Talk:Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery

Prominent English Rothschild family members

What is the section "Prominent English Rothschild family members" doing in this biography? If their relation is important to Hannah Primrose, then it should be explicit in text, if not this belongs, if at all, in the Rothschild family article. I have deleted it from here. Bejnar 17:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I am currently working on an expansion of "Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery" here [1] and I'm not sure that section is necessary there either, is there not a Category:Rothschild or something similar to make the family links? Giano 18:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Instead of having an incredibly long bibliography section at the bottom, can it be shortened? Maybe by combining the pages from that book? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.6.115.84 (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Where possible this has been done. It is customary on Wikipedia to cite all sources and reference any facts not likely to be commom knowledge. There is not very much about this subject that is common knowledge hence a long list of references in necessary to give Wikipedia creditability. Giano 08:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Healthy, pleasant cottages

We read:

Her over-protective parents ensured that she never entered a cottage where there was sickness or unpleasantness of any kind.

Logically, this says nothing about her ability to enter cottages where there was no sickness or unpleasantness, but it would be normally read to imply that she was able to do so.

A footnote adds:

McKinstry, p. 70, quotes Hannah's cousin Constance de Rothschild (the wife of Lord Battersea) as saying "She was never allowed to enter a cottage, to go where sickness and sorrow dwelt."

I take that to mean that she was never allowed to enter any cottage or to go where sickness or sorrow dwelt. I'd therefore change what's in the main text to something along the lines of: Her over-protective parents ensured that she never entered a cottage or went anywhere with sickness or unpleasantness of any kind. (That's rather leaden; I'd hope to think of something better when less sleepy.)

But perhaps I've misunderstood. -- Hoary 14:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Try this [2] Giano 15:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Do the sexy girl and the handsome man meet each other at street? No they just met at a celebrity and millionaire dating site called wealthymingle..com .handsome men and sexy girls are there. It is all by yourself. So good to see sexy girls there .You can also find your handsome guy.

Ah yes, good. -- Hoary 23:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Quotation style

Just a minor point, but may help the FAC... normal typographical convention is that quotations are set either in quotemarks, or in italics, but not both (except where emphasis is needed within a quotation). --mervyn 18:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Who cares? There're way too many rumors coming out each day. And most of them turn out to be untrue. I even start thinking if it is true that Charlie Sheen once found his love on the celeb and millionaire daitng site wealthymingle..com. Whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.85.132 (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I did it this way because there are a great many quotes, and I wanted it to be very easily differentiated between my text and quotes. I believe that contemporary quotes give a better insight into a person than any modern text - basically I see myself as merely collecting quotes and placing them within context to make a biography. Don't forget that Wikipedia does not allow us as authors to draw anything but the most obvious conclusions, therefore the placing of quotes can lead a reader to a conclusion that we can not, thus it is imperative that the quotes are very obvious indeed so that the reader can see he is not being led or misled. Giano 18:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Marriage section

I put a cn tag next to "and certainly many high ranking officials at her court were anti-Semites" but it was removed. Can somebody point to the source for this? Thanks, --Tom 16:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Do the sexy girl and the handsome man meet each other at street? No they just met at a celebrity and millionaire dating site called wealthymingle..com .handsome men and sexy girls are there. It is all by yourself. So good to see sexy girls there .You can also find your handsome guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.85.132 (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ferguson, Niall (1998). The World's Banker: The History of the House of Rothschild. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 0 297 815393. p. 772 is given as the reference. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Does that cite specifically say that "certainly many high ranking officials at her court were anti-Semites"?? I am not at a library right now, otherwise I would try to find that book. Thanks, --Tom 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not either, sorry - have to wait for Giano. Although I must say Giano is normally so thorough in his sourcing I would be quite surprised, not to say astonished, to find any issues with any article by him. And the statement does have that ref. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

To be quite honest - I can't remember the exact wording - but the anti-Semitism of the Spencer story certainly came from the source cited - an he was a high ranking official. I don't have that book with me so I can't check it and say for sure. There was certainly a lot of anti-Semitism surrounding the Queen, and I don't think she was innocent of it herself - although she seems to have cared greatly for Disraeli and made him an exception - she was certainly very anti promoting Jews to the peerage for a long time. I will have to get hold of the Ferguson book again and check this out to be 100% sure. Giano 21:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Giano, thanks for the response. I am not question the "truth" about the material, just that it is sourced properly and can be verified. This seems to be a sort of generalized blanket statement about the officials in the Queens court. Anyways, no biggie. Cheers! --Tom 14:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No you are right, it is out of the page untill I can find the book again and re-check the precise wording - the Spencer cite is correct, but the more general one should also be cited too - this is the trouble with not having the book by one, on the the day the article hits the main page - also I wrote it months ago so my memory is not as fresh as it could be. Giano 21:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Richest woman in England

Seriously, does that include Queen Victoria? • TheBendster (talk) 26 September 2007, 17:50 (UTC)

I wondered about that too, and did not add the often mentioned fact until I found it reliably cited. I think it does mean she was richer than Queen Victoria - even at that date the monarch did not personally own the Royal collections, palaces or estates but I am prepared to stand corrected if someone comes up with a cite that Victoria was even more wealthy. I do know that George IV was very profligate and would have been in serious debt were in not for Parliament paying his creditors, it is unlikely that William IV during his short reign would have saved from the civil list anything approaching the wealth of the Rothschilds, so it is more than likely that she was in real terms wealthier than the Queen. Giano 18:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Do the sexy girl and the handsome man meet each other at street? No they just met at a celebrity and millionaire dating site called wealthymingle..com .handsome men and sexy girls are there. It is all by yourself. So good to see sexy girls there .You can also find your handsome guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.85.132 (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Most interesting, many thanks. • TheBendster (talk) 26 September 2007, 20:59 (UTC)

But nonetheless the Queen had far grander homes, far more servants, and far more money to spend, making the countess's status as the richest woman rather empty. Abberley2 22:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Queen's expeditures came out of the Civil List.--Wetman 06:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Only Balmoral Castle and Osborne House were the Queen's property, Lady Rosebery had more homes many of which were if not larger on a par in size. Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle could be considered more grand but were not the Queen's - I would doubt the Queen had more loose cash to spend - more servants is a debatable point - what constitutes a servant in a Royal Court - the unpaid aristocrat acting a "Groom of the X" or "Master of the X"? On Queen Victoria's accession she had have her mother's debts repaid by parliament because she had insufficient cash herself. Giano 06:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any figures, but Victoria is generally seen as very canny at getting the Civil List boosted & building up the present wealth of the monarchy. Their large land holdings were probably relatively less valuable than now, so I don't see it as unlikely that Hannah was richer. The Royals were exempted from death duties until recently, which may well be how they pulled ahead. But both royal and Rothschild finances are equally impenetrable - did the Rothschild Continuation trusts involve Hannah? - so some weasel words, referenced to a reputable weasel, might be the way. Lets get that "considered by many" count up - you can help! Johnbod 13:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact is reffed, I did not make it up, so I think it can remain as fact. I believe she was richer than the Queen. Remember her father and his brothers were financing whole Governments and countries and funding wars. Death duties at that time were negligible on all estates. I'm currently re-reading a bio of Q Victoria, and it seems for the first part of her reign she was constantly after money and repaying debts of her parents etc. My assumption (I'm only 1/3 of the way through) is that she became richer during the latter part of her reign through pure economy and not spending after the death of her husband. I saw the contents of Mentmore (I know that is own research but the catalogues exist) in tact, they were equally on a par with the Royal collection and this was just one of her houses, and she owned them herself, not the state. QV most certainly did not have 2 million in cash, and the more bios and reff book I read (there are none on Hannah, what you see here is the longest and most complete anywhere) the more it seems she had. Mines in Australia and America, business interests all over the world. Like the Royals the Rothschilds are inscrutable but suddenly in an authorised biography of Rosebery one reads, just slipped in, reference to a mine in S Africa, a ranch in S America and so on. I could have made this page twice the length, but had to confine it to a decent length, nor did I want to make a "money section". As it is a much quoted and referenced fact - I think we have to accept it. I have always understood that the Royal family's huge wealth did not truly materialise until the reign of George V who died in 1936. Giano 13:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it was Victoria - you won't I think find Edward VII having many financial troubles. But then their wealth was later vastly boosted by development and longterm rises in property rentals & capital values on land that had always been owned by the Crown or Duchy on Cornwall. Death duties kicked in around 1920 as you probably know. One might wonder whether your ref, or anyone, is in a position to put an actual figure on Hannah's wealth, or that of the Queen, or just recording the view of the weasels of the day. Johnbod 14:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I've read in one of the Rothschild books that they used to lend Edward VII money, Queen alexandra was constantly in debt after his death. It was definitly George V or rather Stamfordham who brokered the tax breaks which helped their finances considerably. Giano 14:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

changed her year of death

Her year of death is 1888, not 1890. 75.15.182.167 19:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You may be right and you may be wrong, but the author of the article has consulted many sources. Please give a reference for your change. Meanwhile, I'm reverting it without prejudice. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC).

All sources agree she died in 1890! Giano 20:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some lunatic seems to like vandalising this article Johnor 21:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Do the sexy girl and the handsome man meet each other at street? No they just met at a celebrity and millionaire dating site called wealthymingle..com .handsome men and sexy girls are there. It is all by yourself. So good to see sexy girls there .You can also find your handsome guy.

I've requested full page protection. --Ronz 22:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not going to get it. It's on the front page, that's why it's being vandalized the way it is. The front page article isn't supposed to be protected. Many people are watching it and reverting. Bishonen | talk 22:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC).

I didn't realize it was featured. What is this edit [3] for?

Protection yesterday. Not while on front page. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC).

It's protected from being moved. Makes sense. --Ronz 22:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

Is there any evidence that British mid and late-Victorian society was anti-semitic?--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Try reading beyond the lead, you will find it fully referenced, and if that fails to convince you, what is a known fact try reading The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (all of it) Giano 12:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Giano, I do hope that we can have a pleasant conversation and not descend into abusive brevity. I have no desire or wish to read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is anyway a Russian volume and was, so Wikipedia informs me, first published in 1903 (ie. 13 years after your subject's death). QED, what relevance does it have to British (upper class) Victorian society? It seems to me that there's plenty of evidence that British society of the period was not anti-semitic: see Nathan Rothschild, who bankrolled the Napoleonic Wars and was your subject's grandfather, Daniel Deronda in fiction, and (of course) Benjamin Disraeli. The only obvious potentially anti-semitic references of the period, of which I am aware, are those of Fagin (where his Judaism is actually a characterisation rather than a caricature) and certain minor references in Surtees (who died when your subject was 13 years old).

On the other hand, this is what the article states: [...] an anti-Semitic society [...] [para.3], in the 'opener' and un-referenced; and, in the main section:

“ However, several hurdles had to be overcome before a marriage could take place. While the Jewish Rothschilds were accepted into society, and indeed were close friends of some members of the royal family including the Prince of Wales, as elsewhere in Europe, strong anti-Semitic feeling was prevalent in the upper echelons of society. Queen Victoria herself expressed a reluctance to make a Jew a peer.[18] Lord Spencer advised the Prince and Princess of Wales against attending a Rothschild ball with the words "The Prince ought only to visit those of undoubted position in Society."[19] However, this did not prevent the Prince from accepting Rothschild's invitations and gifts privately. While one could be friends with Jews and accept their hospitality, their social status was still not sufficiently elevated to include marriage. ”

• There is no citation for the statement: [...] strong anti-Semitic feeling was prevalent in the upper echelons of society. In fact, if you read that sentence fully, it perhaps contradicts itself: While the Jewish Rothschilds were accepted into society [...] strong anti-Semitic feeling was prevalent in the upper echelons of society. Are the Rothschilds, then, the exception that proves the rule? (And, if so, on what basis is this claim made?)

• It seems to me that you've got the wrong end of the stick regarding this quotation: "The Prince ought only to visit those of undoubted position in Society." The phrase 'undoubted position' suggests to me not that Spencer opposed attendance at a ball not on the basis of the Judaism of the hosts but because they were (in his opinion) nouveau riche. (In any case was his advice acted upon? If not, is the reference relevant?)

• And that quotation supports the proposition that the Prince of Wales, by accepting hospitality or presents, was in a position to determine society's attitude to the Rothschilds. I'm not at all sure how a couple in the public eye, like the Prince and Princess of Wales, would be in a position to accept hospitality or presents privately in such a way that they could hypocritically deny social acceptance publicly. This seems to be what you allege they did.--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. Anti-semetism amongst the ruling and upperclasses in Britain, and indeed all the courts of Europe in the 19th century is an accepted fact. Young page 18: "Most people at the time were casually anti-Semetic, despite the Prince of Wales hob-nobbing with Jewish financiers". Disraeli had huge problems with anti-semetism. I'll reff the Young fact if it makes you happy. Giano 14:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Major Bonkers, googling for "benjamin disraeli anti-semitism" gave me something like 20,000 hits. I found plenty of scholarly articles on the subject on jstor, which is only accessible through university proxies, so that's a bit frustrating... but here, a bit at random, is a page from the Bodley: "Born into the Jewish faith and later baptised, he [Disraeli] had to contend with the marked antisemitism of the times."[4] You will easily find more yourself. And I don't understand why you bring in Daniel Deronda in support of your argument, when its focus on Victorian anti-semitism rather contradicts it (even though George Elliot herself writes from an enlightened viewpoint). Bishonen | talk 14:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC).

Furhter to our converstion I have added a few more reffs to anti-Semitism being common place at the time. All the Reference books used for this article mention the anti-Semitism of the time. I'm not adding more as I find them distasteful and I don't want this subject to be reffed out of all proportion. The internet if full of foul sites documenting 19th and 20th century anti-Semitism - I'm not going to link to them, I'm sure you are quite capable of finding them for yourself. Giano 14:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]:I'm not trying to prove anything. I am seeking some evidence that British Victorian society was anti-semitic, as the article maintains. If it's an accepted fact there must be some evidence for it. You can cite the Young quotation if you like, but I don't see it as anything more than his opinion.

• As Gibbon points out (ch. 16), making an obvious point, Christianity is a sect of Judaism. In referring to British Victorian upper class society, you are referencing people who were well educated and were brought up with a thorough knowledge of the Old Testament, ie. a shared heritage. With the Empire, British subjects were not just Protestant, but also Catholic (particularly in Ireland), Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, and Buddhist. Don't forget the Indian princes (eg. Duleep Singh) and Indian inter-marriage (eg. James Skinner and, I think Warren Hastings - incidentally, there's a good article for your future attention). Some of Victoria's subjects were black (in fact, black sailors fought at Trafalgar). The Empire was cosmopolitan. So: were the British equally anti these other peoples as they were of the Jews? (Rhetorical question.)

• Having had a brief look at Wikipedia, the only reference that I can find to British Victorian anti-semitism is the Limerick Pogrom, which was a pretty feeble affair and nothing on the scale of (in particular) contemporaneous Russian pogroms. I suspect that British anti-semitism, such as it is, was limited to dismissive epithets, ie. an association with the foreign and nouveau riche, rather than anything serious - and certainly not violence. If this is correct, I just wonder whether the allegations of anti-semitism in the article warrant the prominence that they have been given.

(And don't get me wrong, I think it's a good article and offer you my congratulations - I just raise an eyebrow over this unsupported allegation.) --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am just speechless that you can think that. I'm not Jewish or black so I have no axe to grind one way or another. I just read rather a lot of history books. Giano 15:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree w/Giano, this is rather like asking for a citation that British Irish policy was based on the presumption of Anglican ascendancy. You need only to look at the long and tortured history of attempting to get Jews into parliament; Baron de Rothschild is a good example of this. Disraeli was an Anglicized Jew and still faced hostility over the matter, from both Protestants and Catholics (cf Daniel O'Connell's infamous speech denouncing Disraeli, I can't recall the exact date). That Wikipedia doesn't have good coverage of the topic is a failing on Wikipedia's part; I freely admit the Disraeli article doesn't say enough on the subject and I accept responsibility for that. Mackensen (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Well, the only evidence that has been offered so far of alleged Victorian upper-class anti-semitism is Lord Spencer advising The Prince of Wales not to go to the Rothschild's ball: you say because they were Jewish, I suggest because they were seen as nouveau riche. In either case, that seems pretty thin evidence to me: Spencer did not, after all, say to the Prince, 'Actually, sir, why don't you join me and the lads as we're going down the East End this evening for some Jew-bashing and we'd like you to tag along.' The fact remains that for all of the horrible anti-semitism in Victorian upper-class society, Hannah Primrose married into the aristocracy (and never once seems to have mentioned anti-semitism), and Disraeli became Prime Minister. Either these people were the exceptions that prove the rule or the much vaunted Victorian anti-semitism didn't exist.

I should make another point: Googling a later politician, Michael Howard and anti-semitism produces 575,000 hits (against 20,000 for Disraeli). I acknowledge that we're not comparing like with like, of course, because we're dealing with journalists versus historians; but my point is that the Jewishness of these two politicians is used as a shorthand by their opponents to suggest the foreign. Is this anything more than cheap political brickbats: Margaret Thatcher is strident and uncaring, George Bush is an idiot?

As a personal point, I suspect that the British people, with the loss of the Empire, have become a lot less cosmopolitan and outward-looking. I rather suspect that the High Victorians were more enlightened and generous of other cultures than we are nowadays.

I also prefer to read history books, recently particularly on Poland. Anti-semitism in that country caused the death of between 20 - 25% of the country's population during the Second World War, and I'm wary of cheapening the horror of that by labeling others, who might unthinkingly or ignorantly use a Jewish tag as a label, with the same epithets that we apply to Nazis.--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If you read the notes there are quite a few quotes from reference books. There is also mention of the Duchess of Cleveland's and Queen Victoria's views to Jewish people entering the peerage. Disraeli became Prime-Minister and an Earl but he was (at least officially) a Christian. Because 19th century anti-Semitism in Britain pales when compared to that in mainland Europe does not mean it did not happen or cannot be mentioned. Giano 17:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what measure of proof might be satisfactory here. It's also important that the manner in which anti-semitism was expressed differed between Great Britain and, say, Russian Poland. The Jewish population in Britain was small, prosperous, and assimilated. In Britain the great questions were whether Jews could hold high legal and political offices, or receive peerages (similar in some respects to Catholic disabilities before 1829). In Eastern Europe the questions were rather more fundamental, but that doesn't change the fundamental fact that the Victorian establishment was anti-semitic in outlook. A good textbook case is the debate of the Jewish Bill in 1848, prompted by Baron de Rothschild's election for the City of London. Lord John Russell, introducing the bill, hedged in all kinds of ways--Jews were few in number, Jews were prosperous, etc. His speech was not some stirring defense of toleration. The Tories in the House of Commons opposed him to man, save Disraeli and Lord George Bentinck. Opposition in the House of Lords was significant, including a majority of the Anglican bishops (who also spoke on the measure), and numerous peers. The nature of this opposition was significant; speakers would often express their approbation for a particular person while denouncing the race. I can provide specific citations later, but this stuff is all in Hansard and easily referenced. Mackensen (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Thank you for yours. Afraid I must log off v. shortly (bathtime), but I promise to have a look at the article's references tomorrow. Here's the leading Wikipedia article on the subject of the Jews in Victorian England: Emancipation of the Jews in England. By contrast, the corresponding article re. Poland is much fuller and notably fair: History of Jews in Poland. I think we should draw a distinction between (1) minor abuse, labeling ('bad manners'); (2) a reluctance to share political power (both of which presumably occurred and occur in Britain); and (3) state or societal opposition, about which I remain to be convinced. Agree with Mackensen that this subject needs to be fleshed out. I suspect that we'll find that the sheer length of Victoria's reign saw a change in attitudes between its beginning and its end.--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism no matter how and in what form it manifests iteself. There are further adjectives and words to describe the acute anti-Semitism that has taken place in mainland Europe and elsewhere over the last centuries. Giano 09:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. See the Wikipedia article definition of 'anti-semitism'. What Victorian society produced was examples of tactlessness, occasionally rudeness (deliberate or not), and, in the case of Disraeli, insult. (Just like today, in fact.) All of these were at the individual level. What society did not produce was a deliberate or systematic bias against, or oppression of, the Jews (other than at a political level, where they were excluded, rather than ignored or oppressed). Jews were still the Queen's subjects and entitled to the full protection of an impartial law. There was no repeat of the Gordon Riots in respect of Jewish emancipation, offensive pamphleting, or political or religious campaigning against Jews (other than on the subject of emancipation and so far as I am aware), no pogrom-ing and no ghetto-isation. Frankly, Hannah Primrose seems to have led an enviably charmed life.--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Hannah Primrose seems to have led an enviably charmed life" apart from the fact it was rather short and she was maried to what appears to be a rather petulant egocentric. I would agree with that, I don't think that fact is in dispute. Regarding whether or not she lived in a society with anti-Semitic prejudices, I'm afraid the authors of all the reference books used to write the article do not agree with you. The article even discusses her own husband's and Mother-in-law's anti-Semitic behaviour. If I had added every anti-Semitic reference in each of the books I used, that would have been wrong because it would have over-stated the anti-Semitism by making those references out of proportion to other facts in the article. I'm afraid whether you like it or not late Victorian Britain was full of prejudices on one kind or another. It was just a sign of the times No where does the article state it was comparable with that of Europe in the 1930s and 40s but why should it? Nor does the article make any false claims as to the degree of anti-Semitism. Giano 14:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we're more-or-less exhausting this issue. In his book, The Polish House, Radek Sikorski describes how the first Jew that he ever met (in his British exile) told him that, of course, the Poles were all profoundly anti-semitic. (Not unsurprisingly, he was a bit taken aback by this remark.) (I've also seen this myself: my wife, who is Polish, was told exactly the same thing by a well-known Anglo-Jewish artist. Is this evidence of anti-polonism or simply tactlessness and repetition of a received opinion?) I just think that what you are describing as a widespread anti-semitic bias could, just as easily, be described as a succession of ignorant, and perhaps offensive, remarks, but almost completely without malicious intent. After all, in 1850 (the year before HP's birth), Palmerstone had threatened war on behalf of Don Pacifico, a Portuguese Jew born in Gibraltar. That's a pretty clear statement to all concerned that Jews are considered fully British subjects.--Major Bonkers (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to agree to disagree. The page agrees 100% with its many references. While I may occasionally discretely slip in a small piece of own research into an architectural page, I am not prepared to do so on the biography of the wife of a British Prime-Minister. Especially when it is the only comprehensive biography that I know anywhere. No one can easily on the internet check the facts of this page or cross reference so it has to be 100% kosher (pun intended). Giano 17:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not going to add 'neutrality' or 'citation' tags, it just seems to me that the evidence is pretty thin and largely hearsay: Spencer advising that arbiter elegantiae not to hob-nob (on ambiguous grounds), which advice (according to the Young citation) was ignored; yet this is turned into evidence of anti-semitism; it seems to me that he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't (mutatis mutandis, had the Prince and Princess not gone to the ball, that would have been evidence of philosemitism?) The poor bugger can't win! I'll add a plea to the Emancipation of the Jews in England Talk page and see if someone can come up with something more authoritative. --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Purely because of you, and at considerable inconvenience and even more expense, I have trudged through the drizzle to half the bookshops in London, and have now purchased a 2nd hand Ferguson (my other is in Italy) and a bio of Disraeli. Please note the anti-Semitic references are now clearer as a result, although I suspect you will like them less. I have yet to open the Disraeli, but when I have finished attempting to earn a living later today - this too may provide some more references. Giano 12:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Disraeli, it is a commonplace that he faced anti-semitism throughout his career, although the nature varied. He was subjected to repeated harassment during his election campaigns (see, among others, "Dizzi-Ben-Dizzi": Disraeli as Alien, by Anthony S. Wohl in The Journal of British Studies, Vol. 34, No. 3, Victorian Subjects. (Jul., 1995), pp. 375-411) and during his second premiership, when he was subject to repeated attacks and insinuations that he was not only un-English but anti-English. These attacks came from Anglican figures, professors (Goldwin Smith), and writers (Carlyle). Witness Carlyle's celebrated remark that Disraeli was a "cursed old Jew, not worth his weight in cold bacon." It goes on and on. Perhaps the most serious issue is that you'd have to provide reliable sources stating that anti-semitism did not exist, or was not "serious" in Victorian Britain. This you will not be able to achieve. Mackensen (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Disraeli, I feel, is almost certainly a special case because he was a prominent politician and, as I note above, was subject to the knockabout caricaturisation of (what passed, and still passes, for) political discourse. I don't think that it is reasonable to extend the specific circumstances of the reaction to Disraeli into a general principle that Britain was anti-semitic. Before the last election, for example, the Labour party published a poster depicting Michael Howard as Fagin. What are we to make of this? Certainly, I believe that anti-semitism was not serious in Victorian Britain: there was freedom of worship, the protection of the law and state, social acceptance (which is the issue that I suspect we are actually arguing about), and, at the end of the period, emancipation. Frankly, it's arguable that the Catholics (at the beginning of the Victorian period) and the Welsh non-conformists (at the end of it) had a worse deal than the Jews. There is, actually, some evidence of British philosemitism which I have turned up, albeit 'After the Victorians' (book of the same name, A.N.Wilson (2005) Hutchinson, London. Thus:

• (p.99): Welsh identification with the Jews became, on an analogical level, all but complete. Their chapels - Bethel, Bethesda, Ephraim, Ebenezer - took their names from the Bible, as did many of their villages. [...] After the English effectively obliterated the right of the Welsh to possess family names, many Welsh families took Jewish names such as Aaron or Samuel. (By paradox, many Jewish immigrants took Welsh names such as Lewis or Davis as rationalisations of Levi or David.)

• (p.100): One of the most striking ways in which the British male of this date [first decade of the 20h. century] expressed a feeling of kinship with the Jews was in the popularity of circumcision. 'It is a curious fact,' wrote Ronald Hyam in his masterly 'Empire and Sexuality', 'that outside the traditional circumcising communities [Jewish, Muslim, Melanesian, Amerindian and some African ^{[citation in original]}] the only Westerners to adopt it as a common practice were the English-speaking peoples.' ^{[citation in original]} The plot of George Eliot's last great novel, 'Daniel Deronda', published in 1876, had hinged upon the discovery by the central character that he was Jewish, a fact unknown until his mature years. An American critic of our own day remarked that 'Deronda had only to look'. ^{[citation in original]} But not, in 1876, if he had been of Jewish origin, but brought up from birth as if gentile.

• (p.101): Lloyd George himself said: 'I was taught in school far more about the history of the Jews than the history of my own land. I could tell you all the kings of Israel. But I doubt whether I could have named half-a-dozen of the Kings of England and no more of the Kings of Wales. ^{[citation in original]} The paragraph goes on to observe that Lloyd George, acting as a solicitor, drew up the documents submitted to the British government for a Jewish homeland.

• (p.102): (Discussing a Welsh riot in 1911 in which Jewish shops were attacked, which Winston Churchill described as a pogrom - almost certainly a hyperbole) Alfred de Rothschild, Sir Edward Sassoon and the 'Jewish World' tried to pass it off as mere 'lust of criminals: rioting would have taken place, Jews or no Jews'. Riot or pogrom, the authorities moved quickly to stop it: Churchill sent the troops in, and two rioters were shot dead.

I would like to stress that I have no complaints about the article as written, and I acknowledge that the citations refer to anti-semitism. The actual underlying evidence, though, seems to be limited to the political attacks on Disraeli (and if Queen Victoria really was anti-semitic, she seems to have moderated her opinions in respect of him) and a few stupid remarks that should probably more accurately be passed off as bad manners. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• That is fascinating Major Bonkers. Lloyd George was indeed a lucky man to be so educated. Not all were so fortunate, while Lloyd George was studying his Hebrew history on the same country at the same time the boys of Harrow School were organizing "Jew hunts" (Ferguson, p 791) I believe that educational establishment was quite well known at the time for providing "The Empire" with many of its leaders. I don't want to belabour the point, and add these facts to the page, because it will make Britain seem more anti-semitic than it was. Giano 18:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Both Palmerstone and Churchill were Old Harrovians. Presumably the Ferguson quotation is cited back to this book. However, these ejusdem generis arguments usually fail with the application of a little common-sense: the reason that this incident found itself in the archives was presumably because someone became aware of it and objected and the matter was sorted-out (a bit like this incident). When I think back to my own time at Harrow - you may be unaware that I attended this school, Giano - the nicknames of my contemporaries included 'Yid', 'Paki', 'Bog-rat', 'the Flid' (a reference to a Thalidomide victim), and a play on words involving the individual's surname and the word 'Runt' (another individual having the play on words with 'Whore'). Although these terms might be objectionable, they were not intended maliciously, and the individuals concerned took them in good part. It was a robust and un-politically correct environment a bit like the army, apparently. Returning to the issue in question, however, the point remains that of the most major outbreak of perhaps anti-semitism, the 1911 riot, the Jews themselves denied that the riot was anti-semitic in motive.--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• No the Jew hunts are cited back to this book here [5] page 224 and another book [6] page pp 98 f. It is hard to see that hunting little boys out and then beating them up when found us anything other than malicious. However bearing in mind public schools of the day I expect they would have found another minority had not they had the Jews. My point is though that they did have the Jews and the fact they even thought to hold "Jew hunts" is indicative of the public thinking of the time. Perhaps though the Harrow victim (Charles Rothschild - I think that is the right one) fared better than poor Lord Rosebery over at Eton who was being buggered by the staff (McKinstry, pp. 25–31, discusses this at length). I'm sure that today under Barnaby Lennon (now there is good red link for you far better and more useful than those dull old baronets) Harrow is a model of perfect race relations. However, I imagine you probably post-dated the era of the Jew Hunts so it is hard to fully comprehend the public thinking of the day - I think it was probably as Young suggests ( page 18) : "Most people at the time were casually anti-Semitic, despite the Prince of Wales hobnobbing with Jewish financiers" - I think "casually" is the important word that is to say they most Britons, at the time, would not harm a Jew, go out of their way to offend a Jew or even kick his dog but neither they would not go out of their way to advance a Jew's cause, become best friends with a Jew or employ a Jew, abd they certaily did not want to "Milord" a Jew. They saw being a Jew as a stigma rather than asset and that mind-set is anti-Semitic albeit very much less than was found on mainland Europe at the time. Now interesting as this debate is, if you want to continue it, I don;t think this is the right place as it is going nowhere regarding this article. Please reply if you want on my talk page. Giano 18:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I like to have the last word! Alternative explanations:

• Queen Victoria was initially concerned at enobling a Jew because of her constitutional role as head of the Church of England;
• Charles Rothschild (or whoever) was an unpopular schoolboy who was duffed-up by his mates. His Judaism was incidental to his treatment;
• Lord Spencer was a bit of a snob but not anti-semitic;
• Disraeli, being a politician, was subject to knock-about abuse that made (offensive) reference to his Judaism.

The sole 'authoritative reference' to this issue is the quotation from Young, Most people at the time were casually anti-Semetic, despite the Prince of Wales hob-nobbing with Jewish financiers. This quotation is itself apparently un-referenced and ignores copious evidence to the contrary. The 'concession' made in the last paragraph, above, is actually very close to what I believe: people treated Jews with a large degree of toleration. There is a considerable leap, however, to get from that state of indifference to the active persecution of anti-semitism.--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti Semitism still being debated here??

Why is this still being debated? This article is not the appropriate place to go into details of British anti semitism during the Victorian period, but it is appropriate to make reference to it. If Major Bonkers or anyone else really wants to dispute that anti semitism existed, find the cites and place them in the appropriate article. But this doesn't seem a useful discussion to me. And having the last word is not always a useful character trait. ++Lar: t/c 11:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

see also: Zionism#Non-Jewish Support.--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Betrothal detail

A minor point but Lady Beaconsfield died in 1872 so could not have introduced Hannah de Rothschild to Lord Rosebery in 1875 as stated. Dizzysrattle (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I checked the reference, and it does state that she introduced them, but I have removed the date. Perhaps that is wrong and they had a long "getting to know each other" period. Giano (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is better - however, the mention of "two years earlier" in Note 13 (regarding the purchase of the Suez canal shares)also does not make sense as this did happen in 1875. Dizzysrattle (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)