Talk:Lupton family

Purpose of article

The point of this page is? It's only up I'm guessing because it's Kate Middleton's distant family? Most to all of the sources or references used are not proper sources. Geni.com, News Media, and Peerage.com are not reliable sources. Geni.com and Peerage.com are self-published sources. Also, if books are used -- we need page numbers. We don't need all this info pertaining to the Middleton's. We don't have all these extended pages for Diana's distant relatives so why Kate? Why can't people just stick with independent articles? -- Lady Meg (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Please leave this Lupton family page up - many members of the family are well known eg Geoffrey Lupton (designer) and Charles Lupton - founder of the famous DLA Piper law firm. It's a good article I think - not just because of the Kate Middleton connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.99.128 (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The effort I've put into the article over the past few days is because of the family's place in Leeds, as an example of several generations of Victorian industrialists involved in politics, progressive social action, and the Unitarian Church. It's true that my attention was drawn to it by the Kate factor, but that is not (nor should it be) the focus of the article. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest a family tree chart showing the connections to the Duchess of Cambridge? To trace the lineage as the article is written, one needs to read the article backwards starting at the bottom and working one's way tediously to the top. The vast majority of people who come to this article did so by clicking on the family tree of Prince George. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.213.97 (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sir Charles Lupton as a founder of DLA PIPER??? But it's the bust of THOMAS TOWNEND DIBB (1807-1875) that is in the reception of DLA Piper (Leeds office) as its founder. He qualified in 1829 and became partner of Atkinson Bolland & Atkinson and the firm changed its name to Atkinson, Dibb & Bolland and later became Dibb & Co. Just in 1920 the firm merged with the practice of Sir Charles Lupton and Nelson Eddison and in 1920 the name Lupton was integrated to the firm Dibb Lupton & Co. and survived intact until the merger with Broomheads of Sheffield in 1988. DLA had been the result of a mid-1990s merger between three UK firms, Dibb Lupton Broomhead, Alsop Stevens, and Wilkinson Kimbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.51.188 (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Relatives to add

Mabel Murray Hickson (1859-1922), an orphan article. Author. Brought up with her cousins Charles and Hugh at Beechwood after the deatrh of her mother. Arnold Lupton (1846-1930), maverick MP, mining engineer. Arthur Lupton (1819-1867), prophecist. Hartley Wicksteed, president of Institute of Mining Engineers. http://heritage.imeche.org/Biographies/HartleyWicksteed. More on Joseph Lupton (1816-1894), president of Manchester College. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Vanity piece

This supposed encyclopedia article has turned into a genealogical vanity piece. The article gives undue weight to trivial details and was wildly overlinked. Kate Lupton, after her marriage, is recorded as Kate Schunck in the census. Her husband as Edward Schunck. There is no need for all these titles and name dropping. The Luptons are more important than that. Esemgee (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said von Schunck is not used in the census, good enough for Wikipedia. There is absolutely no need for all these titles, they are confusing and these people have names. Esemgee (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. This article is on my list to tackle. It needs to be stripped down and re-focussed on the importance of the family as a whole over generations, with links to articles about notable individuals. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The von Schunck family had a book written about them in 1933 - see the page Albert Kitson, 2nd Baron Airedale. Edward Schunck's correct title - recorded both in the book and also Burke's Peerage 2nd World War edition - is Edward, Baron von Schunck. The London Gazette records Baroness Airedale as attending the coronation of George V in 1911; Florence Kitson is not recorded at all. 144.139.53.175 (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

You have missed the point, this article is NOT about von Schuncks, who are called Schunck in the Leeds newspapers and the census, it is about the Luptons. I see I am not the only editor with this opinion. Esemgee (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, you will see that Florence's father is indeed recorded as Edward, Baron von Schunck in the Leeds newspapers in 1942 as such: "Local News – Wills". Yorkshire Evening Post. West Yorkshire, England. 15 October 1942. Retrieved 19 August 2015. 8 July: The Right Hon. Florence, Baroness Airedale, of Crown Cottage, Essex, and formerly of Gledhow Hall, Leeds, wife of Baron Airedale and daughter of the late Edward, Baron von Schunck, had left £2,445 (net personalty, £3,397)......". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.53.175 (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, how about, "

DEATH or MRS. EDWARD SCHUNK “... Kato Lupton, she then was, married Mr.. Edward Schunk, of the well-known firm of Schunk and Co., woollen merchants, Bradford and Leeds, whose business has been established nearly one hundred years. Mrs. Schunk took a deep and aotivo interest in many instituti ...” 23 May 1913 - Shipley Times and Express - Shipley, West Yorkshire, England " Esemgee (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the obituary. If you read the 1933 von Schunck book, you will see that the children of Edward, Baron von Schunck were ordered to drop the von Schunck title and change their surname to Darnton (Kate's father was Darnton Lupton ); a German title was deemed totally unsuitable in 1913. Obviously, by the 1930s, the family themselves were again acknowledging the "von Schunck" title and hence its appearance in both Leeds newspapers and archives and Burkes Peerage World War 2 edition. I am happy with the page and I sincerely hope you are too. 144.139.53.175 (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This is what Wikipedia calls WP:OR. You have still missed the point, all these titles are irrelevant. This article is about the LUPTONS. The rest about the peerage is minor. The article does not focus on the Luptons and their achievements, it's more interested in the peerages they married into. By the way, Baroness Airedale wrote to the newspaper as Hilda Kitson which is what she was known as. Esemgee (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken when you say that "Baroness Airedale wrote to the newspaper as Hilda Kitson which is what she was known as". Baroness Airedale's christian name was Florence. Hilda Kitson is the sister of Albert Kitson, 2nd Baron Airedale, who is Florence's husband. That is why in the newspaper articles , Hilda - whose full name was Alice Hilda - was given the title "the Hon." Hilda is the daughter of a baron. From 1911, many, many newspapers and books only refer to Florence Kitson as either Lady Airedale or Baroness Airedale. There was also a Mrs Florence Kitson, another woman and former Lady Mayoress of Leeds who had married into the Kitson family - see James Kitson, 1st Baron Airedale.

As I said, name dropping and confusing, best got rid of. Esemgee (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

References

The number of references in this article is ridiculous. See Wikipedia:Citation overkill. There needs to be some serious pruning. Additionally the lead paragraph should summarise the article and should not require copious numbers of citations see WP:LEAD. Esemgee (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree x10. And especially any reliance on the Daily Mail should be rooted out. I worked on this article some years ago, and am dismayed at how bloated and unreadable it has become. Pruning is a good idea, but rewriting may be necessary. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have checked and noted that whenever there is a "UK Daily Mail" ref., it is accompanied by other more reliable citations. This is comforting. It would appear that many notable members of this family could have their own page - e.g. Frances Lupton - this would cut down on the length. 101.182.219.133 (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

What would cut down the length is the removal of the non-notable trivial meetings with royalty and stuff about the Middletons that is only here because a descendant married Prince William. Frances Lupton should stay, she really is notable. Esemgee (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree again. Once landed gentry and industrialists rise to become lord mayor and especially Lord Lieutenant, then inevitably they meet with royalty: it's part of the job. It doesn't mean they are best friends. All that fluff should go. As for what stays, yes, Frances Lupton is my favourite! But several of the other Luptons who don't have pages, could arguably warrant them, and thus move their info off this page, except for a sentence or two each. We want to avoid WP:RECENTISM and give equal weight to historically significant local politicians and businesspeople. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Referencing is a complete mess. I don't know how many sources are RS but the article now is a complilation of anything on the internet mentioning Olive Lupton. The Daily Express is no better than the DM and the Telegraph has mostly opinion pieces based on unpublished genealogy. Anyone can contribute to the descriptions on Leodis. I think you are right about a rewrite. Darnton Lupton is a candidate for an article. Esemgee (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I like the fact that both pages - Frances Lupton and also this page - deal with their many relations who have also achieved much. This is seen particularly on Frances' own page. Both the Frances section here and the page on her itself fail to discuss her relationship with the Gaskell family, this is something to be fixed. 2001:8003:4F0A:F100:253D:8D25:6DA1:FC3A (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes Frances Lupton's page does a good job and so did this article until all the royal family/aristocracy stuff was added. Frances' page is mostly well referenced and a Gaskell mention with reliable sources might be interesting. Arnold Lupton has an article and is much more notable than Olive, whose sister seems much more interesting. The over-referenced fluff, and lots of references doesn't make it any less trivial, should go. Esemgee (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

As a Unitarian historian, I have visited this most interesting and accurate page before. I have added to Anne Lupton's section. The charitable work she and her sister Olive did, particularly during WW1, is certainly not "fluff"; Anne Lupton was awarded an M.B.E. for her efforts at the end of the great war. The article's references to Henry VII, Henry VIII, other royalty and "aristocrats" - Lady Frances Balfour - are all relevant to the centuries-old Lupton story which has strong links to both the Anglican and the Unitarian churches. All references on this page are very well sourced. Upgrade to "Category:Mid-importance articles" recommended. 144.139.54.82 (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, 144 (and could we tempt you to create an account?). It does not appear that all the references were as you put it "very well sourced" - let us hope that they now are. I'll raise a separate question in a new section, to keep the points from overlapping. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Importance

In reference to the request above that this article be re-assessed as of mid-importance, my question is, of importance to what, exactly? Do the Luptons pass the criteria at the importance scale of WikiProject Yorkshire? WikiProject Genealogy points to the generic priority assessment criteria. And those two, Yorkshire and genealogy, are the only two projects that have looked at the Lupton family. Are there other WikiProjects that ought to know of the existence of this article? I can't think of any off-hand. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that the Yorkshire criteria needs to be rewritten as it is not what has been applied apart from the Listed building which looks correct. It also does not mention people really so is also lacking on that front. From assessing the articles I could see that this could be uprated to mid-importance on a par with Brontë family article which is currently mid-importance for the Yorkshire project. Keith D (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lupton family. 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/20130724145359/http://millhillchapel.org.uk/chapel_history.htm to http://www.millhillchapel.org.uk/chapel_history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150521062521/http://heritagegazette.com/2015/03/18/potternewton-hall-leeds/ to http://heritagegazette.com/2015/03/18/potternewton-hall-leeds/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801153725/http://www.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/file/400/honorary_graduates to http://www.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/file/400/honorary_graduates

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) 23:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Close to the British Royal Family

This statement is too pov, I think acquainted with is closer to the mark. Much of this article appears to be referenced to recent newspapers containing the original research of some amateur group in Australia that was picked up by the British Press. Not the best reference. Esemgee (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I think well acquainted is also pov. I have belittled nobody. I stick to what is factual. So should you. Please remember an encyclopedia should be written in neutral terms. Thanks Esemgee (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts - we cannot find any evidence that the citation from Majesty Magazine - a UK publication - is in any way connected to "an amateur group in Australia", as you say. Majesty Mag., UK royal correspondents Gordon Rayner, Cracrofts, Royal biographers - C. Joseph and K. Nicholls - all state that (and I quote): "the Luptons entertained senior members of the British Royal family at their very grand home/family seat in Leeds - that the Lupton family were no strangers to royalty and that the family were close to royalty". The most appropriate terminology is the "Luptons were well acquainted with royalty". Please note that we will be adding to this page with more files of senior members of royalty with the Luptons in coming months to continue to up-grade this page. The Luptons did some really wonderful work for a very long time. All good news! Thanks101.182.141.22 (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I have read (where possible) every reference in this article and have concluded that it has been ruined by the Middleton connection and especially the strange fascination of a group of editors who identify as "we" who are attempting to record every royal handshake made by members of the family. What does that actually tell us about their "really wonderful work"? I suggest you read WP:RS and re-valuate all the sources, many of them do not meet the required standard. Another editor further up the page has voiced similar opinions. Well is not required before acquainted, either they were or they weren't. Why not try to find some substantial examples of this "wonderful work" and less of the society tea parties. I too will be adding to the page to improve the article. As you refer to yourselves as to "we" I also suggest you read WP:Meat and WP:Sock. Esemgee (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The Luptons became ever more rich and respectable. They acquired substantial houses suitable for political entertaining. Inevitably some became city politicians eg aldermen, and eventually some became Lord Mayors and Deputy Lieutenants. These appointments bring with them ceremonial responsibilities, including hosting visiting dignitaries, yes, even royalty. Entertaining, hosting dinners, shaking hands, posing for photographers, making small talk is all part of the job. It doesn't mean the individual is close to these visitors - not close emotionally nor politically, not necessarily a confidante, still less an advisor. Have any academic historians or biographers documented, for example, letters underpinning this so-called close relationship? Or is it all resting on the shoulders of journalists? The fourth estate may write the first draft of history, but an encyclopedia needs more substance than that. I suggest moving away from "every royal handshake" (great phrase!) and focusing on documenting the Luptons' work in slum clearance, education, manufacturing, and so on. Those contributions substantially changed lives. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts - Arnold Lupton of Leeds was actually not a "city politician eg alderman" as you say; Lupton was a Member of Parliament and colliery owner; "Between 1910 and 1916, Lupton was a business associate of George Monckton-Arundell, 7th Viscount Galway". Adding even more information on the wonderful work Lupton and indeed his extended family did in the areas of mining, education, health, nursing, social welfare and property development throughout the UK - would be terrific. Arnold Lupton does already have his own page so we can use a good deal of that. We have a file of Lupton with Edward VII. Cheers and let's all keep researching - particularly the inspirational welfare work the brilliant LUPTON WOMEN did.101.189.27.190 (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Missing the point. The vanity pieces come from an Australian connection mentioned in ref 4 from the Telegraph. It appears to be the source of all the pov nonsense that has been picked up by others. It should not be used, nor should other sources that use it. As for brilliant Lupton women let's see some real evidence with reliable sources. I will remove the "well" it reads bady and is not required. Royal "we" again I note, still unexplained. Esemgee (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The article - April 29 2011 UK Daily telegraph -: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8136685/Royal-wedding-profile-of-Kate-Middleton.html refers to the Lupton family as "landed gentry". This article is over 2 years older than ref number 4 which clearly reiterates the paper's original descriptions of the family from 2 years earlier. Ref number 4, is offering nothing knew at all. The Daily Telegraph's historians and researchers have always had access to all the facts and historical sources which are also all on this page!!! Please read the separate page Frances Lupton - she did extraordinary things and this article barely covers any of the facts that we are aware of. - i.e. Frances' work with the daughter of Elizabeth Gaskell. Ann Lupton was awarded the MBE - please read her section which is on this page. The references are all verifiable - Please be open minded - wealthy women can do great (even brilliant!) things for those less fortunate. Cheers and I hope this helps. 101.189.27.190 (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Odd then the that Cracroft says ", "Indeed the Lupton family, very wealthy Yorkshire woollen manufacturers, while not "landed gentry" as such....." I have already said Frances Lupton was among the more noteworthy. I am open minded but firmly on the side of neutrality. Saying they did they did brilliant things whatever that is, is not proving it and requires some indication of what these brilliant things are. Many references are poor quality whatever you think. Newspapers employ reporters, if they use some of the poor sources on this page they are not doing a very good job because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Hope this helps. Esemgee (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Please read the Roger Lupton section in this article - Roger was both Henry VII and his son - Henry VIII's - chaplain. Roger was more than "acquainted" with these two Royals - by virtue of his prestigious position at Court. Isabella Lupton was more than "acquainted" with the mother-in-law of Princess Mary: the two women travelled together - as required - to be presented at Court to King George V. The Countess of Harewood was chosen to testify as to Isabella Lupton's "good nature" etc. She was more than "acquainted" with her! I hope this makes the terms the various historians and writers use a bit clearer for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.189.27.190 (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You may have made a case, albeit with the usual spin, for Hugh Lupton's wife but I don't think the relationship of a king and his chaplain is quite the same thing, certainly not what is implied in the article. Someone has a habit of embellishing the truth when neutrality is required. I'm waiting to hear about these brilliant things. Esemgee (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Sections/refs to Frances and Arnold Lupton could be expanded a little. Good to see that the section - Early Luptons of Yorkshire - has been expanded, as suggested by Keith D on May 1st, 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.132.68.1 (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Changing the subject yet again. As these people have their own sections they do not need expanding unless you'd like to mention the prison sentence. Still waiting for an explanation of "we" and more about these "brilliant things" though. I still think well acquainted is an over exaggeration since it has been established that one member may have been but certainly not others. Esemgee (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Gledhow

Is there a reason for adding random citations to the Lupton article? Gledhow Mount which is still standing is not in Gledhow and certainly not mentioned in the city council document added as a source. Potternewton once described a far greater area than it does now and the house is in Chapel Allerton. It was part of the proto suburb of Potternewton that was developed by the Luptons. (a proto suburb is the beginning of a new suburb) I am trying to bring some decent sources to this article and sort out some of the overblown claims and pov. Please stop changing information for which I have given a very reliable source by adding misleading sources with long quotations. It is not necessary to add a source for every word. The city council document would be a good source for the Gledhow article. The second source is not useful. Neither source is about Ann Lupton so please don't clutter the article with irrelevance. I will revert to my version. Esemgee (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The sources provided from contemporary newspapers showed that Gledhow Mount was indeed situated in Gledhow. You can't argue with newspapers from the time! 103.20.253.131 (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

A quick search of the British Newspaper Archive for Leeds in the 1850s for "Gledhow Mount Potternewton" proves otherwise. Esemgee (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You are correct that Gledhow Mount was in Potternewton in the mid 19th century - when Mrs A. Lupton was resident. However, by the 1880s, Gledhow Mount was advertised as being in "Gledhow, - near Leeds" - see Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer West Yorkshire, England - 16 September 1882 - GLEDHOW, near Leeds,— To be SOLD Privately, the very desirable ESTATE, known as Gledhow Mount. The estate comprises the... Thanks for your input again101.189.97.127 (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Citation overkill

Are you aware of Wikipedia:Citation overkill? This article is wildly over-referenced. Esemgee (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It is still happening in other sections. Please stop dumping sources randomly in the article, Sources must relate to the substance and context of the sentence not just odd words. I hope this is clear. Esemgee (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

"We"

Regarding the edit summary "We will obtain the records and photos from other Leeds-oriented web-sites of the nurses as a group at Gledhow Hall - stay tuned and thanks again" I am really interested to know who "we" is, is it the royal we or a group of editors who seem to be backing each other up in introducing errors. Can I just say that you are supposed to provide the sources before you add the material, just as I have done, and sarcasm doesn't work on me, quite the opposite. Esemgee (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Please stay calm. I am a keen historian who works with mentors at a tertiary institution. We certainly do not introduce errors. Please be sure of the correct names of people when you edit. I personally appreciate all of your edits. We look forward to adding more photos. All the best. 2001:8003:4F57:7700:C15E:1E13:3788:3218 (talk) 12

33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You have introduced many errors. Please stop reinterpreting sources. Thank you. No need to reply in bolded text, or patronise me. Esemgee (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not patronising you. Please read the page on James Kitson, 1st Baron Kitson. His older brother's son, Frederick James Kitson of Gledhow Grove was Lord Mayor of Leeds in 1908. He died in 1935. His wife, Florence, died on 26 April 1943. Florence Kitson did much voluntary work in Leeds. She was usually reported as being Mrs Florence Kitson, a former Lady Mayoress. Please don't confuse her with Baroness Airedale (nee Florence von Schunck) who volunteered to offer her nursing skills alongside her daughter - a VAD nurse - in their own home (Gledhow Hall) with her blood cousins, Olive Middleton (nee Lupton), Elinor Lupton and Lady Bullock (nee Barbara Lupton). We try not to confuse the reader. Please research contemporary newspapers if you are still not convinced. I am hoping you will make the correction yourself. It would be appreciated. All the best 2001:8003:4F57:7700:C15E:1E13:3788:3218 (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You should be aware of WP:MEATPUPPET, editors are supposed to edit on their own behalf not in groups. Lady Airedale was about 50 in 1915, she does not appear to be on any photographs and the Express is not really a reliable source. Esemgee (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Srbernadette you are not supposed to alter other editor's comments on talk pages. I have searched both contemporary newspaper reports at the BNA and Red Cross records and can find no mention of Lady Airedale as a VAD at Gledhow Hall or anywhere else. This section should be about Olive Lupton, I realise there is little to write about her and can see that all this padding with relatives and titles has been necessary to justify a section. My research shows Olive was a VAD cook at Gledhow Hall from 21 May 1915 to 23 April 1917 and from May 1918 to August 1918 she worked at Roundhay Auxiliary Military Hospital. Elizabeth and Elinor Gertrude Lupton were VAD nurses in France as was Kathleen Lupton of Headingley. The Hon Hilda was a nurse at Roundhay, her address is given as Gledhow Hall. The Red Cross records may or may not be incomplete but they are a better source than a random caption in the Express. Don't you think it think it is time to remove the fluff and keep to the subject? Without a much better source than the Express I shall remove it. Esemgee (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi - been away for a while. GREAT research here! Look at the Gledhow Hall Scrapbook and see in it article on The Hon. Doris Kitson - she is the daughter of Lady Airedale and was announcing her engagement - hence the media interest. Doris was also a VAD nurse at Gledhow Hall. You are correct that many records are incomplete - certainly any decent Unitarian would not stand idly by watching their own family nurse! Olive Lupton is another woman - Olive Middleton (nee Lupton) or Mrs Noel Middleton "existed" from 1914. Don't confuse the two women, although I can understand the confusion! The records and the Kitson family who gave interviews to the UK Telegraph and the UK Express are reliable sources. We have been told that there are photos of Olive Middleton as a VAD nurse in uniform at Gledhow Hall with her family. Please help us and look at contemporary news reports and the Leodis site - a great help. 49.188.142.55 (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I have separated the information about VADs to more appropriate places. I think you will find that I added the scrapbook as a source. Olive Middleton may have been Richard Middleton's older sister. The Express and certainly the Mail are not regarded as reliable sources. The royal connection has seriously skewed this article. Esemgee (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Arnold Lupton

Arnold Lupton is in the lede but nowhere else in the article. Needs addressing. Esemgee (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lupton family. 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/20140903082621/http://www.leeds.gov.uk/docs/Conservation%20Area%20Appraisal.pdf to http://www.leeds.gov.uk/docs/Conservation%20Area%20Appraisal.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/ryedale/11860310.Kate_s_links_to_North_Yorkshire_revealed/?ref=mr

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) 06:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Catherine Elizabeth Middleton (colorized).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Time for a big trim, and hiving off daughter articles?

The article needs a better focus, and "everyone named Lupton" isn't it. In reading the ODNB entry on Roger Lupton, I see that he died unmarried, and thus cannot be claimed as an ancestor of the Georgian family. I propose creating shorter separate articles for each individual who meets the notability criteria, and paring this article down. Instead, it would include a brief paragraph on each of the hived-off ones, and a rewrite to draw together the threads of the family's overall importance and influence in business, politics, religion, philanthropy, etc. Anyone want to help me? --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a very good idea for Roger Lupton, and I'll try to help when you get moving on it. Perhaps we should list the notable ones. Esemgee (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree - some of the earlier sections on this page are too detailed e.g. - providing the percentages of various inheritances/land ownership left to members nearly 200 years ago is not necessary. This page is good; it lists many notable members in some detail - just like the Terry family page. 124.189.216.102 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Carbon Caryatid it's along time since you made this suggestion and I think it's time to do it. I propose renaming it "Luptons of Leeds" and concentrating on the achievements of the family of merchants that owned Wm Lupton and Co. I think the last IP comment is way off track, many members are not notable, wealth does not equate to notability. It is wildly over-referenced with long quotes making it hard to edit. I therefore suggest removing Roger Lupton, anyone else who isn't notable, the trivia and name dropping and keeping the references to a level that makes it easy to verify and also edit. Thoughts?? Esemgee (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

If nobody objects during the next few days I shall remove Roger Lupton and rewrite the lead, which should only summarize the article. Esemgee (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Objection - Roger Lupton's coat-of-arms was used throughout the centuries by his collateral descendants, including those in Leeds. Roger Lupton remains in the lead - this article was created on January 1st, 2012 by User:Fivebills - whose grandmother was Barbara May Lupton (died 1974) 175.32.219.132 (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I always thought there was a conflict of interest and your objection confirms it. Members of the family or others with a vested interest are not the best people to write neutral articles. I don't think the coat of arms is particularly significant. The biggest problem with the article is the number of people included who are not worthy of an article of their own and who are referenced only to trivial details, often with overlong quotes that sometimes are chosen to mislead. Roger Lupton can be linked as a see also as the merchant family described here cannot be direct descendants. The Luptons of Leeds are important civic and business figures but this article attempts to present them as something else. Esemgee (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to rewrite history. The two books written by members of the Lupton family (Dr C. A Lupton and his son Dr Francis Lupton OBE) long ago established that Roger Lupton's kin included William Lupton (died 1782) of Leeds:

In 1527, he [Roger] established six scholarships to St John's College, Cambridge, to be awarded exclusively to boys from Sedbergh School with a preference for founder's kin[16] - Lupton having had no children himself - and that they be sons of men with "lands truly purchased whose mansions were sufficienty built". A document held in the archives of St John's records that the scholars were: "to be chosen from the grammar scole of Sedbare, wher the sayd Roger Lupton was borne and hath foundyd a perpetuall chauntry and the sayd grammar scole indued sufficiently with lyvelode and lands truly and suerly purchased and manciones sufficiently bylded". As per the founder's kin clause, Lupton's relative, William Lupton (1732–1782), attended Sedbergh School and then St John's College, Cambridge before being assistant master at Leeds Grammar School and ordained to pursue a ministry in the Anglican church.

The Luptons of Yorkshire (and Leeds) are indeed important civic and business figures and this article presents them as such. You are one of many editors whose own significant contributions to the family's origins in this article remain highly relevant and are very much appreciated. 175.32.219.132 (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no intention of rewriting history, only providing focus, removing trivia and providing something more encyclopedic in tone. The Luptons of Leeds cannot possibly be DIRECT descendants of Roger Lupton, which is why, other than a possible brief mention and link to his article, he is not needed here. The article ought to start with William Lupton (1700–1771) whose son started the business. Esemgee (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that this article is titled Lupton family and with very good reason. It is not titled "The Lupton family of Leeds". There is absolutely no reference in this article to Roger Lupton being a DIRECT ancestor of anyone! He cannot be so! William Lupton (1700-1771) was a collateral descendant of Roger Lupton; "William's second son, William II (1732–1782) boarded at Sedbergh School and attended St John's College, Cambridge (as per Roger Lupton's "Founders Kin" clause). He became an assistant master at Leeds Grammar School and was ordained to pursue a ministry in the church at Headingley, near Leeds. His son, the Rev. John Lupton (died 1844), held an M.A. from Trinity College, Cambridge.

There are published books (e.g. page 38 of the book below which states "Olive's family, the Luptons, rose to academic and religious prominence in the 16th century. Roger Lupton, an administrator at Eton College.......The Lupton name first appears in public records in 17th-century Leeds …..The earliest mentioned Lupton was a minister, indicating that the family continued in the religious tradition set forth by Roger Lupton. An eighteenth century Lupton, William II, also became a minister. These early religious connections were important...." https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Ea_XDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&dq=timmons++william+II+minister++++Lupton+++kate++middleton&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSzL3K377pAhVXeysKHVnxBzEQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=timmons%20%20william%20II%20minister%20%20%20%20Lupton%20%20%20kate%20%20middleton&f=false

You cannot ignore the family's well-documented Anglican background/heritage; soon you'll be wanting all of us editors to be ignoring their acclaimed Unitarian links and only focus on their wool-manufacturing business in Leeds! What next?!

You might like to, however, create a NEW article on William Lupton and Sons of Leeds if you wish 175.33.12.10 (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Rationale for removing The Parliamentary Debates - House of Commons Oxford University 1909 as a source

From the Wikipedia Help Desk:
I have not done refs numbers 100 and 101 (is it a "book" ?) correctly on this device. Please fix them. Thanks 49.188.5.171 (talk) 7:50 pm, 13 June 2019, last Thursday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

I see these two sources:

• 100 - Middleton, T. "Annals of Hyde and District". Cartwright & Rattray, 1899 - Cheshire (England). p. 153. Retrieved 14 June 2019. ...Harriet Gertrude Ashton, married Arthur G. Lupton, of Leeds. Elizabeth Marion Ashton, married Rt. Hon. James Bryce, P.C., M.P., D.C.L...Katherine Ashton, married Charles Lupton, of Leeds.
• 101 - The Parliamentary Debates - House of Commons. Oxford University 1909. 1909. Retrieved 14 June 2019.

Is that what you intended them to be? Orville1974 (talk) 8:06 pm, 13 June 2019, last Thursday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

Yes, but I think the 101 citation should have the publication year in the correct place and page number and also the long IBSM number - I cannot do this. Please help. Thanks 49.188.5.171 (talk) 8:11 pm, 13 June 2019, last Thursday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

All the publication confirms is that Bryce, Ashton, and Arnold Lupton (but not Charles Lupton) were MPs. Here's the page: Estimate of Principal Value. Were you expecting more to be there? It doesn't appear to support the article's contents at the place the citation's been inserted. Orville1974 (talk) 8:32 pm, 13 June 2019, last Thursday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

The other citations in this section make it clear that Charles Lupton, Lord Mayor of Leeds - related to the other 3 men - was also very involved with politics. The new ref. that you have cleverly acquired - Estimate of Principal Value should be used some how - Am I wrong to think that? Please incorporate the ref I have just pasted (the estimates one) - I cannot do it on this device. Thanks so much again 49.188.5.171 (talk) 8:54 pm, 13 June 2019, last Thursday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

My concern is that it's placement makes it appear as if it is a source for: "In 1888 he married Katharine Ashton and was thus the brother-in-law of both Thomas Ashton, 1st Baron Ashton of Hydeand James Bryce, 1st Viscount Bryce with both men sharing their interest in politics with Charles and his cousin Arnold Lupton MP", but it's not. It's just the register of a rather routine vote in Parliament that doesn't seem to meet any need as a reference for the article, and it's present inclusion as an inline citation for something completely unrelated is misleading.

If you want to include it without misleading the reader, you'd need to pull content from it to add to the article (in May of 1909 Lupton, Bryce and Ashton voted in Parliament supporting a resolution that "no reduction shall be made in the estimate of the principal value of any property under sub-section (5) of section seven of the Finance Act, 1894, on account of the estimate being made on the assumption that the whole of the property is to be placed on the market at one and the same time") WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I would like to help, but I'm not going to make that edit. Orville1974 (talk) 9:15 pm, 13 June 2019, last Thursday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

Understood. Thanks again 49.188.5.171 (talk) 9:19 pm, 13 June 2019, last Thursday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

Copied from the Wikipedia Help Desk Revision ID 901750622 by Orville1974 (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

John Lupton & Son, wine merchants of Bradford

Perhaps related, perhaps not, might be a wine merchant John Lupton & Son, being wine merchants of Bradford, founded 1831. From a separate source I have pictures of its “110th Annual List”, dated “1958–1959”, and saying “Established 1848”. If relevant, pls could somebody with citable knowledge of the connection document same here. JDAWiseman (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

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

• 1927 - Lord Mayor Hugh Lupton (in Mayoral chains) at a luncheon in Leeds with Lord Harewood (left).jpg
• Alan Lupton - Carriage driving.jpg
• Beechwood Estate, Roundhay.jpg
• Kate Lupton, Baroness von Schunck.png
• Lady Mayoress Elinor Lupton (right) with Princess Mary at Leeds Art Gallery.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)