This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 29, 2019.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military 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 the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). Military history: Biography / British / European / Early Modern C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force British military history task force European military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

This is a very one-sided article. Particularly in how it portrays Buckingham as a complete failure. The language is also very emotive and not very objective. Phrases like "the King trusted Buckingham" are stated as objective facts despite being subjective assessments. 49.142.108.46 ( talk) 06:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't see the "bias." The strong consensus of historians is that the King strongly trusted Buckingham, and it's what historians call a "fact" that shaped decisions and events--it is not "subjective" Rjensen ( talk) 03:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply