A fact from Ralph Brooke appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 August 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
Ralph Brooke is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
If there is a justification for the large blockquote, it perhaps should be prefaced by, Rockett says: or something. I'm not sure why the cut and paste is justified here. Fotoguzzi (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The edited block quote doesn't belong and isn’t needed. It’s just stuck into the article with no explanation except for the footnote. The ellipsis doesn’t help, since the omission confuses the slightly complicated story the quote contains. I'll remove the block quote and paste it here, but I’ll leave the reference, which supports what preceded the quote.
Here’s the quote from Rockett: “The fourth edition of Britannia (1594) contained a marked increase in the representation of the propertied classes ... Camden's authority in heraldry of which the 1594 Britannia provided convincing evidence, together with his association with the advocates of armorial reform (Fulke Greville, Sir Edward Hoby, and Baron Burghley as well as the queen) made him a logical choice, over Ralph Brooke, for elevation to Clarenceux King of Arms in October 1597. Brooke's quarrel with Camden was part and parcel of the College's troubles and was seen at the time as an instance of the jealous animosity for which Brooke was notorious. One of the ironies of Brooke's attack is that it was symptomatic of the conditions—rivalries and jurisdictional disputes among the heralds, for instance—that advocates of reform were attempting to remedy.” Ashenderflickin (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
