Talk:John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough/Archive 1

Archive 1

Undefeated

Surely it should mention here that he was undefeated throughout his military career. Centy – – 22:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dates

Dates of events that happened in Britain before 1652 are usually recorded in the Julian calendar (with adjustments for the start of the year), not Gregorian. While dates in continental western Europe are recorded in Gregorian calendar and the continental battles should have Gregorian dates, using the Gregorian calendar for things like Churchill's date of birth is not what is normally done. For example the Britannica: "born May 26, 1650, Ashe, Devon, Eng. died June 16, 1722, Windsor, near London" as does the Educational Services at Blenheim Palace "John Churchill was born on 26th May 1650".

I think Wikipedia should keep to normal practice. Wikipedia should not be innovative, it should not start to develop its own dating standards in this area because it borders on a form of Original research. --PBS 10:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You of course meant 1752. I tend to agree that Marlborough's dates should be O.S and therefore have made the change as suggested. What's normal practice for dating in this period however, varies from source to source. Many modern publications often convert events in the British Isles to N.S. Example Barnett, see sources. Raymond Palmer 14:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer to give both, as we generally do for Russian dates before 1918. But if we give only one, it should probably be O.S. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography also used old style dates. john k 14:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a typo I did mean 1752. Thanks for the edit Raymond, I was not looking forward to working out which date as maladjusted, and hoped that someone more knowledgeable would take in on. As I think you have pointed out in the past John, the use of Gregorian dates for events in continental Western Europe like the Battle of Blenheim is the norm. So I think they should remain as Gregorian dates. (and of course the Battle of the Boyne is the exception that breaks the rule). The Pilgrims article is double dated and not being used to seeing them, I find the dates become obtrusive. I think I would rather have this article as Raymond has laid it out, with a footnote to explain what is happening as two different dating schemes are in use in this article. But I would not like to see an English Civil war article double dated as all the dates there are Julian with a start of year adjustment. --PBS 17:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Parliamentary career

I move this to talk, as the invisible comment ("Possibly this was not the Duke, but the John Churchill that later, as Sir John, became MP of Bristol for a short time in 1685?") says that this was possibly another John Churchill. It can be moved back once this is ascertained. Or, if the doubt is unreasonable, the invisible comment should be removed. I also fixed in the version below the bibliographical notes. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For six months (February–August) of 1679, Churchill was one of the two elected MPs for Newton in the Isle of Wight, a rotten borough.

Notes

Hi .. saw this after responded to the article change .. next time do the Talk first?  :-) I don't understand your comment about 'invisible comments' -- that is what comment markup is for, to be invisible.? It seems extremely unlikely it is not 'the' JC, but worth recording, surely -- why remove it? Thanks -- quota 18:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did immediately bring it to talk. I think it strange to include something and at the same time issue a declaration of doubt. But since the link says that it was this Churchill, I will accept this and ignore the "invisible comment" (that term was just a description, not a complaint) except for adding that it is not probable that he is someone else.

I am not totally statisfied with placing this at the top. I will try out another position.

I am also not glad that you did just restore the former version, without the improvement in reference.

Also I will remove the "rotten borough" designation until this is referenced. Just because a consticuency was rotten in 1830 doesn't mean that it was so 1679. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice that peerage.com was used in these latest edits . I've just read peerage.com's brief biography of Marlborough and I can assure you that it's worthless. I can point to several FACTUAL errors in the article and numerous misleading ststements, including - "He fought in the Battle of Walcourt in 1689, where his Dutch force defeated the French under Marshal d'Humerières" - Nonsense! Raymond Palmer 17:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And some of the recent changes are gramatically dubious. 17:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Rank

What was his rank in the British army? There were no field marshals in Britain before 1736... --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The article never mentions the rank Field Marshal. It does, however, mention that Marlborough was Captain-General at least five times. Including in the lead Raymond Palmer 17:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please correct or clarify "prevaricate"

Does anybody have access to the book by Chandler which is cited for this sentence in the "Revolution" section: "Churchill himself had openly encouraged defection to the Orangist cause, but James continued to prevaricate." It seems unlikely that "prevaricate" is the correct word here -- could somebody either change it to what was actually happening, or clarify what James was lying about, to whom, and why? Thanks, Thirdbeach (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Prevaricate, as used here, means to pussyfoot, hesitate. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, both dictionaries I check define "prevaricate" as an active avoidance of truth rather than the passive indecisiveness implied by "hesitate" and "pussyfoot". Oxford Online says "avoid giving a direct answer when asked a question". American Heritage has definition "to stray from or evade the truth; equivocate" and synonym "lie". That's why I'm asking about the Chandler source cited next to this word. If Chandler uses "prevaricate" then I suspect there's illuminating information about what truth James was trying to evade, but I suspect that Chandler uses some other word that conveys what was going on less ambiguously. As it is, the effect for U.S. readers is that there's this rather inflammatory accusation against James -- he lied -- that demands an explanation that isn't provided. It distracts us and makes us lose the train of thought of this otherwise excellent article. Thirdbeach (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this may be a BrE and AmE thing. My Oxford thesaurus certainly suggests that, along with 'Lie', 'Fib', - 'Pussyfoot' is also a synonym for Prevaricate. It is this latter definition of the word that Chandler (an English historian) has used to describe James' response. However, to Americans, - as you state - it seems that to Prevaricate predominantly means to lie. There is a discussion here. Also here. Note the last comment. I think the best to do is simply change the word eg: dither Rebel Redcoat (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, usage appears to be different in BrE and AmE -- in AmE "prevaricate" always has the connotation of an intent to dodge the truth. "Dither" and "pussyfoot", to us, imply indecisiveness due to incompetence or fearfulness, and they're somewhat emotionally fraught (though less so than "prevaricate"). Would they raise NPOV concerns in the UK? I think they would in US. From a US point of view I think something like "continued to hesitate" or "remained indecisive" sound more impartial. However, if Chandler actually uses "pussyfoot" or "prevaricate" or "dither" I'd use exactly his/her word in quotes, and if "prevaricate" consider adding a brief clarification in the article for us darn Yanks. :-)Thirdbeach (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the ambiguous word to 'hesitate'. Thank you. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Appreciate the excellent resource that this article is. Thirdbeach (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thirdbeach are you still here? Take a look a the second link I provided. Someone has commented on the confusion between BrEn nd AmEn regarding the word 'prevaricate'. They write "This is a particularly nasty US/UK problem, since Americans aren't normally aware of the alternative sense, and Britons don't realize that they may be perceived as calling someone a liar when in fact they are only complaining of delay." Very intersting indeed. This is how wars begin. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The Camaret Bay Letter

Winston churchill, I suggest, purposely confuses Young & Blackhead's forgery with a separate letter and just because Young's was a forgery does not mean the Camaret Bay letter was. This was found years later in James Stuart's papers in French translation. The original was probably enciphered, probably numerically. Why would James make it up? In fact the attack had been widely blabbed about London & James's agent Barclay probably knew it from Russell, Goldolphin & Shrewsbury, but Marlborough gave the entire order of battle.--Streona (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

New files

Recently the files below were uploaded and they appear to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think they would be a useful addition, please feel free to include any of them.

• 
  By John Closterman, circa 1685-1690
• 
  By Godfrey Kneller, circa 1706
• 
  By Godfrey Kneller and studio, 1700
• 
  By Godfrey Kneller, late 17th or early 18th century
• 
  With John Armstrong, circa 1711-1720

All of these are high resolution. I realise there are many images in the article already, but it's up to you. :-) Dcoetzee 06:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This article is currently being revamped. If I can make use of some of these I will try to fit them in. If not, they might form part of an Image Gallery at the bottom of the page. Cheers. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File:John Churchill Marlborough porträtterad av Adriaen van der Werff (1659-1722).jpg

The painting in this picture is at Blenheim palace isn’t it?--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Character of Sarah

If no one has any objections I would like to adjust some of the adjectives used to describe Sarah Jennings, the Duchess of Marlborough. She is "hot-tempered", "tactless", and so on, in this article. I would prefer "clever", "witty", "committed", and "passionate". I believe that the characterization of Sarah is sexist, in the the most obvious and blatant sense.

In the standard accounts, Sarah's negative character traits are used to explain the final rupture between her and Queen Anne, and thus the fall of her husband. But that is not historically so. More important are the doubts arising from the Austrian suggestion that Churchill should become the Governor of Belgium, and Godolphin's dilemma to accommodate Whig interest in the Cabinet against Anne's desire. It is true that Sarah and Anne fell out, but it much more likely that this arose out of their evolving personal relationship, in which Anne's and Sarah's traits are equally relevant. I think Churchill's account, and his reproduction of Churchill's letters, sketches this adquately.

Sarah herself in later life explained how boring it was for her to spend countless hours spending time to entertain such a dull woman as Anne, who had limited interests and less conversation.

The standard accounts, such as Churchill and Trevellyan, also say that Sarah was the most intelligent woman in England at the time, whatever that means. The account she made of her conduct at the end of her life shows a clear intelligence aware of her own strengths and failings and those of her husband and her contemporaries. She married her daughters in such a way to establish the Whig party that ruled through the 18th century, and by shrewd investments established a fortune to fund that venture. Most of all, she became the closest friend to a woman who was unlikely to become Queen, yet truly loved and served that woman, and advanced her lowly husband in that service, to found a Dukedom. There may not be another woman in English history who came from such lowly background to achieve so much.

I think the article should be a little more generous in it adjectives in relation to Sarah, and propose to change them, unless there is objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1f2 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to back up your ideas? Coemgenus 14:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Of Sarah's character in 1704 Trevelyan writes, "At this period of her life, intellectually in her prime, she must have been a more attractive and a nobler creature than the grim fury into which she assuredly degenerated". Makes 'Hot-tempered' seem quite mild.

She had her charms, her wit, and intelligence, but if you want examples at her tactlessness look at her response to the death of Anne's beloved husband; or her later wild accusations of lesbianism.

The Austrian offer of governorship of 'Belgium' had nothing to do with Marlborough's downfall in England. To quote Trevelyan again. "The Queen and Godolphin rejoiced at the honour done to their friend and to England in his person" It mightily annoyed the Dutch, not the queen. Redcoat

Surprised there isn't a ref to the notable BBC series. Sarah is given a balanced portrait: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Churchills JdelaF (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC).

When Winston departed for Ireland the following year, John enrolled at the Dublin Free School; but by 1664,

The text is the following: "When Winston departed for Ireland the following year, John enrolled at the Dublin Free School; but by 1664..." but the Dublin Free School was only founded in 1669 (see here, well before it was possible for Churchill to enroll at the school. Ori Redler (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia has the Answer: The school was founded in 1669 as The Hospital and Free School of King Charles II and was located in Queen Street in Dublin. King's Hospital was a continuation of the old Free School of Dublin. The King's Hospital#History

Yes and no. Mainly No. The old school was called "Free Schole of the Cittie" and it lay in ruins long before the new school was founded - it was the a continuation in the sense that Charlemagne's rule is a continuation of the Roman emperors' rule. The book upon which this is relying is calling this a "rebirth or continuation" but it is neither. At any rate, he was never enrolled officially but studied there sub ferula. (see p. 38 of the source quoted for this). Ori Redler (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Free School of the City of Dublin, or 'Dublin Free School', in School House Lane (formerly le Ram Lane: Gilbert's History of Dublin) was not founded in 1669; it was "... an old foundation for some twenty children of poor freemen. The master was the Piev. Dr. W. Hill, Fellow of Merton, Oxford, who only received eighteen pence a quarter for each scholar, in addition to a fixed salary of £15 per annum. He was, however, allowed to live in the school-house rent free, and to take in by private arrangement a few better -class boys as day -pupils, amongst whom were young Pooley, afterwards Bishop of Cloyne, and Nat Foy, afterwards Bishop of Waterford. Young Churchill did not, however, remain there more than a year, for he returned with his father to London towards the end of 1663, and became a pupil in St. Paul's School …" (Wolsley: Life of John Churchill to the Accession of Queen Anne)

In 1674 the schoolhouse was falling into decay, and the Corporation granted a lease of the site to one John Borr. Borr built on it a residence for himself, and named it Borr's Court. Its name survives in a corrupt form — "Borris Court" — as the name of a narrow street off Schoolhouse Lane. The ruins which still exist are portions of the walls of Borr's house. Every vestige of the school has disappeared.

The Free School and King's Hospital are two different institutions in different parts of town. The link in the article is wrong and misleading.

Anne's stronger claim?

William and Mary distrusted both Lord and Lady Marlborough's influence as confidants and supporters of Princess Anne (whose claim to the throne was stronger than William's).

It was stronger than William's but weaker than Mary's, since Mary was the elder sister. Since Mary was a co-monarch together with William, the relevance of the remark in the parentheses is unclear.

Top.Squark (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Primary topics for "Marlborough" and "Duke of Marlborough"

What should be the primary topics of the phrases "Marlborough" and "Duke of Marlborough"? Tell us what you think: Talk:Marlborough#Requested_move and Talk:Duke_of_Marlborough#Requested_move_to_.22Duke_of_Marlborough_.28title.29.22. Kauffner (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Help required for connected article

Can anyone help determine what is correct from two different sources? I have made an edit to the article Glanvilles Wootton (which is a village in Dorset) which states that a farm in the parish there was once the home of the 1st Duke (Earl) of Marlborough. This is based on a statement in Portrait of Dorset (a book by broadcaster and Dorset native Ralph Wightman) which states that "The old manor house of Round Chimneys near Wootton Glanvilles ... was the home of John Churchill who became the first earl of Marlborough, and gives Dorset a strong link with that remarkable family." However in the book Dorset Villages, author and one-time Dorset resident Roland Gant states (regarding monuments in a church in a neighbouring parish): "The second monument is to members of the Winston family who died at the beginning of the seventeenth century. A daughter of one of them, Sarah, married John Churchill from the neighbouring parish of Glanvilles Wootton, and they became grandparents to the first Duke of Marlborough and ancestors of Sir Winston Churchill." Is either of these assertions correct, or are they both correct (if there were several John Churchills in a lineage), or are they both wrong? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is Marlborough's portrait so big, it doesn't fit with the standard size methinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.64.227 (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

I changed the description of the 1st Duke of Marlborough's arms today; what was described in the article were the arms of the Spencer-Churchill Dukes of Marlborough, which did not come into use until 1817. The evolution of the arms borne by the Dukes of Marlborough is described in detail in Duke of Marlborough (title). Cyan22 (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The 5th child?

The article says Winston Churchill has 5 children, and it mentions John, Arabella, Charles and George. So can anyone tell me who is the fifth child in this family? Even she might be not an important figure, her name should be in the article, I think. Michel Djerzinski (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Ancestry trees and citations

All sections should have citations particularly when "material [is] challenged or likely to be challenged" (WP:BURDEN). Two examples of Ancestry sections with full citations are Charles I of England#Ancestry and Charles II of England#Ancestry (both featured articles). The article on Winston Churchill has an ancestry tree with no citations and it has had an {{unreferenced section}} request for citations since February 2013.

Unlike navigation boxes where sourcing can usually be found in the article to which there are links, there is information contain in ancestry trees that may well not be in the linked articles. The problem is that it is easy to look up an ancestry tree from one of the dozens online sites, but most of them are not are defined as reliable sources on Wikipedia and do not meet the levels of scholarly research needed for such trees.

As an example: In ages when birth was a regular killer of women it was not uncommon for a man to have several wives. It takes only one mistake in the naming of a grandmother (because the mother is incorrectly given as the first wife and not the second one) and seven boxes contain the wrong ancestry, even if every box contains citations that confirms who was married to whom. It is because mistakes such as this are easily made that these trees need accurate precise citations.

-- PBS (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding citations for 31 entries can seem daunting, but in fact if a grandparent has an entry in something like the Dictionary of National Biography then as their children, spouse and parents are mentioned that will cover at least five of the entries. See for example these edits to Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland nine sources cover 30 entries. In cases of some famous people there are specific reliable sources that can be used for the whole tree. See for example Charles I of England#Ancestry uses just one book. -- PBS (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the unsourced section to below. DrKiernan (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ancestors of John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough/Archive 1

16. Matthew Churchill of Bradford 8. Jasper Churchill 17. Alice Gould 4. John Churchill 18. John Chaplet of Herringston 9. Elizabeth Chaplet 2. Sir Winston Churchill 20. Thomas Winston 10. Sir Henry Winston of Standish 5. Sarah Winston 22. Sir George Bond 11. Dionise Bond 23. Winifred Leigh 1. John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough 24. Sir Bernard Drake of Ashe 12. John Drake 25. Gertrude Fortescue 6. Sir John Drake 26. William Button of Alton 13. Dorothy Button 27. Mary Kelway 3. Elizabeth Drake 28. Sir Henry Boteler of Hatfield Woodhall 14. John Boteler, 1st Baron Boteler of Bramfield 29. Catherine Waller 7. Elizabeth Boteler 30. Sir George Villiers of Brokesby (Sheriff of Leicester) 15. Elizabeth Villiers 31. Audrey Saunders

Prince of Mellenburg

Is it a fact that he was created Prince of Mellenburg, and if so, was this a sovereign principality or just the rank of nobility? Our Principality of Mellenburg is extremely stubby and entirely unsourced, and the state's existence has been questioned on its talk page. Google searches for "Prince of Mellenburg" and "Fürst von Mellenburg" turn up a whopping 50ish results (combined), most originating from this biography. To be sure, the actual sources seem to differ. For instance: "It has been suggested that, after Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 (and the Treaty of Rastatt in 1714, between France and the Holy Roman Empire), Mindelheim was exchanged for the county of Mellenburg, Upper Austria, which was then elevated into a principality by Emperor Charles VI. But other sources state simply that Emperor Charles VI wrote apologetic letters to Churchill, and that he did not replace Mindelheim." from Property Law and Imperial and British Titles: the Dukes of Marlborough and the Principality of Mindelheim, p. 200–201, where both views are sourced further. 85.226.205.208 (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Chesterton's assessment

The "Assessment" includes a negative quote from "historian G. K. Chesterton", referring to Marlborough as "Iscariot" for his abandonment of James II. It might be noted that G. K. Chesterton had no training in history and that he had Catholic sympathies to the degree of becoming one himself; George Orwell described him as a Catholic apologist and one may note a tendency in his "Father Brown" stories to portray nearly all his villains as atheists (one of the few exceptions being an Anglican priest). Considering Chesterton's strong religious views, his equation of Marlborough with Judas Iscariot and the implied equation of Catholic James II with Christ (!) certainly does not appear unbiased. The article should at least not describe him as an "historian", which he certainly was not, and it would only be fair to mention his religious views as well.--Death Bredon (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Allegiance

Allegiance in the box is misleading, he did not change allegiance just because the name of the state changed as his allegiance was to a monarch. The problem is that Americans tend to assume that because they swear allegiance to a piece of paper "...I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America..." (see Oath of Allegiance (United States)), that everyone has allegiance to a state. To understand the concept in Europe at the end of the 17th early 18th century one has to think medieval. People swore allegiance to a monarch who treated their land holding closer to that of a modern day farmer than to a modern state. Indeed to this day HMG requires an oath of allegiance to the monarch not to the state (see Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom)). Is there any evidence that John Churchill's allegiance changed from England to Great Britain after 1706? -- PBS (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130718222952/http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/reference/armorial-bearings-of-wsc to http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/reference/armorial-bearings-of-wsc

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Present at Death

Mary Montague is listed as having died in 1719, and therefore, could not be at his bedside when he died in 1722. This may be an error on which Mary, (possibly his granddaughter). Dates may be wrong on death of Mary as well.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4603:2090:690F:FCC5:7895:8EB9 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC) 

Updating Required

Marlborough is a major figure; this article needs careful review, since much of it reads as if it was copied straight out of Arthur Bryant or WS Churchill.

'When Churchill returned to England at the end of 1678, he found grievous changes in English society. The iniquities of the Popish Plot... etc' This is not modern English.

'For his part, Churchill treated the princess with respectful affection and grew genuinely attached to her, assuming – in his reverence to royalty – the chivalrous role of a knightly champion.[47]' Highly debatable, plus non-neutral POV.

Robinvp11 (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Creighton

Louisa Creighton, in her Life of Churchill, agrees with the conspiracy theory that has Churchill betray Tollemache. 100.15.127.199 (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)