Talk:Henry Fownes Luttrell (died 1780)

Old family
I saw the "He was born into an old family" while the GAN was being assessed but thought it best to hang off until it completed. The phrase, while not uncommon, is a nonsense. All families are old, unless you believe in immaculate conception etc. I know what is meant by the phrase but cannot think of an alternate right now. Can anyone else? - Sitush (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This article should not have been passed as a GA. It's close, but it's not close enough. Sadly it's become impossible to discuss anything with the reviewer though. Eric   Corbett  23:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you should list each issue at the GAN, and explain why it makes the article fail specific GA criteria. Anyone can vaguely declare that an article isn't good enough, but lets be more honest here, this is GA, right? It's not FA, so there is no stated requirement of "brilliant prose", or of being among Wikipedia's best, so why beat him up over "old" and "ancient" families? You're apparently trying to prove a point by undermining my review, but you really must be more specific if you are going to criticize this article. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand how GAN/GAR works. Eric   Corbett  00:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying it's something one just knows, but can't necessarily explain? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article does not meet the GA criteria. Eric   Corbett  00:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you point to anything in the guidance that specifically supports your claim? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed the "old family" reference. Apologies, what I meant was that the family, which originated in Devon (and lived in Nethway), were recognised as belonging to the gentry (and were old in that, unlike many English families, they could trace their descent back several hundred years owing largely to their socio-economic status). While it is obviously hard to clearly define who fell into this class (if it may even be called that), his family do appear in editions of Burke's Landed Gentry (see, e.g., p. 1262). That book records that they were mentioned in the heralds' visitations of Devon and lived at Nethway House (see also ). All of this points to them being considered part of the gentry; regardless, that works such as Burke's list them as such makes it verifiable. Hopefully, that issue has been clarified. I would be more than happy to take on board any further, constructive comments regarding this article. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC).
 * Your change seems much closer to the mark. Thanks for that, and my apologies for not being able to construct something similar. - Sitush (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it, thanks —Noswall59 (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC).

Name
I am not sure what the answer may be but it concerns me that we are saying "Fownes Luttrell" when it seems that his name was either Fownes or Luttrell. These things can be awkward - see William Beach Thomas for an example of someone who used his middle name as if it were double-barrelled. I'm not wading through the sources (I'll take your word for it) but can someone confirm that "Fownes Luttrell" is indeed the common name? Does it need an explanatory footnote as with the Beach Thomas thing? - Sitush (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, his surname was "Fownes Luttrell" - essentially double-barrelled, but without the hyphen. This is stated in his History of Parliament entry, where he is listed as "Fownes Luttrell, Henry ..." and where it states that he took the "additional name" of Luttrell in 1747. I can add that somewhere, if you would like.


 * It might not be a bad idea to add a footnote about the additional name using the efn template but I am grateful for the clarification and will leave you to decide. - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Strike that, sorry. It is said explicitly: " Upon marrying her, Fownes added Luttrell to his surname". - Sitush (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Which government?
The lead says "was returned with the support of the Government". Which government? Pitt/Chatham or Grafton? I feel that it should be linked there, especially given the grace-and-favour issues that the article deals with. - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The government seems to be the Grafton ministry (see and ).

Natural Interest
I am curious about "Being Lord of the Manor of Minehead theoretically gave Fownes Luttrell a "Natural Interest" in elections to Parliament for the borough—i.e. the power to influence the votes of its householders. However, the Luttrells had let it slip out of their control"

We are quoting here but it really doesn't make sense. If someone has a natural interest (lower case) in something then they would maintain it because it is a default state. So, I presume the point is that the family had let the borough slip out of its control, not the natural interest. If so, why? Believe me, people of this type did not just let things drift. - Sitush (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The family has "neglected" it: to quote the History of Parliament: "Throughout this period the natural interest at Minehead belonged to Henry Fownes Luttrell, who, through his marriage to the heiress of the Luttrell family, had inherited Dunster Castle, an estate in Somerset, and the lordship of the manor of Minehead (with the right of appointing the returning officer). But that interest had been much neglected, and at the general election of 1747 Luttrell had failed to secure the return of his candidate." (see ).

Ambiguity
We say "the Prime Minister was disgruntled that he had not returned his candidate". The PM was disgruntled that the PM's candidate was not returned or that the other one was not returned? I think that the former is intended but there are a lot of "his", "him's" and "he's" in that paragraph. The subject needs to be clarified, I think. - Sitush (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The PM was disgruntled that the PM's candidate was not returned.

Ibid etc
Note 36 says "See the above-cited History of Parliament articles". I think this is very much deprecated, along the lines of WP:IBID.. Should we not expand the citation? - Sitush (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.

Linking generally
WP:OVERLINK can be interpreted in two ways. I have always preferred the simpler way, which also has the effect of reducing the colouring-book aspect that can sometimes appear. It is simpler (IMO) because it is easy to determine when something has or has not been linked twice. Although my preference means that we link only once, some other reviewers etc prefer to link in the lead (where applicable) and then also on the first occurrence in the body. Generally, it is easier to go with the flow and so I've never really pushed the issue and have just accepted which ever preference was thrown at me.

The problem with this article is that we seem to be inconsistent in interpreting the OVERLINK guidance. I've already tripped myself up once but there are other examples, eg: Conygar Tower is at present linked only in the lead but Dunster is linked in both. Can we perhaps agree on usage? - Sitush (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of linking once in the lead and then at first instance in the article; I like to imagine the lead as a stand-alone summary. Apologies for the inconsistency.

General reply
Thank you, Sitush and the other editors who have taken the time to both amend the article (and I can see that a lot has been done on that front) and also to raise question and criticisms constructively on this page. Personally,I just want to see that this article is the best quality it can be. Many thanks again, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC).

Unsourced note
Just a heads up that endnote number 1 is currently unsourced. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added the footnote, I assumed that it would be covered by the citation beside it, apologies. —Noswall59 (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC).
 * No need to apologize. Nice work! I might be tempted to apologize for the drama, but it's led to the article getting lots of attention and edits, which is a good thing. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Luttrell Coat of arms should be blue?
Luttrell Coat of arms should be blue? I’m descended through O’Connell family from the Dublin Luttrell family. The coat of arms are blue, not yellow? The famous Luttrell psalter confirms this? 88.97.108.45 (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)