be redirected to that Duke (satisfying primary usage as per WP:MOSDAB), there needs to be a rethink on the methodology. One would believe that a case should be made here and that all the other links will need to be amended prior to that redirect. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lyme vs. Lyne, again

It seems to me that the fact that the letter patent was misspelled should not force us to follow that misspelling over a cliff. There is no such place as "Newcastle under Lyne." As far as I know, the dukes themselves always called themselves dukes of "Newcastle under Lyme". The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography uses "Lyme", as does Britannica. I don't know what the peerage guides do or did, but even if they do use "Newcastle under Lyne" it seems perverse to me to blindly follow them, especially when other works of general reference do not. The appropriate thing to do, I think, is to indicate that the letter patent misspelled Lyme as "Lyne," and otherwise ignore said misspelling and use "Lyme". john k (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I argued some time ago, I think we should call them simply the "Dukes of Newcastle", and relegate both "Lyne" and "Lyme" to the text of this article as part of the full, but nearly always unused, name of the peerage. Part of the reason there's no real consensus on which is appropriate is that both were used not very often. Proteus (Talk) 13:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely remember seeing "Newcastle-under-Line" in an old reference work. Opera hat (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]