Talk:Anthony Carleton

Surveyor of the Staple vs. Purveyor of the Stables

The statement that Thomas Harrison was 'Surveyor of the Staple' gets a few 'hits' in a Google search, including this one [1], but they all appear to derive from a misreading of 'Purveyor to the Stables' in William Lyon's Chronicles of Finchampstead in the County of Berkshire, London, Longmans Green and Co., 1895, pp. 109-120. NinaGreen (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. And now would you tell us how you know there was no such post as surveyor of the staple. See your edit summary— "(Added details of son's second marriage; deleted previous editor's 'surveyor of the staple' (no such office existed, and source twice mentions 'Purveyor of the Stable'))" I had no idea there was a mention of a purveyor etc in the Finchampstead book which yesterday was totally new to me. It is interesting to me you are able to rely on Google and yet "speak" er authoritatively. Eddaido (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be pushing a personal POV here as you state at the link I cited above that Thomas Harrison is your ancestor. If you wish to establish from reliable sources that he was a 'surveyor of the staple', by all means do so, but as I said above, it appears that it's an error for 'purveyor of the stable'. However since it's not mentioned in the article, it's not really relevant, either to the article or to this Talk page. It merely seems to be a matter of personal interest to you because he's your ancestor, and you can certainly pursue the matter elsewhere to whatever lengths you choose. NinaGreen (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That is how it seems to you? Its true I am less inclined to ignore it but it was not how I was drawn to this article, I was just amused by what was said in the other one you are working on.
Two initial comments:

1. The passage referred to does not link Thomas Harrison and what you claim should be read as "purveyor of the stable"

2. This is what is said about the "purveyor of the stable" in the same passage (it is about Henry Hyndes). "It is not quite clear what the duties of his office were ; i.e. whether they involved the actual supply of forage, Etc., to the royal chap. stables, or merely the control of it." That does not lend any confidence to that version of his post does it?

You still need to give the basis for your statement about surveyor of the staple: "no such office existed," Eddaido (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a personal issue for you, but it's irrelevant to the article and to this Talk page. You twice added 'Surveyor of the Staple' to the article as Thomas Harrison's purported profession, the first time without providing a source, and the second time by adding a 'source' (Lyon) which doesn't use the phrase 'Surveyor of the Staple', but rather twice uses the phrase 'Purveyor of the Stable' and doesn't even use that phrase in connection with Thomas Harrison, but rather in connection with another person. You've dragged a red herring into this article via original research WP:NOR into an issue which has personal significance for you because you claim Thomas Harrison as your ancestor, but nothing requires Wikipedia editors to assist you with personal research into your ancestors. NinaGreen (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Its a personal issue for me. Agreed. I was pleased when you omitted "one Harrison servant in the royal stables" which you had copied ("it's irrelevant to the article") because? And I hope it is not repeated by others in the same way. Extirpation one of my occasional pleasures. You still haven't explained how you know the post of surveyor of the staple did not exist. As I say elsewhere, I think it is good of you and others to, well, expand the information available in the History of Parliament series, correcting where necessary but you should allow for them to be read by readers who mind what you write. I would also like to tell you it is quite wonderful that you can divide one article into so many many edits - you must be very busy on other things. Eddaido (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you drop your irrelevant and coy comments. Give it a rest. NinaGreen (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthony Carleton. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131223021006/http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1059763 to http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1059763

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) 08:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)