Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 06:08, 10 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. To delete, that is. But consensus that this should be editorially improved, e.g. by making it a dab page.  Sandstein  20:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Commoners in the United Kingdom

Commoners in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

inaccurate information based on interpretation of a outdated 19th century text.The article is attempting to define "commoner" and wikipedia is not a dictionary.The article starts: "In British law, a commoner is someone who is neither the Sovereign nor a peer. Therefore, any member of the Royal Family who is not a peer, such as Prince Harry of Wales or Anne, Princess Royal, is (technically) a commoner". The law referred to is not cited. Members of the royal family are not "technically" commoners, this information is wrong.The only reference given is to an 1893 book talking about younger sons of peers.Oxford dictionary defines "commoner" as "one of the ordinary or common people, as opposed to the aristocracy or to royalty."At best this article is coming up with an extremely arcane and rarefied definition of "commoner", but in fact I believe it is just plain wrong, see many similar comments on the article talk page, and it should be deleted}} Smeat75 (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - for Wiktionary. This could keep us going some time, but I agree that on the present evidence this topic does not have the makings of a Misplaced Pages article. As pointed out on the talk page, the concept of 'British law' is muddled from the outset; the term does not appear to have had a legal meaning in itself in Britain and unless anyone can provide a proper authority on the subject then the OED definition stands. The term is used in more than one sense, again adequately deal with in a dictionary. Otherwise, the place of the commoner in English society is a fork of Estates of the realm - not a very satisfactory article in itself but properly dealt with there. There are differences between medieval English social order and French, (or Scottish, Welsh, etc) which could be explained better in that article but, with respect, notes in an anthology of literature written as an introduction to Chaucer are not really an adequate source and do not directly address the topic. --AJHingston (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I overlooked commoner - (which should probably have a hatnote to common land for the specifically English legal use of the term). There is an overlap with Estates of the realm but we do not need to confuse things further. --AJHingston (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment -- This is a poor article at present. If improved, we might be able to keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, but improveconvert to a disambiguation page with a wiktionary link. This is confused, misguided and inaccurate. The assertions about who is "technically" a commoner are absurd and contradict the OED and Wiktionary: they need good sourcing if they are to stay. Moreover it's infecting the rest of the encyclopaedia via links - see Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother for example. I've boldly edited the lead so it just reflects the everyday usage. I agree the article reads more like a dictionary definition at the moment, but think that there is probably enough to say on the subject for a decent article in time. Mcewan (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Here is the Guardian discussing the varied meanings.
• Comment This is starting to look more like it might be a candidate for conversion to a disambiguation page. Mcewan (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You have certainly improved the article Mcewan but I still question whether wikipedia actually needs what is more a dictionary entry than an encyclopaedia article. That article you link to from the Guardian says "Buckingham Palace's press office, which discourages use of "commoner", seems to have a more restrictive definition: anyone not belonging to royalty." It seems to me that if anyone knows about this sort of thing they do. They discourage use of the word and define it as anyone not belonging to royalty. I think the original article was written by people pushing the ludicrous pov that royals who do not also possess peerages are "technically" commoners, the talk page actually refers to the FAQ section of a usenet discussion group as a source. If this article is kept, could others put it on their watchlist and make sure that this silly idea that HRH The Princess Royal, for instance, is "technically" a commoner does not make a reappearance.21:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeat75 (talk • contribs)

Converting the article to a disambiguation page might be a good idea Mcewan.Smeat75 (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I am starting to lean that way too. It's surprising how long the rather odd notion about "technical" commoners has survived unchallenged. If anyone can find this reliably asserted anywhere else, it would be interesting. Otherwise it just seems a sort of urban myth. Mcewan (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Having a disambiguation page occured to me too - on reflection it seems the best option. The confusion over the use of the term probably arises because it is defined by exclusion. But the royal family are sui generis - defining them as not being part of the aristocracy does not make them commoners. Second is the confusion over eligiblity to stand for election to the House of Commons. But it is the House of Commons, not Commoners - there are examples of heirs to a peerage serving as MPs then in the Lords when they inherited the title (or in more recent times relinquishing it). --AJHingston (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione 18:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - looks like a dab page in the making to me. Bearian (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.