Talk:Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan

Naming

Is it necessary to put "(colloquially known simply as Lord Lucan)". All peers are referred to as Lord Whatever. Mintguy 03:26, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Duke of Omnium is referred to as that, not as 'Lord Omnium'. Xxanthippe 06:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)It is necessary to put "colloquially known simply as Lord Lucan" because of the frequency he is referred to like this when his title is Earl of Lucan. Dukes are known simply as Duke and not as Lord as the other grades of the peerage are known. They are Marquis, Earl, Viscount and Baron.It is correct to refer to them firstly by their actual title and thereafter to refer to them simply as "Lord".

How many of those peers are reguarly discussed in popular press, and the subject of books? Besides which, the bracketed text ensures that the page is found by anyone seaching for the string "Lord Lucan". Andy Mabbett 10:29, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A search for Lord Lucan gives you this disambiguation page which is appropriate for this encyclopaedia, because there was more than one notable Lord Lucan. As for the usage of figures about whom book have been written what about Lord Lichfield, Lord Byron, Lord Longford, Lord Hailsham, Lord Louis Mountbatten, Lord Nelson, Lord Hailifax, Lord Russell, Lord North etc. etc.. Mintguy 16:10, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It is extraordinary that this Wikipedia entry refers solely to Richard Bingham. It is just as inaccurate to refer to Boris Johnson as Alexander Johnson. Boris was christened Alexander Boris but no-one calls him anything other than Boris. Similarly the 7th Earl of Lucan was christened Richard John Bingham but he has never been called Richard but always John Bingham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.172.121 (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Early life

No doubt this has been edited over time - it certainly feels like it. For example we are told that Lucan didn't know Goldsmith at Eton. I suspect there are several people at Eton he didn't know, can we clarify why the people mentioned are important to his life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ei2g (talk • contribs) 23:06, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

The "Mark Way" affair

I can find no other references to this anywhere on the Internet outside Wikipedia mirrors. I would imagine it would have found its way into the local press at least, given its recent date, so I'm assuming it's a piece of false information and am deleting as such. -- Archfalhwyl 16:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Officially dead

I have firmed up the statement about the High Court officially declaring Lucan dead. For a reference see [1] .jguk 18:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If he has been declared "officially dead" by the high court, why can his son not claim the peerage? And why is his death simply assumed to have been in 1992? Why should this be a logical assumption? He has not been declared "officially dead" by the high court. I have already stated that the 7th Earl's son can style himself Earl of Lucan.. What he cannot do is take his father's seat. The Lord Chancellor would not authorise it. There are now only 98 hereditary peers left sitting in the House of Lords as the rest have been expelled. The remaining 98 hereditary peers will also be expelled in due course.The law moves in mysterious ways and to the uninitiated it may well appear illogical. If you don't understand something, don't you ask me? My email address is "countessoflucan@hotmail.com I also want to make clear that Bill Shand Kydd was not one of the 7th Earl's close friends.(See his sworn witness statement for the coroner at the inquest on Mrs Sandra Rivett.) He is no relation of the late Frances Shand Kydd. He is my brother-in-law and by extension my late husband's brother-in-law also.The interesting relationship is that of the 7th Earl of Lucan to the late Diana, Princess of Wales. He is a fifth cousin and second cousin once removed of Diana, Princess of Wales, her brother Earl Spencer and his sisters.

"He owned a house in Castlebar Co. Mayo Ireland and to this day he still owns most of Castlebar." How can this be if probate was granted in 1999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnybriggs (talk • contribs) 06:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lady Lucan's web page - [2] says that the son IS now the 8th Earl but he chooses not to use the title. Further, Lady Lucan's page quotes the High Court grant giving his death as "on or since 8th November 1974." If there's no objection here in the next couple of weeks I'll edit the article. Cathi M 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Objection registered - the 7th Earl of Lucan has not been declared "officially dead". He has been presumed deceased - quite a different thing. There is nothing to prevent the 7th Earl of Lucan's son styling himself Earl of Lucan but he cannot take his father's seat because the Lord Chancellor would not authorise it. See current editions of Debrett's Peerage and Burke's Peerage & Baronetage. The late Lord Lucan was presumed deceased in Chambers on 11th December 1992. The order enabled the trustees to deal with the 7th Earl of Lucan's Settled Estate on the basis that he was dead. It is correct to state that on 11th August 1999 Probate was granted and this refers to the 7th Earl's free estate as opposed to the settled estate. The probate process was therefore not protracted, it was delayed - quite a different thing. Probate means the official proving of a Will, a verified copy of the Will with certificate as handed to executor.I am not wrong.

Don't see a problem with the article referring to Lady Lucan's assertion that her son is now the 8th Earl - she does assert that, even if she's wrong. Need not say that he IS the 8th Earl, only that she says he is. Cathi M 15:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"high society" has many mansions

"High society" like any other horizontal cross-section of the social pyramid, contains a variety of persons, ranging from rogues and morons to saints and geniuses. Like in the other cross-sections, the greater bulk in between consists of average decent respectable people of no particular note. Of course, the rogues make the best stories. Read Balzac, Thackeray, Proust.

It therefore seems unfair to tar the whole of "high society" with the brush of Lord Lucan's gambling associates who would have found little welcome in the better parts of it. Xanthippe.

Detail?

From beginning to end this article refers solely to his murder and his disappearance and nothing about his early life, or even where he was born, and to whom. Surely something like this, as it stands, should be re-titled "The Lucan Murder", or something smilar? Otherwise these details really should be addressed.

I noticed that too and I have tried adding some other biographical info. I only found references to him being a student of Eton, in the Coldstream Guards, and his gambling friends, though. It's rather hard finding anything else. There is of course, the stuff about his right-wing political views, with him buying Mein Kampf, etc. But I don't know how to incorporate that in the article. It has a good source (the Observer) but if you know how it can be inserted, go for it! --Ashley Rovira 19:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)If you want more details why don't you email me at countessoflucan@lycos.com ?

Otherpoints I wish to make clear are that the 7th Earl is a second cousin once removed and a fifth cousin of the late Diana Princess of Wales, her brother Earl Spencer and his two sisters. Bill Shand Kydd is NOT related to the late Frances Shand Kydd. He is my brother-in-law and by extension the 7th Earl's brother-in-law as well. The 7th Earl was born on 18th December 1934 in London. He married Veronica Mary Duncan third daughter of late Major Charles Moorhouse Duncan M.C.on 28th November 1963 when he was still Lord Bingham. He succeeded to the title approximately 7 weeks later on 21st January 1964 following the death of the 6th Earl. Newspaper articles are notoriously inaccurate which is why I set up my website called Setting the Record Straight. The late Sir James Goldsmith was two years older than the 7th Earl of Lucan and left Eton early so the two did not know each other during their schooldays. What I have written is verifiable.

It is said that "There was no evidence of another assailant". But is there any evidence that Lucan was the assailand. Fingerprints, for instance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand sightings

Somebody appears to have pasted a news article whole-sale into the text, rather than linking to it. This should probably be removed. Sladen 14:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The entry should be removed in any case, as it was a completely bogus "sighting", and not worthy of serious consideration. I could accuse my neighbour of being Lucan, but wouldn't add that accusation to the Wikipedia entry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"most of Castlebar"?

The "Early life and career" section ends "to this day he still owns most of Castlebar." The "Probate" section states "The net value [of his estate] remaining amounted to less than £15,000", and provides a citation. I am sceptical of the former statement. The Probate section is referring to his free estate not his settled estate.The Irish Estate is part of his settled estate and not included in Probate.Maproom (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I have put an infobox into the article and a photo.--andreasegde (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Case reopened in 2004

I have a paper clipping from The Age (Melbourne) dated 18 October 2004, reproducing a piece from The Telegraph, which says the case was being reopened by London's Metropolitan Police, using DNA profiling and computer age-progression software. Did this go anywhere? -- JackofOz (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it went nowhere.

Thanks to my anonymous interlocutor. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

8th Earl of Lucan

Do we know definitively that the son of the missing and now dead-in-absentia 7th Earl cannot use his father's title and style himself the 8th Earl of Lucan? Do we have an indisputable source? His estranged mother, the Countess of Lucan says, “He automatically became 8th Earl of Lucan when his father was presumed deceased in 1992 but chose not to use the title. No one else has a claim to it. He is the 7th Earl of Lucan's only son and heir.”[3] The 7th Earl has not been declared legally dead by the High Court. The Lords refused him a writ of summons to sit, but they cannot deny him the right to use his title. SpikeToronto (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ian Crosby

The Ian Crosby information is unencyclopedic.

I have removed it again as unreferenced and containing Material that should be here. If the contributor would like to read WP:REF and cite a source before re-adding the information and keep discussion about it here on the talk page that would be helpful.--Wintonian (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

'Her final interview...' in 2004. Does this mean that Susan Maxwell-Scott is dead? Also rather odd wording: "Crosby's book reveals more details of their relationship" Does he mean with Lucan or Maxwell-Scott? And does he mean professional or private relationship? 86.144.117.25 (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Witnesses reveal Lord Lucan's 'secret life in Africa'

BBC News Online reports an assistant to John Aspinall had, on at least two occasions, between 1979 and 1981 arranged for Lord Lucan's two eldest children to go on vacation in Africa with the intention that they could be secretly viewed at a distance by their father, Lord Lucan. I don't know enough about this story to edit the story ... but I am sure others are. Anyone want to take a hand to incorporating this report into the article?
Enquire (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone has done this now. Victor Yus (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing information

Ironman's efforts to expunge sourced information from this article are becoming tiresome. At least, that's my opinion. What do others think? Of course this information is all unconfirmed, but we say it's unconfirmed, so what's the problem? Victor Yus (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

PS Lucan (presumably), Goldsmith and Aspinall are all dead, so there's no libel issue.--Victor Yus (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

All right, his most recent efforts are more constructive, but it still leaves the introductory paragraphs looking very impoverished. There must be some mention there of the vast amounts of speculation (not all fantastic) that has appeared in sources concerning what may have happened to Lucan after his disappearance. Leaving this out is like introducting an article on Jesus without mentioning that many believe him to be God's son, because "that's just speculation".--Victor Yus (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)