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 within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Claims and personal opinions should not be inserted into this article as established fact. Please put your views here on the Talk Page. Overwhelming evidence by heralds and other authorities state the Hume of Berwick title is extinct. There is no extant source/evidence that there was a provision in the Letters Patent for it to pass through a female, unusual in an English barony without such a clause. In addition, as the barony was recreated for someone else in a later century it is clear that the Crown regarded it as extinct and so appropriate to reissue. David Lauder18:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David Lauder once again has shown himself to be rather hasty in his interpretation of events. If, instead of throwing wild claims of POV editing around, he'd bothered to check the edit log, he'd have seen that the information to which he objects was included way back in January, before the subsequent discussion at Talk:Lord Hume of Berwick raised valid questions about its accuracy. I agree that the wording now needs changing to reflect the information provided in the Lord Hume discussion, but at the time of its first inclusion it was a perfectly good faith edit, sourced from Debrett's. David would get a better hearing if he avoided phrases like 'get a life' - but that might be a hope too far. Flozu09:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I confess I did not review the edit history. I simply saw something which was incorrectly inserted by Ms Kaye on the basis of one singular opinion, which opinion has been heralded and pursued by Ms Kaye as gospel whilst numerous other better authorities on the subject state it is wrong.David Lauder09:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
