Talk:James Spencer-Churchill, 12th Duke of Marlborough

"disapproved of his lifestyle"
Can anyone explain what this phrase means in terms of why he was disinherited by his father? "Lifestyle" is often a discreet code word for homosexuality, but since Jamie has had two wives and several children, this seems unlikely. --Jfruh (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is everything on wikipedia about homosexuality all of a sudden!? Durgs &c. is a more reasonable answer.  He has not yet been disinherited.  --Counter-revolutionary 20:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not responsible for "everything" on WIkipedia, I'm just speculating based on the common use of this word when airily bandied about by posh types in a vaguely disapproving way. The extremely vaguely worded sentence invites just this sort of speculation (whether it's about his sexual orientation, or drug use or what have you).  A look at the reference reveals that the reference is to his financial extravagence ... according to something posted to an e-mail discussion list, the authority of which (and the authority of the poster Sandra Lovegrove) is more or less impossible for the average reader to determine.  This should either be clarified with real sources or removed altogether. --Jfruh (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, sorry, but homosexual content seems to being added to a lot of articles of late. You're correct it, no doubt, needs clarified, if not removed as un-encyclopedic. --Counter-revolutionary 20:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, whether for or against, some one seems to have it on the brain. This is not Jaime; if it were, it would have been all over the tabloids years ago. 213.205.194.56 (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Numerous
Jamie has numerous convictions, mostly caused by a cocaine problem.

He also attended Harrow School from 1970 to 1974. He was in The Grove house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.97.164 (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for that? It could go in the article :) --92.21.75.62 (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * When he was acquitted of stealing two pairs of sunglasses and a deodorant from Harvey Nichols in 2000, "The jury heard that the marquess had 21 previous convictions for offences including theft, forgery and deception, and had received three jail sentences between 1983 and 1995." He had pleaded guilty to all but one of those previous charges. His defence counsel took the bold step of reading out his entire criminal record to show that, when he had done something wrong, he usually admitted it. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/12/3 But he did have quite a record, rather more than the article presently lets on, and unfortunately he added to that record later. His Grace's behaviour is often attributed to his history of drug addiction -- heroin as well as cocaine, according to quite a few published sources -- though there may be an element of personality. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Find
At the risk of being contravertial and bringing the mods down on me, I totally agree with the dude who posted on his page same time I tried to (first time on wiki btw). The guy is a wanna-be, but he can't handle the reality.

I'm sure he has 'numerous criminal convictions'. And his attitude as displayed in http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00lfhhx/Famous_Rich_and_Homeless_Episode_1/ suggests he has either relied on his undoubted wealth and connections to mitigate his exposure to its consequences; or his connections to ensure it simply 'goes away'.

I'd assume there will be several edits to his bio over the next few days as homeless people (and those who understand the issue) define his personality. I'm just sorry such a person is about to recieve such publicity.

There appears to be a general feeling that the rich and especially aristocrats are a bunch of tossers. That feeling is not really fair, because like all groups of people, some are, and some aren't. However, this guy is one of the prime reasons for the feeling existing. A complete out and out twat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.4.248.67 (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

How can it be arranged so that ‘Upper Class Twit of the Year’ redirects to this page? 213.205.240.221 (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Dukedom Line of Succession
Currently, the article reads that "Lord Caspar Spencer-Churchill is second in line of succession to the Dukedom of Marlborough", perhaps on the assumption that Peerages pass only to male heirs. However, the main article on the Dukedom of Marlborough states that the Dukedom "is the only current dukedom in the Peerages of England, Great Britain or the United Kingdom that can pass to a woman and through a woman."

This would mean that Lady Araminta Clementine Megan Spencer-Churchill (born 8 April 2007) should be second in line of succession behind heir-apparent George Spencer-Churchill, Marquess of Blandford (born 28 July 1992), while Lord Caspar Sasha Ivor Spencer-Churchill (18 October 2008) would be third in line, not second. 12.10.38.33 (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No, as explained further in the article on the Dukedom, the title can pass to/through a female on the extinction of male heirs. ALL of the males in the family, including a number of quite distant cousins, would have to be dead before the succession reverts to female lines, and even then Lady Araminta is not the senior female heir: the title would pass to the 1st Duke's oldest daughter's oldest daughter's heir male and all of HIS male heirs, and after that the 1st Duke's oldest daughter's second daughter's male heirs, etc., etc. This is not absolute primogeniture but a form of semi-Salic succession. Lady Araminta would be many hundreds if not thousands of places down the line behind her brothers. Biblioteqa (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Rebecca Few-Brown
Local landowners daughter, married to provide the all-important heir. When I was in the Marlborough Arms near Blenheim shortly after the marriage, more than one person told me that Becky Few-Brown was known locally as ‘Becky Few-Brains’. Any of the above could be added to the article, if a source can be found. 213.205.240.221 (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Picture
...really?? The bloke is in his sixties and you post a photo from the sixties. Is this deliberate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:540:7E80:71E4:75DE:11A9:E465 (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)