Talk: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)

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 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". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countess of Lucan (talk • contribs) 13:22, 10 July 2008 (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.My husband was not declared legally dead by the High Court in 1999. Probate was granted on 11th August 1999 and is not an official confirmation of death for all purposes; nor does it operate as if it were a death certificate. The grant is valid for probate purposes only and is a technical requirement for the administration of the subject's estate.

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 Lord Chancellor refused him a writ of summons to sit, but no-one can deny him the right to use his title. In a newspaper article Lord Bingham said "Five years ago I obtained an order from a Chancery Court which, I am advised does everything you can in law to treat a man as dead. So from that moment (11th December 1992) forward, given no disputed claim I had succeeded to the title. I shall now begin calling myself the 8th Earl of Lucan." 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? Yes, she is dead. She died in September 2004. 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? Crosby when referring to relationship means an exchange of emails lasting several years. In his book he untruthfully states that he visited Lady Lucan at her home in Eaton Row. He has never visited her home.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)

New article

I'm working on a new version of this article here. While I'm not nearly done, if nobody has any objections I'll replace this article in a week or so. I have more sources to work through, but I intend to take this to FAC in a few weeks. Comments welcome. Parrot of Doom 11:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The new version seems to have the same problem the previous one did, but in even more pronounced fashion - it goes into great detail about Lucan's life pre-disappearance, and about the murder and the investigation of the murder, and then glosses over in one short section everything that has been written about his possible life or fate since his disappearance. In fact it is this mystery and speculation that has given this man his fame/notoriety, and which has generated most of what has been written about him (no-one would be interested in the details of this murder if it weren't for the involvement of the "disappearing peer"). Clearly Wikipedia is about reporting fact rather than speculation, but in this case the speculation is itself a very significant part of the fact. And why did you remove the reference to the recent claims by Aspinall's secretary? Also I think the introduction is too long and contains too much detail - and again, fails to emphasize the main reason for his notability, which has little to do with the established facts of his biography. Victor Yus (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, a hair-trigger admin decided on a demonstration of authority. I agree with the above, it's just that I'm not yet finished writing the article. His legacy/aftermath will certainly be expanded to be in line with the source material used. I don't intend to expand significantly on individual false sightings and the like, as those stories detract from the man. Parrot of Doom 09:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds cool, thanks. Victor Yus (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm waiting on a third book, The Gamblers. Once I've gone though that I think I'll look towards WP:FAC for this article. I have to say though, I'm not finding a great deal of commentary on this cases' notoriety. That may be because everyone takes it for granted that it's a famous murder, but I can't really expand on that section of the article if the source material doesn't do the same. Parrot of Doom 13:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Retitle

I think this article should be called simply "Lord Lucan". That's the name everyone refers to him by. I know Wikipedia has conventions for naming peers' articles, but we can make exceptions in special cases (and this one is not just a run-of-the-mill title holder). The same is done with Lord Byron. Victor Yus (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree but this needs more input. I'll ask around. Parrot of Doom 21:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't, the 3rd Earl is also well known as 'Lord Lucan' due to the events of the charge of the Light Brigade. The status quo causes no harm and is certainly fits the pattern of other peers much more consistently.Garlicplanting (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Consistency is one thing but everyone knows Lucan as "Lord Lucan" - the official title is rarely used. Even Lord Lucan redirects here. A simple Google search reveals almost four times as many results for "Lord Lucan" as for "Richard John Bingham". As per WP:COMMONNAME I think it should be changed. Parrot of Doom 13:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You really ought to know the problems with goggle searches and accuracy. The search you did will pull up all the lord lucans, bands, pubs and much other ephemera. Lord + almost anything produces a high score - eg Lord banana 24 million hits. Lord Wellington (accurate only 1809-14) produces far more hits than Duke of Wellington by which he was known for 35 years, at Waterloo (the focal point of his fame) and as Prime Minister.Garlicplanting (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You should probably put quote marks round your search terms. Once you search for "Lord Wellington" you get far fewer hits than "Duke of Wellington". Anyway, this is all rather beside the point, as we all know that Lord Lucan is the common name for this fellow. Victor Yus (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

As a random wanderer, I tend to agree with POD :) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had actually heard of the Crimean War Lucan, but I'm sure very few people will have done, compared with those who have heard of this one. In any case, we can just put a hatnote directing people to the other Lord Lucan (I note noone has ever felt the need to make a hatnote mentioning him or any other holder of the title specifically, even though "Lord Lucan" redirects people to this page, so it seems no confusion has ever resulted from this). The present title may fit the pattern of other peers, but doesn't fit the pattern of other articles about well-known persons, which get short, easily recognized titles, not mouthfuls like this one. Victor Yus (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well as soon as the FA bot updates this article, I'm going to move it to Lord Lucan. Parrot of Doom 22:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Knight

Kenneth Charles Knight was arrested in Goondiwindi in Australia and mistaken for Lucan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.203.240 (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This was in the October of 1979. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.203.240 (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Concerns of Lady Lucan about the inaccuracy of this article since June 2012

Lady Lucan has expressed concerns that this article (especially the featured revision) is full of inaccuracies since revisions made since June 2012, being largely based on the book by Roy Ranson, which itself is inaccurate. Her talk page can be accessed at User talk:Countess of Lucan.--Darrelljon (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Who says the book is inaccurate? Parrot of Doom 15:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Lady Lucan says the book is inaccurate even down to the title.--Darrelljon (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I quote "I just edited my father's name Major Charles Moorhouse Duncan MC (the MC was removed) and his second wife Thelma (and his second wife was removed). I edited that I was twenty months when he died and they removed it and put two years! Obviously I know more about the Lucan affair than anyone else living and certainly more than a ghost writer for an ex-police officer "--Darrelljon (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Quote from where? If she has a problem with this article then why doesn't she post it here, where we can work through any issues? Parrot of Doom 09:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If that is indeed Lady Lucan (do we know for sure?) then what can be said is that she will obviously know a great deal about certain aspects of the case, but less than an investigating police officer about other aspects. Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, we cannot know for sure that the account is operated by her, so I have blocked it using {{Uw-ublock-famous}}, which exists for such purposes. This is to prevent the Countess being impersonated if it isn't her, not to shut her out from discussions if it is her. Bencherlite^Talk 06:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Lady Lucan has been asked to contribute here, but believes herself to be blocked from doing so. Some of her concerns are as follows;

• "Much of this is defamatory and untrue. It even talks about my weakening mental state being why he moved to the mews house.
  • The article doesn't blame her weakening mental state for Lucan's departure, it just mentions it as a factor in the marriage's failure. Parrot of Doom 21:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• How can Roy Ranson know when I employed Sandra Rivett?. I employed her on 9th September (not in August as Roy Ranson says)
  • One would presume that the chief investigating officer of a murder would be able to establish exactly when the murder victim entered her employer's service, so I'd appreciate something a bit more substantial here.
• Someone has written that he courted Zinnia Denison. It is grotesque rubbish.
  • Moore, p57, disagrees. She quotes Denison herself - "I knew he was very fond of me", and Charles Sweeny, who describes how upset Lucan was that Denison wouldn't marry him, that he asked her to marry him in St Moritz. Although I have found Moore to be a rather biassed source (heavily against the Countess, as it happens) and have therefore tried to include only facts and not opinions when using it.
• For example "When the marriage collapsed in 1972" I authorised a solicitors letter dated 13th December 1972 and quoted from it.
• I was born on 3rd May 1937 and my father died on 21st January 1939 so I was not two years old but twenty months.
  • I have already generalised on this point so it's no longer an issue.
• Mrs Murphy was not an alcoholic and she left on 24th April 1974 to go into hospital for serious surgery. She was replaced by the temporary Christobel Martin and followed by a French girl called Pierrette who stayed for May, June, July and Mid-August when she was sacked. She was replaced from mid-August by a student Nadia Broome who left when Sandra came with her cat on 9th September 1974. I have cheques to confirm their employment.
  • Ranson explicitly says she was an alcoholic, that she had been fired from a previous job in Spain for "drunkenness, for walking naked around the house and for encouraging children to drink". He also describes letters from private investigators which mention that the nanny had taken the children to an "Irish club" at lunchtime. Ranson also states that she died from cancer but I didn't include this as I didn't think it particularly relevant. I would, however, appreciate learning more on exactly how she left the Countess's employ, and I will check to see if any source I have mentions the nannies employed after her time and before Rivett's time. Parrot of Doom 10:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I've removed references to Murphy's purported alcoholism and added her hospitalisation. This makes it easier for the reader to understand that she left the Countess's employ and not ask why. I've also changed the structure to make it clear that a series of temporary nannies were employed, and I've also generalised on the date of Rivett's employment. Hopefully these changes will be satisfactory, the text is still sourced and reliable but the offending passages are no longer there. Parrot of Doom 21:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• I was born in Uckfield but after my father died we moved to Bournemouth and in 1947 moved to South Africa. We returned in late 1949.

The Wiki is not verifiable and is certainly not neutral. They could have asked me as I have invited anyone to do from my website.

• • A self-published website is not considered a reliable source here. I don't make the rules.
• On the 1st January 1973 We both saw Dr Flood at The Priory and he recommended a six week trial separation.
  • Ranson mentions (on p34) "lucan had tried to persuade the doctor that his wife should be certified as mentally ill. When the doctor dismissed his attempt as a nonsense, the Earl flew into a rage and stormed out of the house", but little else. Again, unless the above line appears in a reliable source, it can't be included.
• On the 14th February my husband went to stay in Acapulco for two weeks with James Goldsmith and returned on the 28th February. On 23rd March 1973 armed with a Court Order he took Camilla and George from the Park while they were with their nanny Miss Sawicka.
  • Ranson mentions Acapulco but it doesn't seem to have much relevance to the story. The article already mentions the taking of the children. I couldn't be certain exactly when Sawika's employ ended so I removed the date the children were taken (which was indeed the 23rd).
• I did not sell any jewellery as my husband had the keys to the safe and I did not have access to it.
  • I'm happy to remove the jewellery sale as it isn't all that important.
• I did a two week stint of voluntary work at St George's Hospital.
  • The article mentions that Lady Lucan worked in a local hospital.
• I paid Miss Sawicka her cheque for £18.00 on the day the children were taken on 23rd March 1973. I was quite composed enough to do this.
  • I've removed any claims of hysteria or lack of composure, I think that's perfectly fair (any mother would understandably be extremely upset at losing her children in this manner).
• As I say on my website I wore a hat at the inquest on Mrs Sandra Rivett because of my rank as a peeress of the realm and not to hide any scars. The scars were completely visible on my forehead due to the style of hat I wore."
  • That sounds fair to me, I can't include the reason for wearing the hat but I can certainly rewrite that part just to mention that she wore a hat.

--Darrelljon (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• • The Countess is no longer blocked (a temporary thing to ensure the account wasn't an imposter), she's perfectly free to post here. If she's reading this, I have some experience working on sensitive articles like this (see Moors Murders) and am quite happy to work with her on whatever I can. Parrot of Doom 10:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Some friendly e-mail correspondence with Lady Lucan might help any technical hurdles to participation too in the event of any possible lesser familiarity with use of Wikipedia.--Darrelljon (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I expect that Lady Lucan is still unable to edit because of the autoblocker - this always happens when the indeffed are released and that's why the poor woman is thinks she can't edit here. Someone should check it. Secondly, experienced as Parrot of Doom is, I don't think mentioning Lady Lucan's husband in the same breath as the Moors Murders is unlikely to endear him to her and create a harmonious working relationship; the crimes are not comparable. The Hon Mrs Humphrey Starborgling (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If someone could check the auto-block that would be great.--Darrelljon (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone checked the autoblock?--Darrelljon (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody suggested that the crimes were comparable, except in the sensitivity they have to be dealt with, especially in respect of the surviving relatives such as Lady Lucan. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Votes that argued that this Lord Lucan was "not as famous" were largely discounted, considering that Lord Lucan already redirects to this article. Even so, there is no consensus to move from the consistent name to the common name. Jenks24 (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan → Lord Lucan – Most common name for the subject of this article. Lord Lucan already redirects here. Parrot of Doom 16:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Lord Lucan refers to any of the earls who have held the title not just the seventh. In particular the third earl is high profile.--Darrelljon (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a discussion about this, just above this section. Please see WP:COMMONNAME. Parrot of Doom 09:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Standard naming convention for British peers is to use the existing format. Even the Duke of Wellington, far more famous than Lord Lucan and also invariably known by his title, is under Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. And to military historians, George Bingham, 3rd Earl of Lucan is also pretty famous as a field marshal and a leading player in the Charge of the Light Brigade. Many other peers are commonly known by their titles rather than their names (indeed, most hereditary peers are). There is no need whatsoever to make an exception to the convention for this one individual. An exception has been made for Lord Byron, but it is very rare, for an extremely famous person (Lucan is not - my partner had never even heard of him!), and in this case there are no other significant holders of the title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Lucan not famous? Don't talk out of your arse. Parrot of Doom 09:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say he wasn't famous. Try actually reading a comment before you let your mouth/hand run away with you. It'll help you to avoid making an idiot of yourself and making insulting comments! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Pot, kettle. Parrot of Doom 16:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't believe I was the one who accused a fellow editor of talking out of his arse! -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you just implied I was an idiot and then criticised me for "making insulting comments". Just another hypocritical admin. Parrot of Doom 20:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have a chip on your shoulder about admins. Let's leave it at that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I understand the argument, but I don't think it is the best solution in this case. Deb (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Standard naming convention for British peers no need for further discussion. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 20:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• "though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" - Lord Lucan is by far the most common name for this individual. Parrot of Doom 21:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Wikipedia's overall convention on naming articles is that we use the common name for the subject, and that should take precedence for someone who is a well-known personage in the outside world, not just a rank-and-file peerage holder. As we can see, it is not just Lord Byron's article, but many articles on peers (such as well-known politicians), that are not titled according to the convention. This is how it should be - the convention was no doubt written by editors with an interest in the peerage, and should thus apply to articles that are likely to be of interest principally to people concerned with the peerage, but there is no rational reason to try to apply it to articles that will be of interest to a more general audience. Victor Yus (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm curious. Which articles, other than Byron's, are not titled according to the convention? Some are certainly titled using only the peer's name, not his title, but that's a different issue and usually only applies to peers who became famous before they acquired the peerage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, those are the ones I meant (there's also Alfred, Lord Tennyson, incidentally). It's not entirely a different issue, in that it shows that Wikipedia in general is perfectly happy with the idea of titling a peer's article in a form other than "Name, Numeral Title", and thus there's no reason to stick stubbornly to the latter form when there's a much better alternative available. Victor Yus (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Tennyson is still at "Alfred, Lord Tennyson", not just "Lord Tennyson". Use of a peer's name without his title if he became famous before acquiring the title is explicitly provided for in the naming conventions. This proposal, however, is only provided for if this individual is "overwhelmingly the best known". If this Lord Lucan was the only notable Lord Lucan then I might therefore (possibly) agree with you, but he isn't. I knew of the Charge of the Light Brigade Lord Lucan long before I knew of the disappeared Lord Lucan, and I'm sure I'm not alone (evidently not, given other comments here). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Shouldn't be an exception to the naming conventions. Should be at John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan, though. Proteus (Talk) 21:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: The current title follows the naming conventions, and besides, among people who don't follow British society scandals, the third Earl is better-known than the seventh. --Carnildo (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, this Lucan is more notorious than famous, and not sufficiently so to be an exception monopolising the style "Lord Lucan" in WP: I, too, knew of his Light Brigade predecessor before I did him. FactStraight (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is already very much an exception to the naming conventions, since the subject's common name is not used (the whole naming convention for peers ought to be treated as subordinate to the Wikipedia's general common name naming convention, but clearly that argument isn't going to be won here). Let's try to get the current name right, then - I suspected it should be just John (it used to be called just Richard Bingham..., until I added the John). Do we have sources to show that he was known as "John" rather than "Richard John"? (By the way, the fact that we have to consider such matters shows how wrong-headed the peer naming convention is - we know exactly what this person is virtually always called, and yet to get just the title of the article we are forced to dig around in obscure sources to try to get our own artificial name for him "right". It shouldn't be like that.) Victor Yus (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • It's not "wrong-headed" at all, since it is designed to address the fact that peers with the same title are almost always known by the that title and disambiguation would otherwise be a nightmare. The 7th Earl of Lucan was actually commonly known as Lord Lucan, the 3rd Earl of Lucan was actually commonly known as Lord Lucan, the 1st Earl of Lucan was actually commonly known as Lord Lucan, the 2nd Earl of Lucan was...well, you get my drift. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, this is exactly the same problem that is faced with people (and other types of subject) in all walks of life - their common names might not be unique. But disambiguation is no nightmare - in fact we have a system for doing it (look at Tony Scott (disambiguation), to take an example entirely at random). In this case (I don't know how appropriately) one Tony Scott has been identified as the most prominent and has his article titled Tony Scott, and the others have parentheses after them to indicate in what field they are notable. So the present article could be titled Lord Lucan or, if it really is genuinely disputed that in the real world this is by far the best known Lord Lucan, then it could be something like Lord Lucan (disappeared peer). Not systematic, but at least readers would know immediately who the article is about (and in a sense it is systematic, since it corresponds to the overall Wikipedia system for naming articles). If someone isn't much known for a great deal apart from being a peer (which is going to be so in the majority of cases), then I agree, use the article titles we use now. Anyway, it's accepted that I'm outnumbered on this, so what's your view on the Richard/John question? Victor Yus (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
        • The point is that if we have a natural disambiguation system, then it makes sense to use it rather than inventing something else. Disambiguation is a pain in the proverbial anyway, so making work for ourselves makes no sense. If he was known as John then we obviously should move it to John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
          • For me, the system you want to use is much less natural than the system Wikipedia uses elsewhere, and the additional "work" of thinking up sensible article titles is no real burden at all, but never mind. Does anyone have evidence as to usage of his Christian names? Victor Yus (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, when "Lord Lucan" already redirects here (and thereby helps people searching under that name), what is the specific need to change the article name in contravention of the norm? Moreover, there is another famous "Lord Lucan": Patrick Sarsfield, 1st Earl of Lucan. Hrishikes (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The change would not contravene the norm, the present title contravenes the norm (or at least, each of the two titles might contravene a different norm, and the present one contravenes a far more general and sensible norm). Surely it's preferable to have article titles that let readers know in ordinary terms what the article is about and what the subject of the article is normally called? Why do we have an article called Bill Clinton and not "William Jefferson Clinton" or something? Comparing these two cases, can't you see how famous peer articles are out of step with general practice? Victor Yus (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - no comment on the actual proposal, but noting here that more attention should probably be paid at this time to the section preceding this one (though the matter needs to be handled with care). Also, while looking at some of the past edits made by User:Countess of Lucan, I noticed this misplaced edit that is partially related to this naming issue. Someone might want to tidy that edit up (even though it was four years ago), both to restore the section it was inserted into (it is still visible at the top of this talk page), and to acknowledge the edit made back then. I'm going to do that small bit of tidying up now. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

BBC report removed

The following text was removed in December on the grounds that this article is not the place for "rumours". As the article is already full of "rumours" this is a little odd, as is the fact that a BBC report is not exactly a rumour. I am copying it here in the hope some editor finds it a helpful basis for some more work:-Testbed (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Recently evidence was uncovered suggesting an unknown man was staying in the house at the time of the murder. The new evidence came to light after BBC Inside Out South East was handed three boxes of notebooks, diaries, tapes and address books found by the daughter of the late Detective Chief Inspector David Gerring, a key detective in the Lucan case. Camilla claimed this man lived in the house and sometimes slept in Sandra's room. The documents also reveal that police believed Lucan may have visited a Scottish estate in the late 1970s and could have been in Mozambique up to 2002. Lucan's brother Hugh Bingham wanted the evidence looked at and says he was annoyed this evidence was not used in the trial. Neil Berriman, who discovered in 2004 that Mrs Rivett was his birth mother, also wanted these claims investigated.

Possible copyvio

The comment on the skeletal remains of the judge being discovered is a close paraphrase of the text in John Pearson's book The Gamblers (which should probably be included as a reference). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What nonsense. Here's what the book says - "In the end they found a body, but it was not Lucan's. In dense undergrowth towards Ditchling Beacon they stumbled on the skeleton of a judge who had disappeared some years before." That is a completely different sentence to what's in the article, which, if you care to look, does include the book as a reference. Parrot of Doom 18:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I said paraphrase - and I see no reference to the book. Which judge? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

At a guess I would say ref 84 Pearson (2007) which points to Pearson, John (2007), The Gamblers, Arrow Books, ISBN 9780099461180 Richerman (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Mainly 'just checking'. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, perhaps I over-reacted slightly so I apologise for the strong wording. It's been a difficult week. Parrot of Doom 10:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move: 2013

John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan → Lord Lucan – Almost every one of this article's many references calls the subject "Lord Lucan." The others call him just "Lucan". Not one source calls him "John Bingham", nor does any source feel the need to clarify that this isn't the Lucan who ordered the charge of the light brigade. This headline from the BBC is typical: "Lord Lucan 'mystery man' witness statement uncovered." There's nothing about the light brigade Lucan on the first page of Google results, and Lord Lucan already directs here. If it's done this way for disambiguation, it doesn't strike me as being very helpful. How many readers will know which Lucan is third earl, and which one is seventh? See Lord Byron for a similar case. Warrior of Zen (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree but considering this was proposed and comprehensively opposed only recently, I think this will go nowhere. Parrot of Doom 10:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The last RM was almost a year ago. At least with Wellington, "Duke of Wellington" is part of the article title. But if a reader knows this subject only as "Lord Lucan", the current title might not be recognizable. Warrior of Zen (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)