Talk:First Lord of the Admiralty

[Untitled]

Gramatically should this not actually be "Lords High Admiral" and not "Lord High Admirals" similary to offices such as "Lieutenants Governor" or "Governors General"? Lord is the noun, High Admiral is the adjectival qualifer of what sort of Lord we're discussing. I'm fairly certain this is the convention, at least in CE.

Gabe 17:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

As with the other grand serjeanties (Lord High Constable, Lord High Chamberlain, etc.), I think it's the final noun that governs in this case. Choess 17:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Admiral is the noun. Lord is an adjective, in this case. john k 04:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

ACTUALLY, the correct plural is "Lords High Admirals" (cf. the current designation of "Lords Commissioners"). Cousteau69 (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems we ought to try to find actual sources, rather than arguing based on analogies, and such like. john k (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

---

List of Lords High Admirals and First Lords of the Admiralty → List of Lord High Admirals and First Lords of the Admiralty — "Lord" and "High" are adjectives, "Admiral" is the noun. Similarly "Lord High Chancellors", not "Lords High Chancellors". Opera hat (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agree per nom. Mhiji (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. Change to correct English. Jamesday (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name of this article, again

The previous, archived, discussion ended with "It seems we ought to try to find actual sources, rather than arguing based on analogies, and such like." Here you are [1]:

Record Summary

Scope and content

List of the Lords High Admiral and Commissioners for executing that Office, which have been appointed since the year 1660

Covering dates 1915

Held by

The National Archives, Kew

Legal status Public Record(s)

Pol098 (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Debreets listing do not match all the articles created for Earl's of Winchilsea

Hi I have been updating sources for First Lord of the Admiralty in my draft here:User:Navops47/sandbox2. There are discrepancies with articles created and this Debrett's listing here:https://books.google.lk/books?id=v6u5S-H7BCUC&pg=PA88&dq=Daniel+Finch,+8th+Earl+of+Winchilsea+First+Lord+of+the+Admiralty&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiolIrRg8bSAhVIqI8KHWpTBCEQ6AEIHDAB#v=onepage&q=Daniel%20Finch%2C%208th%20Earl%20of%20Winchilsea%20First%20Lord%20of%20the%20Admiralty&f=false

According to listing on page 88 its states that Daniel Finch, 2nd Earl of Nottingham, , 7th Earl of Winchilsea was First Lord of the Admiralty in 1741 and again in 1757, however in the First Lord of the Admiralty it lists the 8th Earl of Winchilsea. I am no expert but when reading the Debrett's section it appears that this article Thomas Finch, 2nd Earl of Winchilsea eldest son of the Elizabeth Finch, 1st Countess of Winchilsea has been named wrong he was the 1st Earl which now affects all succeeding articles requesting further investigation from someone more qualified to double check.--Navops47 (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional update: Daniel Finch 7th Earl Winchilsea listed in 1757 as First Lord of the Admiralty here:https://books.google.lk/books?id=Y5WCAwAAQBAJ&pg=PR8&dq=John+Montagu,+4th+Earl+of+Sandwich+First+Lord+of+the+Admiralty&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjetcTlj8bSAhVFsY8KHU83BL44ChDoAQgbMAE#v=onepage&q=John%20Montagu%2C%204th%20Earl%20of%20Sandwich%20First%20Lord%20of%20the%20Admiralty&f=false the listing in the First Lord article for 1757 states 8th Earl Winchilsea.--Navops47 (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

He was the eighth holder of the earldom, but as it was created for a woman, the seventh earl to hold the earldom. Different sources use different numbering in these types of cases. I personally think peeresses suo jure should be included in the numbering: although Thomas Finch was the first person to be Earl of Winchilsea, calling his article Thomas Finch, 1st Earl of Winchilsea would imply that the title was created for him. Opera hat (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Leo Amery 1917.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• William Bridgeman.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Headquarter

Where was the headquarter ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Lovecraft (talk • contribs) 09:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Coat of Arms of England (1702-1707).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)