Talk:Lord Randolph Churchill

---

Death

I've added the possiblity of Lord Churchill dying of a brain tumor. The Churchill Center website offers a plausible analysis that strongly suggests he died of a brain tumor, though, one could suggest they may have a bias in favor of an alternate diagnosis. This can be found here: http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=105

That's the Mather article, isn't it? Yes. I've read about this, too. I think the entry is somewhat coloured by the diagnosis of the specialist in charge of Lord Randolph; he did indeed diagnose syphilis. However, Lord Randolph's wife never contracted the disease - despite it being, apparently, highly contagious. Richard Holmes advances the theory that he died of some other cause, probably a left brain tumour, in "In the Footsteps of Churchill", p.32.

I have deleted the reference to Holmes's opinion that if LRC had had tertiary syphilis, he must surely have passed it to his wife and thence to their children. Latent syphilis is not contagious: see for example http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec14/ch194/ch194i.html Davidiank (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think the cited article "explodes" the idea that Lord Randolph had syphilis. The article states "The dramatic deterioration in his health and the various descriptions of his behavior in his last three years might support a diagnosis of dementia paralytica in late or tertiary syphilis, which affects the brain and appears ten to twenty years after the primary infection. This would likely have affected Jennie and their two sons, Winston and Jack. But if a diagnosis of advanced syphilis is to be accepted, there must have been an initial infection."

The transmission of syphilis is complex, and it is also quite likely that Lord Randolph contracted it after Winston's birth (that is Robert Massey's belief, IIRC). Additionally, it is highly unlikely that Jack Churchill was Lord Randolph's son. It seems to me that the key thing is that in order for LR to have had syphilis, he would have had to contract it, and that this is unthinkable. In fact, it is not. Both LR and Jennie were quite active outside their marriage, sexually speaking, and this is pretty well acknowledged by everyone not trying to whitewash Lord Randolph's reputation.

Re: << [Churchill's infection is touted as] unthinkable. In fact, it is not. Both LR and Jennie were quite active outside their marriage, sexually speaking, and this is pretty well acknowledged by everyone not trying to whitewash Lord Randolph's reputation. >>

Well, especially when you consider that the couple spent long periods of time apart, and that the bloom seems to have gone off the romantic side of their relationship rather early. Considering the sense of perogative that entitled men had at that time, it's kind of "unthinkable" to me that he did not have relations outside his marriage (perhaps with men as well as women, as mentioned in Ralph G. Martin's well-researched book.) Codenamemary (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In his book, Mercury Poisoning: The Undiagnosed Epidemic, David Hammond notes that symptoms exhibited by Churchill prior to his death are consistent with mercury poisoning. A common treatment for syphilis at the time was mercury chloride. Hammond mentions "slurred speech, balance problems, dizziness, palpitations, and intermittent numbness in [Churchill's] hands and feet" as well Churchill having become "quick-tempered and combative". He also explains that the possibility that tertiary syphilis can be explained by mercury poisoning was investigated (in 2010). However, I've not edited the article to include this information, mainly because there's presently no part of the article dedicated to Churchill's death and syphilis is mentioned only in the context of Churchill's marriage. Pololei (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a shame that one has to know enough about Winkipoedia to go to its talk pages to find a discussion about the likely cause of the death of one of the most reprehensible scions of the British Empire.

Henceforth I shall be pointing my links to the working part of a once useful tool. Rather in the manner of Randolph's penis.

Weatherlawyer (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Winston premature?

How could he have married her in June if his son was born in November of that year? I read somewhere else that he wedded Miss Jerome in April. Still, that suggests that Sir Winston was, sir-reverence, illegitimately conceived. Anglius

Pre-marital conception was not uncommon in those days, though I believe the official version is something like destiny could not wait! Timrollpickering 20:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, Mr. Pickering, for the vast majority of Victorians were moral, but I appreciate your reply. However, please do not make a vulgar jest. --Anglius 20:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that he married in April. Here's the ODNB, from its article on Randolph:

Randolph and Jennie [see Churchill, Jeanette] were married at the British embassy in Paris on 15 April 1874, and their first child, Winston Churchill (the future prime minister), was born prematurely at Blenheim Palace on 30 November 1874. Their younger child, John (Jack), was born in February 1880.

The article on Winston goes into somewhat more detail.

Jennie and Lord Randolph were married at the British embassy in Paris on 15 April 1874. Winston Churchill's date of birth has given rise to speculation that he was conceived before the wedding, but the only certainty is that he was born prematurely. Preparations were made for the birth to take place in London, but after slipping and falling during a visit to Blenheim Jennie went into labour, the local doctor was summoned, and the baby was delivered at 1.30 a.m. on 30 November.

7.5 months is at least plausible, especially if the birth was clearly premature, as it seems to be. john k 22:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

From recollection various Winston biographies are in disagreement on this. Jenkins (the only one on my shelf at the moment) goes for premature but doesn't delve into this (instead giving space to the question of Jack Churchill's paternity) whilst My Early Life ignores this completely. I think Pelling and/or Ponting goes to pre-marital conception and also argues that the Churchill family hid the real cause of Randolph's illness and death for decades. Timrollpickering 23:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I thank you for your information, Mr. Pickering and Mr. Kenney.Anglius 00:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The first child can come anytime. The second one always takes nine months.John Paul Parks (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Without comment

His widow, Lady Randolph Churchill, married George Cornwallis-West in 1900, yet retained her noble prerogative earned through her marriage to Lord Randolph.In addition,in his 1995 book "Bloody Red Baron" novelist Kim Newman described Randolph's son,later prime-minister Winston Churchill as a vampire, personally devoted to sucking a blood of previously whiskey-drunked rabbits.This surprisingly reminds of sir Winston's most famous personal habbits. 213.240.6.72 19:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Syphilis

The discussion about syphilis seems rather to favor the family view. Of course, the family would try to keep hidden that Randolph had the pox, but limiting the inquiry to the time immediately after Winston's birth fails to take into account what might have happened in the 20 years he had yet to live. In the article on Lady Randolph, it is suggested that her second son was by a different man, despite the fact she was married to Randolph at the time. I also recall a 1970's PBS special on the Churchill family, in which Randolph painfully tells his wife that he has the SEE-fi-lis. She then consults with his doctor, who is concerned that she might have it too. She reassures the doctor that there is nothing to worry about, because she and Randolph have not been together for years. If I can find the name and broadcast date of the PBS special, I will update this information.John Paul Parks (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Homeschooling

I took out the link to homeschooling, since Churchill was evidently not "homeschooled" but rather educated privately. There's a bit of a difference. When you're homeschooled your parents or their associates teach you (as you can see); when you're privately educated at Blenheim your father, the Duke, brings in the best private tutors available. Sort of a different tradition. 99.231.111.157 (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

What! No mention of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.183.214 (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Article rename

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) states that titles "are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known". Not being British myself and thus unfamiliar with the man, are we asserting that Churchill is best known as "Lord Randolph Churchill"? If not, then this article probably should be moved to "Randolph Henry Churchill" or "Randolph Churchill (1849–1895)". howcheng {chat} 17:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction in place of birth

The body of the article gives his birthplace as Blenheim but the column to the right gives it as Belgravia. This should be sorted out. 65.93.12.84 (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - The "Fourth Party"

I'm concerned about the neutrality of the comments regarding Charles Bradlaugh, many of which display some prejudice on the subject.

The concern over neutrality really comes from several different points in the section. First, the passing remark about Bradlaugh's views - "avowed atheist or agnostic" - is, of course, very poorly articulated, and lazily researched. Most importantly, perhaps, the article does not give an accurate portrayal of the Bradlaugh case: "Charles Bradlaugh, the member for Northampton, who, though an avowed atheist or agnostic, was prepared to take the parliamentary oath". This is a quite partisan and certainly unhistorical statement. The dispute was a legal one primarily (according to contemporaries), but also bound up in judgements about the morality of the atheist. Historically, the dispute began first in 1880, when Bradlaugh asked to affirm rather than take the oath because of his personal views, in view of which he deemed it inappropriate to swear an oath with religious binding (a concern obviously shared by many others later). Indeed, the conflict was sparked because of his unwillingness to take the oath, not, as the article suggests, because he was an open atheist who attempted to lie his way through a religious oath; this reflects a conflation of the later event, when having been denied the ability to affirm Bradlaugh attempted to swear the oath (having been given no alternative). Framing the narrative as it is, the situation is neither accurately nor neutrally described. This is further emphasised by the completely inappropriate description of Churchill as showing himself to be a "parliamentary champion", "who added to his audacity much tactical skill and shrewdness" by heading this cause. If these judgements were referenced to contemporaries then it would be understandable and correct, but unreferenced they have no place in an article.

With some rewording this could probably be avoided, but the section (and indeed article) is littered with value judgements and inappropriate remarks - beginning with the name of the article "Lord Randolph Churchill", which doesn't comply with Wikipedia's standards - so I'm unsure whether this will get to the bottom of it. However, for the time being at least, I would suggest that the overtly judgemental sections are removed, and in the longer term that the section is rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.169.154 (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)