Talk:Henry Bellingham, Baron Bellingham

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancestry

I removed the part that claimed that Bellingham is a descendant of John Bellingham (c. 1769-1812), Spencer Perceval's assassin. It was unreferenced and false. Bellingham is a descendant of John Bellingham (1781-1826) (peerage.com, and Kidd, Charles, Williamson, David (editors). Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage (1990 edition). New York: St Martin's Press, 1990). Tryde (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly appears to exclude the possibility of direct descent - John Bellingham (1781-1826) obviously isn't the assassin. I don't think he had any first cousins called John, although I only had a cursory glance. Possibly John Bellingham who killed the prime minister was a more distant relative of John Bellingham who is Henry Bellingham's ancestor. The MP's ancestors are well-to-do Anglo-Irish. Nothing is known about John Bellingham's family other than that his father was a land surveyor/miniature painter, based in London, who married a woman from St Neots. So it is possible that he came from this same Anglo-Irish background - until someone proves otherwise. Meanwhile there are a number of sources, including Lord Walpole in Hansard, referring to him as a direct descendant, so I am not taking it out, but balancing it with a source saying he has a family connection. I will add a footnote about Burke's when I have seen the genuine Burke's. As for Roger Percival - at least it says it is just a claim. If he is really a descendant of Perceval in the male line he might be in for an earldom as there is a doubt over whether the 12th earl of Egmont who recently died has left an heir who can inherit the title! Or possibly one of Perceval's female descendants married a man called Percival. Or possibly it is just not true but makes a nice story. Lord Walpole, by the way, really is descended from one of Perceval's sisters.Southdevonian (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Target claimed as the primary topic by assertion only; no evidence provided to substantiate. Running a quick check myself of reliable sources using Google Books to see if it's obvious, little support for primacy is found: [1] vs. [2] vs. [3]. If anyone has counter evidence, maybe incoming links and traffic, other or more nuanced searches, please do make a new request with evidence supporting the claim.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– The current politician is significantly more important than the other two, and is the primary topic. He has been an MP significantly longer and now holds a junior post in the government. PatGallacher (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Also avoids the unfortunate use of "politician" as a disambiguator when other Henry Bellingham were also politicians. Jenks24 (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This idea is too current to jump into conclusions. At least it is not Anne Hathaway. Henry who? This name is too obscure to remember, seriously. Also, there are three politicians with the same name. Perhaps rename it to Henry Bellingham (born 1955)? --George Ho (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Two comments: (1) just because you haven't heard of him doesn't mean he can't be a primary topic; (2) "born 1955" is a terrible dab that barely helps the reader at all. Jenks24 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And a third: "too current"? He's been an MP for over a decade. Jenks24 (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henry Bellingham (Norfolk MP). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Henry Bellingham (Norfolk MP). 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.antiguaobserver.com/?p=65202
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929202703/http://www.longboroughcapital.net/ to http://www.longboroughcapital.net/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070518060943/http://www.epteurope.com/ to http://www.epteurope.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 23:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Clear as day primary topic.[4] Unreal7 (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Traffic indicates people are much more often looking for the politician article, so it appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (That's not always a certain thing; there can be brief spikes in popularity of a topic. But political elections that were over 8 and 6 years ago, respectively, are probably not such a spike.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Political figure with with no international renown. Not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd assume people are far more often looking for the active, living political figure than the obscure, long-dead ones in the same polity Dtellett (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Sue Grade report should be published in full or the government are taking the Micky out of the British public

The Sue Grade report must be published I. Full or the British public will know it is a farcical whitewash. And will never vote for Conservatives again. 79.68.33.120 (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]