Talk:Jeffrey Hudson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

reason for temporary reversion[edit]

These added details are interesting but where did they come from? I am skeptical because they were conspicuously not in Nick Page's book, which is our most inclusive overview of his life. Was this simply imaginary embellishment centuries later? Feel free to re-add or revert back along with a source for the extra detail. thnaks alteripse 12:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


was he or not? Was it just a nickname? Johnbod 02:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of references to his knighthood. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention of Jeffrey in The Knights of England (1906). Ned de Rotelande 17:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


"It is ironic that the smallest man in England was born in Rutland the smallest county in England." This word, 'ironic'. I do not think it means what you think it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right. Perhaps the, er most "fitting" word, would be "fitting": as in It is fitting that the smallest man in England was born in Rutland, the smallest county in England. So go ahead and fix it. alteripse 00:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed itHenry 21:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Henry

Re: the above. The sentence has indeed been changed and now reads "Perhaps it is ironic that..." This remains incorrect.

There is no "perhaps" about it; the smallest man in England being born in the smallest county, just like rain on your wedding day, is not ironic in any sense and no-one with an understanding of the meaning of the word could think that it was. As an example, Jeffrey Hudson being born to England's tallest woman would be ironic.

I realise this may seem a minor point but language is everything. We should endeavour to use it correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


Is there any chance that the 50 year old "Jeffrey Hudson" of 1669 was a "pretender"; simply a short statured person trying to obtain money by claiming to be the famous dwarf who disappeared 25 years previously. The lack of records and the doubling of his height seem peculiar, and how interesting that he turned up so soon after the Queen died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That occured to me as well. I have absolutely no evidence to back it up (I haven't looked for evidence), and I don't know much about dwarfism, but a doubling in height so late in life... I can't help but think that it would put great strain on the bones. If I had been at the court, and this guy showed up with his claims, I'd have been highly sceptical, and would have asked him to prove that he really was the original Jeffrey Hudson. --Peter Knutsen (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
If that information about the height is true then it would astonish me if mainstream scholars really think the 1669-82 Hudson was who he claimed to be. Maybe it's possible for someone to have a growth spurt in late adulthood; it's much more likely the guy was just lying for lucre. (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I always wondered about whether it was the same Jeffrey but it seems far fetched that there was another person with the same condition who looked similar enough to pull it off. Also Jeffrey ended his days in prison for being a Catholic so it would have to be a pretty determined fake who went to prison for not recanting his Catholicism. johnnybriggs (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is more likely that he was never only 18" high in the first place. If you look at the painting of Henrietta Marie, Hudson comes up to her hips. She gave birth to 5 children so she was not a dwarf. I think he was already about 45" tall when he was in her court.

Hudson, in the picture is between 2 1/2 feet and 3 feet tall. He is the size of a normal two-year-old, whose end height would be from 5 to 6 feet. He is 30-36 inches tall. About the size of Verne Troyer who is one of the smallest adults in the world.
Amandajm (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
In a very late response, when Hudson returned from his 25 year stint as a slave (and apparently twice the size he was when he was last seen), he stayed with his brother, who I would like to think would recognise his own brother. Also, Henrietta Marie was less than five feet tall herself, so wouldn't loom over anyone, no matter how short they were. --Roisterer (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


Jeffrey Kacirk gives the birthdate as 27 February 1619. Is the article wrong? -- SECisek (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Kacirk seems misinformed. The only date that comes up when I googled "jeffrey hudson 1619" was 14 June. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


The article Jester states, "Charles later employed a jester called Jeffrey Hudson who was very popular and loyal. Jeffrey Hudson had the title of Royal Dwarf because he was short of stature. One of his jests was to be presented hidden in a giant pie from which he would leap out." However this article states nothing of Hudson being a jester or a fool. Mike R (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen () 15:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Improbable claim[edit]

"which he attributed to the buggery he had regularly suffered at the hands of his captors."

This is given straight in the article, but for anyone as small as him, any buggery would have severely injured him with a high risk of consequent death from infection. Perhaps he meant this as a joke (and it seems like so to me) and as such this should be pointed out in the article. Contrary evidence: in the remainder of the article he seems to have become quite a serious person, especially with regards to the duel and the army position, so would he have joked about this? It's either a lie (joke) or he possibly never said it.

I don't have access to the source book, could someone check the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedTomato (talkcontribs) 20:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)