Talk:Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster/Archives/2016
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster/Archives/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| It says in the beginning that the Duke owns the land that the US Embassy is on in London, but I don't see how that could be true. It is my understanding that a country's embassy and the land it is on is property of the government the embassy is representing. Thats why in Ottawa, Canada, the US Embassy is not Canadian land, it is US soil. And same for all the other countries' embassies. Could anyone verify this? TheCarGods 14:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 14:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
BLP status change
Due to the death of this person, the BLP status of this article has changed. This does not mean that unsourced material that would contravene the Biography of Living Persons rules can be added to this article Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- WP:BDP is the policy covering the BLP umbrella coverage to those who have recently died.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
New hairstyle? - would be pretty radical for him
Did the Duke of Westminster change his hairstyle? (would be pretty radical for him) In the Wiki photograph from 1997, his part is on his right, and his hair is combed from his right to his left. However, in this more recent photograph in The Telegraph:
he has his part on the left, with his hair going from his left to his right. Is this just sloppy editing/photography/journalism, or did he change his hair style? Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Fulham
Can anyone find a confirmation from a more prominant source as if true would make an amusing entry for the article. "The Duke himself had a trial with Fulham but was given the red card by the then duke, his father, who thought soccer was an unseemly sport for an aristocrat." [1]Alci12 12:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
here [2]
- If it were true, it would be literally incorrect to speak of his father giving the "red card" - unless he was a qualified FA referee. Unless you are quoting someone, to use "red card" in a colloquial, metaphorical sense, is out of order for an encyclopaedic service.Cloptonson (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Vow to quit Conservative Party
I find this Wikipedia bio to be barren - there is very little in it. I came here to read about when he vowed to quit the Conservative party when it supported the right of leaseholders to buy their leaseholds - I remember him claiming that it would reduce his net worth and that he would quit the Conservative party if it fact happened and his net worth was reduced. It, of course, happened. I "think" he quit the Conservative party - but embarrassingly, there is nothing in this bio - in fact, the bio is just a few short paragraphs in length. Nothing for example about the prostitute scandal that was in the papers a couple of years ago. Who knows, maybe we should delete his entry from Wikipedia??? It is entries like this one for the Duke of Westminster that make Wikipedia a joke, and it will never get above the level that it currently has. I know that nothing negative can be put in a Wikipedia article (I'm sure if Charles Manson had money, he would threaten lawsuits and his Wikipedia bio would mention nothing negative). Of well, so much for Wikipedia as being a decent source or starting place.
- Agree. This Wiki article/bio is pretty barren - almost nothing in it. I also remember the huge fit the Duke of Westminster had when the Conservative party backed the right to purchase leaseholds, and, as you mention, there is nothing in this Wikipedia article about it at all. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. And, yes, he did quit the Conservative party.Betathetapi545 (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Information about his party affiliations either have not made their way onto the page or it has been edited out, leaving today's reader none the wiser. Changes in party loyalty need citation. The family were traditionally Conservative (post lifetime of Whig/Liberal 1st Duke) and I have not in the news read of the 6th Duke endorsing other political parties. BTW, was he still a member of the House of Lords (where, if he preferred to be non-partisan, he could have sat on the cross-benches, a facility denied in the Commons)?Cloptonson (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Just partly answered my own question - he is not listed as a Lords member in latest Dod's Parliamentary Companion, but what was his position when he sat in the Lords before British hereditary peers lost their automatic right to sit?Cloptonson (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Own question semi-answered again. His Daily Telegraph obituary (not yet retrieved) (10 August) does point out he resigned from the party in 1993 over the Major government's leasehold reforms, noting that some Conservative MPs were among his tenants but further detail on his subsequent party loyalties and any detail on his Lords career is lacking. A section/sub-section on his political activities would be a helpful addition to the page for one of his background.Cloptonson (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Just partly answered my own question - he is not listed as a Lords member in latest Dod's Parliamentary Companion, but what was his position when he sat in the Lords before British hereditary peers lost their automatic right to sit?Cloptonson (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Information about his party affiliations either have not made their way onto the page or it has been edited out, leaving today's reader none the wiser. Changes in party loyalty need citation. The family were traditionally Conservative (post lifetime of Whig/Liberal 1st Duke) and I have not in the news read of the 6th Duke endorsing other political parties. BTW, was he still a member of the House of Lords (where, if he preferred to be non-partisan, he could have sat on the cross-benches, a facility denied in the Commons)?Cloptonson (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)