Talk:Crown Jeweller

Crown Jeweller
thinks they have found UnSoUrCeD SpEcUlAtIoN and stricken it from this article, which I wrote.

Except it was not unsourced...

Quote from page 153, The Jewel House and the Royal Goldsmiths:

"[Crown Jewellers] seems to have been first used as a title by Rundell and Bridge; only two firms have used it, Rundell and Bridge, and Garrards. Apparently the title implies the responsibility for the preparation of the Regalia and Crown Jewels for Coronations, and their maintenance generally. It could, on this basis, have been applied to all the 'Principal' goldsmiths from 1660 to 1782 and probably to the Royal Goldsmiths since Morgan Wolfe in 1540. Since 1782 it would have been held by William Jones 1782-1796, Philip Gilbert 1797-1820, and Rundell, Bridge and Rundell from 1821-1843."

Page 152 states that William Jones was employed by Jefferys & Jones, and Philip Gilbert by Jefferys, Jones and Gilbert. Actually checking the sources next time may be a good idea to save you further embarrassment. Cheers. Firebrace (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I cannot speak on this particular article as I have not been contributing to it but this same user, @Hippo43, is continuing to remove content without attempting to engage with the issue on Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II. I see they have also continued to revert on this article since this talk section was posted. I have briefly looked at archived sections on their talk page and they have been warned of edit warring in the past too. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , you are 100% right. You cannot speak on this particular article. Go stalk someone else. // Hippo43 (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside your childish and obnoxious comments, the sentence that I removed did not contain a citation, and it is speculation.
 * The Sitwell passage, which is only a footnote, contains so many qualifiers as to be meaningless in this context - "seems", "apparently", "implies", "could", "probably"... The position did not exist before 1843, so this hypothetical is trivial and pointless. // Hippo43 (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The use of user contributions and history functions is a normal activity that "can be used in the dispute resolution process" (see WP:HOUND) in particular if you are trying to establish incidents as I was doing in this talk section in raising the possible existence of edit warring. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute resolution process going on with you. Go away. // Hippo43 (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You yourself have replied to the dispute I raised on Talk:Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II. The one you have been constantly reverting for three days with no attempt to reach a compromise as I try to reword or explain its justification. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously. You have no interest in this article. This is not the place to discuss another article. Go away. // Hippo43 (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no point arguing. These people have been here since Wikipedia was founded and are thus 100% convinced of their own righteousness (and when they know they're wrong they will just move the goalposts to make themselves look right). Firebrace (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)