Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington/Archive 1

Fearing insurrection
"Fearing insurrection, the Catholic Emancipation Act was passed". Who was fearing insurrection? S.

Removed

aparently, he had an illegitimate daughter, but made her a vestal virgin

Since a vestal virgin is an ancient Roman priestess, this seems unlikely. If there is more information on an illegitimate daughter please feel free to add it (with sources, please). DJ Clayworth 17:07, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I always assumed that he was a moral gentleman until I discovered that, sir-reverence, he perpetrated adultery with Lady Caroline Lamb.

My flatmate claims direct but illegitmate descent from this guy.. notify me if u want more info -max rspct 8 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)


 * Same, I had the family tree somewhere, it's in my fathers side of the family.

I am supposedly an illegitimate descendent also. Apparently the woman was sent to Australia. If you have any more information I would be very pleased. My email address is bjjgoodman@hotmail.com.

Moved from article

 * His full title was Field Marshal His Grace The Most Noble Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, Marquess of Wellington, Marquess Douro, Earl of Wellington, Viscount Wellington of Talavera and of Wellington, Baron Douro of Wellesley, Prince of Waterloo, Duke of Brunoy, Duke of Vittoria, Marquis of Torres Vedras, Count of Vimiero, Duke of Ciudad Rodrigo, Grandee of the First Class, Knight of the Garter, Knight of St Patrick, Knight Grand Cross of the Bath, Knight of the Golden Fleece, Knight Grand Cross of Hanover, Knight of the Sword of Sweden, Knight of the Annunciado of Sardinia, Knight of St Andrew of Russia, Knight of St George of Russia, Knight of Maria Teresa, Knight of the Crown of Rue Saxony, Knight of St Hermenegilda of Spain, Knight of the Red Eagle of Brandenburg, Knight of the Golden Lion of Hesse-Kassel, Lord of the Privy Council.

This should probably be reintegrated into the article, but not in a big paragraph like that (and it really needs to be far more clear which nation gave him each title). Also, it's not actually his "full title" by any means - it's just a list of all his titles and honours, which would never have been put together in that way. Proteus (Talk) 18:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Title seems wrong anyway. As the younger son of a Peer (not holding that title) he was entitled to "the Hon." and as a Knight "Sir". Correctly it's "Field Marshal, His Grace, The Most Noble, the Hon. Sir Arthur...Alci12


 * Is there certainty that he was created Duke of Brunoy. Even though he did vanquish Napoleon, why would Louis XVIII bestow him a title for weakening France?


 * Wellington's victory restored the French monarchy. Louis did owe Wellington much but though he wanted to give him the Dukedom he was talked out of it by Talleyrand iirc. Either way the title was not created.Alci12

Should Wellington's brief 2nd ministry (Nov-Dec 1834) be mentioned in the succession tables? Currently he's skipped over, with Melbourne followed directly by Peel. john k 20:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not. It's in our table of PMs, anyway, so it would be inconsistent to miss it out. Proteus (Talk) 10:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nicknames
I removed the Nicknames from the lead in, it looked out of place. I moved them to a new section but it could still use some cleanup. Zerbey 16:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps they could be moved to the end of the article? ugen64 15:58, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * Placed them after the Full title section, seems to fit better that way Zerbey 01:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the claim he was called "the peer" when he was made a duke as it is wrong - it was used from his viscountcy until his Dukedom. Thereafter in some sources he seems to have been called "the Duke". I have added the common nicknames for the Spanish/Portuguese troops he commanded. I have one source claim he was called the "Great Lord" by some of the troops but its hard to tell if this was widespread or only by the soldier (the source quotes) or regiment concerned.Alci12 15:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Whig Politician?
How was he ever a Whig? - danno That's a good question. That whole sentence is flawed, he was PM of the UK, not Great Britain...when did that get changed? Mackensen 16:23, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am fairly certain he was never a Whig - he was born in 1769, so by the time he reached maturity, we have a clear Pittite/Foxite distinction. And the Wellesleys both seem to have always been Pittites. That is, Tories. Richard, in particular, served in various capacities in Pitt's first government in the 1790s. john k 16:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The PM table states, "Political Party:	Tory, Whig", off which I based my statement about him being a Tory & Whig politician. I dunno why I said PM of GB, perhaps I thought the Act of Union was later than it really was... ugen64 01:32, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Navigation Boxes
If I recall correctly, Commander in Chief of the Forces was a position of some political importance. Therefore, while I don't object to moving Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports (a mostly honorary position) out of the main box, I think Commander in Chief should be moved back (especially as his tenures in that position fit the box rather neatly). ugen64 01:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quotations
I recall that Wellington produced some well-known phrases, but I don't have them to hand. Something about being Irish ("being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse", maybe?) and a good one about the English army after their appalling behaviour in Spain ("I don't know what the enemy makes of them, but they put the fear of God into me"). I'll try to find them. --MJW 81.154.201.45 01:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good luck. Although searches for quotes like that often leave one disappointed. The one about being Irish, for instance, seems a brilliant candidate for being apocryphal - the kind of quote that someone might come up with, and then back-attribute to a famous Irish protestant who lived in England most of his life. john k 05:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Order of the Garter
Gentlemen, how could he have been invested as a Knight of the Garter in 1813? --Anglius 21:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to what the process is of becoming a Knight of the Garter, I'd probably suggest referring to Order of the Garter. If why(?), I believe it was for his role in the Peninsular War. I hope this helps. Craigy [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|15px]] (talk) 21:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * I thank you, young man, but, not to be impolite, I meant how could he have been installed in that position if he was fighting upon the Continent at that time. --Anglius 21:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh I see! Well actually heraldica says 1814, so you may be correct, but I myself won't change it as it was the only source I could find. If you do find another source that indicates it was indeed 1814 then do change (and well done for spotting it :-) Craigy [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|15px]] (talk) 23:17, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I thank you, sir. Is it possible for anyone to be installed as a Knight of the Garter whilst outside of England(Foreign monarchs are apparently able to be.)? I hope that I am not wasting your time, but I also wonder why some of those who were seemingly appointed Knights of the Garter were never installed. --Anglius 23:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It is possible for the monarch to announce that the Order has been bestowed upon a person while they are abroad, and then the actual investiture taking place after the Knight has arrived home. Some may have opted out of the pomp and ceremony, others may have been announced as recipients of the Order but unfortunately passed away before returning to England. As an example of the latter, I believe there was a case where a man was elected as MP of Portsmouth in 1747. News came later that he had died in the West Indies 87 days before polling. Another man died just prior to news arriving that he had been elected MP for the City of London in 1780. In these modern times, technology allows us to receive near-instant notification of death. Pity our forefathers had no such boon.
 * I appreciate your information, sir. --Anglius 00:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Good Anglius, I am but a lass, and I thank you for having begun this query so that others may ask for and share what knowledge we have.
 * You are welcome, young lady. --Anglius 20:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Order of St. Patrick
I have not read anywhere that His Grace was made a Knight of the Order of St. Patrick (British Army Commanders in Chief appears to be occasionally inaccurate). --Anglius 02:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Choice of Title
Why did he take the town of Wellington in Somerset for his title? I assume he had some family connection to the place, but I'm not aware of the details. Bastie 00:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Wellington himself did not actually pick the name; his brother William did. Wellesley received a viscountcy for his victory at Talavera in Spain, but apparently there was no time to consult him as to what his title would be. William Wellesley wrote to Wellington: "After ransacking the Peerage and examining the map, I at last determined upon Viscount Wellington of Talavera and Wellington, and Baron Douro of Welleslie in the county of Somerset -- Wellington is a town not far from Welleslie..." (The source of the quotation is Richard Holmes, Wellington: The Iron Duke (HarperCollins 2003), page 142. El Draque 00:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Guedalla is more specific, stating that William was aware that a distant ancestor had held lands near to Wellington.Alci12 16:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Political Life
I think this section needs a little expansion. There are bits that seem to misrepresent the positon. For instance Wellington some thirty years before becoming PM writes to both friends and in his official capacity as aide-de-camp about the wisdom of removing measures that penalise the Irish, a position he repeated and maintained throughout this time. The article as written suggests it was an almost damascene conversion in 1829 which may be true of some of the Tory party but not of wellington.

The other issue that strikes me is the problem of the "Tory" label. While he was conservative in nature he was not always a Tory. He accepted office as Chief secretary to Ireland on the specific understanding that this was non partisan and that he would not be bound to support the governing party, if they resigned, by following suit. Even as a supposedly Tory PM he was interested in the continuance of government more than party politics and his short term in office owed much to the refusal of much of the Tory party to support his policies.

In terms of the Reform Act, it passed in the end in part because Wellington convinced his supporters to stay away and not vote against the measure. He didn't support the reforms but he thought their failure to pass and the consequences was more of a threat to the country and its stability than reform.

In terms how he saw as his role he repeats throughout his life phrases similar this this:

"I am nimmukwallah, as we say in the East; that is, I have eaten of the King's salt, and, therefore, I conceive it to be my duty to serve with unhesitating zeal and cheerfulness, when and wherever the King or his Government may think to employ me." (Letter to a friend 1806, Despatches, II, p616 footnote)

I haven't edited the article and would welcome how we might feed some of this into itAlci12 13:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Suitable?
I'm not sure whether:

"He came from an established family of noblemen – his father was the 1st Earl of Mornington, his eldest brother, who would inherit his father's Earldom, would be created Marquess Wellesley, and two of his other brothers would be raised to the peerage as Baron Maryborough and Baron Cowley. "

fits into the introductory part. Maybe mention that he came from an established family of noblemen, but put the detail later on in the article? The introduction should be more of an overview of why he is well-known/what he did. A humble suggestion, Ben davison 13:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems wrong to me, as well. He was the son of a 1st earl. That is as far as his family's origins go. Lord Wellesley would receive his higher peerage title due to his successes in India, and Wellington's other brothers got their titles in large part due to the prominence achieved as the relatively talented brothers of even more talented and prominent leaders. At any rate, this should probably be in a "family background" section rather than the intro. john k 15:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You're over stretching your knowledge I think, he was the son of a first Earl but the grandson of a baron (paternally) and of a viscount (maternally).On his paternal side there are a succession of knights (through the colleys, cusacks and then back to the original Wellesleys and Plunketts) over several hundred years. On his maternal side he was related to the Marquess of Downside and Baron Sandys.Alci12 12:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I moved it into the Early life section for now, perhaps it can be further edited, Dabbler 15:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Status Vs Washington
"This victory plus showing his superiority to Napoleon made him the second greatest general in history after George Washington."

This appears to be a Troll.
 * It is certainly opinion and not a documentable fact and therefore has no place in the article. Dabbler 15:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, wholly out of place. Should be removed. -- Jussi H. 21:42, 12 October 2005

Anglo-Irish
Was the Duke really Anglo-Irish, or was he an Anglo-Norman Irishman (like the Butlers)? As far as I am aware, his family was in Ireland from at least the fifteenth century. --Anglius 00:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I am pretty sure he was Anglo-Norman, but I am not sure. I do know that it was in Lady Elizabeth Longford's comprehensive biography, and if you or somebody else has that source, they should refer to it. The tale I have heard was that the Wellesley family served at one point around the 15th Century as the King's standard bearer I believe, or else herald or something of similar capacity. Arvidius 23:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Soldier Article
I have added a new section (accidentally anonymously) recounting Wellington's contributions in warfare. I know in lieu of some of his other accomplishments, it might seem a bit "foppish" or unacademic, but in general Wellington was known best as a military commander, and secondly as a statesman. Therefore, I think an appropriate analysis should be given on his contributions to that industry. Obviously, this will be difficult to do completely NPOV, and though I have read a great deal about military tactics and strategy of that era, some will inevitably come from interpretation of some facts and sources. The sources I will be using will be Richard Holmes' biography, David Chandler's numerous military texts, and Phillip J. Haythorntwaite's military descriptions of the respective militaries. Arvidius 00:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, if you're going to go down that line then we'd better explain why the tactics were different. Napoleon could afford battles where he lost 30,000 men as his armies numbered in the 100s of thousands. Wellington struggled to get 30,000 troops and could never afford to take risks. With regard to persuit, it is in good measure a feature of cavalry reserves; Wellington had few enough for use in battle let alone to keep fresh for the persuit.Alci12 10:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why the perspective that he was first and foremost an allied general as opposed to a commanding general is an important distinction. The British army the Wellesley personally commanded varied roughly from 40-80,000 soldiers. In retrospect, this is little larger than a corp d'armee of Napoleon, therefore it inhibited many of Wellington's broad strategic sweeps that he utilized in India. I am by the way going to be analyzing the Indian campaigns as there is a scholarly propensity to focus solely on the European battles, and more specifically Waterloo. I think the Indian campaigns display new regards to warfare of the era, and Wellington summed it up himself when he said his greatest military triumph was Assaye. Arvidius 13:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * British army of 80,000 troops? I think you mean allied army. At Waterloo he had 30,000 the remaining being allied/Hanovarian troops. Both in India and early in the peninsula he had fewer than 40,000, even including allied troops under his command.Vimeiro for example, was ~17,000 Anglo-Portuguese. We have to be a bit careful in this area to fairly mention the allied army, even if some of the allied elements were not exactly 'trusted' by Wellington. WRT to India, I think that would be excellant, as you rightly say, it is an area almost forgotten in popular culture and general articles about the Duke.Alci12 16:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh good, but I think the current text overplays Wellington as a "defensive general". He certainly understood the value of terrain, and keeping his valuable (but contemptible) men out of harm's way, but the Battle of Assaye was an offensive engagement; ditto the Battle of Vitoria.  If Wellington had lost his command, where would the British have found another army? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)