Talk:Richard Leveson (admiral)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg)
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Residence edit
I've corrected Lilleshall Hall to Abbey. The prest Hall was built in the 18th century on a different site, some distance from the Abbey, and not even on the same site as the early 18th century Hall. According to History of Parliament, Richard and his father Walter were both described as being "of Lilleshall Abbey." According to Victoria County History, the Levesons had a Tudor hunting lodge in the deer park attached to the abbey, although the description makes it seem pretty big for a lodge - more a manor house. Signage at the Abbey says they had a house on the abbey premises, which probably means the hunting lodge.Sjwells53 (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Portrait edit
The present portrait at the head of the page isn't great and it isn't very well documented either. In fact it's not even certain if or why it's public domain, though it looks as if it must be. The description suggests it's not based on the "Van Dyke" portrait, so I guess it's a 19th or early 20th century sketch from the statue in St Peter's. I can easily take a close-up of the statue to replace it if required. Personally, I can't see the point in old-fashioned reconstruction drawings when a photo is now easy to get and represents the source the picture was based on. Perhaps it doesn't matter. What's the consensus? Sjwells53 (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Is the present portrait perhaps taken from this miniature [1]? NinaGreen (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like it, which answers my concern. In fact, I'd say that instead of removing it, a mention needs incorporating into the portraiture section. Sjwells53 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- There is also a picture here [2]. Shire Lord (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like it, which answers my concern. In fact, I'd say that instead of removing it, a mention needs incorporating into the portraiture section. Sjwells53 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)