Talk:Carlton Club

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Related taskforces:
/
	This article is supported by the Foodservice task force.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I am disappointed my edit was deleted without comment. 213.78.204.118 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOD Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time Lords at the Cartlon Club?

"However it was bombed by the Luftwaffe in 1941, and so the Club moved to its current premises in 1940" err, right.

Lords Temporal, dear boy ;)

Actually, this is the by-product of two mistakes. My mistake was in misremembering the bombing as 1941 (it was actually 14 October 1940). The second mistake is by the anonymous chappie who keeps inserting wildly aggrandised advertisments about how 'prestigious' the Carlton is, who also keeps reverting to claiming that the Carlton moved to its new building in 1940. Charles Petrie and Alistair Cooke's official history of the Carlton states that the club spent a while after the bombing accepting the hospitality of other clubs, who offered their facilities on a temporary basis, and that they didn't move in to the old Arthur's building until 1943. My copy of Petrie & Cooke is currently in storage, but I'll dig out the reference when I can. Debonairchap (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happened in 2008?

It say women were associated members till 2008. I presume they were admitted as full members then, but it does not say so. Some account of the thinking involved in the change would also improve the article. 2.28.140.201 (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carlton Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090411052532/http://www.spectator.co.uk:80/books/502081/part_2/a-slice-off-the-top.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/502081/part_2/a-slice-off-the-top.thtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aeneas and Anchises

There is a famous tale of Quintin Hogg (then a young Tory MP, later the "Lord Hailsham" we all remember from when we were growing up), carrying his elderly and disabled Dad (the then Lord Hailsham, previously Douglas Hogg, a Tory politician of the inter-war period) on his back out of a bombed building, like Aeneas carrying Anchises out of the sack of Troy. At least, I'm pretty sure it was the bombing of the Carlton. God knows where it appears - probably Chips Channon's Diaries or something similar. Might make make a useful addition if somebody can remember when and where.Paulturtle (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's in this Spectator review of Petrie and Cooke's The Carlton Club, 1832-2007. DuncanHill (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it's in Alistair Horne's biography of Harold Macmillan, ascribed to Harold Nicolson. He has the younger Hogg escorting the older, rather than carrying him. DuncanHill (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And Churchill tells it in Their Finest Hour, as well as the comment from Labour cabinet members on the lack of fatalities "The devil looks after his own". DuncanHill (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I do have a copy of Harold Nicolson's diaries, but alas boxed up somewhere.Paulturtle (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chips Channon was not an eyewitness (he was entertaining Rab and Sydney Butler to dinner) but recorded Harold Balfour turning up at his house covered in soot from the bombing. Will add shortly.Paulturtle (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Duke of Wellington quote

As mentioned in the opening paragraph the Duke of Wellington was the founder of the club. He remained a member for life. It is very confusing to then have him listed under Conservatives that didn't appreciate the club with the presumably joking quote “Never write a letter to your mistress, and never join the Carlton Club”, with no further explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.245.90 (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of the quote at all. It should be put in the article, along with any references. Even if apocryphal, it is well known, and part of the history of the club. 2A00:23EE:2200:3E1E:B4AF:9AAE:C8FB:DC5C (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Former changed to Then

Iain Duncan Smith wasn't the "Former" leader of the Conservative Party when he declined membership. He was the then leader. That was the reason why his decision was noteworthy.

I really wish people would stop using today's definition of people when referring to them at a time in the past when today's definition didn't apply. Calling some former when either they were at the time the current office-holder, or a future one later on at best causes confusion. At worst it is misleading. Please be precise and accurate and leave no room for ambiguity. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]