Talk:Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron

Birth

[1] has entry of his baptism in the Bromfield register: Thomas son of Thomas Lord Fairfax and the Lady Catherine his wife was born 22 October and bapt. 31 October 1693. Anyone have more reliable source for birth? Alf 19:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Scottish ancestry?

Were the Lords Fairfax really from Scotland? I read that their surname is both English and Caledonian, and apparently all of their usual property in the British Isles was in Yorkshire.--Anglius 03:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

They are, as the article says, from Yorkshire. Holding a Scotch peerage is another matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

yes, check out Lord Fairfax of Cameron, from Queen Elizabeth Pohick2 (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Fairfaxes of Virginia were from a branch of the Fairfax family located at Steeton, Yorkshire, a small village near Bolton Percy not far from the city of York, since medieval times. The family is considered an ancient Yorkshire family.[2][3]. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"In the Scottish sense, that a Barony inplies a free hold of property, the Barony of Cameron is not indeed a Barony at all. It is a patent of the Baronial dignity which Charles I created, in 1627, and which he conferred in a manner not unusual to the Stuart King, for the consideration of a fee to the Royal Exchequer." [4] pohick (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, and I am unsure why 'Scottish-American' is given as a category for this fellow. MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The History is INCORRECT on a VERY expensive important matter

Famously and know by all residents and taught at schools UNTIL OBAMA, is that Lord Fairfax Graciously left his land, upon dying, the to County government - with willed use it be used for improvement of the people (ie, never sold for political gain, which by laws of will would be illegal, over $2,000 of it would be a felony)

This history of Lord Fairfax land being seized is ABSOLUTELY WRONG, if it were "seized" he didn't loose ownership, or it was some insignificant land not his major holding.

The history, as presented, could be used to claim that county executives auctioning land for pay raises wouldn't be a jail term: however - it very much can be and I hope will be if they get caught doing it.

this is why i hate wikipedia

they are giving keys to people to edit history in an "attack amercica" style, deleting good submissions - even defamating those who do this - with IP blocking as well, adding complete lies for political reasons

the problem with wikipedia is the moderators hate the usa and are unregulated

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron. 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/20100812100804/http://www.gen.culpepper.com/default.asp to http://gen.culpepper.com/default.asp

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).

• 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) 06:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate Legacy: Virginia Lt.-Gov Justin Fairfax - the 9th Lord Fairfax emancipated Simon Fairfax not 6th

The 2018 Washington Post article referenced here about Lt. Gov Fairfax states: "emancipated by this handwritten deed on June 5, 1798"; well, the 6th Lord Fairfax died 7 years earlier in 1781 ;) While Simon Fairfax may have indeed served the 6th Lord Fairfax, he was freed by Thomas Fairfax, 9th Lord Fairfax of Cameron (1762–1846). That part of the "Legacy" should be clarified here; it should also be added to article about the 9th Lord, and to [Fairfax], to complement, and make full information available to readers about that subject. (I don't know how to properly edit Wiki pages). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.228.111 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacy: wench or midwife?

Is it possible that "bedding down with a negro wench" is also recorded as “to be brought to bed” and represents an archaic English form of finding a midwife?

66.44.63.90 (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Notability

Fairfax depended on hundreds of enslaved persons who worked among his 30 Virginia plantations. He was active in trading slaves...

This is hardly notable. It would have been more surprising if a major Virginia landowner of his time had not depended on slave labour. I notice these slave-mentions popping-up everywhere, and it is obvious that there are some Wiki editors with an agenda. I think that slave-owning should only be mentioned when it forms a notable element in the story. Valetude (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

More work needed

In part because of my ongoing cyberbullies, I have not had time to citecheck and clean up this article, nor that of the Northern Neck Proprietary beyond what I did years ago. Clearly two of the comments here are both undated and unattributed. While I disagree with the last named editor, Valetude (who does not adopt American spelling), that "slave owning should only be mentioned when it forms a notable element in the story", I also agree with him that unattributed edits may be done by editors to support an agenda, rather than historical accuracy (and wikipedia standards).Jweaver28 (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)