Talk:Edward FitzRoy

Untitled

"It is spelt this way in both Who's Who and the London Gazette." No, it's not, it's sometimes spelt that way in the London Gazette, and usually not. The examples of "FitzRoy" in the LG ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]) outnumber the examples of "Fitzroy" ([18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]), and as the latter are generally early on in his career or in more informal parts of the LG they can easily be dismissed as typographical errors. The LG, throughout its life, has often ignored mid-surname capitals, and I could find you dozens of examples from any family that consistently uses or used them (FitzRoy, FitzClarence, FitzGerald, FitzMaurice, etc.) where the LG has neglected to do so. Crucially, the vast majority of instances in the LG where FitzRoy's own statements, as Speaker, were quoted, he was named as, and signed as, "FitzRoy" rather than "Fitzroy". His surname is, after all, what he considered it to be, and no amount of typological inexactitudes can change that. He is no different in the fact that he's often referred to as "Fitzroy" to any other member of his family, and I'm going to remove the alternative spelling and note for that reason. Proteus (Talk) 09:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If an alternative spelling was used commonly in any source (and Who's Who is a major source) then we should list it, whether it is incorrect or not, since it may be seen. It is ridiculous to allow pedantry to cancel out information. And as to the alternative spellings in the LG being "generally early on in his career or in more informal parts of the LG", the announcement of his appointment to the Privy Council uses the Fitzroy spelling! Hardly either early in his career or informal. -- Necrothesp 10:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)