Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Copy editing comments
I was asked to clean up the citations a bit. I didn't do the nicknames section. Except when I've had to find a source, I've done very little cite-source integrity checking, I just reformatted the existing information, and looked up a few minimal sources.

I found a bit of an issue with his funeral, and removed some text pending a better citation: At his funeral, there was little space to stand due to the number of attendees, and the praise given him in Tennyson's "Ode on the Death of the Duke of Wellington" attests to his reputation at the time of his death. He was buried in a sarcophagus of luxulyanite in St Paul's Cathedral, next to Lord Nelson but left it here if it can be put back in. I removed it because the citations given, Sinclair and Holmes do not support the text. Neither mentions the sarcophagus of luxulyanite. Sinclair just mentions the monument, which is away from the tomb, saying a point made by the Victoria and Albert Website. I've deleted the Sinclair for now, and expanded the page number for Holmes to keep what is left: the burial in St. Pauls and the crowds. Also, the point about being buried next to Nelson is not in Holmes. Holmes merely states that he was buried "with Nelson" (e.g., at St. Paul's). The tombs are adjacent in the crypt so I'm sure an actual source could be found. I think all of the above could be restored if an appropriate WP:RS source could be found. Wtfiv (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I also deleted a couple of points where the source was incorrect (e.g., using a cite showing a 1850s poster to make the claim about Wellington's bed still being on exhibition, and a citation referencing an archivist. Though I did do a search through the archives themselves. Again, maybe a dedicated editor can find a reliable source and add the points back in.) Wtfiv (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Main image in the infobox
An IP keeps trying to change the image in the infobox without consensus. In my opinion, the portrait by Thomas Lawrence labelled "File:Sir Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington.png" is the most suitable because it gives a close up perspective. Views welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Lawrence portrait is (in my opinion) best suited for the infobox. Coridally, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Lawrence portrait is most suitable. Chariotsacha (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Lead/Infobox images should let us see what the subject looks like. The Lawrence portrait does that, the replacement image doesn't. (Hohum @ ) 22:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Nationality
His nationality should be Anglo-Irish which is the accepted term for people of English descent born in Ireland around this time. See for example Lord Castlereagh who was also born in Dublin in the same year with a similar background. 176.61.123.52 (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Anglo-Irish is an ethnic group, not a nationality. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well that's not exclusively true, it may be of groups like Irish Travellers however many people would have their nationality as Ulster Scots and Irish such as James Orr and Anglo-Irish like Dean Swift. 78.16.137.92 (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's also like saying the Cornish or the Kurds or the Silesians are an ethnic group not a Nationality even though many people would exclusively proudly identify as any of the above. 78.16.137.92 (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of Wellington's "English" ancestors had been in Ireland since the 12th Century -names like Fitzgerald, Cusack, Plunkitt are all over his family tree. On his mother's side he has lines that trace deep into Ireland's ancient past, including an O'Brien lineage that goes right to Brian Boru. If Wellington were a Catholic, we wouldn't be having this discussion -the lead would say "Irish".
 * If the majority of reliable sources use the ridiculous and anachronistic term "Anglo-Irish" -then by all means cite them and change the description which currently reads "British." But beware that no one living at that time, in or out of Ireland, would've had any idea what this term means. There is good evidence that Wellington was understood as an Irishman by the British press, and a similar case could be made for Edmund Burke. Social and ethnic identities are far more complex than where someone was born, where they died and who their ancestors were, especially for Irishmen like Wellington in the 18th/19th Century. Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * His nationality was undoubtly British to a degree (legally speaking) as he was a British PM and battle commander. My own ancestors referred to themselves as both British -and- Irish, being of mixed descent, and Protestant. Ironically I am Catholic. How did Wellington view himself? Perhaps this could give us a clue: (an article original posted here by User:Fergananim --SinoDevonian (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Re: Irish Philosophy - no firm conclusions are drawn by the author there. Dead men tell no (new) tails, and Wellington certainly left things ambigious. Clearly, being a part of the British political establishment meant more to him than solidarity with his fellow Irishmen and women. It is impossible for one to draw conclusions, but I reflect on his main claims to fame - as a PM and military commander, and in both those areas he served Great Britain, not Ireland per se. This seems to suit a lot of Irish people just fine, especially so when we consider how 100 years in the past revolutionaries burned the homes of Wellington's ancestors and drove the remaining Protestants into exile, or political and religious oblivion in the newly independant Irish nation.--SinoDevonian (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To contest the last sentence or two of your answer: Many big houses and aristocratic protestant families still exist in my part of Ireland, and after the War of Independence, they just continued their affluent social and political lives as usual under a different government and they still remain part of the social fabric of our part of the country today. A story goes around in our parish about how the local IRA branch (which included relatives of mine) wouldn't burn any of the Anglo-Irish houses around here because they were a well respected part of our community, they provided employment, housing, and were a talking point for the area. So they weren't exactly pushed into "exile" whatever that means in your mind. De Valera and his extremist government may have tried to do something along those lines in many parts of the country and it may have worked in some, but many places respected the Anglo-Irish because many were good to the poor when times were hard. Despite there being many a heartless landlord who even my own family would've suffered at the hands of, a very prominent amount of Protestant families were philanthropists who built churches, halls and houses in our villages. But I digress, protestant numbers may have gone down significantly because many moved away out of fear they would lose their culture and roles at the hands of a republican government but at the same time, half the Irish peerage was sitting in the Dáil at the time so I wouldn't say it exactly suited many Irish people to see their friends, neighbours and employers being forced away from their ancestral homes after 100s of years of coexistence with one another regardless of political beliefs. Maybe dig a little deeper into the local history of the counties and localities and you'll see that most Irish people and rebels weren't cold monsters who wanted to hoist families from their homes, and believe me, the ones that did force people out had their reasons and needed to make a statement at a depressing and hard time in Irish history for every man woman and child involved . I know this doesn't have much to do with the Duke himself but I feel this point is worth making in the context of the fate of the Protestant Ascendancy. 78.16.137.92 (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And believe me, I live in an area that borders several counties and this applies to all of them 78.16.137.92 (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Lastly, when the Black and Tans raided and burnt down our village, the money to rebuild it mainly came from our local peers who were all Anglican and Unionist (The Taylors, The Mortimers, The Bailies, and The Saundersons;actual names altered) and members of the Anglican Clergy who said they would help their neighbours in any way they could. So believe me many Irish people realise the good many of these families did, but we also don't forget what the bad ones did and who they wronged. 78.16.137.92 (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Did I say anything about the author drawing a "firm conclusion"? The point was that this subject is far more complicated than the usual blurting about Wellington having been an "Englishman born in Ireland." Wellington's family had little connection with England and his latest English ancestor arrived in Ireland well before the Reformation. Wellington did not have "New English" ancestry as is often implied.
 * The source from the philosopher speculates (quite reasonably) that the cartoonist portrayed Wellington as an Irish chieftain because this would've made sense to the British public -otherwise, why else? And while we cannot conduct original research on here, I'd offer this interesting little tidbit for additional context:
 * In Travels in Ireland, 1844, Johann Georg Kohlm has the following passage in chapter 29 regarding the accents of Irish aristocrats (in bold),
 * "Although O'Connell's language is very clear and precise, still he does not speak so fluently as his son: he sometimes hesitates, thinks, and repeats himself; but all this ceases when he becomes warm and enthusiastic. What struck me most, was that he possessed so much of the Irish brogue. He did not, it is true, say repale, like Tom Steele, and some others who were present; but he pronounced the English th almost like d, as, for example, de wishes, with some other Irish peculiarities of accent. This brogue is so difficult to be lost, that the most refined Irishmen always retain a portion of it, which is very unpleasant to English ears; and it is said that even the Duke of Wellington cannot wholly divest himself of it."
 * What's more, the Irish and London press had a war of words in the wake of Wellington's death, as both attempted to claim him as their own (this source is more appropriate for Wikipedia).
 * It is utterly irrelevant who burned the homes of whom some 50 -60 years later. Nor does the question depend much on how Wellington saw himself. To quote Barack Obama when asked about why he never talks about his mother's white ancestry: "I soon learned you are how people see you." So how did people see Wellington? He was seen as both Irish and English, depending on the author's biases and the point being made. When Wellington had a political opponent in Daniel O'Connell, it made sense for the press to portray them both as Irish chieftains, to spice up the rivalry. But when Wellington died, both the Irish and English press fought over his identity to the extent that his corpse became a "racialized object" (see Sinnema in link 3). You cannot erase this aspect of his life and legacy with the word "British" -politically speaking, everyone in Ireland was "British" when Wellington died, but not when he was born. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody was accusing you of trying to 'shoehorn' anything in here regarding how the subject of this article should be described in the lead, which is what we are trying to figure out here. Honestly, the present lead is perhaps left as it is. If people want to learn about his ancestry, they can do so later in the article. The only thing I would object to is describing him as Irish alone in the lead. I'd rather it left blank if it came to that - no serious scholar would refer to the subject as a "flawed, contextual Irishman, definitely not British thou" today. From his birth, mind you, he would have been a British subject. And no one is trying to erase anything.--SinoDevonian (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And the lead section is supposed to summarise who the individual was and where their notability is derived from. Wellington's notability derived from him being a prime minister and general. We cannot describe him as an "Irish prime minister and field marshal" in the lead, that would be absurd. He wasn't Lafayette, who came over to another country to "lend a hand" and got into the spirit of things in a way which went above ethnic pettiness - Wellington was a dyed-in-the-wool British imperialist and coloniser, firmly a part of the British establishment. The views of the likes of Kohl, who originated from Germany - a place that at the time was not even a unified nation - is opinion. I do value his opinion to a degree, but god damn it the context matters. My daughter is mixed race - like literally in the modern day sense - and depending on who you ask, you will get different responses. Some are more innocent i.e "ancestry does not dictate nationality, and the latter is what matters", others will be more open - "self-iD and how you were raised matters" - and others will be, for use of a better term, hold racist views that will dictate their response. 200 years ago, such as when the Duke of Wellington was around, the responses would have been different again. Context matters. I am not suggesting he wasn't Irish. No one here would seriously argue that he wasn't to some degree.--SinoDevonian (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Similar nationality/ethnicity discussions can be found on every one of this article's archived Talkpages. They have all involved the expenditure of a great deal of virtual ink. None have reached a consensus for change, and neither will this. There must surely be more productive ways to improve the article, than another fruitless discussion. KJP1 (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree let's keep the discussion civil, and do our best to improve the article rather than acting out of turn. 109.78.207.110 (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but be aware that when we talk about "Irishness" in the early to mid 19th Century, we are talking about one of the four main ethnic groups of the United Kingdom. Irish people served the British government, the British military, and could travel freely back and forth from Ireland and England, and many lived in England yet were still perceived as "Irish" for the rest of their lives, especially if they had ethnic traits like a brogue, which some sources imply Wellington had (one source even claimed he got mocked for his Irish heritage at Eton). Again, this question is complicated and ironically not unlike the identity of his rival Napoleon (was Napoleon Corsican, Italian, French or some hyphenated label?) Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just to follow this up real quick (completely forgot about this) -in the lead and "early life" section it's mentioned that Wellington was born into the Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland, and links to an article that describes this class as:
 * "Unsuccessful revolts against English rule in 1595–1603 and 1641–53 and then the 1689–91 Williamite Wars resulted in much Irish land confiscated by the Crown, and then sold to people who were thought loyal, most of whom were English and Protestant. English soldiers and traders became the new ruling class, as its richer members were elevated to the Irish House of Lords and eventually controlled the Irish House of Commons (see Plantations of Ireland). This class became collectively known as the Anglo-Irish."
 * Is this accurate? If so it should be mentioned almost none of Wellington's English ancestors were Protestant English colonists -they all arrived as Catholics pre-Reformation, and were targeted along with Gaelic landowners during the 16th and 17th Century plantations. Some of these older noble families rebelled and lost all land and titles, while others converted to the established church to retain their privileges. Wellington's family belonged to the latter group. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

AI-generated tag
I have added a tag to a section that was added recently and may contain ChatGPT text. A particular problem is references that have been automatically generated and have in some cases nothing to do with the text. See in particular refs 203 and 205. 203 is a three-page book review of a book about Neo-Liberalism in Twentieth Century British History. As for 205 - just click on it. Neither has anything to do with the Duke of Wellington or early 19th century domestic policy. Southdevonian (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree: I have removed those paragraphs: please feel free to cull any more suspect material. Dormskirk (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The added text certainly had an odd "ring"; I didn't check the sources - thanks for doing so - but I wondered if it was copied from somewhere. As suggested, Chat is perhaps a more likely possibility. KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have removed it all now. I don't think there was anything significant that needed keeping. It seemed to concern topics already covered in the article, there was for example a section on Catholic emancipation. Southdevonian (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)