Talk:Harriet Arbuthnot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Harriet Arbuthnot is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 2, 2007.
May 22, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Hostess

I am removing the assertion that Harriet was hostess at the Duke's society dinners. I have the Smith book and have been unable to find any such thing in it. It would have been highly improper for anyone to serve as the Duke's hostess other than his wife, daughter, sister, sister-in-law, or mother. If anyone can cite a source for the proposition that she was actually his hostess, we can restore the assertion. Laura1822 19:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement was made on a tour of Apsley House. Which does not necessarily make it true. - Kittybrewster 22:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your response somehow. I will add it back in with a reference to the Apsley House tour. How I wish I could go on that tour! Laura1822 17:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I checked dates and the Duchess died in 1831, while Harriet lived until 1834. So perhaps Harriet served as his hostess after the Duchess died, but I still think it unlikely. Laura1822 17:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Posthumous journal?

I don't know who created the last note (currently number 30), but I suppose Arbuthnot didn't record Charles' and Wellington's doings in her journal 30 years after her death? The terse note ("Arbuthnot") presumably refers rather to some of the critical apparatus of her journal — a footnote, preface, or whatever? Note 30 should preferably say so. And in any case references to books need to give the page the info comes from. "Arbuthnot" isn't a proper kind of reference for a book (though it might do if a website was in question). Frutti di Mare 16:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Thank you Frutti di Mare, this is currently a page undergoing a major edit and expansion. There are still one or two edits and referencs left from previous editors which I am hoping to check out. That is one of them. I will try and see from the history who made that edit, and ask them if they could clarify. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Giano 16:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Smith, page 152. - Kittybrewster (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Bamford' footnote goes nowhere. And, some notes could be expanded?

There is a cite to 'Bamford', but no corresponding work by Bamford in the list of references. Is this note trying to point to her Journal? Also, many of the notes are to a single word, making it not immediately clear to which work they refer. Does anyone object if I add a couple of explanatory words to some of them? EdJohnston 18:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at the Bamford note in a second - trouble with taking on a page that had notes already - i changed a lot of the references to other worksm that may be a stary one. The single word reference is the way Wikipedia likes it done! It should relate to eitherthe author of a book in which case there is a page number, or to the author or name of a website in which case there is a link in the references. It is actually the easies way of doing it - Right I'll go and check Bamford! Thanks for pointing that our. Giano 18:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note Change

the 28th notation should read "This assertion is stated in the official tour of Apsley House; if true, it is unusual for the standards of etiquette of the period". Briaboru

[edit] Keeper of the King's Private Roads

This seems to have been some bonkers title dreamed up by George III as I can only find two people that ever had it, both in 1772 (father of Harriet, Thomas Fane, 8th Earl of Westmorland, and Thomas Whately). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Doctors now call that porphyria not "bonkers". I would have thought Keeper of the King's Private Roads would make a lovely little article. Yomanganitalk 01:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately it doesn't look like it was the work of bonkers George..I have found another holder of the said title: "Sir Henry Erskine, fifth Baronet of Alva and Cambuskenneth had been appointed Keeper of the King's Private Roads, Gates, and Bridges in 1757" (from Correspondence of Thomas Gray, Page 712, 1935). And earlier, "In 1717 the Keeper of the King's Private Roads and Bridges and Conductor of the Royal Progresses was made a member of the Board of Works" (The British Almanac - Page 50, 1913- Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 02:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTF the Artikle has no BioBox

OMG please fix it asap!80.133.146.120 03:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Aristocrats are too posh for infoboxes. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 03:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
What's the information you require? I'll read the article and explain it to you. --Wetman 04:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lesbian?

I am removing "lesbian" from the lead sentence, as the article doesn't mention it, and I suspect vandalism on this edit: [1]. If I am wrong, readd with citation, or at least a mention in the article. 128.208.6.193 05:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That was me. mkehrt 05:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of why articles should be semi-protected before they show up on the front page. There has been an inordinate number of IP vandals on this page in the last few hours. Horologium t-c 06:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Articles on the front page are not semi-protected. If you disagree with this policy, bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, though it's unlikely that you'll get very far. ShadowHalo 09:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This so-called "policy" is being redrafted. You can help form consensus for semi-protection here: Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection#Consensus and request protection here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. DrKiernan 13:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did she have any children ?

I saw she had the children of her husband to raise, but did she have some offspring of her own ?Rosenknospe 13:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think she did no. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
None were recorded in any research, that is not to say that she did not but I think it unlikely. Giano 15:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irony in action

Funny and sad at the same time (stealing your quote, BDJ) that this makes featured article when the number of other Arbuthnot articles in AfD numbers in the dozens. DarkAudit 16:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)