Talk:David Lloyd George

March 1916 Conference Caption

The photo in question

I think we might need some work on the caption for the March 1916 Paris Conference photo.

I reckon:

The British delegation are the ones on the left, facing away from us. Kitchener is the British general sitting with his back to us (in so far as one can tell from a photo of a siting man, he looks tall and strongly-built, which fits the bill). Lloyd George is two to his left, turning to look at us. Is Grey the dark-haired one to Lloyd George's left, leaning forward to obscure his face? Is that Asquith two further to the left, leaning back to look at the camera? Is that Esher or Francis Bertie in between Grey and Asquith?

The French are the ones on the opposite left, facing towards us. I can make out Aristide Briand in the middle of that row. Joffre is on the opposite corner looking at us (to the right of Briand - his left). Is that Foch (CinC French Army Group North at the time, tasked with liaising with the British for the upcoming Somme offensive) in the dark uniform, standing by the fireplace behind Briand?

The Serbs are on the opposite right, looking towards us. Pasic, with the long grey two-forked beard, is in the middle of that row. The man with the handlebar moustache sitting next to him looks superficially like Kitchener but I think isn't.

I reckon that is a Japanese delegate on the right of the photo, behind the Serbs (as every schoolboy knows, they were on the Allied side in WW1).

I guess the Russians and Italians are on the near right side, but I wouldn't like to hazard a guess which moustachioed sixtysomething is Salandra and which is Izvolski.

Liz Greenhalgh mentions the conference briefly in her "Victory through Coalition" (a history of Allied relations). She says that it didn't achieve much, as Briand for reasons unknown vetoed moves to set up an inter-Allied secretariat. Her biog of Foch does not mention him attending, which of course does not prove that he didn't.Paulturtle (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

By pure coincidence, I am reading Duff Cooper's memoirs "Old Men Forget" at the moment, and he mentions seeing Asquith, Grey, Lloyd George and Kitchener depart from Walmer Castle for a conference in France in March 1916 (he mentions Grey wearing dark glasses in public, but seems unaware that this would have been because Grey was already going blind by then). His diaries, not published until 2005, confirm the date as 26 March 1916. So that might very well be Asquith in the photo.Paulturtle (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the conference is discussed in David Dutton "The Politics of Diplomacy". Kitchener hectored Joffre about withdrawing British divisions from the Salonika Front and Joffre was rude about Robertson in reply. Salonika was never quite the sideshow assumed by many British accounts - it mattered a lot to France, Russia and Italy, and the British Cabinet, caught between the need to appease the French and the fact that Haig and Robertson had been given a free hand to manage the Western Front as they pleased, spent more time bickering about Salonika in 1916 than they did about the Somme. I don't see any evidence that Lloyd George played any particularly notable role at the conference.Paulturtle (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Date of peerage creation

I don't have access to the book being cited, so I don't know if the reference is for the timing or the fact that he Lloyd George never took his seat; but the following statement is contradicted by other sources and other parts of the article-

"On New Year's Day 1945, Lloyd George was raised to the peerage as Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, and Viscount Gwynedd, of Dwyfor in the County of Caernarvonshire; however, he did not live long enough to take his seat in the House of Lords." (Wrigley & Chris (1992), p. 146.)

Elsewhere in the article he is stated as receiving his peerage 12 February 1945, over a month later. Taking a reference from Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, the London Gazette dated 13 February 1945 states the letters patent creating the peerage were dated the 12th Feb. At a glance, I think the issue is 'Offer and acceptance of a peerage ≠ Being made a peer' (e.g. Zac Goldsmith just waited a month for his creation). I (perhaps wrongly) assume in January he accepted an offer to be made a peer, but it wasn't finalised until February. Although somewhat trivial, I think this is a contradiction that ought be resolved. Editing with Eric (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

He was offered a peerage by Churchill on 18 Dec 1944, and telegraphed straight back "gratefully accept". It had been arranged by A J Sylvester, who lobbied Archibald Sinclair. It was announced in the New Year Honours List for 1 Jan 1945. Lloyd George hoped to be able to attend the peace conference at war's end, but this was not to be. (He was of course almost certain to lose his seat, which he had held since 1890, at the imminent General Election).Paulturtle (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I looked it up and you are correct, he was named in the 1945 New Year Honours (the article would benefit from being edited to include this). The confusion seems to be that the announcement on 1 January 1945 was a declaration of intent by the monarch to confer a peerage, and the letters patent creating the peerage weren't 'done' until 12 February 1945 (which is the date most sources use). Effectively, it was nearly 2 months between acceptance on 18 December 1944 and creation on 12 February 1945. I will edit the sentence in question to make the sequence of events clearer. Editing with Eric (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Lloyd George, the Kitchener Mission to Russia and the Easter Rising

Something I wonder was true and could be mentioned in the section on his time as Minister of Munitions if there are sources to support it.

I well recall reading a book by David Benedictus (that alas I no longer possess) The Life and Times of David Lloyd George on which the 1980s BBC2 TV series of the same title was been based (it used on its front cover a pic of Lloyd George as played by Philip Madoc, its central actor). Lloyd George was initially deputed by Asquith to accompany Lord Kitchener (the former in his then capacity as Munitions Minister and the latter as our War Secretary) to sail on the mission to Russia that led to Kitchener being lost on HMS Hampshire. However in the run up to the voyage the Easter Rising erupted, leading to Lloyd George being assigned to join negotiations with the Irish MPs. (Irish support for the war effort was considered to be at stake at that point and Lloyd George was, I understand, respected as a Celt able to deal with Irish concerns.) As the negotiations overran Lloyd George was unable to join the mission when it set sail. In the light of later events in 1916 that was significant as Lloyd George might well have shared the fate of Kitchener and all of Hampshire's passengers, and not lived to become PM.

I got into correspondence with local newspaper, the Shropshire Star who, during the time the TV series was on air, published an article about a rumoured hoard of gold on the Hampshire, which inaccurately stated that Lloyd George was PM at the time and sent Kitchener on the mission to get rid of a man who had been troublesome to deal with over munitions issues. I mentioned the story according to Benedictus and reminded that Asquith was then the PM making Lloyd George and Kitchener cabinet colleagues, not respectively PM and subordinate minister. The newspaper published my letter with a heading of their own making, MISSING THE BOAT SAVED LLOYD GEORGE. (True Lloyd George's relationship with Kitchener had not been untroubled but Benedictus' story, reflected in the TV series, was that by that point he had become reconciled to Kitchener to some extent as Lloyd George allegedly fancied the idea of being able to acquire a fur hat.)

So, is the narrative according to David Benedictus supported in the work of serious historians?

A google of the author and book title turns up video clips of the TV series that credit David Benedictus as the writer, although he is not mentioned in the wiki article on the TV series.

I have BTW, in Ireland sub-subsection of the subsection Postwar Prime Minister of the article's section on his Premiership, made a clarification in the opening reference to the Easter Rising - which is not mentioned earlier in the article - to point out this happened under Asquith's and not Lloyd George's premiership.Cloptonson (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I have the David Benedictus book, it is based on the TV series (which I have on DVD), rather than the other way around. Madoc played the part of his life. It's an entertaining read, and as a general introduction to LlG there are many worse, but it's not quite what I would call a reliable source for our purposes. That said - yes, LlG was to go to Russia, as was Maurice Hankey at LlG's request. I'm not quite clear at this point if K and LlG were to go together, or if K replaced LlG (needs checking) but yes, Asquith felt his talents were especially needed to try to deal with the Irish situation. There had also been a suggestion that he should go to Italy at the same time. It's worth noting that LlG tried to get Asquith to reign in the post-Rising retaliations by John Maxwell, recognising the damage they did to his efforts for a peaceful settlement. LlG wrote about K on the 17th of June "I used to get on well with Kitchener, great driving force but no mental powers - that is my reading of him. Hard eyes - relentless - without a glimmer of human kindness". I think their relationship had improved after K was deprived of a lot of his powers! Thanks for the clarification in the article. DuncanHill (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

My recollection is that Kitchener's eyesight had actually been seriously damaged by the harsh desert sun of Egypt and the Sudan. His fierce glare, which he no doubt exploited as part of his mystique, was actually the result of being partially sighted. I've no idea whether DLG realised that.Paulturtle (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing anything to suggest that LlG did know that. K's eyesight is mentioned on the Western Front association's page about ‘Kitchener of Khartoum’ and HMS Hampshire. DuncanHill (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I had wondered in hindsight if David Benedictus' book had a bibliography or a brief writer's note indicating what sources he looked up before he wrote. I have just checked out the chronology from other articles, which suggest plans for the mission firmed up after the Easter Rising (24-29 April 1916) as it was in May Reginald McKenna suggested Kitchener head up the mission (absolving both Lloyd George and Asquith of any accusation of instigating Kitchener's involvement) and, following her participation in the Battle of Jutland on 31st May HMS Hampshire was ordered into the mission to transport Kitchener's party.Cloptonson (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cloptonson: Benedictus says in his 'Acknowledgements' "Obviously my greatest debt is to the admirable Elaine Morgan, whose scripts form the basis of this book. She and I drew heavily upon Peter Rowland's weighty biography Lloyd George (Barrie & Jenkins, 1976)". He goes on to mention John Grigg's The Young Lloyd George (Eyre Methuen, 1973), Lloyd George:Family Letters, 1885-1936, ed. Kenneth O. Morgan (University of Wales Press & Oxford University Press, 1973), My Darling Pussy, edited by A. J. P. Taylor (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1975), and Frances Stevenson's Lloyd George: a Diary, ed. A. J. P. Taylor (Hutchinson, 1971). He finishes "But the volumes of Georgiana are so numerous (and so contradictory) that it would be tiresome to list them at greater length". I have all the works he mentions, as well as many those he didn't. DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

For what it’s worth I’ve just yesterday finished re-reading Vol3 of John Grigg (for the first time since Dec 1997, how the years fly by …)!

P334-5 Asquith went on a trip to Paris and Rome for talks in late March 1916, and insisted Lloyd George come along for part of them, partly to liaise with his French counterpart Albert Thomas but also no doubt partly to keep an eye on him as he was as usual up to various intrigues at the time, this time against Asquith who was losing credibility because of the ongoing crisis over conscription. DLG claimed he had only been asked to come to Rome, but in the end he went to Paris (at Asquith’s insistence, wrote Hankey). The Paris Conference would have been the one in the photo discussed above on this page. DLG was then ill (from stress and frustration, Grigg says) in early April, and put up little fight at the 7 Apr War Committee meeting which signed off on the Somme Offensive.

P347-8 discusses Maxwell’s executions. The politicians in London weren’t on the ball as they were preoccupied with the crisis over the conscription of married men, which came within an ace of bringing down the government (Asquith at one point had his special clothes laid out to call on the King with his resignation). Grigg makes no mention of Lloyd George urging an end to the executions, which does not of course prove that he didn’t. (No mention in Travis Crosby, the other detailed biog I have to hand, either)

P349 It was actually Lloyd George’s wish to go to Russia on a fact-finding mission about munitions and he had been mulling the idea for several weeks. It was decided separately that Kitchener should go as well (remember Kitchener had been sent on a fact-finding mission of the Near East in autumn 1915 when everybody, including Asquith, was completely fed up with him).

As an aside, it’s worth remembering that – although shrewd observers thought the Tsar might be ousted - nobody thought Russia would collapse. DLG’s claims in his memoirs that Russia was “tottering” are mostly hindsight. In 1914 we remember Tannenberg but we forget the bloody nose which the Russians gave AH in Galicia, or that Lodz that autumn was briefly expected to be the war-winning Allied victory (Hindenburg got his FM baton for presiding over Ludendorff and Hofmann winning that one). In 1915 we remember Gorlice-Tarnow and the loss of Poland and Lithuania but we forget that the front then solidified, with the Russian Army now bigger and in better shape than before. In 1916 Russia was expected to deliver the knockout blow after the Germans had been softened up by Allied offensives on the Somme and the Isonzo – that became the Brusilov Offensive which contributed to the crisis on the Eastern Front that summer and early autumn. Even in the first half of 1917 Russia was widely expected to be reanimated by the advent of democracy, as France had been in 1793. So whereas sending Kitchener to Russia may have been to get him out of the way, Lloyd George may well – at the time – have wanted to go to be in on important developments.

Lloyd George was then pulled off the mission and, to unanimous acclaim, sent to negotiate an Irish settlement (he declined appointment as Chief Secretary to fill the vacancy left by Birrell’s removal). It was more to do with his skills as a negotiator than his being a Celt. To be fair, he came very close to fudging a deal – by promising slightly different things to Redmond (immediate Home Rule for the 26 counties, with a proper conference after the war) and Carson (no united Ireland until the Unionists were ready to agree to it, which Carson thought meant “never”) but the deal was then scuppered by Lansdowne and other Tories in the Lords who thought the agreement an appeasement of Irish nationalism and insisted that the de facto partition be permanent and that the Irish MPs would be removed from Westminster. Grigg argues that in an ideal world DLG should have threatened to resign unless his deal went through, but he understandably felt the war was more important and so the last chance of a peaceful settlement in Ireland was lost. Travis Crosby is quite rude about Lloyd George, criticising his duplicity, but FWIW I’m more with Grigg: any agreement in Ireland has to be all things to all people, like the 1998 Good Friday Agreement which nationalists regard as a roadmap to Irish unity and unionists regard as a guarantee of their status in the UK.

I was just about to mention the acknowledgements section in Benedictus (of which, ironically, I just bought a copy in September, having watched the series at the time and several times on Youtube in recent years) but Duncan Hill just beat me to it. AJP Taylor was editor of Frances Stevenson's diaries and Lloyd George's letters to her, whose title has now brought amusement to several generations of schoolboys, and was also consultant to the TV series. I suspect Benedictus decided to use the books he mentions and leave it at that!Paulturtle (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Infobox Title

Lloyd-George was properly styled as "The Right Honourable The Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor" not as, "The Right Honourable David Lloyd-George." Standard practice on all individuals with noble titles is to use the title and honorific in the infobox and then to use name and title number in the opening paragraph. The only instance in which this rule is excepted is on infoboxes for military persons, which are blue, in which case we still use title but skip the honourific. Therefore there are no grounds for exception here. The reasons for the issue of and the usage of the title have no relevance to the inclusion of the title in the infobox. This article's exclusion of this standard is out of order and incorrect. RexAntica (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

This was previously discussed at Talk:David_Lloyd_George/Archive_3#Info_Box_name (please note that page is an archive and should not be edited). The use of his name rather than his title is long-standing. I do not see any need to change now. He held the title for only a few months at the end of his life, and never took his seat in the Lords. To change would add nothing to the article, and runs the risk of confusing readers. We have a note in the infobox mentioning his title, which seems sufficient to me. For very nearly all of his life - and for ALL of his active years - he was "properly styled" as David Lloyd George. DuncanHill (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand that he did not hold the title for very long, however by standard that is irrelevant. Also, you must understand that it is not our place to decide what could confuse readers or to decide what we subjectively think adds to the article. It is only our job to report what is factually correct. Standard is to us the title, and in this case it is factually incorrect to call him The Rt. Hon. David Lloyd-George, because that was not what he was called when he died. The only proper and correct name is "The Right Honourable The Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor", not anything else. The note in the infobox does not matter since the name atop the infobox is the problem. It does not matter what he was called for most of his life, it is simply factually incorrect, wrong, and out of order to exclude the title as the name in the infobox. It breaks wikipedia standard to exclude it, it breaks British standard to exclude it, and it follows no standard to exclude it. Therefore there is no legitimate reason to exclude it.RexAntica (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It is very much our place to decide what adds to the article, and to address anything that might confuse readers, that is what this page is for. It is not "factually incorrect" or "wrong" to call him David Lloyd George. It does not contravene any "British standard". We are not Debrett's. An infobox is just a way condensing some of the most salient facts about a person into a small space. His peerage is, in the grand scheme of things, really rather insignificant. Anyway, I'm sure other editors will be along to contribute their views. DuncanHill (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

"It does not contravene any British standard." Yeah and one plus one is three. In any event ALL titled prime Ministers have their titles in the infobox, so it's wrong to assume they'd be confused by this one article. If anything it's more confusing to exclude his title from this singular article's infobox, it deceives readers into thinking that he was untitled. It is not our place to decide the significance of his peerage, we are not political historians. But even then that doesn't matter, because it's simply our job to include the simple facts in the infobox. Standard is to include the title in the infobox, no matter how significant it was. If you're so worried about the title confusing people (you make it seem like readers can't understand that a person can have a title) then add an addendum in a paragraph that he was usually known by his name. Frederic Leighton's title has always been in his infobox (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Leighton) even though he was only a peer for one day until his death. Also, it is factually incorrect to call him "The Rt. Hon. David Lloyd-George" same as it would be factually incorrect to say that Caitlyn Jenner's actual name is Bruce Jenner. The fact is that it is wrong, by standard and rule, to exclude the title. It confuses and deceives readers when you exclude the title. And their is no legitimate reason with any grounding in how we do things here to justify excluding the title.RexAntica (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

What British Standard do you think we are contravening? What rule? The comparison with Caitlyn Jenner is irrelevant at best - I am bending over backwards to assume it was made in good faith, and I hope you do not repeat it or anything like it. Suffice it to say that Lloyd George did not change his name when he received the title. We constantly make judgements about what to include or exclude and what to emphasise. DuncanHill (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It's called style. It means how a person is legally styled according to the little old thing called the law. Granted it is not illegal to call them something else, but they would legally be called their title. It's legally incorrect to call Caitlyn Jenner Bruce Jenner, and it's legally incorrect to call him The Rt. Hon. David Lloyd George, since he legally would be called The Rt. Hon. The Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor. It's the exact same concept. Either way it is wrong not to use his title, and you haven't given a reason with precedent to superseded this standard. We must be consistent between articles, and all articles use the title regardless of its significance. Therefore all we do by excluding it is confuse people and show ourselves as inconsistent. RexAntica (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no law to say we should call him by his title, there is no legal requirement to call anyone anything, nor is there any legal requirement for anyone to use any particular formulation of their own name. Again, stop with the comparison with Caitlyn Jenner. Someone adopting a new name and discarding their deadname as part of their transition is not in any way comparable with someone being ennobled. Either point us to a policy or stop bullshitting. DuncanHill (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Want a standard? Here you go, from (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Knighthoods,_lordships,_and_similar_honorific_titles), "The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article, but are optional after that. The infobox heading includes pre-nominals, name and post-nominals as separate elements. The title is placed in bold in the first use of the name." Due to this standard this is no longer a matter of actual debate, as standard from wikipedia is that we use the infobox. If you'd like to contest the manual of style then I suggest you go do that there, but the standard for wikipedia is to use the title in the infobox. This should no longer be a matter of debate. I have presented you with the policy, so why don't you stop bullshitting? RexAntica (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This matter has been discussed before Talk:David_Lloyd_George/Archive_3#Info_Box_name, and I continue to think that the arguments against using the title and honorific in the infobox are weak. However, I was persuaded in that earlier discussion that little useful purpose is served by discussing this whilst the article languishes at c-class. I'm inclined to support the status quo, and suggest this matter is left to those editors who are seriously interested, and have made significant progress, in raising the status of the article. Poltair (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the infobox name should match the article title, being the subject's common name. His earldom is a footnote to his life. I would apply this to all other articles where a peerage was conferred later in life Ivar the Boneful (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Our propensity to re-litigate debates is a bit depressing but, as we are, I agree with others that the infobox title should reflect the subject’s commonly-used name. In this case, that is indisputably Lloyd George. I cannot recall reading a single historical study, or a contemporary one for that matter, in which LG is generally referenced as Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor. To suggest that calling him by his common name “confuses and deceives” is verging on the hysterical. His title is referenced in the Infobox, in the first paragraph of the lead, and in the appropriate place in the chronology of his life. It is also worth noting that all of the major contributors to the article hold this view. Therefore, stick with the previously-agreed status quo, and focus on more substantial issues in order to improve the status of the article. KJP1 (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Nationality: Regards himself as Welsh

- Being prime minister of the UK does not neccessarily mean he regarded himself as British

- born to two Welsh parents

- fluent in Welsh and Welsh was his first language

- One of the main leaders of Cymru Fydd promoting Welsh home rule and a "stronger Welsh identity"

- Seen as a radical figure and reawakening of Welsh nationalism and identity

- Even UK government website refers to him as the only Welshman to be Prime minister

- Often referred to as the Welsh wizard due to his auratory and diplomatic skills

- Referred to as a "Welshman first" and a Welsh nationalist who saw the opportunities for Wales in the Uk according to a lecturer at the University of South Wales.

All in all it seems to be quite clear that there's plenty of evidence to support the following edits to Lloyd George's page;

Nationality: Welsh, Citizenship: British TG11TG15 (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Additional evidence Plenty of additional evidence to support him being a "proud Welshman".

- Referred to as a "proud Welshman".

- Lord Steel in 2006 on Lloyd George: "so identified with Wales that he was not part of the metropolitan establishemnt"

- "Lifelong Welsh nationalist"

TG11TG15 (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

While it would be ludicrous to deny that he was Welsh, I do not think the distinction between "nationality" and "citizenship" is valid, nobody has a passport giving their nationality as Welsh. Now, according to MOS:CONTEXTBIO "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable", and there is a footnote "There is no preference between describing a person as British rather than as English, Scottish, or Welsh. Decisions on which label to use should be determined through discussions and consensus. The label must not be changed arbitrarily. To come to a consensus, editors should consider how reliable sources refer to the subject, particularly UK reliable sources, and consider whether the subject has a preference on which nationality they identify by". We need to pay particular attention to "The label must not be changed arbitrarily".

It might be helpful if someone could go through the article history to see which (Welsh or British) has been more stable in the lead.

I'm going to comment on your selective quotation of Russell Deacon. A fuller quotation is "Throughout his life he remained a Welshman first but also British and an internationalist. He and Welsh Liberalism represented a type of political identity that was reinforced as being Welsh and British". This would seem to me to be capable of supporting our use of both Welsh and British. Deacon did not emphasize "Welshman first" as you did. If this were a British encyclopaedia I would not hesitate to use Welsh in the lead, but we labour under the drawback of being a global effort, and need to address our articles to a global audience. Globally, my feeling is that LlG is rather more notable as British than Welsh.

We might also consider what John Grigg wrote "Certainly he concentrated, as a young MP, on the Welsh and Nonconformist issues which served to establish him as a growing force within the Liberal Party and therefore in national politics. But his interest was never remotely confined to such issues. His vision was always spacious and his ambition unlimited. From the first he believed in the power of Britain, particularly the country's maritime and Imperial power, and from the first he intended one day to exercise it himself.... significant in the context of this lecture is his first newspaper article, written two years earlier for the North Wales Express under the pen-name "Brutus". We should note that the subject of this teenage effort was not disestablishment or tithe or any other local issue, but the foreign policy of Lord Salisbury...". Further on Grigg writes "To him it seemed obvious that the British archipelago formed a natural unit, politically and culturally, though he desired the maximum of home rule for all its parts...". Anyway, there is, I know, much to be read and said on this issue. It would make an interesting book. DuncanHill (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

As above; no-one is arguing that LG wasn’t Welsh, nor that his being Welsh wasn’t a matter of great importance, both to him and to his life and career. The second paragraph of the lead begins with a description of this very point. So, the discussion seems limited to whether he should be described as a Welsh or a British statesman in the first para. of the lead. Here, I think LG’s own wording for his epitaph nicely expresses the point: “Bred in the village. Prime Minister of Britain in the Great War.” He is clearly emphasising his Welsh heritage, and its importance, but is also marking the apogee of his career - as the British PM. For me, to describe him as a Welsh statesman is unnecessarily limiting, in that it doesn’t fully reflect the range of his achievements or, for our narrower Wikipedia purposes, his notability. KJP1 (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional historical insight. I think it's clear that Lloyd George's own opinion of himself as "Welsh first" and British and Internationalist second is enough to justify referring to him as Welsh which is why I highlighted this. By the same logic, should he then be called Internationalist instead? At the time there was no Senedd (Welsh parliment) so no way to work politically in Wales other than as a councillor. We must remember he was a supporter of Welsh home ruleand so recognised a distinction between Welsh and British. According to the justification on Wikipedia being global, this is a suggestion that Wales and Welsh people do not matter on the global stage unless they're British too, which could be insulting to Welsh people and I don't think this view is appropriate. With regards to the epitah of his gravestone, Lloyd George may not have written it and there's no reference to him being British, only being prime minister of Britain on the epitah. These are seperate. Based on the evidence, Lloyd George considers himself a Welshman above all else and so I would suggest an opening sentence such as "David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, OM PC (17 January 1863 – 26 March 1945) was a statesman, Liberal Party politician and the only Welshman to serve as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1916 to 1922." This recognises the nationality he prefered and also acknowledges the role which he was most famous for. Thank you very much for your time. TG11TG15 (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

"this is a suggestion that Wales and Welsh people do not matter on the global stage unless they're British too" I haven't seen anyone make that suggestion. The epitaph KJP1 quoted was composed by LlG, as you can see in Grave of David Lloyd George. It's cited to a work by another powerful Welshman of the era. I don't think a support of Welsh (and Scottish, and Irish) Home Rule suggests a distinction between Welsh and British, simply a belief about how best the British Archipelago can govern itself. DuncanHill (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would say that the epitah doesn't discuss nationality, just that DLG was prime minister of Britain. I must continue to press that he referred to himself as a "Welshman first" and Britain and Internationlist second and is obviously well known as being prime minister so I think these two proposals may be the best options.

Opening Sentence proposal;

Proposal 1: "David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, OM PC (17 January 1863 – 26 March 1945) was a statesman, Liberal Party politician and the only Welshman to serve as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1916-1922)." (This includes a reference to being prime minister of Britain)

Proposal 2 "David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, OM PC (17 January 1863 – 26 March 1945) was a Welsh and British statesman, Liberal politician and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1916 to 1922."

Could we have a vote or proposal of another alternative opening line, followed by a vote? Thanks all, TG11TG15 (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

"he referred to himself as a "Welshman first" and Britain and Internationlist second" is not, as far as I know, true. That is a paraphrase of Deacon who, as we have seen, goes on to say "a type of political identity that was reinforced as being Welsh and British". Indeed, Deacon is making the case for such an identity, rather than for "Welsh not British". Your first proposal seems to lack the word "British" between "a" and "statesman". We're not going to resolve this in a few hours, I suggest waiting till some more editors have contributed. DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure the first proposal works. Grammar’s not my strong suit, but doesn’t it suggest that there have been other Welsh PMs, just not in 1916-1922? “….the only Welshman to serve as PM of the UK, an office he held from 1916-1922”, with the addition of “British” before “statesman” suggested above, might work? But I agree it’s better to wait for a wider range of views before deciding on a proposal/vote. KJP1 (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, amended first proposal. TG11TG15 (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Still lacks "British" between "A" and "statesman". Also, please could you indent your replies? See WP:THREAD. DuncanHill (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Further opening sentence proposals;

Proposal A "David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, OM PC (17 January 1863 – 26 March 1945) was a Welsh and British statesman, Liberal politician and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1916-1922)."

Proposal B "David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, OM PC (17 January 1863 – 26 March 1945) was a radical Liberal politician and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1916-1922). His nickname, "the Welsh wizard" refers to his Welsh nationality and abilities as a statesman."

Proposal C "David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, OM PC (17 January 1863 – 26 March 1945) was a Welsh statesman, Liberal politician and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1916 to 1922)."

Proposal D "David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, OM PC (17 January 1863 – 26 March 1945) was a radical Liberal politician and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1916-1922). His nickname, "the Welsh wizard" refers to his Welsh nationality and abilities as a statesman."

Proposal E "David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, OM PC (17 January 1863 – 26 March 1945) was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1916-1922). He was a Liberal politician, and his nickname, "the Welsh wizard" refers to his Welsh nationality and abilities as a statesman."

(All proposals include a reference to him being prime minister of UK and being Welsh.) Can we form a consensus on which is preferred or alternatives please? Thanks TG11TG15 (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

A further insight into Lloyd George's particularly Welsh outlook is evident in Michael Cockerell's television documentary A Very Social Democrat: A Portrait of Roy Jenkins. I have highlighted the part which relates to Lloyd George in a quote by Roy Jenkins, Welsh politician:

I have a strong feeling for Monmouthshire and a certain feeling for Wales as a whole but as I don't believe in assuming mantles which aren't there, to say that I was Welsh in the sense that Lloyd George was Welsh, that his whole culture, his whole outlook, his language was Welsh would be an exaggeration and I don't like exaggerations but coming back here is always an interesting and evocative experience for me.

Based on this expansive evidence it is important to acknowledge that the Welsh outlook of Lloyd George was evident persistent throughout his political career and should be recongised in the opening sentence. Thanks. TG11TG15 (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is there an insistence that Lloyd George must be considered British rather than Welsh? Would being Welsh be considered an insult? He is Welsh, there is no denying that fact. Every Welsh person could also be considered British, yet I don't see anyone insisting that Tom Jones or Saunders Lewis' page refer to either one of those men as British. Being called British might suggest to a more uninformed reader that he is English, as this is what many people assume, especially people who are not from the UK. There is little justification in calling David Lloyd George British over Welsh. It seems to me that this insistence on calling him British stems from the notion that any person from Wales with relevance outside of Wales must be considered British so that English people can also feel pride in what that person achieved. I would imagine that a man who was as proud of being Welsh as Lloyd George would have wanted to be remembered as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gethin T (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes I agree he should be referred to as Welsh based on the wealth and breadth of evidence I have previously presented. Since Wales was not a devolved administration at the time and was part of (and continues to be) part the British state today, I can appreciate calls for him to be referred to as British. Then again, being Welsh in the 20th century as well as today, automatically defines you as British. Therefore the most appropriate reference to his nationality should suerly be either "Welsh" or "Welsh and British". Thanks all. TG11TG15 (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"Welsh and British" is basically a tautology, and also very clumsy wording. The claim that "this insistence on calling him British stems from the notion that any person from Wales with relevance outside of Wales must be considered British so that English people can also feel pride in what that person achieved" is nonsense. I haven't seen "an insistence that Lloyd George must be considered British rather than Welsh" from anyone. The point I made above is that in the lead of an article in global encyclopaedia aimed at a global audience we need to consider what it is that most makes a person globally notable. We don't need to force everything you want to say into the opening sentence. DuncanHill (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"MoS guidelines for opening paragraphs and lead sentences should generally be followed. The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources.

The first sentence should usually state:

Name(s) and title(s), if any (see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)). Handling of the subject's name is covered below in § First mention. Dates of birth and death, if found in secondary sources (do not use primary sources for birth dates of living persons or other private details about them). Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable. One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms. The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.) However, try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead section"

I don't think it's tautology since Welsh and British have different meanings. I agree he is famous for being prime minister, but he is not neccessarily famous for his British nationality. He's actually reasonably famous for being the only Welsh prime minister. If we can't agree, it would be wise to keep the opening sentence neutral without reference to nationality. Nationality is not an absolute requirement (see above). Why not start with what he is actually famous for, for example;

"David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, OM PC (17 January 1863 – 26 March 1945) was a Liberal Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1916 to 1922. Prior to this, he served as Caernarfon Boroughs MP, President of the Board of Trade, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Minister of Munitions and Secretary of State for War. He is known for; advocating Welsh devolution, social reform policies, wartime governance, his role in the Paris peace conference and negotiating the establishment of the Irish Free State."

I think this is a fair neutral opening paragraph. I have changed the introductory paragraph to this as a temporary measure until a reference to nationality is agreed upon. Thank you all. TG11TG15 (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

And I've changed it back. There is no need to jam so much information into the second sentence. And I have to say it is really not on to make a change like that in the middle of a discussion! Welsh is a subset of British, so "Welsh and British" has tautological aspects, even if it is not strictly a tautology. DuncanHill (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I have offered multiple suggestions. No one has made a counter suggestion. There are people on both sides of the argument. It has been two weeks now since I started this discussion and there is no consensus, therfore a neutral opening sentence is suerly the best temporary solution?

David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, OM PC (17 January 1863 – 26 March 1945) Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1916 to 1922. He was a liberal politician known for; advocating Welsh devolution, social reform policies, wartime governance, his role in the Paris peace conference and negotiating the establishment of the Irish Free State.

Thanks for your feedback on second sentence. I have now changed to this. Thanks again.TG11TG15 (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, you've been told about indenting, are you deliberately making it hard for others to follow? And just because you don't get what you want doesn't entitle you to impose your desired changes. You seem to be in a hurry to force this issue. DuncanHill (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for you valued input. Not forcing any issue. If it were up to me, the opening sentence would refer to Lloyd George as "Welsh". Based on my previous reasoning, if there is no consensus or agreement after discussion over two weeks with multiple people on both sides of the arguments I think it is fair to neutralise the the opening sentence in terms of nationality, until a consensus is reached. If anyone else has any suggestions for a fair compromise (it seems that only I have made suggestions so far), I would be eager to see them. Thanks for your time all. TG11TG15 (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

PS I think that the opening paragraph is a better introduction to Lloyd George regardless of any reference to nationality. Hopefully you agree. If not, happy to listen to suggestions. Thanks TG11TG15 (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Welsh background section

TG11TG15 - I’m not at all sure that the Welsh background section is an improvement. Aside from the clunky style - you use the word “Welsh/Welshman” six times in one sentence - the unformatted urls, the dubious sources - Youtube - and whether a lengthy quote from Roy Jenkins, mainly about himself, actually adds much, I think we are in danger of shading into Soapbox. I get that you are very keen to emphasise LG’s Welshness, and we’re currently discussing how that might be better reflected in the opening sentence of the lead. I’m just not certain that a whole section that repeats the fact of his being Welsh ten times in two short paragraphs is really necessary. KJP1 (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it needs some improving I agree. I will get round to this soon. You're welcome to help me with this section. Thanks TG11TG15 (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Lloyd George was very passionate about Welsh affairs if you read about him, particularly during his early days as an MP. This is an important aspect of his biography. Not at all a soapbox. I have now better incorporated his passion for Welsh affairs into the MP section. I'll work on the references imminently. Thanks for the suggestion. TG11TG15 (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Removed content eith documentary source of youtube. Thanks for feedback, I welcome any more feedbackTitus Gold (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC).

There does seem to be a bit of single-issue pov-peddling going on here, and an insistence by one editor since about March (hardly a "settled consensus") that his early years as a Welsh Nationalist somehow merit mention in the "introduction to the introduction". Which is a bit like mentioning that the future James II was Lord Admiral before he became King, or that the future Duke of Marlborough ratted on James II in 1688, or that the future Duke of Wellington had some early involvement in Irish politics (as did Castlereagh), or that Gladstone wrote some abstruse works of High Tory/Anglican philosophy then became President of the Board of Trade before resigning over the Maynooth Grant, or that Churchill escaped from a Boer POW camp, or that Edward Heath led the failed negotiations to join the EEC in 1962. I could go on, but you get the point. In each case those topics are worthy of a lengthy section in the article, and a succint mention in a long introduction, but they are not among the handful of things for which the person is specifically notable. (No, I'm not going to list them for the men just discussed).

Stephen Koss famously drew a distinction between politicians like Asquith who seem to emerge fully formed onto the national stage with their roots long forgotten, and those like Lloyd George, Disraeli or Ramsay MacDonald who make great play of their outsider origins as part of their political persona. You could add Thatcher to that list. But whether it really made a vast amount of difference to their policies is much more questionable. A few of Disraeli's biographers have made strenuous efforts to persuade us that his Jewishness was central to his identity - maybe so, but did it really make a jot of difference to the Second Reform Act or the Congress of Berlin?

In the great scheme of things Welsh affairs at the start of his career, before he got his big break onto the national stage, take up less space in this man's lengthy biography - less than 50 out of over 500 pages of Travis Crosbie, and I doubt the proportions in Grigg or Brinkerhoff Gilbert are much different - than the struggle with the House of Lords, or his corruption both before and after the war, or the Ministry of Munitions, or the ousting of Asquith, or shipping and convoys, or the Balfour Declaration, or his power-struggle with Haig and Robertson, or his gradual and eventually acrimonious falling-out with organised labour (which helped kill his postwar government and made him seem such a figure from the past after about 1922), or umpteen other things. I dare say he is nowadays regarded as a sort of Founding Father of Welsh Nationalism, but that is a somewhat different matter. And I trust we have all noticed that TG11TG15 and Titus Gold are the same person. I say that not to make accusations but lest we think there is some body of opinion here.Paulturtle (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate your perspective. I am not peddling, I am providing the Welsh perspective because no one else seems to be doing it, and it is just as important as a British or worldwide perspective. From my perspective and research, particularly on Welsh devolution, it is clear to me that Lloyd George started the ball rolling with regard to devolution and Welsh nationalism before the formation of Plaid Cymru. His daughter reignited the drive for a Welsh Parliament in the 50s. The two Lloyd-George's are well known in Wales in particular for their family trend of supporting home rule. Lloyd George seems to have only given rest to this idea following difficulty uniting the Liberal Party and gaining support from others. Basically, DLG is known in Wales: for bringing in the old-age pension, wartime governance, being the only Welsh prime minister and his support for Welsh "home rule" and non-conformism in the initial years of his career. You need only look at any Welsh media or literature for this to be evident, or even general publications by non-Welsh organisations and people. Cheers Titus Gold (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Pinfold Manor

Odd that this long article doesn't mention LG's house being blown up in 1913! Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Support for Nazi-Germany > Support for Post-War Germany

Whereas there is no fallacy in the statement that Lloyd-George was supporting a pre-WW2 Nazi Germany, the modern use of "Nazi" paint Lloyd-George as a Nazi sympathiser which comes with all sorts of pre-conceptions (antisemitism, white supremacism, support for the War, etc). This section of the article makes no mention of his thoughts on Nazi Germany's WW2 activities - only their post-WW1 activities - a time before Hitler had revealed himself. Lloyd-George's remarks about Hitler and post-war Germany were not unfair in a pre-WW2 world. It is for this reason that I believe this section should be retitled Support for Post-War Germany. – Dyolf87 (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

keep the text--the section is very largely about his explicit and repeated support for Hitler's policies, with a brief mention of pre-1933. Rjensen (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Up to 1937, yes. It doesn't mention anything about Hitler's policies from 1937 onward. It also says Lloyd-George, after meeting Hitler, was convinced that there would be no war inside of a decade. This does not demonstrate Lloyd-George's support for what we now call Nazism, only supporting what he (and others) perceived as Germany wanting peace and feeling sour about WW1. Saying LG supported Nazi Germany is technically true but the average reader would, I feel, be misled by the title and that Post-War is better fitting. – Dyolf87 (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

yes he opposed appeasement in 1938-39. BUT he recommended appeasement after the war began: let me quote the abstract of a recent article on his speech of late September 1939: " the controversial 1939 speech made before the House of Commons by David Lloyd George in which he advocated British consideration of any peace initiatives that Germany put forth. This was a position not shared by Chamberlain and others in government, who then denounced Lloyd George as a defeatist. The speech caused such excitement because it was the first open suggestion that the war could come to an end without the defeat of Germany or the overthrow of the Nazi government. Three days after Lloyd George's comments, Hitler himself, in speaking to the Reichstag, made a public peace offer to Britain and France." abstract of "A CONFERENCE 'NOW":' LLOYD GEORGE AND PEACEMAKING, 1939" by Antony Lentin, Diplomacy & Statecraft. Sep1996, Vol. 7 Issue 3, p563-588. Lentin shows that LG's private secretary thougt he was a defeatist and close to treason. LG thus became a candidate for a German imposed PM if Germany successfully invaded britain. Rjensen (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure there's really much wrong with the text as it stands. Hitler "revealed himself" pretty quickly when he came to power (removal of opponents in general and Jews in particular from public life & the Night of the Long Knives - the leader of a civilised country behaving like Michael Corleone), but lots of people in the mid 1930s thought that the regime was calming down a bit with moderates like Schacht in charge and would settle for parity of armaments rather than "Napoleonic" ambitions to dominate the continent. This was the era of, say, the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement and the 1936 Berlin Olympics. It's probably fair to say that Lloyd George's behaviour went a bit beyond that and he was perceived as a silly, vain old man having a "second childhood" (my late dad told me that - not sure if he was talking about the mid 1930s or 1940-1). Kristallnacht and the stepping up of the persecution of the Jews came later, as did the entry into Prague in March 1939 (Adolf tearing up the Munich Agreement of six months earlier and showing that he was a maniac who would never stick to any treaty).

And yes, British policy in 1939-40 was that no peace was possible until Germany "disgorged her conquests" (not sure if that included Austria and the Sudetenland but I'm sure it would have included Poland and Bohemia) - it was what we would nowadays call "a red line", hence the ructions caused when Rab Butler's peace feelers in June 1940 came to light. The position regarding "regime change" in Germany was a bit more nuanced (in autumn 1939 Churchill annoyed Chamberlain and Halifax with a speech forecasting that the war would end with the "assured overthrow" either of the western powers or of Germany). But it had been nuanced in 1917-18 and would be in 1940, when Churchill left the door slightly ajar to a talks with a German military junta if there was a coup. The private secretary mentioned above is presumably AJ Sylvester who had grown to loathe his elderly boss's lechery - he kept a scurrilous diary which he no doubt hoped to publish for a high fee once DLG was dead.Paulturtle (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Sylvester got even more bitter when Frances didn't commission him for the official biography. Do we know when LlG started being treated for cancer? I think Owen (grandson) mentions his judgement being impaired by the drugs he was on in Hitler's war. IIRC LlG himself was never told how ill he was. DuncanHill (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

From the Travis Crosbie biog: p370 in the mid 1930s DLG wrote sycophantic letters to people like Ribbentrop, saying that Hitler was the greatest German leader since Frederick the Great, but TC points out that lots of people thought the Nazi regime was calming down and would continue to do so if "appeased" in the true sense of settling legitimate grievances. pp376-7 discusses how DLG's reputation as "defeatist" in 1940-1 was somewhat undeserved (sourced to an essay by Addison and Richard Toye "Lloyd George and Churchill"). He wanted to fight the Germans as hard as necessary until they packed it in and conceded peace; he wrote patriotic articles, although he thought the public were over-sanguine about the prospects of victory. His whingy comments which sound so bad when quoted out of context were in large part sour grapes at being out of office (because he no longer felt up to it and/or wanted to be the one to negotiate a peace). pp378-9 By 1943-4 people like Harold Nicolson started to notice that he was really getting very old and although he never became gaga his fully lucid moments were becoming fewer (I dare say Dame Margaret's death made him feel like his own end was coming - long-married elderly couples often die within a few years of one another). Late in 1944 he left Churt to end his days in North Wales (although TC doesn't mention it again I once read an account of him paying a sad final visit to his library knowing he would never visit it again) - he had bought a house in Llanystumndwy as Megan had inherited the family home in Criccieth off Margaret.

He was diagnosed with bowel cancer late in 1944. Nothing about strong painkillers clouding his judgement, and it was very late in the story. John Campbell "If Love Were All" describes him as "a bitter old man" circa 1940-1 and discusses how he enjoyed listening to Lord Haw Haw and predicting military disaster. He says his doctor suspected he knew he was dying circa Feb 1945. Ffion Hague "The Pain and the Privilege" says Frances chose not to tell him he had terminal cancer and he "seemed unaware". My recollection is that it was usual not to tell people, hence it used to be a trope in old films of terminally ill people telling their relatives "For God's sake, I can see it in your faces" etc.Paulturtle (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)