Talk:Frederick North, Lord North

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject University of Oxford (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

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?

Gayden Warmald

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?

No, the current format is standard format for courtesy peers. john k 05:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: Moved. Station1 (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


Frederick North, 2nd Earl of GuilfordFrederick North, Lord NorthWikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) cites North as an example under the British peerage section as one of the people who are "best known to history by a courtesy title", in this case the "Lord North" title, which is the one that should be used. YeshuaDavidTalk • 20:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd concur with that. He is always known by his courtesy title - a fairly recent biography is called Lord North. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Unlike the case with Castlereagh, say, or Shelburne, in this case the name by which North is best known ("North") is still present in the article title. There seems less need, then, to use the courtesy title as the article title, since it was just his surname. But I don't really oppose it, as it does seem to fit the guideline. john k (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. What he is actually called is Lord North, but this is ambiguous. I could support a revision of WP:NCNT to make this, and parallel cases like Lord Palmerston, Lord Byron, and Lady Byron, article titles as primary usage, but that would be a major change. In the meantime, it is just as well to include Lord North in the title, as an assurance to the reader that he is at the right article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I have no real strong opinion on this, I just think Wikipedia should be consistant when it can. Personally, I think just having this article titled Lord North is the best option, as it it already exists as a redirect, so it can't be that ambiguous. Obviously, that debate would have to take place on the names and titles page. YeshuaDavidTalk • 20:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

American Revolution[edit]

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 94.196.27.147 (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Falkland Islands[edit]

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[edit]

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?

WeirdnSmart0309 (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It was vandalism. It should say 1754-1770. I've restored the previous version. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

--85.216.101.104 (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.

Decendents[edit]

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)