Talk:Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener/Archive 1

Kitchener's conversation with Lord Derby

This article has recently been read by Henry Kitchener, 3rd Earl Kitchener and he raised the matter of the conversation with Lord Derby and would like to know reference(s) for this. It is now in para 4 of World War 1 section and originally posted 8th December 2003 by Valisk. He is generally pleased with the article and feels it gives a fair picture of his great uncle. Timothy J Baker 21:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you convey to Lord Kitchener that I am sure that, in part at least, I based the statement on a paragraph from Pollock's Kitchener, pp472-3 which mentions that K of K presented his outline for a peace of reconciliation to Lord Derby following a private dinner.

Derby is quoted as noting 'There was only one thing he really hoped to live for, and that was to be one of the English delegates when peace was made. [Derby asked what views he might want to put forward] he said he had one very strong one and that was, whatever happened, not to take away one country's territory and give it to another. It only meant a running sore and provocation for a war of revenge to get back the ground lost. He was most emphatic about that...' Pollock does not note the source for the quote.

Could you also mention to the Earl that not having learned very much at school here in the UK about the 1st Lord Kitchener, I was fascinated when I began to discover just how important a historical figure he was, and I am glad Lord Kitchener is pleased with the efforts we have made here at Wikipedia to give a fair portrayal of his great uncle.

Valisk 21:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I will pass this on. I note your comment about the importance of K. How much that was taught about him seems to be part of the debunking of Britsh Imperialism which was in its heyday 100 years ago. It must be remembered that at this time Germany was flexing its military muscles which eventually led to WW1. K was expecting to return to Egypt, but became Secrtary of State for War. The man was a hero in the eyes of the press & public (Omdurman & Boer War). If you have read the terms of the treaty which concluded the Boer War such views would be entirely in keeping with his character. Timothy J Baker 06:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Poster

Would it be fair to say Kitchener is now best-known for the "kitchener poster"? Certainly needs mentioning here.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ARTleete.htm

I've added a picture of Leete's poster to the article and expanded the mention - Valisk

Name and title

"Horatio Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener of Khartoum" is a ridiculous name for the article. Articles are supposed to be "most common unambiguous" and this ain't it. It makes sense to add titles to disambiguate multiple lords of the same name, but how famous Horatio Kitcheners are there?? Stan 01:27, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmm? How many famous "Edward Seymours" are there? There's only one article about any, and it redirects to Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset. More apropos, how many famous "Edward Geoffrey Smith Stanley's" are there? Only one, I'd wager, but yet we still include "14th Earl of Derby". I'd also refer you to here, where it states,

1. Members of the hereditary nobility (ie, people who inherit their title), such as a marquess, viscount, count, duke. earl, etc., as with royals have two names. For example Henry John Temple was also the 3rd Viscount Palmerston, hence typically referred to as "Lord Palmerston". Rule here is, "So-and-so, ordinal (if appropriate) title of place", and place redirects as you see fit. The sequence number is included since personal names are often duplicated (see Earl of Aberdeen.) Examples: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, or Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, with redirect Lord Palmerston, which allows both of his names to be included.

Kitchener is well known as "Earl Kitchener of Khartoum", and I see no reason why he should not be stated by his title. I tend towards the view that, when in doubt, one should use the full title, which is always unambiguous and unique. In this case, yes, it's probably not completely necessary for unambiguousness purposes. But it is more accurate, and I don't feel like Kitchener's so much better known as merely "Horatio Kitchener" as to make the full title harmful. (As it would be, for instance, if we had an article like Arthur James Balfour, 1st Earl of Balfour, or whatever.) john 01:45, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

OK, I thought he had a life peerage (found ref to hereditary on the net, not in the article, ahem). That's a lot of redirects to fix though, glad I didn't sign up for that... Stan 04:13, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Goddamned redirects...there were no life peerages until 1958, and life peerages are all baronies, though. john 04:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's fun isn't it, the Peerage systems and all it's foibles. It's the main reason why I left altering all that stuff from the original article to someone who understood the vagaries better than I, and also I cannot change redirects :)

As far as I am aware Kitchener was best known simply as K of K, and he was contempraneously refered to as Lord Kitchener by newspapers, writers etc. Though today he is not so well known that refering to him in this way would not distinguish him from his decended heirs.

In most period correspondence refering to him, he is known simply as K, though I suspect K of K or simply K would not today be enough to distinguish Kitchener from any other famous individual.

Valisk 12:36, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sexuality

I have removed the Hyam quote because it is highly selective in it's quotes rather liek the full book, and suggestive of paedophillia.

>:"Kitchener was a man whose sexual instincts were wholly sublimated in work; he admitted few distractions and 'thereby reaped an incalculable advantage in competition with his fellows.' >There is no evidence that he ever loved a woman;

There is a fair bit of evidence he did, including his relationship with Hermione Baker. Both his and her relatives kept correspondence suggesting that they had more than a friendship, as well as anecdotal evidence by friends of hers that he had asked permission to marry her. There is also the point that Kitchener kept a locket containing her hair and wore it constantly, until just before his trip to Russia in 1916, when for some reason he sent the locket to her family for safe keeping.

>his male friendships were few but fervent; from 1907 until his death his constant and inseparable companion was Capt. O.A.G. FitzGerald who devoted his entire life to Kitchener. He had no use for married men on his staff.

Nor did many other Generals of the time, it was almost a prerequisite of high service in the Victorian British Army. Nevertheless Kitchener maintained strong friendships with the former members of his staff who married, particularly Frank Maxwell, his former ADC, and became godfather to a large number of children.

>Only young officers were admitted to his house - 'my happy family of boys' he called them;

Young being on average late 20s, hardly 'boys.'

>he avoided interviews with women,

Though enjoyed friendships with a great number of women in India, Egypt and England, and particularly enjoyed parties and dancing, until an accident in India permanently injured his leg. He also enjoyed a friendship with Lady Helen Vane-Tempest-Stewart, daughter of the Marquess of Londonderry, which terminated with her turning down his proposal of marriage in favour of Lord Stavordale.

>worshipped Gordon,

Given that Kitchener was a junior officer when he met the celebrated Gordon, already a hero figure at this point around the British Empire, and Gordon treated Kitchener well, taking him under his wing, it is hardly suprising that K held him in high esteem.

>cultivated great interest in the Boy Scout movement, took a fancy to Botha's son and the sons of Lord Desborough,

Assertions with quite a nasty slant.

>and embellished his rose garden with four pairs of sculptured bronze boys."

The vast majority of Hyam's assertions against Kitchener, and others are agenda riven, and do not present a neutral view, but rather an attack on Imperialism by attempting to undercut the Victorian moral justifications used to prop up the imperial edifices, and of course those who like Kitchener and Gordon represented the Imperial ideal in the eyes of the people.

I am quite open to the idea that he may have been gay, but I would like to see some actual evidence of such rather that tired sly slurs of the kind that suggest he must of been gay because he collected porcelain, or gold salt cellars, or enjoyed arranging flowers.

My brother and a number of my friends are gay, and I am quite certain that they would laugh at the idea that any particular interest makes a person gay, yet this is what the whole tone of this excerpt would suggest and it links homosexuality with implied paedophilia, and Hyam's book itself ignores the social mores and pressures of the time period in which Kitchener lived and died.

Valisk 13:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From The Pink Plaque Guide to London, Michael Elliman and Frederick Roll, Gay Men's Press, 1986, ISBN 0-85449-026-4. p118:

Later in life, however, he gathered about him a small group of younger men who were known as "Kitchener's Band of Boys" and agter he became a general his staff were given the same name. Kitchener himself called them "a happy family of boys". Queen Victoria commented, "They say he dislikes women but I can only say he was very nice to me." He made it an absolute rule that his officers were single men, and he took great care in personnally interviewing all candidates for positions on his staff. Thus he managed to bring under his command a closely knit group of unusually young colonels totally dedicated to their leader.

Kitchener's preference for attractive young men on his staff caused a great deal of comment and speculation. A Reuter correspondent declared, "He drinks and has the other failing acquired by most Egyptian Officers, a taste for buggery."

In 1904 Kitchener met Captain Oswald Fitzgerald (1875-1916) of the 18th Bengal Lancers who became his aide-de-camp and later his military secretary. A mutual friend observed, "Never was there a stronger or more loyal bond than that which these two man had for one another." They were inseparable and lived together openly for the rest of their lives, arousing even more interest among Kitchener's detractors, as did his passion for collecting porcelain and his liking for flower arranging.

--Zefrog 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To be quoted as a serious source, the above item should have some names & original sources, not just “a Reuters correspondent” and a “mutual friend”. Hugo999 13:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The real problem with Pollock's book is astonishing naivety about human nature and psychology. Kitchener never married and was not known to have had a sexual relationship with a woman. Yet Pollock insists he was heterosexual, and dredges up an implausible "romance" with a 17-year-old girl (who later died of TB) as the cause of his "confirmed celibacy". We are told he was thereafter "married" to the army, and that he sublimated all his libido in "service". Pollock will not even allow that Kitchener was a repressed homosexual or sexually neuter. Every single circumstantial detail is against Pollock, every index of probability, every consideration of common sense. Pollock clings to the consolation that there is no "documentary evidence" of Kitchener's homosexuality, as if somewhere there might exist a diary in which he writes: "All right, it's a fair cop. I'm queer." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.90.228 (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The mention of interior design and fine china is rather confusing in the midst of this interesting section. Surely, we're not suggesting ... --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary writers such as CR Ballard often refer to Kitchener's 'artistic' nature and mention the porcelain collection. It is likely that this was their way of implying what they would not or could not say explicitly. So the porcelain is relevant to this issue, funnily enough. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This section is yet more speculative wiki-nonsense about someone who cannot defend themselves and should be taken with a grain of salt if read at all. It cannot be proven one way or the other and is not encyclopedia material. Please stop Wikipedians! Every day more and more bio's have this foolishness added to them. Take it to GayOrStraight.com and leave us with our Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkeator (talk • contribs) 22:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There's clearly a debate over his sexuality (which won't go away) and this article covers that debate fairly well, citing the proponents of each case. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a real debate about Kitchener's sexuality, or is this a creation of modern gay historical revisionism?JohnC (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"Is this a creation of modern gay historical revisionism?" I think you should assume that edits are made in good faith, and avoid pushing any political agenda. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

of Khartoum

Both Leigh Rayment and hereditarytitles.com say that the "of Khartoum" was part of the title, and not just the geographic locator. I'm going to move him back, unless Proteus can provide support for the claim that this was not a part of the title. john k 05:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Earldom was created as "Earl Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome in the County of Kent". Either "of Khartoum and of Broome" is a territorial designation and the title is "Earl Kitchener" or it's not and the title is "Earl Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome" (which would be rather silly). Either way, "Earl Kitchener of Khartoum" is not an option, as it would leave "and of Broome in the County of Kent" as a territorial designation, and it's not valid as one, as territorial designations can't start with "and". (There was a thread on alt.talk.royalty about this a while ago. [I should point out that since then I've discovered that the website concerned had simply missed out the second "of Culross" and "of Magdala" from those titles, but that's not an issue with Kitchener since someone quoted the London Gazette for his creation.]) I suppose the fact that he's called "Kitchener of Khartoum" makes people think that was his title as well, but "Surname of Foreign Place" titles like that were more of a WWII thing, and weren't particularly common earlier on (so there's Viscount French (of Ypres and of High Lake), Baron Beatty (of the North Sea and of Brooksby), Viscount Nelson (of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe), Earl Nelson (of Trafalgar and of Merton), Earl Roberts (of Kandahar and Pretoria and of the City of Waterford), Viscount Allenby (of Megiddo and of Felixstowe) etc.), with "Surname of Foreign Place" only being used when "Surname" was unavailable (like "Byng of Vimy"). Proteus (Talk) 10:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...Burke's gives "Earl Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome", but I've never found them to be terribly reliable. The atr discussion is interesting, but not dispositive, I think. In such a disputed case, I think, it might be wise to follow wikipedia guidelines of "most common name". Even if "Earl Kitchener of Khartoum" is not technically the name of the peerage, it is the most commonly used name, and it seems to be in dispute as to whether or not it is technically correct. Until we get a look at the letter patent, or whatever, I say we should go with it. But I'm not sure... john k 18:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Googling seems to indicate that the most common way to refer to him is "Lord Kitchener", so what would you think of "Horatio Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener (born 24 June 1850; died 5 June 1916), commonly known as Kitchener of Khartoum, was a British Field Marshal..."? Proteus (Talk) 12:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, of course he's normally "Lord Kitchener." Curzon was normally "Lord Curzon," not "Lord Curzon of Kedleston". I remain uncertain. john k 15:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I had a flick through some old London Gazettes today, and in one a dispatch from Kitchener is printed which he signs "Kitchener", so it seems that he at least considered himself to be simply Lord Kitchener. Proteus (Talk) 17:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Connection with Big Brother

Many say Orwell's Big Brother, "a man of about forty-five, with a heavy black moustache and ruggedly handsome features", was based on the "Kitchener poster". I think that deserves a mention here...Lebob 05:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In his photographs, Lord Kitchener resembles King George V and Czar Nicholas II to an almost mysterious degree.

Herbert or Horatio?

I have the vague idea that "Herbert" was the name Kitchener actually went by. If so, the article should be at Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener. Does anybody know for sure, though? john k 02:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently he did, Mr. Kenney.

Moved. Proteus (Talk) 14:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

K.B.E.

How could His Lordship have been made a Knight of the British Empire if he had passed away a year prior to the creation of the order?

He wasn't as you correctly point out, but he was a member of the Order of Merit Valisk 2 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

an orphaned image

Can someone put Image:LordHKitchener.jpg to good use ? -- PFHLai 06:08, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

We do not know how many recruits the famous poster encouraged, but 3 milllion seems dubious, considering there were only about 1 million British volunteers in WW1. PatGallacher 15:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There were rather more volunteers than that - 2.5 million by the end of 1915. See Simkins (1988) Kitchener’s Army: The Raising of the New Armies 1914 –16 (Manchester: Manchester University Press) 137.73.126.168 13:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

480 rifles???

What does this mean?

"On 4 June 1916, he personally answered questions asked by politicians of his running of the war; they learned that immediately at the start of the war Kitchener had placed huge orders for munitions with American companies, who had delivered 480 of 2,000,000 rifles ordered. He received the resounding vote of thanks from the 200+ MPs who had arrived to question him"

That Kitchener ordered 2,000,000 rifles and two years later a mere 480 of them had been delivered? And for those 480 rifles he received a resounding vote of thanks? This sentence requires a tad more clarity. --MadRat Jack 13:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well made point. Have amended it Valisk 17:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Style issue discussion

There is a discussion going on here whether or not the first sentence of a biographical article should contain the full name of the individual and include any post nominal initials (eg. VC, KCB, OBE) or whether these should be relegated to later in the article. I have tried to point out that this is standard style and part of their full titles but there are “readability” concerns. This arose because of the Richard O’Connor featured article and one possible solution, a biobox, is now in place on that page. Please make your opinions known.Dabbler 12:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The whole "peerage title in the article title" thing kind of annoys me. When someone is born to the title -- when it's inherited, that is -- then, fine, include that name in the article title. But with someone like Kitchener, or Balfour, or Margaret Thatcher, the individual received a title because of what they did as a "civilian". Their wikipedia-worthiness preceded their acquisition of a title. Those individuals should be indexed by their pre-peerage name, the name under which they became famous. That's the only approach that seems logical to me. --Michael K. Smith 13:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Bias?

Is it just me, or does the whole article have a tinge of "couldnt put a foot wrong" throughout? From education reforms to not only the children of the elite, to declaring that he would pursue a friendly truce with Germany et al, just seems to me that whomever wrote the article was implying that Lord Kitchener was a grace from god or somesuch. The tone just doesnt seem "neutral" to me. 220.235.142.170 06:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

History has generally been kind to Kitchener. However, the article needs development in many areas. Many incidents need expanding; there's little mention of his shortcomings as a field commander, and surprisingly nothing on the was-he-or-wasn't-he-gay debate. Nunquam Dormio 07:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This last point has now been addressed. Nunquam Dormio 19:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Kitchener was known as K of Chaos in the Boer War with his centralisation of transport arrangements, ref Thomas Packenham, “The Boer War”. At the beginning of WWI, one of the politicians in the cabinet thought he was mad – when he said he was planning for a three year war (not home by Christmas or when the leaves fall!) ref Barbara Tuchmann, “August 1914”. Hugo999 13:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Didn't notice any mention of his role in the murders of Morant and Handcock. Shouldn't that be in the article ? actually it is there. see it now.PalX 19:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Murders" of Morant and Handcock! You are forgetting that those two were convicted of 12 murders. Kitchener had little if any involvement in their subsequent trial. And neither is there any evidence whatsoever that he authorised the murder of Boers (or German missionaries, for that matter). Furthermore, even if Kitchener had authorised mass murders, why was Morant's unit the only one that systematically carried out this "order". Perhaps the rest of the army knew that they shouldn't obey patently illegal orders. The whole Morant industry is a fabrication of Australian anti-British zenophobia and conspiracy theories.JohnC (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't putting people into concentration camps and creating conditions under which a large percentage will die, constitute mass murder or genocide. --41.19.97.76 (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no question this is biased. He slaughtered thousands of women, children and elderly in concentration camps during the second Boer war. But hey I guess "might makes right" huh? Since the british 'Won" the second Boer war they get to write history. Just like the Nazi's would have whitewashed the Holocaust if they would have won. I love to listen to the british spew self righteous crap about the Nazi's and then read the whitewashing they do of when they did exactly the same thing. Except when they do it "It didn't quite happen that way" blah, blah, blah.131.247.83.135 (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Lord Kitchener in Australia & New Zealand

It does not seem to get a mention in the Kitchener biography, but Lord Kitchener spent some time in Victoria, Australia near the town of Seymour, which is about 96 kms North of Melbourne. The site of which is now occupied by the racecourse at Seymour was used in 1910 for a Military Parade for Lord Kitchener. We have photos of Kitchener's tent camps in the area as well as one of an ordance train arriving at the rail station. There are also photos of bullock teams hauling Kitchener's ' Big Guns' through the township of Seymour from the rail head to his camp. There are also several photos featuring the Inscribed arch erected to " Welcome Kitchener to Seymour" There is some suggestion that during his visit he advised the then Government that the area around which is now occupied by Puckapunyal Army base in the area would be ideal for military training purposes. 203.62.141.129 10:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Kitchener had a married sister in New Zealand, who embarrassed him by some of the things she said about him when he came to New Zealand to give military advice: Mrs Francis (Millie?) Parker of a sheep station at Kurow, Otago. They had a son Lt James Herbert Parker killed in the Boer War, on 1 May 1900 at Houtnek/Thabanchu; he was in Kitcheners Horse Hugo999 13:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Note that someone keeps adding "mass murderer" to this page?

India: Kitchener v Curzon

I am currently reading a biography by David Gilmour on Curzon, and after having read through the part where Kitchener comes in, I believe that there is quite a gulf between Gilmour's views and the version in this article. I am not a specialist in this field, but I feel that Gilmour has a point (chapter 20: Kitchener's Conspiracy), and he went about to achieve his aims by manipulating a considerable number of people of influence. Apparently, the Army of India's state was not quite as bad as the reader of this article might believe. Any other views on this point?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.81.89.195 (talk)

I read about this in Ballard's Kitchener some years ago. From memory, the dispute centred around the role of the Military Member, whose role Kitchener felt was being enlarged and abused by Curzon to interfere with the running of the army. The Kitchener article as it stands is too vague. The dispute, which Kitchener won, is an article in itself. Nunquam Dormio 13:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Irish?

The article refrences him as being Irish many times, but was he really Irish? He was born in Ireland, but his parents were English, so was he really Irish?(Lucas(CA) 04:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

Well, it says in the article that he was born in Ireland but his parents were English. I think it would be more accurate to refer to him as "an Irish-born English Field Marshal" GusF 17:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would probably be easier to describe him soley as British since there was no independent Irish state in his lifetime. TashkentFox 18:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.122.177 (talk)

Mason

Note Im not one of those conspiracy theorist gooks, but from what Ive read of the article (I kind of read it a speed so I could be wrong) It dosent mention that Kitchener was a freemason. I guess its of questionable importance, but for such a long article its a bit strange if it dosent mention his beliefs or allieggances (i.e. freemasonary) I believe it could be given due weight, although it probably Isn't that important. Note the only source I have of this is when I was surfing the web and found Kitchener's biography on a masonic website claiming he was a freemason.86.150.145.177 (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Alexander Cockburn claims that Kitchener was the same person as Josef Stalin... AnonMoos (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin

Lord Kitchener

Lord Kitchener

Hmm, do you think he might be on to something? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The ear lobes are different. -- Ctatkinson (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)