![]() | Prince Louis of Battenberg 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 so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 6, 2012. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Prince Louis of Battenberg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
As for his illegitimate daughter, the alleged reliability of that statement differs much between this article and Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma. -- Jao 16:34, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Rewrote article to correct errors and incorporate additional info. But much should go in articles on his parents, sibs and the Battenberg/Mountbatten family. Lethiere 14:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
* His Illustrious Highness Count Louis of Battenberg * His Serene Highness Prince Louis of Battenberg * Louis Mountbatten * (2nd) Marquess of Milford Haven
Afaik there was no previous marquisate of Milford Haven so it's not the second creation and he was the first holder of the title. Either way (2nd) makes no sense. Alci12 17:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, this was wrong. I'm wondering if the page should really be here. For most of his life he was Prince Louis of Battenberg, and he achieved his greatest significance - as First Sea Lord - under this name. john k 17:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
No doubt as I wasn't amending the article I didn't check the details. If you have his final post noms they aren't in the article atm. Alci12 09:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was No move (although I don't see "Prince Louis of Battenberg" really discussed as a plausible alternative; the point of contention was apparently von). Duja ► 10:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
For most of his life he was Prince Louis of Battenberg, and he achieved his greatest significance - as First Sea Lord - under this name. -- Toddy1 04:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment about the discussion and to the closer: I think it was originally requested as "von", but the request was later changed to "of", and several debaters seem to have missed this, continuing to debate on the "von" vs "of" issue. As agreeing I am about "von" being the wrong place, I wouldn't have anything against an immediate re-request for "Prince Louis of Battenberg". -- Jao 10:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was uncontested move. DrKiernan 10:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Re-requesting move to Prince Louis of Battenberg:
Morinao 18:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
the introduction seems to me to need some work. If you believe it, then the most important thing he did was be royal, become first sea lord because of it and then be dismissed because of it. This may well be why he was controversial, but it would seem he was also an outstanding officer, who just as arguably became first sea lord despite royal connections rather than because of them. Either way, the intro says very little about him except his royal connections. Sandpiper ( talk) 10:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree. The entire paragraph is about his life and career, and is sourced to impeccable references. The lead should represent the balance of published material on him, which in my opinion it does. DrKiernan ( talk) 07:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I just don't see where you're coming from. You seem to be reading a completely different lead to me:
As your problem is only with the middle paragraph, let's break it down into the 5 sentences:
1. The Queen and Edward occasionally intervened in his career ..>
2. Louis welcomed battle assignments ..>
3. Posts on royal yachts and tours actually impeded his progress ..>
4. he rose through the command ranks on his own merit ..>
5. He took steps to ready the British fleet ..>
So, to my reading, the lead does summarise the article. DrKiernan ( talk) 09:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
On the last point, no, it doesn't. It states explicitly, "he rose through the command ranks on his own merit". On the first point, the lead isn't the place for minor details: the details are in the article. The lead should encompass the main thrust and arguments of the article. In particular, I feel strongly that details of ranks held and dates of promotion should not be repeated. He isn't famous for being promoted a captain in 1891, or for playing a very minor part in the Egyptian intervention, or because he handled a ship well during maneouvres. He's famous for being a German prince with royal connections who rose to be First Sea Lord and was sacked at the start of the war. DrKiernan ( talk) 11:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is mainly sourced from the two best available biographies of Battenberg: one written by Mark Kerr (Royal Navy officer) and the other by Richard Hough. The article, as it is currently, accurately reflects the published work on Battenberg, the judgement of history and the opinion of his biographers. It is appropriately balanced, neutral, non-bias and verifiable. It is thorough, comprehensive, focused and well-written. DrKiernan ( talk) 07:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
How about something like this:
- Morinao ( talk) 23:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The recent changes are not acceptableunwise because they remove completely one of the main reasons this man is notable. He is notable for two reasons: (1) he married Queen Victoria's grand-daughter and (2) he served in a high position in the navy. The lead must cover both these points. The problem is that those trying to change the article still haven't grasped that a large number of people are only interested in him because of the royal connection. There are two sets of editors whose interests need to be balanced: one interested in royalty and one interested in the military. The previous lead I have written currently balances these two aspects.
DrKiernan (
talk)
07:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I can hardly believe your uncivil personal attack which assumes bad faith, which came immediately after my agreement with you, my attempt to address your criticisms of my behaviour by striking out words which you find offensive and my making the edit which you are trying to impose.
It is very clear to me now that your opposition is based solely on personal animosity against me, and has no basis in the betterment of the article whatsoever. DrKiernan ( talk) 12:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
This edit converted 1st Class, Order of the Rising Sun with Paulownia Blossoms, Grand Cordon in the text to CGRS in the info box.
The result is elegant, but I wonder if I should understand that this is a mere wiki-convention or whether this acronym is more broadly recognized? Googling "GCRS" was unhelpful. -- Tenmei ( talk) 21:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought we might revisit the issue of the title, since there was no discussion. There seems to be good reason to have the article at this title, but there's also some strong reasons in favor of Louis Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven. For one thing, there's another person who was known as Prince Louis of Battenberg. For another, as some people noted before, he specifically renounced the title of "Prince of Battenberg" and took a new name. It seems to me this warrants some discussion, rather than an unopposed move. john k ( talk) 02:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't determine the reason for the blank line between the "Commanders-in-Chief and First Sea Lords of the Royal Navy" template and the Authority Control bar. If someone else can, feel free to remove. Congrats on the Main Page appearance! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The Director of Naval Intelligence succession box was removed on the basis that the Directors of Naval Intelligence template already provided the same information. I would suggest that the Director of Naval Intelligence succession box should be reinstated and the Directors of Naval Intelligence template be removed. This would provide information about Prince Louis in a more consistent way. More generally I am against appointment templates (even if I may have tweaked them in the past) as they generate information on biographical articles which are not relevent to the subject of the biography. For example Reginald Custance is relevent as he handed over to Prince Louis but Patrick Graham is not as he was probably not even born when Louis was Director of Naval Intelligence. Greenshed ( talk) 00:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Can we get something more neutral on the decision not to disperse the fleet during the July Crisis? I don't doubt that the cite there is valid, but it's certainly not a universal verdict of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.198.170 ( talk) 18:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm assuming the citation from note 5 has been taken from a book, but which book? Otherwise I'd have thought it would be violating WP:OR (even though I'm sure no one actually dug that out of the Royal Archives) and also the Royal Archives' permission policy. — Simon Harley ( Talk | Library). 16:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Whats the story with the secondary title "Earl of Medina". What Medina is that ? Eregli bob ( talk) 16:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The reasons for being strict about sourcing in a featured article is understood: I apologise for my temerity. However, I would have been more inclined to have left them in with "<!-- -->" bracketing; this would have allowed subsequent checking and possible inclusion in the visible script. A related point is whether all of the decorations in the infobox are sourced - it appears that only some are. I'd also argue that a collection of post-nomial letters is inadequate in a featured article and that full decoration names, grades and other details should be in the article (which might make citation more obvious). All IMHO, of course. Folks at 137 ( talk) 13:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
In the article on Mountbatten of Burma the following is stated "In 1914, because of the growing anti-German sentiments that swept across Europe during the first few months of World War I, Prince Louis of Battenberg was removed from his position as First Sea Lord and publicly humiliated by King George V and First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill. Though both men professed 'sadness' at having to do this, private conversations and letters show them both perfectly happy to sacrifice their "blue-eyed German".[Von Tunzelman, p. 44-45]". Surely if this is true it properly belongs in this article in the relevant section, not in one about his son? PhilomenaO'M ( talk) 11:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
In the top Right-hand info box apparently this guy gave issue to "Princess Andrew" hover over it and Andrew is meant to be called alice. Needs fixing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.89.230 ( talk) 13:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
As one who has re-read Buchan's 1915 novel The Thirty-Nine Steps, I am struck by the resemblance in portraits of Louis as an admiral to the description of "Lord Alloa", who is named as the First Sea Lord at the time the novel was set (early summer 1914): Richard Hannay's narrative describes: You couldn't open a newspaper or magazine without seeing that face - the grey beard cut like a spade, the firm fighting mouth, the blunt square nose, and the blue eyes. I recognised the First Sea Lord, the man, they say, that made the New British Navy. (Hannay sees an imposter posing as Alloa, having recognised him as a recent pursuer and spy but the "real" Lord Alloa transpires to have been elsewhere at the time.) At moment I have found no evidence Buchan drew the character on him and he could have been a composite but I wonder if it would be germane to this article to mention the character as a cultural reference? Cloptonson ( talk) 10:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Prince Louis of Battenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@ DrKay, I think you need to reconsider your edits. Look at p. 245 of Louis and Victoria:
On the day Churchill took office, Fisher wrote a long letter packed with strongly worded advice. The most important appointment Fisher told Churchill to make was Louis as First Sea Lord in place of Wilson '. . . Private, Wilson is no good ashore! . . . He [Battenberg] is the most capable administrator in the Admiral's list by a long way . . . I think also this should please the Liberal party – they will say what better proof we could give of our confidence to Germany than selecting a man as First Sea Lord with German proclivities. In reality he is more English than the English . . .10
Let's check note 10 on p. 397:
Let's go to Marder's Fear God and Dread Nought, II, p. 397. Only one letter and its enclosure are featured. At the top is written:
Dated 25 October from Lucerne. There is no letter to Churchill on that page, and technically the Battenberg as administrator quote is on p. 398. It is therefore abundantly clear that Hough was in error in claiming that the letter was addressed to Churchill, and that's according to his own reference. If you consult the original text it is clear that Fisher wanted Churchill to eventually read it, but that's no substitute for the fact that it is addressed to Spender. And no, there are no actual letters to Churchill near p. 397.
For you to revert and state, "I don't see why he can't have just written more than one letter" and "I see no evidence that he did not write two letters" is not only clearly wrong but the first statement is WP:OR. If I had found a letter from Fisher to Churchill on 25 October 1911 after going through all the relevant Churchill and Fisher papers at Churchill Archives Centre, rest assured I would have included it in my peer-reviewed article on the pair's correspondence regarding appointments in 1911 and 1912. A little less blind faith in Hough may be in order. — Simon Harley ( Talk | Library). 08:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Was this relevant then? Presumably, he had sworn an oath of allegiance to the King as a Royal Naval officer, but there is no mention in the article of this. A little background info on this subject would help to understand how it worked then. 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:EDA7:E55D:63F:7653 ( talk) 23:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Prince Louis of Battenberg 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 so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 6, 2012. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Prince Louis of Battenberg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
As for his illegitimate daughter, the alleged reliability of that statement differs much between this article and Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma. -- Jao 16:34, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Rewrote article to correct errors and incorporate additional info. But much should go in articles on his parents, sibs and the Battenberg/Mountbatten family. Lethiere 14:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
* His Illustrious Highness Count Louis of Battenberg * His Serene Highness Prince Louis of Battenberg * Louis Mountbatten * (2nd) Marquess of Milford Haven
Afaik there was no previous marquisate of Milford Haven so it's not the second creation and he was the first holder of the title. Either way (2nd) makes no sense. Alci12 17:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, this was wrong. I'm wondering if the page should really be here. For most of his life he was Prince Louis of Battenberg, and he achieved his greatest significance - as First Sea Lord - under this name. john k 17:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
No doubt as I wasn't amending the article I didn't check the details. If you have his final post noms they aren't in the article atm. Alci12 09:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was No move (although I don't see "Prince Louis of Battenberg" really discussed as a plausible alternative; the point of contention was apparently von). Duja ► 10:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
For most of his life he was Prince Louis of Battenberg, and he achieved his greatest significance - as First Sea Lord - under this name. -- Toddy1 04:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment about the discussion and to the closer: I think it was originally requested as "von", but the request was later changed to "of", and several debaters seem to have missed this, continuing to debate on the "von" vs "of" issue. As agreeing I am about "von" being the wrong place, I wouldn't have anything against an immediate re-request for "Prince Louis of Battenberg". -- Jao 10:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was uncontested move. DrKiernan 10:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Re-requesting move to Prince Louis of Battenberg:
Morinao 18:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
the introduction seems to me to need some work. If you believe it, then the most important thing he did was be royal, become first sea lord because of it and then be dismissed because of it. This may well be why he was controversial, but it would seem he was also an outstanding officer, who just as arguably became first sea lord despite royal connections rather than because of them. Either way, the intro says very little about him except his royal connections. Sandpiper ( talk) 10:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree. The entire paragraph is about his life and career, and is sourced to impeccable references. The lead should represent the balance of published material on him, which in my opinion it does. DrKiernan ( talk) 07:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I just don't see where you're coming from. You seem to be reading a completely different lead to me:
As your problem is only with the middle paragraph, let's break it down into the 5 sentences:
1. The Queen and Edward occasionally intervened in his career ..>
2. Louis welcomed battle assignments ..>
3. Posts on royal yachts and tours actually impeded his progress ..>
4. he rose through the command ranks on his own merit ..>
5. He took steps to ready the British fleet ..>
So, to my reading, the lead does summarise the article. DrKiernan ( talk) 09:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
On the last point, no, it doesn't. It states explicitly, "he rose through the command ranks on his own merit". On the first point, the lead isn't the place for minor details: the details are in the article. The lead should encompass the main thrust and arguments of the article. In particular, I feel strongly that details of ranks held and dates of promotion should not be repeated. He isn't famous for being promoted a captain in 1891, or for playing a very minor part in the Egyptian intervention, or because he handled a ship well during maneouvres. He's famous for being a German prince with royal connections who rose to be First Sea Lord and was sacked at the start of the war. DrKiernan ( talk) 11:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is mainly sourced from the two best available biographies of Battenberg: one written by Mark Kerr (Royal Navy officer) and the other by Richard Hough. The article, as it is currently, accurately reflects the published work on Battenberg, the judgement of history and the opinion of his biographers. It is appropriately balanced, neutral, non-bias and verifiable. It is thorough, comprehensive, focused and well-written. DrKiernan ( talk) 07:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
How about something like this:
- Morinao ( talk) 23:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The recent changes are not acceptableunwise because they remove completely one of the main reasons this man is notable. He is notable for two reasons: (1) he married Queen Victoria's grand-daughter and (2) he served in a high position in the navy. The lead must cover both these points. The problem is that those trying to change the article still haven't grasped that a large number of people are only interested in him because of the royal connection. There are two sets of editors whose interests need to be balanced: one interested in royalty and one interested in the military. The previous lead I have written currently balances these two aspects.
DrKiernan (
talk)
07:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I can hardly believe your uncivil personal attack which assumes bad faith, which came immediately after my agreement with you, my attempt to address your criticisms of my behaviour by striking out words which you find offensive and my making the edit which you are trying to impose.
It is very clear to me now that your opposition is based solely on personal animosity against me, and has no basis in the betterment of the article whatsoever. DrKiernan ( talk) 12:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
This edit converted 1st Class, Order of the Rising Sun with Paulownia Blossoms, Grand Cordon in the text to CGRS in the info box.
The result is elegant, but I wonder if I should understand that this is a mere wiki-convention or whether this acronym is more broadly recognized? Googling "GCRS" was unhelpful. -- Tenmei ( talk) 21:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought we might revisit the issue of the title, since there was no discussion. There seems to be good reason to have the article at this title, but there's also some strong reasons in favor of Louis Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven. For one thing, there's another person who was known as Prince Louis of Battenberg. For another, as some people noted before, he specifically renounced the title of "Prince of Battenberg" and took a new name. It seems to me this warrants some discussion, rather than an unopposed move. john k ( talk) 02:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't determine the reason for the blank line between the "Commanders-in-Chief and First Sea Lords of the Royal Navy" template and the Authority Control bar. If someone else can, feel free to remove. Congrats on the Main Page appearance! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The Director of Naval Intelligence succession box was removed on the basis that the Directors of Naval Intelligence template already provided the same information. I would suggest that the Director of Naval Intelligence succession box should be reinstated and the Directors of Naval Intelligence template be removed. This would provide information about Prince Louis in a more consistent way. More generally I am against appointment templates (even if I may have tweaked them in the past) as they generate information on biographical articles which are not relevent to the subject of the biography. For example Reginald Custance is relevent as he handed over to Prince Louis but Patrick Graham is not as he was probably not even born when Louis was Director of Naval Intelligence. Greenshed ( talk) 00:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Can we get something more neutral on the decision not to disperse the fleet during the July Crisis? I don't doubt that the cite there is valid, but it's certainly not a universal verdict of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.198.170 ( talk) 18:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm assuming the citation from note 5 has been taken from a book, but which book? Otherwise I'd have thought it would be violating WP:OR (even though I'm sure no one actually dug that out of the Royal Archives) and also the Royal Archives' permission policy. — Simon Harley ( Talk | Library). 16:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Whats the story with the secondary title "Earl of Medina". What Medina is that ? Eregli bob ( talk) 16:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The reasons for being strict about sourcing in a featured article is understood: I apologise for my temerity. However, I would have been more inclined to have left them in with "<!-- -->" bracketing; this would have allowed subsequent checking and possible inclusion in the visible script. A related point is whether all of the decorations in the infobox are sourced - it appears that only some are. I'd also argue that a collection of post-nomial letters is inadequate in a featured article and that full decoration names, grades and other details should be in the article (which might make citation more obvious). All IMHO, of course. Folks at 137 ( talk) 13:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
In the article on Mountbatten of Burma the following is stated "In 1914, because of the growing anti-German sentiments that swept across Europe during the first few months of World War I, Prince Louis of Battenberg was removed from his position as First Sea Lord and publicly humiliated by King George V and First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill. Though both men professed 'sadness' at having to do this, private conversations and letters show them both perfectly happy to sacrifice their "blue-eyed German".[Von Tunzelman, p. 44-45]". Surely if this is true it properly belongs in this article in the relevant section, not in one about his son? PhilomenaO'M ( talk) 11:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
In the top Right-hand info box apparently this guy gave issue to "Princess Andrew" hover over it and Andrew is meant to be called alice. Needs fixing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.89.230 ( talk) 13:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
As one who has re-read Buchan's 1915 novel The Thirty-Nine Steps, I am struck by the resemblance in portraits of Louis as an admiral to the description of "Lord Alloa", who is named as the First Sea Lord at the time the novel was set (early summer 1914): Richard Hannay's narrative describes: You couldn't open a newspaper or magazine without seeing that face - the grey beard cut like a spade, the firm fighting mouth, the blunt square nose, and the blue eyes. I recognised the First Sea Lord, the man, they say, that made the New British Navy. (Hannay sees an imposter posing as Alloa, having recognised him as a recent pursuer and spy but the "real" Lord Alloa transpires to have been elsewhere at the time.) At moment I have found no evidence Buchan drew the character on him and he could have been a composite but I wonder if it would be germane to this article to mention the character as a cultural reference? Cloptonson ( talk) 10:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Prince Louis of Battenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@ DrKay, I think you need to reconsider your edits. Look at p. 245 of Louis and Victoria:
On the day Churchill took office, Fisher wrote a long letter packed with strongly worded advice. The most important appointment Fisher told Churchill to make was Louis as First Sea Lord in place of Wilson '. . . Private, Wilson is no good ashore! . . . He [Battenberg] is the most capable administrator in the Admiral's list by a long way . . . I think also this should please the Liberal party – they will say what better proof we could give of our confidence to Germany than selecting a man as First Sea Lord with German proclivities. In reality he is more English than the English . . .10
Let's check note 10 on p. 397:
Let's go to Marder's Fear God and Dread Nought, II, p. 397. Only one letter and its enclosure are featured. At the top is written:
Dated 25 October from Lucerne. There is no letter to Churchill on that page, and technically the Battenberg as administrator quote is on p. 398. It is therefore abundantly clear that Hough was in error in claiming that the letter was addressed to Churchill, and that's according to his own reference. If you consult the original text it is clear that Fisher wanted Churchill to eventually read it, but that's no substitute for the fact that it is addressed to Spender. And no, there are no actual letters to Churchill near p. 397.
For you to revert and state, "I don't see why he can't have just written more than one letter" and "I see no evidence that he did not write two letters" is not only clearly wrong but the first statement is WP:OR. If I had found a letter from Fisher to Churchill on 25 October 1911 after going through all the relevant Churchill and Fisher papers at Churchill Archives Centre, rest assured I would have included it in my peer-reviewed article on the pair's correspondence regarding appointments in 1911 and 1912. A little less blind faith in Hough may be in order. — Simon Harley ( Talk | Library). 08:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Was this relevant then? Presumably, he had sworn an oath of allegiance to the King as a Royal Naval officer, but there is no mention in the article of this. A little background info on this subject would help to understand how it worked then. 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:EDA7:E55D:63F:7653 ( talk) 23:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)