Jump to content

Talk:Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 7th Marquess of Salisbury

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

Query about personal life of heir

[edit]

A little worried about the unreferenced and unverified personal life of the heir to Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 7th Marquess of Salisbury. His daughter out of wedlock is verifiable (appears in Burke's and Debrett's) and has been mentioned in newspapers. But what about the other relationship? If this is not in newspapers, should it even be mentioned?

"The Marquess of Salisbury's heir is his elder son Robert Edward "Ned" William Gascoyne-Cecil, called Viscount Cranborne (b. 1970); he is currently unmarried, though he does have a daughter born out of wedlock in 2001 by Camilla Davidson and untill recently was engaged in a long term relationship with Molly Watson." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibiohistory (talk • contribs) 01:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found one citation: (2003) Spy column from Daily Telegraph: "Ned, a former page of honour to the Queen, is now stepping out with Molly Watson, the glamorous former New York correspondent of the Evening Standard. They met several months ago and, according to friends, are now "virtually married"." [1]. However, the heir is also quoted as saying: "Asked if Watson might be the woman to share it with him, he says firmly: "I have absolutely no desire to appear in your paper. No comment."[2]

I think this is enough to prove that while a relationship did exist, it would violate the person's privacy. Furthermore, the other party is not well-known, and the relationship is over. Could we remove the reference?

Thanks, wikibiohistory (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viscount Cranborne

[edit]

The writ of summons in acceleration was NOT rarely used, but quite common, to allow the sons of high-ranking peers to sit in the House of Lords. 91.43.64.154 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the writ of acceleration article: "It was a fairly rare occurrence, and only 98 writs of acceleration were issued in over 400 years." I guess it's something of a matter of opinion whether once every four years or so is "rare" or "common." --Jfruh (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not a life peerage?

[edit]

The question that occurs to me about the particular case of Gascoyne-Cecil (or anyone else for whom this was done after 1958) is why he was summoned via a writ of acceleration rather than simply given a life peerage. Would there have been some practical difference between the two methods of getting them into the Lords? One difference that does occur to me is that a life peer would be able to stay in the Lords if hereditary peers were ever purged from the house -- something that surely would have been will within the realm of political possibility by 1992. --Jfruh (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There might have been some difference in protocol or some such but I'm not sure. Also a life peerage would have to have a title selected, approved and so forth plus various other procedures, though I suspect tradition may have played a part and Cranborne himself may have preferred to go the same route as his grandfather fifty years earlier.
As for staying in, 1) reforming the composition of the Lords has been kicking around British politics for a century now and has usually been one of the perpetual "next time" matters that rarely gets anywhere. 2) the idea of the hereditaries being removed but the life peers staying in the Lords long term was a very fringe proposal in 1992 and the current composition of the Lords has come about largely by accident.
It's convoluted to track the various party proposals over the years but if I remember correctly the Lib Dems have been committed to a directly elected Lords since formation in 1988 (although the policy is not universally held by all members) and they inherited that position from both their predecessor parties. Labour in the 1980s was actually committed to unicameralism, possibly because of the general belief that upper houses tend to come into their own as obstacles to left-wing radical governments (look for example at the problems the Australian Labor Party has had with upper houses over the years, although in the UK the Thatcher government would have taken strong exception to the idea that it had plain sailing with the Lords). Under Tony Blair they had a policy to go for a two-stage reform with the hereditaries thrown out as stage one, but I think that specific route originated on Blair's watch and I'm not sure at what stage between 1983 and the mid 1990s they dropped unicameralism.
I don't think many people were ever really advocating an upper house consisting entirely (give or take bishops and law lords) of appointees for life as a long term solution or even at all before the mid 1990s - most who wanted to reform the Lords wanted elections, most opposed elections tended to think the status quo worked in practice if not in theory, and the very small minority of supporters of an all appointed upper house seemed to be advocating panels picking the membership afresh who would serve for a specific term. The current arrangement is yet another "interim solution" that has remained in place far longer than its architects planned. (One of the reasons why the by-elections for the remaining hereditary peer places are so farcical is because it was expected that stage two reform would have been enacted by the time the by-election mechanism took effect - for the first three years vacancies were filled by going down the list of runners up.)
So I just don't think in 1992 it made a difference in any way that could be foreseen. If Lords reform was to become a likely prospect then Cranborne would be out (or have to seek a new election/appointment) regardless of by what right he currently sat. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esq. vs. Hon

[edit]

His list of titles includes these items:

  1. Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, Esquire (1946–1947)
  2. The Hon. Robert Gascoyne-Cecil (1947–1972)

He was born in 1946. So, he became an Hon. at the age of one, or maybe two. Why dat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.138.235 (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His great-grandfather died in 1947 and all the descendants moved up at stage in titles - the young Robert had previously been the son of an "The Hon." which doesn't bring a style, but was now the son of a (courtesy) Viscount, which brings the style of "The Hon." for all the children. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Cecil Celebrations?(2003) Spy column from Daily Telegraph, 26 August 2003.
  2. ^ Ibid.

Actor of the same name

[edit]

Is this actor the same person as this politician? In this era it is not uncommon for politicians to perform in cinema or television. Robert Gascoyne-Cecil (I) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1654680/?ref_=tt_cl_t11 All of the productions had to do with political or historical themes. Dogru144 (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Landlord of Gaby's

[edit]

Is it worth mentioning that the Marquess is the landlord of Gaby's, theatreland's favourite Middle Eastern restaurant in Charing Cross Road (threatened three years ago by landlord activities: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/gabys-deli-saved-theatreland-campaign-wins-west-end-diner-stay-of-execution-for-a-year-7869237.html)? To some of us, it is his main claim to fame.--81.135.169.1 (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ‘us’ are left-wing activists, upset that a landlord might want a more stable business, so as to not have an interruption of rent when it folds. In the event, it folded on its own, without ‘landlord action’, in 2018. An account of all this could be relevant to the article. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:5CFC:E1E7:A6B2:F5F4 (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 7th Marquess of Salisbury. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 7th Marquess of Salisbury. 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) 06:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Gascoyne-Cecil,_7th_Marquess_of_Salisbury&oldid=1208535909"