Talk:Earl of Denbigh

Pronunciation

Is there a Wikipedia standard for detailing pronunciation, perhaps using the phonetic alphabet? --Dunstan ^talk 16:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement

• This article does not cite its sources.
• This article lacks formatting consistent with the Wikipedia Manual of Style; specifically, it needs section headings and a section index to break-up the article text. I suggest researching other articles of similar topics for style examples.
• An example of an article with better style is: Duke of Cornwall.
• There are also several broken wikilinks in the article. Before inserting a wikilink in an article for a non-existent article for future use, the editor should create a stub article.

Jerry lavoie 16:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Descent from Habsburgs

Someone has tried to alter the text to assert that the Feilding's family descent from the royal Habsburg Family is still an open question. In fact as has been known for 120 years this claim is based on 17th century forgeries, with the forgery being unmasked in the 1901 book by JH Round cited in the article text. To give two citations from 100s that show that Round's argument has been entirely accepted since 1901:

• The descent of the Feildings from the house of Habsburg, through the counts of Laufenburg and Rheinfelden, long considered authentic, and immortalized by Gibbon, has been proved to have been based on forged documents. See J. H. Round, Peerage and Family History (1901). Encyclopedia Britannica 1911
• Owing to papers forged by Basil, 2nd Earl of Denbigh (1608-75) later members of the family and the rest of the world mistakenly believed (until the late nineteenth century) that the Feildings were related to the Habsburgs of Germany.Henry Fielding, A Literary Life, Pagliano 1998

I think to suggest in this article that the Habsburg descent claim should in any way be taken seriously, you will need to find any piece of scholarship since 1901 that engages with and succesfully disputes JH Round's account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrapalhado (talk • contribs) 08:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes but not only is your prose poorly written, it is also bias. Please see WP:POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaelicbow (talk • contribs) 08:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi please do adjust the text so you think it reads better. I'm not sure you really understand NPOV though: please see the discussion of flat earth at WP:GEVAL

Atrapalhado (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not a "flat earth" situation though because I don't contest the claimed descent from Habsburgs as being debunked. (It's a cute story, though)! I labelled it as POV because, in my opinion, sentences like "arriviste family wishing for more impressive origins" seem to be subjective. I think you were right to rm the tag though, so I apologize, and have just tidied up the prose :) Gaelicbow (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

thanks for doing this, and yes I did understand your comment as arguing (as some other editors proposed) that we should reflect the habsburg descent as still in dispute. As for the 'arriviste' text yes you're correct, it should have been referenced. It seems obvious to me that this was the context to the forgery, I will continue to look for a secondary source that argues this!Atrapalhado (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

References