Talk:Thomas Lyon-Bowes, Master of Glamis (born 1821)

	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 WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

So how much truth is there in all this? Runcorn 19:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonably well-known story, and all the essential elements are there. However, it is littered with little inaccuracies, such as describing the Bowes-Lyons as a clan. It is, however, unverifiable and so is a record of the story's existence rather than the existence of what it describes.Mon Vier 14:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factual dispute

"several hundred thousand pounds, a lot of money in those days" that's dumb, it's a lot of money THESE days, much less THOSE days. "Several hundred thousand pounds" today would be worth at least USD$500000, and in the 1800s would probably be worth something closer to two million. this figure of several hundred thousand needs to be corrected

It's the early 1900s. Still, that does make it an awful lot of money. I do wonder about the accuracy of a lot of this article; this is just one fairly minor point. --Runcorn 18:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Workman incident

The article contradicts itself - in one place it says the workman incident was in the 1870s, in another it says the 1900s. Ben Finn 20:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I do wonder about the accuracy of a lot of this article.--Runcorn 06:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phocomelia?

I know that this forum isn't really the place for speculations, but I can't resist throwing out the following question to anyone who may be more knowledgeable in the field of medicine than me.

Could it be that the "Monster of Glamis" - if he in fact existed - was simply the unfortunate sufferer of the birth defect known as quadramembral phocomelia? The descriptions given certainly seem to fit the bill. Jonas Liljeström 13:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Thomas Beecham

There is a similar story about Sir Thomas Beecham's eldest son 89.168.87.17 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Embarrassment

This article is an embarrassment any decent editor. Rumors, folktales, and allegations are presented as facts, with numerous self-contradictory statements. I suggest that this be reduced to a stub, stating clearly that this is merely folklore with no evidence beyond his birth and probable death in infancy. It's one thing to have an article about a folk tale, it is quite another to present a folk tale as if it were truth. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 21:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not much more than a stub at the moment. If anything, it needs to be expanded, in the course of which the folkloric roots of the subject could be made clearer. (I've been to Glamis many times, and have been aware of this story since childhood. It's quite well-known and notable. The Queen Mum even discussed it, and of course she would have known Glamis very well.) Ivor Stoughton (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen Mother hinted that it was made up. She said that Glamis Castle was the sort of place where people would invent horror-stories. Valetude (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 July 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: move the page to Thomas Lyon-Bowes, Master of Glamis (born 1821), per the discussion below. There is consensus to move the page away from the old title, and the new title enjoyed the most support along with the most WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. If necessary, please initiate a new move request to propose an alternative title. Dekimasuよ! 09:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lyon-Bowes (heir to Lord Glamis, born 1821) → Thomas Lyon-Bowes, Master of Glamis – To avoid parenthetical disambiguation. 2601:241:300:C930:A1DA:9205:B3DB:25E9 (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Incomplete disambiguation: his younger brother Thomas Lyon-Bowes, 12th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne was also Thomas Lyon-Bowes, Master of Glamis, between 1822 and 1834. "Monster of Glamis" would seem more appropriate. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thomas Lyon-Bowes, Master of Glamis (born 1821). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it should be changed to Thomas Lyon-Bowes (born 1821) עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't usually use a simple date without another disambiguator of some kind. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - not sure what you're talking about there's a Thomas Lyon-Bowes disambiguation page and since he died the day he was born calling him master of glamis is wrong עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - (a) As I said, we don't just use a date as a disambiguator; we use more than that; the existence of a disambiguation page is utterly irrelevant. (b) British law assumes someone inherits a title even if they live for a minute or two; for the short time he was alive he was indeed Master of Glamis. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - his younger brother was also master of glamis at the time of his birth עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, because Master of Glamis is the title of the heir to the earldom! If we use Thomas Lyon-Bowes, Master of Glamis (born 1821) as I suggested then this distinguishes him from his brother, who was born the following year. But it's better than just a stark Thomas Lyon-Bowes (born 1821). Who's he then? We don't know. That's why we don't usually just use a year as a disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        most pages about people don't say everything in the title all the title needs is the name and something to distinguish him from someone else with the same name which (1821) does עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        And I didn't say that they did. What I said is that it's not usual just to use a date. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Thomas Lyon-Bowes, Master of Glamis (born 1821) following our normal practice. I really do not see what the fuss is about. Andrewa (talk) 07:13, 26 July 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.