Talk:Kirton, Lincolnshire

Rev Charles Wildbore

I think the previous wording on the Kirton school management needed to be tightened up, as it was ambiguous. Rather than confuse matters by going into a lot of irrelevant detail on the page, I tried to keep the edits brief and accurate, but largely consistent in scope with the prior content. In relation to this, I note the following further points:

• although it does appear that Charles Wildbore (snr) diverted funds, as he was long dead before there was any enquiry it is not strictly accurate to say he was "discovered" doing this. The enquiries in the nineteenth century focused on Charles (jnr) and his (2nd) son, John, wo was master from 1832;
• the nature of the school's endowment possibly did not mean the Wildbores could not use (some) funds in the ways they did, so "expropriation" (??) or even "misappropriation" seems a bit strong without cited evidence. The 1837 enquiry could not find all relevant documents, so it is unknown what rights the founder's heirs (i.e., the Wildbores) might have had;
• I struggled to get the right sense over the word I eventually chose, "alleged". On one hand, it seems fairly clear that funds were misused, but short of any formal court proceedings establishing criminal behaviour, or a "scandal" (strong word) I think this is the most accurate and neutral term. (I have tried not to let my interest noted below influence me here.)
• the troubles were more than just the funds, but the educational standards were lax and that was as much an issue in the reforms;
• the process to enquire and eventually put right appears to have taken from 1837-1851;
• the Parliamentary paper I cited is hyper-critical (possibly explicable in light of the situation), and some of the obiter comments made from that report are demonstrably over the line.

I'll declare my personal interest, as Rev Charles Wildbore was my 5xgreat grandfather, and much of this material I have found in doing my family history. If they hadn't been such rogues, researching this part of the family would have been much more difficult.
Roger62 (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The complete Cox text is thus:

"Thomas Middleworth was empowered by Act of Parliament to found here, in 1624, a Free Grammar School. In 1773 the Rev. Charles Wildbar obtained the mastership, and was succeeded by his son of like name in 1802. They employed assistants to teach the school, and applied most of the income to their personal use. This scandal continued until 1851, when a Chancery scheme restored it to its original functions ; Latin had been dropped in 1790. Under a scheme of the Endowed School Act of 1879, amended in 1898, the school now ranks as a second-grade Grammar School".

Now, we see that this eminent man could well have got things a tad askew, after all he appears to have two names wrong, and he could probably have been relying on the quality of his own researchers. Given what Cox wrote, "alleged" would not be strong enough; what I added is entirely based on his point of view, which was cited. Your reference might paint a different picture of course, in which case Cox's view could be countered in the text, but both views should be expressed. If the word "alleged" is your personal view and is countered by a view of embezzlement in your reference that you say is hyper-critical and over the line, then expressing that would be editorialising and a personal point of view, however right you may be, or want to be given the family connection. The lack of documents available to the enquiry cannot be used to imply that what you believe is the truth can be interpreted as different from the enquiry's findings.

We all read things on WP that we know from personal experience are not accurate, or give a slanted perspective. Unfortunately WP is not about reporting truth or facts, but only that which can be referenced and cited i.e., that which is verifiable, per WP:VERIFY. Best wishes and thanks for the further information,

Acabashi (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a source for Charles Wildbore's birthdate (1737)? I have encountered some confusion over this, and any additional sources are of interest. His age at marriage in 1766 was given as 25 (implying born c1741); his obituary in the Gentleman's magazine (1802) is silent ; Blackner's The History of Nottingham (1815) says he was born in 1736; Chalmers' General biographical dictionary (1820) and Watkins' Universal biographical dictionary (1821) are silent (although the photocopy I have from Chalmers shows a manual annotation "1737?-1802"); Watt's Bibliotheca britannica (1824) says he was 65 when he died (implying born c1737). A couple of candidates in terms of christening records are 1737 and 1740 - although in each case the christening may not necessarily have occurred immediately after birth although I recognise that would be usual.
Roger62 (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It’s a hard one to pinpoint. In the marriage certificate what was the age of the bride? That might explain the drop in age of the groom, bear that in mind.--BSTemple (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)