Talk:F. J. Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich

The painting by Wonder
Looking at the painting by Wonder and reading the unpublished Dutch article on Academia.edu, the argument that this is Goderich does seem to need a bit more substantial evidence. First, the picture itself - the man is dressed as a footman or a groom rather than as a gentleman - wearing what appears to be a livery outfit with a striped waistcoat, breeches and gaiters, and carrying a top hat with a gold band. Second, the argument for the painting as allegory appears to hinge on the fact that Goderich was a Tory; that there had been a shooting accident in 1828 at Sudbourne involving other Tory MPs; and that Sudbourne is the source of the game on the table: it all seems a bit tenuous as a basis for identifying the man as Goderich. The Sudbourne connection with Wonder could do with better exploration? Tommybrock 11:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Untitled
I removed the indication of the progression of the viscountcy. The reason for such a removal is the general system that has been followed in such progression tables: only the highest title is listed, unless the subsidiary title is distinct and is not "united" with the main title. One example of such "distinct" titles is William Petty, 1st Marquess of Lansdowne, and 2nd Earl of Shelburne: Separate rows are provided for the two titles, because the marquessate was created for, while the earldom was inherited by, Petty. Another example would be where one title becomes extinct, while the other would be inherited. Yet another example of using distinct rows would be a situation where two titles were inherited from separate individuals, or where they were inherited by separate individuals. -- Lord Emsworth 16:42, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Right, sorry about that.
 * James F. (talk) 17:48, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Whilst I'd normally agree on this, given that he was Prime Minister whilst known as Viscount Goderich, surely there's a case for him to be an exception to the general rule? Most other PMs are listed by their highest title whilst Prime Minister - e.g. Arthur Balfour even though he later held Cabinet office as the First Earl of Balfour. Timrollpickering 20:52, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...Balfour is the only real example of this, though. My personal feeling is that unless we can say absolutely that the person is best known by a lower title, we should always err on the side of the lower title. Especially since Lord Ripon was only known as "Goderich" for six years, as compared to just "Frederick John Robinson" for the first decades of his life, and "Lord Ripon" for the last several. john k 21:26, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm - "Viscount Goderich" (as a phrase) gets 1,520 Google hits, whilst "Earl of Ripon" gets 991 hits. Encyclopedias are mixed, but hinge towards Goderich. 10 Downing Street's website lists him as Goderich . Whilst he was only Goderich for six years before becoming Ripon, he was Prime Minister during that time and I'd argue is now probably best known as such, rather than for his later offices.


 * Few other PMs who later served in a subordinate office with another title (unless we count "Minister Behind The Curtain" as an official office held by Walpole whilst Earl of Orford!). The only other I can think of is Henry Addington, later Viscount Sidmouth but there both name and title are in the article title. Timrollpickering 22:06, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * No-one's said anything on this in the last four months so can I propose we moved the page to Frederick John Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich so he's listed under the name he used whilst PM, which is arguably how he's known best if at all. Timrollpickering 22:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to object to the move, it seems sensible enough. This leaves, I think, Sidmouth, as the only PM listed at a higher title than that held while PM. And I think Sidmouth is at least as well known for his time as Home Secretary as for his time as PM. john k 19:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * There's also the problem of Lord John Russell/John Russell, 1st Earl Russell - he's probably best remembered by the first, and was PM for much longer with it, but held the second in his last premiership. I don't think an easy answer can be found to that one. Timrollpickering 20:42, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Territorial Qualification, not title
There is a difference between the formal title and the territorial qualification. The comma indicates the difference. In the case of "Viscount Goderich, of Nocton in the County of Lincoln", the latter part, "of Nocton in the County of Lincoln" is not part of his title. Similarly Thatcher's title is "Baroness Thatcher", not "Baroness Thatcher, of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire". Timrollpickering 21:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a horrible sentence
"Goderich had been an able minister but when it came to leading he was unsure and the government couldn't be run effectively as a number of Tory MPs stepped in to become the unofficial Prime Minister in an effort to help Goderich run the country."


 * gasp* Someone who knows what it all means (i.e. not me) rewrite that with some internal punctuation, please! 86.136.250.154 (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The IPA has the o in code, the re-spelling has the o in bot. Which is correct? DuncanHill (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it, the IPA was correct. DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Man with the hat
The article notes that Goderich is the man in the Pieter Christoffel Wonder painting, citing an unpublished student essay as the source. Does a WP:RS exist? Furius (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Length of tenure
I thought Goderich served 144 days & Canning 119 but under Prime Minister it says that Goderich served 3 days more than Canning. Ally Bearders (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)