Talk:Henry Campbell-Bannerman

Date of Resignation
A clue in this year's King William's College quiz has drawn attention to this. Most online sources show that Bannerman-Campbell's letter of resignation was received by the king on April 5 and announced on April 6. What is the source for dating the resignation April 3? Iglew (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * John Wilson's biography of C.B. says this on page 626: "The King telegraphed on April 3 saying that under the circumstances he had no alternative but to accept C.B.'s resignation. On that day Nash wrote out, at C.B.'s dictation, the words: ‘Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman with his humble duty to Your Majesty submits his resignation of the appointments of Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury.’ With an effort C.B. signed his name under it, firm, clear and legible. After he had done so, he said to Nash: ‘There's the last kick. My dear fellow, I don't mind. I've been Prime Minister for longer than I deserve.’ On the 3rd also the King wrote to him saying how sorry he was, ‘as it has always been a great pleasure and satisfaction to me to do business with you. ...’ Parliament reassembled on April 6, and the departure of the Prime Minister overshadowed everything else in members' minds".--Britannicus (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Role in Israel as Buffer State
please forgive I am new to wikipedia edits..

The new book, Side By Side says that CB was an early influence in the creation of the State of Israel, for the purpose of dividing the Arabs who may unite. However, this was included as part of the Palestinian Narrative, which is not footnoted. Does anyone have a way to find actual documents which support this? I am here including another quote I found, but it was not properly footnoted according to wikipedia rules:

"There are people (the Arabs, Editor's Note) who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradles of human civilizations and religions. These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations. No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another ... if, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world. Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects."

From the Campbell-Bannerman Report, 1907

If this source is valid, I think it will be very useful to add to the wikipedia page.

69.244.42.229 (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Patrick Moore


 * I question the use of the phrase "the West" in geopolitical terminology in 1907, as there was no Communist bloc then.Cloptonson (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks as if this source if fake, people have searched for the original and have not found it, anywhere, read Political Analysis: Is the “Campbell-Bannerman Document”: Real or Fake?, though it has been widely quoted, including in various books, (eg search for "Campbell-Bannerman emphasized that the Arab countries and the Muslim-Arab people"). It should probably be placed with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

While this "Campbell-Bannerman Document" exists only in articles about it, this issue should be covered in this Wiki, since it is tied to the name of the subject of this article. L.Willms (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Weight
... each weighed nearly 20 stone in later years.

Translation for non-British readers, please, in pounds. Sca (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I will oblige by the weight in pounds, aware 20 stone was a maximal figure. As to metric, I do not know how to translate as I rarely use metric.Cloptonson (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"Henry Bannerman" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Henry Bannerman. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 23:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image
replaced the 1902 image with one from 1904 and the change was reverted by. Consensus is needed to change the infobox image per WP:ONUS so the revert must stand for the present. I've placed the 1904 image in the narrative section. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Refused peerage
We don't go into detail here, but at List of people who have declined a British honour we say that Campbell-Bannerman declined the Earldom of Belmont in 1905 when it was offered to him. In Relugas Compact it says: With "repugnance" for the idea of the House of Lords, Campbell-Bannerman flatly refused the title set aside for him of the Earl of Belmont …

This intrigues me. I was under the impression that when a peerage is offered, it is either accepted or refused. If it's accepted, only then does the question of the title come into play. Usually the prospective peer indicates what name they would like, and that is either agreed or not, and if not a different one is suggested. I've never heard of a specifically named earldom being offered to anyone. What was the background in this case? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I put this question to my trusty friends at Reference desk/Humanities, and it seems clear that the name of the peerage was not part of the offer. Others apparently speculated that it would be Earl of Belmont, or even Viscount Belmont. But since he declined the offer straight up, those suggestions proved to be so much hot air. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)