Talk:Geromus Niall/@comment-6335668-20160106064026

My source, Aretain, is Debrett's. You are welcome to consult with them if you would like to check or for clarification - I assure you, you will find 'Admiral Lord ' is perfectly fine. You may wish to complain about the telegraph's use of the names Admiral Lord West and General Lord Richards, if you still disagree.

One would not refer to a 'General Viscount', but rather to a 'General Lord, Viscount <title' or even 'His Excellency General the Lord '. Further, that you have not seen the two together is meaningless when Debrett's considers such perfectly valid.

I must take a moment to note my intense amusement that you are now arguing for the supremacy of an American source over an English one given our prior disagreements regarding dictionaries and your insistence in the use of English ones over American ones. I must also note that, when it comes to a valid source, Debrett's is about as good as it gets for etiquette where the peerage is concerned.

You are correct that 'Admiral Lord' is not an official title. That is because it is two titles, one after another, and as such it holds no special status in and of itself. The titles are, respectively, 'Admiral' and the generic signifier of peerage, 'Lord'. It thus not being an actual title, you will not find it 'officially' anywhere - it is a matter of protocol, nothing more.