Jump to content

Talk:Alexander Cambridge, 1st Earl of Athlone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right Honourable

[edit]

Doesn't this former GG of Canada had the title the Right Honourable due to the fact that he was a member of the Privy Council?

Yup, and the fact that he was an Earl. Proteus (Talk) 22:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Governor General Union of SA 1931 Flag.png

[edit]

Image:Governor General Union of SA 1931 Flag.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blazon

[edit]
Quarterly, 1 and 4 the arms of Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge, being the arms of King George III of the United Kingdom and Hanover with the addition of a label of three points argent, charged on the centre point with a cross gules and on each outer point with two hearts also gules; 2 and 3 the arms of Francis, Duke of Teck; overall a crescent sable for difference.

I tried to add the above, and the picture vanished. —Tamfang (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

Given that two editors have not yet been able to give edit summaries that are comprehensive and without contemptuousness, it's difficult to know what the actual issue is. Yesterday, I raised this problem at User talk:Masalai. It appears one supposed problem is mention of London's wider location; oddly, neither United Kingdom nor England seem to suffice. Yet, WP:OBVIOUS says that we should be... well, obvious, as it may not be to others. The other issue seems to be mention of the shared nature of the Royal Family to which Athlone belonged; something was said about "parochial hicks" in an edit summary, but that hardly makes clear what exactly is offensive to cosmopolitan Canadians. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely WP:OBVIOUS also covers the issue of Britain's monarch being shared by the other Commonwealth countries which have not abolished the monarchy.Masalai (talk) 06:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't really relevant to the topic of conversation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masalai's version looks much better to me. London without modifier is London, especially since we call him British (in that version of the article. The "Canadian Royal Family" business is still as dubious as the last time somebody brought that up. It's bad enough there has to be that ridiculous, OR-filled section at Monarchy in Canada; do we now have to bring it into every article on a member of the royal family? The contention that there is a distinct "Canadian royal family" which is distinct from the "British royal family" is incredibly dubious. Unless you can find a source which calls Athlone, specifically, a member of the "Canadian royal family" including that term here is OR. It's worth noting, though, that Athlone was not, strictly speaking, a member of the British royal family. His wife was, and his sister was, and his mother was, but he was technically just a relative of the royal family. I'm not sure how this would best be indicated in the article, though - to all intents and purposes he was effectively a member of the royal family. john k (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's about nomenclature. The first step towards a correct and neutral end is to have those making arrogant calls of ridiculousness and OR (along with all the attendant implications of bad faith) actually back up their attitude with something of substance that refutes the existence of the term “Canadian Royal Family”. Then, it's a matter of working out how to impartially make mention of what family Athlone was a part of. Unless it can be proven otherwise, after 1931 the group was no longer purely British. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An accusation of OR does not constitute an accusation of bad faith. OR can be a tricky concept, and people can certainly engage in it without realizing that they are doing so. At any rate, it is not enough to demonstrate the existence of the term "Canadian Royal Family." It is not even enough to demonstrate that the term "Canadian Royal Family" was used in Athlone's lifetime (which I do not believe it was). You have to demonstrate that Athlone himself was actually called a member of the Canadian royal family. If you can't do that, then it's original synthesis, which is OR. john k (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Ridiculous and OR filled" implies either bad faith or rampant stupidity; either way, it's an indelicate way to approach a subject. Regardless, in this case, the term "British Royal Family" is misleading: was Athlone part of a family foreign to the countries for which he was viceroy? This is a case of common terminology creating a false impression. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for approaching the subject bluntly, I meant no disrespect. The question you ask is a very idiosyncratic one. Do you have any sources which address it directly, either in the South African or the Canadian case? If not, it's really not one that the article should get into. Common terminology does not create a false impression here. Athlone was British, the son of a German who spent most of his adult life in England and an English woman who was born in Germany to an English father and a German mother. He had never, so far as I can tell, been to Canada prior to his service as Governor-General, and had only been to South Africa as part of his military service. He was seen as another British governor-general, rather than a Canadian one - Vincent Massey is normally called the first Canadian governor-general. I don't see what useful purpose is served by emphasizing the questionable contention that he was a Canadian. john k (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This matter does not seem to revolve around Athlone himself, only the term used to define the family he belonged to (though, have we yet established that he was indeed a member of it?). "British Royal Family", as common as the term may be, infers a dynasty that is uniquely British, which we know was not the case by at least 1931. All I believe is required is some simple way to clarify what exactly "British Royal Family" means in this context; the phrasing "shared British and Canadian Royal Family" was merely my attempt to do so, within the bounds of WP:V. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know that? We know that the monarch was not uniquely British after 1931, I suppose (although the point is a pretty pedantic one). We do not know that the royal family was. At any rate, I think I'm going to see if we can escape this by removing the claim that he was a member of the British royal family - he was not, really, just a relative of them. john k (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name to be used in the article

[edit]

For anyone who thinks he needs to be referred to as "Cambridge" throughout the article, I refer you to WP:SURNAME, which says the following:

The person may be referred to by given name in the case of royalty, or as "Prince John", "Princess Jane", "The Duke," "The Earl," "The Duchess," "The Countess," etc. For other subjects, it is preferable to refer to the person by surname, not given name, even if the subject is not controversial. The use of the given name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant. A member of the nobility may be referred to by title if that form of address would have been the customary way to refer to him or her; for example Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester may become "the Earl of Leicester" or just "Leicester" in subsequent mentions. Be careful not to give someone a title too soon; for example, one should use "Robert Dudley" or "Dudley" when describing events prior to his elevation to the peerage in 1563.

Calling the subject of this article "Alexander" or "Prince Alexander" before 1917 and "Athlone" or "Lord Athlone" or "the Earl of Athlone" afterwards fits this guideline precisely. My changes were not in contravention of MoS. john k (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing

[edit]

To my surprise, I find that Alexander Cambridge was a relative of the shared British and Canadian royal family. What rubbish is this? Is there a Canadian royal family, perhaps? --Pete (talk)

Presumably it's the family of the Queen of Canada. —Tamfang (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it was a busy year

[edit]
In 1904, he married Princess Alice and rose in the military ranks through his service in African campaigns and the First World War, receiving numerous honours and decorations, including elevation to the peerage as Earl of Athlone, after he had relinquished his German title of Prince of Teck in the Kingdom of Württemberg.

He did all that in 1904? —Tamfang (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miesianiacal apparently thinks he did. —Tamfang (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alexander Cambridge, 1st Earl of Athlone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alexander Cambridge, 1st Earl of Athlone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Alexander Cambridge, 1st Earl of Athlone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FA President

[edit]

He was President of the Football Association between 1939 and 1955 and this is shown in the box at the bottom of the page. However, there is no mention in the actual article, which there should be. I realise it's probably a minor point given the rest of the man's life though. Would this count as an Appointment? Nzd (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit in as prose. I've had a little trouble finding reliable sources online and the section on the FA page is unsourced. If that page is correct, he was succeeded by Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh in 1955 and the position has been filled by members of the Royal Family ever since.. Nzd (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander_Cambridge,_1st_Earl_of_Athlone&oldid=1206518848"