Talk:Albert Kitson, 2nd Baron Airedale

Error

Reference 5 in this Wikipedia article: Wiechert, Gabriele (2011). "Der doppelte Johann Nathanael Schunck" [The double Johann Nathanael Schunck] shows in great detail that there existed two people with the name Johann Nathanael Schunck. Both were related and were born in Hanau, Hesse, Germany roughly the same time. The first Johann Nathanael Schunck (1679-1727) is the ancestor of Edward and Florence Schunck. The second Johann Nathanael Schunck (1687-1742) was knighted and became a von Schunck in 1715. He is not the ancestor of the Edward and Florence Schunck! In fact there are no known children of the von Schunck. Therefore, it also not correct to write Edward von Schunck and Florence von Schunck. This mistake is also to be found in several genealogical sources. I will correct this mistake in the Wikipedia article. Saalebaer (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the can be no doubt whatsoever that the great great grandson of Johann Nathaneal, Baron von Schunck (died 1742) is Edward von Schunck (born 1816), whose wife was Kate Lupton (died 1913). I have added many citations to this article. NB - The short article "Der doppelte Johann Nathanael Schunck" [The double Johann Nathanael Schunck] contains the odd inaccuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.30.195 (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Answer: Please look into the genealogical studies 1.) Gabriele Wiechert: "Der doppelte Johann Nathanael Schunck" [The double Johann Nathanael Schunck], Hessische Familienkunde Band 34, Heft 3 (2001) p. 97-102 (now Ref. 9 of this Wikipedia article) and Karl-Heinz Hartmann, Lupold v. Lehsten, Hans Joachim Schmid: "Die Familie Schunck aus Büdingen und ihre Nachkommen Souchay, Benecke, Schlemmer, Fallenstein, Weber" [The Schunck family from Büdingen ...] , Hessische Familienkunde Band 34, Heft 3 (2001) p. 103ff! You will see, that Johann Nathanael Schunck (1679-1727) is the ancestor of Edward Schunck (1816-1889), Florence Schunck (1868-1942) and John Edward Darnton (1869-1942, born as Schunck). Johann Nathanael (von) Schunck (1687-1742) is not their ancestor. Sorry, but the source John Edward Darnton, "The Von Schunck family : a history of the Hanau branch and connections". J. E. Darnton - Printed in England by Simpson and Co. 1933 (now Ref. 7 of this Wikipedia article) is not correct at this point. Later sources followed the mistake of J. E. Darnton (born Schunck). Saalebaer (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Answer: Your information/interpretation is incorrect. You will see from the book by Peter H. Wilson (Cambridge University Press, 23 Mar. 1995) titled War, State and Society in Württemberg, 1677-1793,

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Vb1RaxEawiwC&pg=PA131&dq=nathaniel+johann+von+schunck+married&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC3rDA6avMAhWiK6YKHTSYBy0Q6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=nathaniel%20johann%20von%20schunck%20married&f=false

Reference:

that Johann Nathanael, Baron von Schunck (died 1749) is listed as having his BROTHER-IN-LAW as a fellow member of the 1717 Privy Council. Johann Nathanael, Baron von Schunck's wife was Anne Marie von Schutz (d.1750). The couple certainly had issue. Wilson's book cleary states that Nathanael's brother-in-law was "J.H. von Schutz": footnote number 30; Page 131.

You have misinterpreted the German "Der doppelte Johann Nathanael Schunck" source which appears to have inaccuracies. The Darnton "History of Von Schunck family (1933) " book and other resources, such as Peter Wilson's book, are accurate regarding the issue of Johann Nathanael, Baron von Schunck.

The other Johann Nathanael Schunk who was born in 1741 is the son of Johann Henrius Schunck (d.1757), who was the son of Johann Nathanael, Baron von Schunck. Clearly, Johann Nathanael, Baron von Schunck is the direct ancestor of Edward, Baron von Schunck (b.1816-d.1889) who was the husband of Kate Lupton (d. 1913) whose daughter, Florence, married Albert Kitson, 2nd Baron Airedale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.189.0.102 (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Who is this article actually about?

There is more detail about his wife and her family than Kitson, and more being added, all of it trivial. Esemgee (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

You may think that opening up one's home to be used as a VAD hospital, managing the arrangements and accommodating one's relatives in order that they may best look after these distressed and bewildered soldiers is "TRIVIAL" (who do you think you are?). We do NOT. The soldiers really appreciated the Kitsons' generosity - right down to the cigars/gifts given by them at Christmas in 1915 to EVERY soldier convalescing at Gledhow Hall. PLEASE do some research and learn what occurred at this time in this house, all courtesy of this very kind, and caring couple. 203.132.68.1 (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Anon, please have the courtesy to make an account. Your use of "we" is confusing - is this the royal we, or do you represent a group?

Yes, the Kitsons opened up their home as a temporary hospital in WWI. Thousands of people offered their property as so-called auxiliary hospitals (which really deserves an article: note to self). "On the outbreak of war both the Joint War Committee and the War Office were inundated with offers of accommodation. It was the Committee’s job to sort through these 5,000 offers to find suitable buildings." [1] Turning an overly large house into service for the country is the sort of thing that prosperous gentry families were expected to do, and it ties into the history of Britain. It is worthy of mention in this article, but not an overly long one. It's parallel to Lords Mayor knowing people of all ranks in their town, and lords lieutenant greeting visiting royalty: it goes with the position. I propose a sentence or two about the VAD hospital is enough. It might be more productive to work out the wording here on the talk page. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

`Thanks for your comments Carbon Caryatid, you'll find a few sentences about the VAD hospital in the Gledhow Hall section. My problem is with the edit that the ip added, "Lady Airedale maintained an interest in nursing after the Great War." with a completely irrelevant reference. I don't see where the newspaper report the anonymous editor has supplied (complete with long quote) in any way supports the assertion.

The edit summary " Please read Lady Airedale's granddaughter's book which is listed at the bottom of this page. Lady Airedale clearly had a REAL interest in nursing . She was NOT just a rich snob. Please be an historian, not a prejudiced editor." contains a personal attack and refers to a different source.

The next edit summary "This section clearly concerns Gledhow Hall and its use during WWI as a VAD hospital. Lady Airedale's son-in-law, Dr. Noel G. Harris (s. of Sir Alex) was a doctor - her daughters, including Thelma and Doris, worked there as VAD nurses at Gledhow Hall" is not a reason to include the edit and reference. What it seems to show is that the ip/s obviously have some personal knowledge that would be regarded here as WP:Original research and still doesn't support the assertion. The newspaper report is dated 1922, four years after the war!

The generosity of the Airedales is not disputed and they did have a London home to retreat to while Lord Airedale's cousin ran the VAD hospital.(She is worthy of an article) I have been accused of prejudice. Where do I say she was a snob? This article is about her husband, I have actually looked for some information on him and can't find much other than what is already here. His wife is not in herself notable but you insist on adding what are essentially trivial mentions to raise her profile. Your numerous attempts to turn Wikipedia into a personal family history site are becoming disruptive. All my edits are in good faith in an attempt to produce a neutral encyclopedic article. I'd like to draw your attention to WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Please discuss your changes on the talk page not edit summaries. If you, or another of the "we", can't come up with better reasons for including it, I will remove it again. Esemgee (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I repeat - YOU may think that Lady Airedale (who featured in the front pages of the Yorkshire Post alongside the Prime Minister's wife) is FAR less important than her husband's first cousin, Ms. Edith Cliff. Again, please do not be so prejudiced. There are press reports of parts of the speech Lady Airedale gave to a large gathering of women (Liberal Coalition) etc - please read the page in its entirety. Again, you would no doubt say that her interest in "women's issues" (health and education) is "TRIVIAL". I wonder what sex you are yourself to be so sexist. Do you not know anything about the suffragette movement? The Prime Minister's wife stayed with Lady Airedale at Gledhow Hall. Please, please read Florence Kitson's granddaughter's memoirs - or at least one of them (the work is in three volumes). And check the papers from that time - the national ones too. And yes, Lady Airedale's daughter Thelma was in the "front line" in France during WW1. But you won't believe me of course. But yes, she was. She was nursing and driving ambulances in France. No doubt, you will say again that this is TRIVIAL - just because books have been written about it and it was reported at the time in the papers. How dare you insult women so much. PLEASE, read the Gledhow Scrapbook, the available books in references and all of the newspaper reports - which we have to keep dredging up because you want further proof - ALWAYS further proof - apart from what is in the books themselves!!!!! Why are you so sceptical about the really wonderful work that courageous these women have done at this terrible time in history. Why? Your line "they did have a London home to retreat to while Lord Airedale's cousin ran the VAD hospital" is so clearly prejudiced. If you research you will see that the Kitson family were not "retreating" from their home. You are so biased! You really want to believe that they were in superior accommodation throughout the war. Very sad. All the best - but you DO exhaust me! 203.132.68.1 (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

It is also noted that you arrogantly state - "the ip/s obviously have some personal knowledge that would be regarded here as WP:Original research." Again, incorrect. I do NOT and have NOT done any "original" research. Like yourself, I have access to the newspapers on-line, parliamentary papers and a number books - at least 3 of which are written by members of the Kitson family themselves! There is a need on this page to state with just one or two lines that the nursing work commenced by Lord and Lady Airedale during WW1 at Gledhow Hall continued with their family into the next decade. How could it not, I ask you? WW1 and WW2 were terrible times. No need to even mention Ms. Cliff. PLEASE, DO THE RESEARCH

It was yourself who begun to add in tit bits of information on Ms E. Cliff - the manager of the hospital, and you alone now wish to devote an entire article to her for some crazy reason that one cannot comprehend. There is far more information in books, parliamentary papers and newspaer files Lord and Lady Airedlale than Ms Cliff. 203.39.128.90 (talk) 06:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the point so I removed the irrelevant reference and am assuming good faith on the book reference. Edith Cliff is now an article, short and to the point. Long rants just don't impress, don't make assumptions, keep to the facts and try to stick to the point without becoming personal. Esemgee (talk)

Why I have reverted recent edits

I have removed two large edits, one that is pure supposition and not supported by the reference and another about a distant relative. This article, like many Lupton-related articles seems to be an exercise in finding old newspaper articles that list members of the family and then trying to squeeze supposition or something of no consequence into the article. The section above says it all really. Esemgee (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Although you will find this information irrelevant, you might like to know that before a world-wide television/on-line audience, Kate Middleton herself was filmed with war archivists at London's Imperial War Museum in late 2018 reading her great grandmother Olive Middleton's VAD nursing registration card which gave the Gledhow Hall details etc. Kate also saw the photo of her great grandmother wearing her Red Cross nurses uniform whilst inside Gledhow Hall, the home of her great grandmother's cousin, Lady Airedale.

Unbelievably, your wikipedia "Edit talk" comments on the Lupton family page record that - despite all of the evidence - you refused to believe that Olive Middleton nee Lupton (Kate Middleton's great grandmother) worked as a Red Cross VAD nurse during WW1 at Gledhow Hall, the home of her cousin - Lady Airedale. You were adamant in trying to convince Wikipedia editors that we had our Olive Middleton's mixed up. "Olive Middleton could be Noel Middleton's sister", not his wife, you incorrectly claimed as you undid the edits, time and time again. The research evidence overwhelmingly proves otherwise, yet you are still keen to yet again remove research citations.

Alarmingly, you no doubt will try to argue that the war records regarding this particular matter are themselves a fabrication.

Please believe us when we say that the Lupton and Kitson families will continue to be relevant to both Wikipedia readers, scholars, archivists and historians around the world for decades.

Please be careful and scholarly when you edit. We hope for you to take this advice seriously. Sincerely 175.32.165.144 (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Obviously I will take this with the pinch of salt it deserves. I have no doubt that the last edit I removed was irrelevant to the article. You are adding every conceivable scraping of information about these families making the articles difficult to edit and read more like a fan-club magazine than an encyclopedia article. Information should be verifiable and relevant. Please don't name drop, ie add everybody's relatives or acquaintances to make these people seem more notable by association than they are. Having wealth or a title doesn't make anyone instantly notable, nor does being married to one. I think you will find I removed the information from the other article well before any tv programme was aired and it is irrelevant to this discussion.

While I'm on about it Who are "us" and "we"? You have been told that editing in a group is not appropriate WP:MEAT and it would be useful if you edited with a named account rather than a succession of IPs. Esemgee (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

A rant is not a good answer to a straight question. I will remove the offending reference because it is about his father not the subject of the article. Esemgee (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)