Misplaced Pages

Talk:Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andrew Gray (talk | contribs) at 20:42, 11 November 2021 (aarchive old sections). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:42, 11 November 2021 by Andrew Gray (talk | contribs) (aarchive old sections)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Good articleSir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 31, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 30, 2007.The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that a 1968 court challenge to the right of Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet, born "Elizabeth", to inherit his family baronetcy rested on the question of his gender?
WikiProject iconBiography: Peerage and Baronetage GA‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies: Person GA‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force.
It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Upload
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1

Court of Session action; article cannot be correct

The article describes a decision (here called a 'ruling') of the Court of Session in 1991 and then says "The ruling was appealed to the Lord Advocate, who referred the matter to the Home Secretary, James Callaghan. Callaghan finally ruled in December 1968 that Forbes was the rightful holder of the title, confirming the court's decision". This is visibly nonsense. Court of Session decisions are never, and cannot be, appealed to the Lord Advocate, or to the Home Secretary. They are decisions of a court, indeed the supreme court of Scotland, not a government department. That said, I've no idea what actually happened here- perhaps there was never a Court of Session case at all but some other sort of process? Who knows?46.208.190.86 (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I think I've tracked down what happened in general terms, and I've corrected this section of the article. It seems that the court decision was not itself appealed (Barnes makes it very clear there was a court decision, albeit a very discreet one by a single judge), but that the subsequent decision to recognise Forbes as the holder of the title was challenged; the LA was then consulted by the Home Secretary, whose department (at the time) would have been responsible for the official roll.
I am hoping to get hold of Playdon's new book shortly, which sounds like it has traced all the technical details here, and hopefully that will shed a bit more light. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Categories: