Talk:Jeffrey Hudson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] reason for temporary reversion
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)
[edit] knighted
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)
[edit] irony
"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 74.142.50.26 (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
[edit] Pretender?
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 70.20.228.140 (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. 69.227.22.94 (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Birthdate
Jeffrey Kacirk gives the birthdate as 27 February 1619. Is the article wrong? -- SECisek (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

