This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In keeping with style guidelines ( Wikipedia:Profanity) I am amending the quotes to remove the asterisks. (Note that those in the programme titles are appropriate because they accurately name the shows.)
The third quote is unreferenced and appears to be due to a third person. Can someone correct this? It's a good quote
Also, the following link to a refernced article is broken, so I have removed it -- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1205652_1,00.html Leberquesgue ( talk) 23:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The article says "...they [the Fulfords] remain members of the untitled nobility, a specifically British social class."
This seems strange to me because untitled nobility is commonplace among continental nobility, but NOT among the British. People who would be members of untitled nobility on the continent are usually classed as gentry in the UK, not nobility. The Fulfords appear to predate the abolition of feudal tenure in England, prior to which their class would have been considered untitled nobility but we're going back centuries here.
My point is that the Fulfords do appear to be a remnant of untitled nobilty, but untitled nobility are a specifically un-British class, not the other way around.
121.73.7.84 ( talk) 07:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Well they are armigers so that makes them noble in the eyes of the Crown. We would notmally refer to them as Landed Gentry but they are aristocracy or nobility all the same. I am surprised anyone is arguing about this. 86.155.190.12 ( talk) 22:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
So when was he born? In 1952 or 1953? -- Csesznekgirl ( talk) 17:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In keeping with style guidelines ( Wikipedia:Profanity) I am amending the quotes to remove the asterisks. (Note that those in the programme titles are appropriate because they accurately name the shows.)
The third quote is unreferenced and appears to be due to a third person. Can someone correct this? It's a good quote
Also, the following link to a refernced article is broken, so I have removed it -- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1205652_1,00.html Leberquesgue ( talk) 23:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The article says "...they [the Fulfords] remain members of the untitled nobility, a specifically British social class."
This seems strange to me because untitled nobility is commonplace among continental nobility, but NOT among the British. People who would be members of untitled nobility on the continent are usually classed as gentry in the UK, not nobility. The Fulfords appear to predate the abolition of feudal tenure in England, prior to which their class would have been considered untitled nobility but we're going back centuries here.
My point is that the Fulfords do appear to be a remnant of untitled nobilty, but untitled nobility are a specifically un-British class, not the other way around.
121.73.7.84 ( talk) 07:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Well they are armigers so that makes them noble in the eyes of the Crown. We would notmally refer to them as Landed Gentry but they are aristocracy or nobility all the same. I am surprised anyone is arguing about this. 86.155.190.12 ( talk) 22:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
So when was he born? In 1952 or 1953? -- Csesznekgirl ( talk) 17:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)