Talk:Frederick North, Lord North
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Sir Frederick North had one full-sister and several half-sibs. Do you have any information on what happened to his full-sister? She was disowned by the family for some reason. If you can't help, do you know who might?
My family tree, which led me to this reference lists Fredrick Lord North as having a daughter Margaret (I think). Given the research I have done to date and the sad state of my source material (family heirloom), it is possible that this person was not in fact his daughter but his disowned sister. She is listed as being married to some fellow called "O'Neill". He is not given a first name and given that his is an Irish name, marriage to the sister of an English Peer of this period it is entirely possible that this is the "tradesman".
I will be making further investigations but hope this is of help.
- This page should not be at "2nd Earl of Guilford", I don't think...we shouldn't fetishize highest titles. He was known for his entire career by the courtesy title. For people like Chatham or Beaconsfield who were known for most of their career by one name, and then got ennobled, it's one thing to put them under their peerage title (and see my rather bitter comments over at Chatham's page, which I just removed.) But it's quite another to do it for someone like North (the same might be said for, say, Shelburne/Lansdowne...) john 09:52, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- The discussion on the matter, for those interested, as well as a discussion of general ideas regarding the naming of articles on peers, is continuing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage. -- The Earl of Emsworth
Shouldn't the title of this page be either, Lord North or Frederick North? And then one or the other redirects to the actual article?
The American Revolution section needs to be rewritten; it has too many grammatical errors, which makes it difficult to follow. The tone also seems to be an issue; it isn't scholarly. The section would also benefit from more research. Alligatoraids (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. The use of language in this section is quite appalling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Really, the attempted colony on the Falklands in 1770 was a "first step to the conquest of Britain"? I'd like a source on that - other than Margaret Thatcher's nightmares. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Typo (hopefully) in the "Early political career" section
Can I get an explanation for why the heading labeled "Early political career" has the years 1779-70? Usually, it would be the other way around, like 1770-1779. Can somebody sort this out?
- It was vandalism. It should say 1754-1770. I've restored the previous version. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
--188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)The description of North's tenure focuses on foreign/colonial aspects only. But his ministry established relative domestic stability after the constant toppling of ministries and fierce politics of the 1760s. The only domestic issue mentioned is constituted by the Gordon Riots which indeed mark the end of that phase.
Looks like someone vandalized this section. There's something about a General Ryan D. Pepper, who, among other things, is apparently a Mario Kart expert. Can someone point me to how to pinpoint when this was added? Thanks. Krimsley (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)