Jump to content

Talk:Frank Curzon

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

Real name and other details

[edit]

Some tentative thoughts on the recent additions and reversions:

  • Despite the lack of verifiable sources the recent additions look plausible in parts. Curzon's real surname was certainly Deeley, but The Times more than once gives his full real name as "Francis Arthur Deeley" - not William as Bwat added. Curzon cannot have changed his name by deed poll by the time of these cases or his "real" name would not have been given as Deeley in court. He may have legally changed his name later, of course.
  • He was certainly married before, and instituted divorce proceedings in 1908. I cannot comment on the name of his first wife.
  • It seems to me likely that the reference to Dublin is correct: in 1900 he placed the Strand Theatre at the disposal of the Dublin Fusiliers for a benefit performance, which is possibly suggestive of a Dublin connection.(The Times, 28 May 1900 p. 12) Tim riley (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Later: please ignore most of the above. I've found all the details in old copies of The Times and added them with refs. Tim riley (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original and genuine article

[edit]

"The Epsom Derby", forsooth! It'll be "The London Times" next, I shouldn't wonder! (And yes I do know it's technically correct, but even so... Tim riley (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cronin/Cronyn

[edit]

Cronyn (as now amended by Bwat) is correct, according to The Times of 23/04/1909. Mea culpa. Tim riley (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brother of Sir Harry Mallaby-Deeley?

[edit]

Sir Harry Mallaby-Deeley, 1st Baronet also had a father named William Clarke Deeley and mother née Mallaby. William Avery (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report of a case concerning a gambling debt confirms .William Avery (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he was F. Curzon's brother. The Times obit, 6 February 1937, p. 14, says so specifically. - Tim riley (talk) 08:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So it's not just OR. William Avery (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]