Talk:Jeremy Brett/Archive 1

Bi-polar side effect?
Not the Sherlock Holmes of the 80's and 90's, but the Sherlock Holmes! I come from Poland and we have had a lot of best actors. I know Jeremy Brett from story about Sherlock Holmes. It's a pitty that in Polish television we have a lot of nothing worth American films instead of the great creations of Jeremy Brett.

I once read that in his later years Brett believed that he was Sherlock Holmes! Could this be related to his bi-polar disorder? --82.32.185.133 11:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)BoDiddley


 * hehe thats a story I have heard. It comes from a bio, forget the name but anyway, it was quite a lie.

Religion
Anyone know anything about Brett's religious background (Protestant, Catholic, Jewish) ?


 * He took things from different faiths

Sexuality
Was he ever married?

was he homosexual? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.76.185.34 (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

He was married twice and devastated by his second wife's death.

Anna Massey's marriage to Jeremy Brett ended with his admission of homosexuality. (Spectator, The, Jun 3, 2006  by Cecil, Jonathan http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200606/ai_n16523461)

In addition, the booklet for the Granada Complete Series DVDs refers to his "rarely mentioned" bisexuality in the comments to the Wisteria Lodge episode. The implication is that while the public didn't know much, his friends all did, but that he was bisexual, as opposed to strictly homosexual. --Kuniklos76.182.32.25 (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on with regards to Brett's supposed bisexuality - I don't care either way if he was bisexual or not, he was a great actor with bipolar disorder and other health problems. However, I feel that we should name some EASILY REFERENCED AND RELIABLE ONLINE SOURCES for these 'allegations' if they are to remain in this article.--Gaunt (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why there's an edit war about this when it is documented in numerous sources. I have cited one.  Colonel Warden (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's cited ok, but "left her for a man" is the solitary reference in the whole article to this aspect of his sexuality. Unless readers peruse it very closely, they'll miss it entirely. It needs to be slightly more conspicious - eg. an LGBT category. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Colonel Warden, just to explain, the reversions are not exactly an edit war. It's that the edits were made by a banned user, and regardless of the merits or factuality the edit would usually be reversed on the basis that the person who made the edit has exhausted their right to participate here.  I reverted some of them for this very reason, but I have no disagreement with the information, correctly cited, being included. Rossrs (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This matter seems to be continuing and so I shall do some more work upon the article to resolve the issue. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been asked to contribute to the discussion page before reinserting my amendments about Brett's sexuality. So here I am doing that. The information added has a source and so I do not see any particular problems. Please let me know otherwise. I am concerned that we're not able to use Tanner or Massey because someone has suggested that they are unreliable. Happy to consider this but really need some clear arguments set out.Contaldo80 (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have tried to have a sensible discussion about this issue on the talk page but it seems that people are removing text without any discussion - simply citing that there are unreliable sources. I'm happy to consider that but it needs to be clearly set out first as to why Massey and Tanner are not reliable. Continued reversion is not helpful. Nor is it appropriate to semi-protect the page and cite an edit war if one is not prepared to engage in discussion. Thanks. (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Memorial Garden
Hey, I heard that there are plans to start a memorial garden for Jeremy Brett. How can I help make that happen? 209.244.43.20 21:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother. That project fell through and nobody except apparently the Founder knows how much money was collected and where it is. And even if you did donate to it, you can't deduct it from your taxes.

Message asking about the Fund 166.107.76.123 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Questionable external link
I removed the external link added by 71.29.21.104. Please correct me if this isn't the case, but the section called "The Life of Jeremy Brett" seems to be plagiarized from this Wikipedia article. It presents facts in the same order without providing additional information. If the content is a modification of GFDL-licensed work, then it should also be licensed under the GFDL. The website does not appear to do this, meaning it contains unlicensed work which should not be linked to. Besides that, it currently has so little content that it's hard to justify keeping it as an external link. WP:LINKS The article already has links to other fansites. My understanding is that multiple fansite links should be avoided. WP:NOT - DWM 04:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your right about that. I used this in a way, but! BUT! It is UNDER CONSTRUCTION and I will be adding more if you just give me some time. Also, we have content yes, but nothing we use has been modified wrongly.

Why is Manners being used so heavily?
Should Terry Manners' book be so heavily relied on, when the book has no actual proof for statements such as Brett's alleged molestation? Manners' book is not at all considered as a respectful or thorough reference for his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karstwater (talk • contribs) 17:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jeremy Brett.jpg
Image:Jeremy Brett.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits from banned user HC and IPs
1) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.

2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:
 * AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255
 * AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255
 * AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255

Request editsemiprotected
editsemiprotected I would like to expand the Filmography on this page, as well as add a section to include Jeremy Brett's stage performances. How can i receive permission to do so? Thank you for any assistance! JBrettsgirl (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:User access levels. Your account needs to be at least 4 days old and you need to have made at least 10 edits to non-protected articles to be considered autoconfirmed, at which point you can edit semi-protected articles. Happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fix needed
In the Family section there is this sentence:

"In 1977 Brett married American PBS producer Joan Wilson, but she died of cancer in 1985."

Use of the word "but" is incorrect here. Using it in this manner ties the death to the marriage. "A" caused "B" to occur, or "A" would have occurred "but" not for "B". The word is simply not needed, just delete the word. 4.240.78.213 (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, following your advice literally would result in a comma splice (a variant of a run-on sentence):
 * "In 1977 Brett married American PBS producer Joan Wilson, she died of cancer in 1985".


 * That would be as egregious an error as the problem you are seeking to resolve. Better to write it as:
 * "In 1977 Brett married American PBS producer Joan Wilson. She died of cancer in 1985", or
 * "In 1977 Brett married American PBS producer Joan Wilson, who died of cancer in 1985". --  JackofOz (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you fix that, IP's can't edit this article. 4.240.165.147 (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Soory, I didn't realise it was protected. Fixed now.  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed quite a few issues
Firstly, his year of birth was incorrect; it was 1935 not 1933. I have also cited sources in the Illnesses and death subsection, and have included the details of his death which were strangely absent from the section about his death.  fr33k man   -s-  18:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No, 1933 is the correct year. He was 50 when he started playing Sherlock Holmes. He went to the Central School of Speech and Drama in 1951, when he was 18, and he was 22 when he appeared in War and Peace. (92.8.235.255 (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Prove it! :-)  fr33k man   -s-  02:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Brett made his professional stage debut in 1954. If he had studied at the Central School for 2-3 years before then he couldn't have been born in 1935. (92.14.225.13 (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

Date of birth
There exists some disagreement in sources regarding Brett's correct date of birth. These, , , , , , , , , , list it as 3 November 1935. This has an answer to FAQ that says that the 1935 date is wrong and says it's actually 1933 but this site condicts itself in the biography in [13] above. This BBC source also lists 1933. After discussion and myself have agreed that the more reliable date (not necessisarily the correct date) is 1935 and so the article reflects this. If this gets changed please ensure that WP:RS's are used for WP:V. Happy editing!  fr33k man   -s-  20:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

1933 is the correct date, Brett began studying at the Central School of Speech and Drama in the autumn of 1951 when he was nearly 18 and made his stage debut in 1954 when he was 21. At some point he started knocking two years off his age, perhaps because he didn't achieve stardom until considerably later in his career, but 1933 is definitely the correct date as The Brettish Empire online confirms. (92.13.217.210 (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
 * I tend to agree this would seem to be authoritative, and although he may have knocked off a couple of years from his age in later life, I doubt we'll find a better source. Rodhull  andemu  19:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a very reliable source. I think it may have been because Jeremy was 50 when they began the first series of Sherlock Holmes, but he was playing early forties. Perhaps Granada decided to say he was born in 1935 instead of 1933. (92.13.217.210 (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
 * I've changed on the basis that this website is based on public records, and it saves me a trip to Solihull Register Office and the £7.50 fee. Rodhull  andemu  14:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but ancestry.co.uk is a commercial site and not a WP:RS. If it is truly based on public record why does it not contain the month or the day when JB was born? I have given 13 sources that state he was born in 1935. A single (spurious) source does not counter-act those. The article must be changed. We have to find an already published source that outwieghs the 1935 sources to place it at 1933. WP:V requires that, and the five pillars are not guidelines afterall. I agree that he may have been born in 1935 or 1933: but we need proof! Please replace the date and sources as 1933. Kindest regards,  fr33k man  -simpleWP-   00:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should being a "commercial site" make it unreliable? OK, I'll travel to Solihull Register Office on Monday, at my own expense, and obtain a certified extract from the register, again at my own expense, and since it's a public document, scan and upload it to Commons and link it here. If I'm right, I expect you personally to reimburse me, since I'm subsisting on Incapacity Benefit and Income Support right now. If I'm wrong, please provide an acceptable reliable source that supports your position, again, at your own expense. Until you can do that, let's stick with what we can reliable cite, please. Really!!!! Rodhull  andemu  00:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that ancestry.co.uk is commercial is irrelevant. What is relevant is that not all their info is from public records. A lot of it is also from user input, ie from unverified family trees created in Family Tree Maker. So it would depend on which database generated the 1935 date and whether it was actually from a reliable source within a.c.u. I have no opinion on whether it is or whether it isn't. I just thought I'd bring this info to the table. -- Web H amster  00:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct- but they do distinguish between material from public records and subscriber-submitted data, and I, for one, don't regard the latter as reliable. However, by Monday evening, it should be settled for once and for all- not that I can afford it. Rodhull  andemu  00:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't afford it then don't do it. It's not that important. -- Web H amster  01:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just checked the ref link and it seems that the 1933 date comes from a "Cronin family tree" submission, ie the first entry on the page, ergo that ref does not point to a reliable source. My account there has run out so I can't check the public record link. But it id occur to me that all public libraries have free access to a.c.u so it could work out a lot cheaper to go to the public library, check from there and you should have free access to a scan of the birth register. This way the document would be accessible and you can spend your bus fare and the £7.50 on something much more useful. -- Web H amster  01:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If all it takes is a library card, then I have one. I don't want to go to Solihull, obviously, but I despair at those who will not look beyond web-based sources. Rodhull  andemu  01:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for information the free publicly accessible index will only give the year and the quarter of the birth registration (March, June, September or December) not the actual date of birth. Ancestry have scans of this public index available on their site. In order to obtain the exact date of birth then you have to get a certified copy of the birth which costs you the £7.50. Keith D (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The death index for England and Wales 1984-2006 is accessible free of charge; it gives his DoB as 3 Nov 33, and is taken from his death certificate. Qzm (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

He was born in the last quarter of 1933, according to www.freebmd.org.uk. I think this is a reliable site. The entry has been keyed by different contributors, and you can see a scan of the original birth register entry. NB these registers do not give birth dates. To get that, you need to order a birth certificate. That costs money.JeffSmith79 (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Death entries in the GRO Index show dates of birth from 1969 and the 3 November 1933 date is given in the index at ancestry here for his death - need a subscription to get to the link that some libraries have. Keith D (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Today the article has a garbled and ungrammatical sentence saying he was born in November or maybe December 1933. As others have noted, his death record clearly states 3 November 1933, so where does this possible December date come from? Also, his birth recordindicates that his mother's maiden name was Butler whereas the article states it was Cadbury. Further down this Talk page someone says Cadbury was actually her middle name. Which is correct? Muzilon (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

lol ... a pennyworth from a pro ... Jeremy's birth was registered in Meriden in the December quarter of 1933. That is to say it was registered some time between 1St October 1933 and 31st December 1933. On his death registration in September 1995 at Lambeth, JEREMY'S DATE OF BIRTH IS stated to be (drum roll) 3RD NOVEMBER 1933. Yes, it really is! Seems pretty conclusive to me. It's not rocket science - you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to check these facts, you just need to know where to look. Pity I can't be bothered to have it published or I might be able to correct the main page myself. I leave that privilege to someone else. In the meantime this professional (oh, yes! er, sorry I cannot cite a source for that assertion) sleuth will bit you farewell. John2o2o2o (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This article needs to be unlocked
so that somebody can fix that deformed first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.209.138 (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to reconsider the sources
So "overtagging" is probably an embarassment to the article itself. However, we feel that some citations, such as Terry Manners's "biography", on the subject should be taken into consideration. Wikipedia must analyze the facts before jumping into conclusions; otherwise, I would be obliged to insert tagged issues within Article issues.

For instance, Jeremy Brett's personal life is almost full of speculations, in my opinion, with an exception to some truthfully reliable (or reliably truthful) citations, like Anna Massey's "Telling Some Tales". According to reviewers, there is no citation found within Manner's "biography" about Brett's "sexual abuse". --Gh87 (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not our place as editors to decide what is or what isn't the truth. If the sources are regarded as reliable, and most biographies do fit in that pigeonhole, then it's quite okay to use them for citations. Please don't forget that "truth" is not the aim, "verifiability" is. Who are we to say we know more about a subject than a biographer (official or otherwise). -- Web H  amster  12:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Anna Massey said Brett was bisexual, I think she would know more than anyone. (92.15.40.185 (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

Actors pretend to be something they're not, that's what acting is all about. (Also doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc.) Why bother getting at the truth when they've spent their whole lives fantasizing? Some web blogs claim that Martin Clunes, whose father died early on, was raised by Brett. If vaguely true then it should be in the article as Clunes is better known than Brett ever was.203.219.71.96 (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Linda Pritchard
There is no mention of this lady, who featured prominently in Bretts latter years. See this link:

http://www.jeremybrett.info/jb_linda.html

He also made an appearance in "Young Dan'l Boone" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Dan%27l_Boone if someone wants to add that to his listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beowulf1978 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh?
This sentence has gotta be re-worked: "On 24 May 1958, Brett married the actress Anna Massey (daughter of Raymond Massey), but they divorced in 22 November 1962 after he left her for another man." I don't know what's better: "a man" or "another person"? Or maybe "someone else? But in any case, it can't be "another man." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.252.50 (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the text should just read "a man". "Another" does not make sense. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Poor grammar
Has someone gone through this article and littered it with unnecessary commas? In general, the grammar in this article seems poor.

"On the set it was noticed that his manic episodes, his excessive changes of mood, were getting worse and eventually grief and workload became too much; he had a breakdown, was hospitalised and diagnosed manic-depressive."

This should be re-written as "On the set it was noticed that his manic episodes along with his excessive changes of mood were getting worse and eventually grief and workload became too much. He suffered a breakdown, was hospitalised and diagnosed as a manic-depressive."

This only needs rewriting in the style you suggest, i.e. sans commas, if you believe the reader should read the sentence at breakneck speed without pauses. There's nothing wrong with the punctuation grammatically, and your interpolation of "along with" actually changes the sense slightly. 124.176.186.3 (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There are all sorts of hiccups throughout the article.

"He had to live with his condition, look for the signs of his disorder and then deal with it.

Since he continued to live with his condition, it can be inferred easily by the reader that he had to live with his condition. The second half of the sentence is too informal and, in the absence of elaboration, irrelevant (despite there being a reference).

I would usually post here before performing any editing, but these mistakes are so elementary by Wikipedian standards that I have gone ahead and made the necessary changes. Feel free to revert if you disagree, although I doubt you will.

Another example of poor grammar is "Brett then married Joan Sullivan Wilson in 1976, but who died of cancer in July 1985[16]" which should be "Brett then married Joan Sullivan Wilson in 1976, but she died of cancer in July 1985[16]" 81.131.15.105 (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a general observation
Items by socks of Harvey Carter are to be removed per wikipolicy. MarnetteD | Talk 11:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what it is with this article. It seems apparent that the topic had a complex love life and it's natural that biographies would go into this.  It is not clear why this information should be supressed and our policy indicates otherwise. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:RS. As of this moment none have been presented to illustrate this alleged "complex love life". Please feel free to add them when you have found them. MarnetteD | Talk 11:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Prove that I am a sock - evidence, please? It was a simple question which you and Col Walden have answered. Sources can be accepted if independently verified. That's what I was getting at. I'm currently doing a lot of research into British actors active in the 1950-1980 period and the subject of this page comes into that area. And I have been on Wikipedia since 2009 with rare edits, not connected to this subject. But I doubt that will count for anything. Dozybeaky (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As an outside observer, it would seem clear to me that MarnetteD is a fan in denial and is using the whole "Sock-Puppet" thing as an excuse to censor this page and the article it refers to. I suggest that if well sourced information about Bretts bi-sexuality is included in the article it should be left alone by MarnetteD. The constant arrogant edits are getting close to bully - and will be reported. You have no evidence that Dozybeaky is a sock-puppet. I dare say you will now say that I am too - check my contributions history before you dare!!!Daisyabigael (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You may want to investigate just how many times this article has been hit by sockpuppets in the past before making any accusations about bullying. I am not in denial. I am only asking for reliable sources of which none have been presented so far. At the present moment the only thing this page is being used for is as a forum which is one of the things expressly forbidden by wikipolicy. MarnetteD | Talk 20:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because you yourself make an accusation a lot doesn't amount to fact. What will you accept as a reliable source if you don't accept published testimony by people who knew Brett - even his former wife? Daisyabigael (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * First, as stated in WP:SOURCES "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Ms Massey, as brilliant of an actress as she is, does not fall into that category. I am not saying that she isn't correct, but without independent 3rd party sources her info does not meet wikiP requirements. Second, no one has presented any of this published testimony as yet. Only claims of its existence. When and if they are presented their independence has to be checked against other published sources. By the way if Mr Brett were still alive none of this speculation would be allowed per WP:BLP. MarnetteD | Talk 20:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Good. If sources are properly brought forward, you will stop reverting and alleging sock-puppetry? Also - you will have no problem with Anna massey's claims about her ex-husband being quoted - it is a fact that his former wife has said those things (whether they are true or not is no business of ours). Glad that is clearer. Thanks. Daisyabigael (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously things aren't clearer. Please do not put words in my mouth. Ms Massey's words cannot be used unless backed up by verifiable third party sources. Please see WP:VERIFIABILITY. You cannot just enter things that exwives, or anyone else for that matter, say. This is an encyclopedia not a collection of salacious gossip and, as of now, gossip seems to be the only thing that you want entered. Are you reading any of the policies that I am providing links for? There are a number of guidelines that need to be met before proceeding. I have yet to see anyone trying to meet those guidelines. MarnetteD | Talk 22:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Anna Massey is a respectable person - a CBE, for example. Your insinuation that she should be considered a salacious gossip seems quite improper.  Her autobiography seems quite satisfactory as a source here.  If we should use it for a matter which is disputed then we can qualify the reference by clearly stating the source of the information so that the reader may assess the matter for themselves.  Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Have I missed something here but is Anna Massey not herself an independent third party source? She is not Brett,nor the man Brett is said to have as a lover. I can therefore see no problem in her being used as a source. The whole thing seems disingenuous. The argument seems to be that if Massey says "Brett was bisexual" then it's unreliable, but if John Smith (or whoever) writes that "Anna Massey believed Brett to be bisexual", then that's ok? The question is did Brett have a long-time male partner, and did they live together in Notting Hill? What's wrong with the sources from Terry Manners, and William J Mann's biography of Schlesinger? All very confusing and untransparent. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think MarnetteD is setting impossibly high standards of verifiability because she/he has a problem with the notion that Bret was bi-sexual. This has to stop. That a man's former wife makes an allegation - thta is a fact, not gossip! Does it mean he was definitely bisexual? No. What is the problem. The other works mentioned above seem resonable to quote as sources too. It only becomes a problem if you are trying to skew facts to fit your own agenda. Daisyabigael (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

And I would like again to ask MarnetteD to prove her allegation that I am a sock puppet because I asked a question about whether something can be included if it is independently sourced. I am well aware that this article has been the subject of numerous edit wars and accusations. But a knee-jerk reaction censoring a question is not good enough. I asked whether it was the case that some information would never be included even if was sourced because of the accusations seemingly allowed by this one editor. I don't regard that as sufficient evidence of my being a sock puppet of HC. That account made attacks on various pages. I have never edited the main page this talk page links to nor will I. I have however been watching with interest while sources have been ignored and discredited (and I agree, I wouldn't really call Manners a reasonable source, not on his own anyway). So again, MarnetteD, prove or retract your accusation of sock puppetry on this account. I believe that is Wikipedia policy. Dozybeaky (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

NPR interview in external links
I just listened to it, the Wikipedia articles says "Interview with Jeremy Brett" but in reality it's an NPR story about Holmes, and the interviewer asks the interviewee who his favorite Holmes portrayer was, and he answers Jeremy Brett. But it's not an "interview with Jeremy Brett" so it should be changed. The page is protected else I'd do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.88.196 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference to poorly rated site
Please excuse me if this comment is inappropriate - I have little experience with Wikipedia talk. Reference 6 is to bafta4jb.com, but this site has Web of Trust warnings about its trustworthiness, vendor reliability, privacy and child safety. Should the link be removed? Madang1965 (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Private life and health issues edited
I rearranged the events listed in the first part of this section in chronological order.

I replaced this paragraph:


 * After the death of his wife, Brett struggled with filming the third Granada series, The Return of Sherlock Holmes in late 1985. On the set it was noticed that his manic episodes, his excessive changes of mood, were getting worse and eventually grief and workload became too much; he had a breakdown, was hospitalised and diagnosed manic-depressive.

with this sentence:


 * In the latter part of 1986, Brett exhibited wide mood swings that alarmed his family and friends, who persuaded him to seek diagnosis and treatment of manic depression.

The former, which places Brett's evident difficulties in 1985 and is ambiguous in that it could be read to say that he had a breakdown on the set of The Return, was unsourced. The latter, which places his difficulties in 1986, is sourced. Tfmisc (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Parents
I cannot find a Huggins in the List of Lord Lieutenants of Warwickshire.

The Brettish Empire suggests he is Lt-Col Huggins a director of Tube Investments.

It also suggests his mother is Elizabeth Edith Cadbury - but I am not sure where she fits into the Cadbury family.

However I do not have time to find an authoritive source.

Arachrah (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I can tell you, but due to the crass stupidity of those Wikipedians who insist that everything most be referenced to something in print - irrespective of it's quality - I cannot alter the main page. Jeremy's mother was Elizabeth Edith Cadbury BUTLER. "Cadbury" was one of her middle names. Her parents were Arnold Ernest Butler and Edith Cadbury and they were married at Birmingham in 1897. I have not checked, but presumably Jeremy's grandmother Edith Cadbury was a member of the chocolate dynasty. John2o2o2o (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

lol, I see now someone has just said essentially the same thing below under 'fact or fiction'. Fact, I assure you. Yet the main page remains uncorrected with a lame plea to reference the incorrect statement. I think it's time that Wikipedia ditched this obsession with printed sources. You know, like all printed material is Gospel truth? Yeah right. Pull the other one. John2o2o2o (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I was adding a few details to the article the other day when the family connection with Martin Clunes was brought to mind; looking into it, at some points Clunes claims to be Jeremy Brett's 'nephew', and at other times states that Brett was Clunes's mother's cousin. The following is 'original research' based on BMD and census records, as well as the Huggins of Berkswell Grange pedigree in Burke's Landed Gentry 1952; I'm afraid I can't present it in a neat manner (I tried yesterday but it just formed a paragraph), but for anyone's future reference:

Cephas Butler, a lamp manufacturer of Handsworth, Gloucestershire had by his wife Elizabeth (née Baber) a son, Arnold Ernest (1872-1949) and a daughter, Lilian Mary (1875-1965). Arnold Ernest Butler, who lived at Stretton Croft, Barnt Green, Warwickshire, married Edith, daughter of Richard Barrow Cadbury, son of John Cadbury, proprietor of the Cadbury confectionery company, who was himself son of Richard Tapper Cadbury (I imagine there are articles here on at least some of them!). Their daughter, Elizabeth Edith Cadbury Butler (1903-1959) married Jeremy Brett's father, Lt-Col Henry William Huggins. Lilian Mary Butler (see above) married Thomas Hamilton-Adams; their daughter Joyce Mary Hamilton-Adams (1903-1931) married Arthur Sidney Vernon Acott; their daughter, Daphne Gillian Acott (1928-2007), married Alexander Sherriff de Moro (Alec) Clunes, and their son was Martin Clunes. Based on this, the relationship between Jeremy Brett and Martin Clunes is second cousins once removed, which to my knowledge has never been directly clarified in any interview (or possibly not even elsewhere!). Ashiyura (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

fact or fiction?
The entry on Jermey Huggins (to whom I am distantly related - several times removed) is inaccurate and inconsistent. Claims that he was the son of a Lord Lieutenant of Warwickshire are not borne out by reference to the list of Lords Lieutenant. Assuming that this was a misconception of the role of High Sheriff gives rise to a similar result - though the Wheatley's of Berkeswell Hall (Jeremy's reputed birthplace)did hold that post from time to time. Family tradition holds that the Huggins' earned their money in arms manufacture - about as far removed from the Cadbury family as could be: Cadbury family records show no links with the Huggins'.86.185.29.0 (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, marriages don't always have to do with what industries the families are in. Don't know about the Lord Lieutenants side of this, but as far as the Cadbury link: Brett's mother was Elizabeth Edith Cadbury Butler. She was daughter of Arnold Butler who married Richard Cadbury's daughter Edith Cadbury. Will see what kind of reliable source I can find.
 * Speaking to the Lord Lieutenant side of things, it looks like the cite that was put in originally to cover this was cite # 3: Sheridan Morley "The curse of being Conan", The Sunday Times, 27 April 1997, p.5 From what I can tell online it was a book review of The Man Who Became Sherlock Holmes by Terry Manners. I'm not able to read the actual article. Does anyone have access to either the article or the book to check for any information regarding this? -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 June 2012
The following should be edited for grammar: Brett had previously played Doctor Watson on stage opposite Charlton Heston as Holmes in the 1980 Los Angeles production of The Crucifer of Blood, making him one of only four actors to play both Holmes and Watson professionally (the other three are Reginald Owen, as Watson in the 1932 film Sherlock Holmes and Holmes in 1933's A Study in Scarlet, fellow Old Etonian Patrick Macnee, who played Watson first in 1976's Sherlock Holmes in New York and Holmes in 1993's The Hound of London) while Carleton Hobbs who portrayed both roles on the radio.

Patrick Macnee also played Watson alongside Sir Christopher Lees Holmes in two made for TV films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.198 (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It should correctly appear as so:

Brett had previously played Doctor Watson on stage opposite Charlton Heston as Holmes in the 1980 Los Angeles production of The Crucifer of Blood, making him one of only four actors to play both Holmes and Watson professionally (the other three are Reginald Owen, as Watson in the 1932 film Sherlock Holmes and Holmes in 1933's A Study in Scarlet, fellow Old Etonian Patrick Macnee, who played Watson first in 1976's Sherlock Holmes in New York and Holmes in 1993's The Hound of London, and Carleton Hobbs, who portrayed both roles on the radio. )

70.36.234.36 (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Correct me if I'm wrong: the only change was turning a "while" into an "and". Rivertorch (talk) 07:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Lord Lieutenant? Try Deputy
I’m an infrequent visitor to Talk pages, but I’m hoping something I found can help set right the question of whether or not Jeremy Brett’s father was a Lord Lieutenant of Warwickshire. (Quick answer: He wasn’t.)

The Wikipedia entry as posted now says his father was Lord Lieutenant. Under the “Parents” and “fact or fiction?” sections of Talk the question is debated.

But consider the fact that there were Deputy Lieutenants, usually several of them, named to assist a Lord Lieutenant. (See the Wikipedia entry on Deputy Lieutenant at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_Lieutenant ) And Brett’s father was indeed one of these, appointed March 21, 1945.

The public record of the appointment can be found in the London Gazette of 6 April 1945, starting at the very bottom of page 1852 and continuing to page 1853. See http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/37019/pages/1852/page.pdf

And http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/37019/pages/1853/page.pdf

I’ve tried to copy these out for ease of reference but I’m having no luck. You’ll just have to rely on the link – or if anyone finds it that pertinent they may find a way to copy it out to this Talk page.

The London Gazette, according to its Wikipedia entry, is “one of the official journals of record of the British government, and the most important among such official journals in the United Kingdom, in which certain statutory notices are required to be published.” So I think there’s no question as to the authenticity of Brett’s father’s appointment to be DL.

For what it’s worth.

IonaOfMyHeart (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)IonaOfMyHeart, 4:25 pm (EST) Jan. 17, 2013

Small edit needed
In the second paragraph of the 'As Sherlock Holmes' section Sherlock Holmes refers to the 1932 film and A Study in Scarlet refers to the 1933 film. These films both have pages, so the links should go there instead.114.75.35.22 (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thanks! Rivertorch (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Father
I've removed the claim that JB's father was a Lord Lieutenant of Warwickshire. There are no likely candidates in the article Lord Lieutenant of Warwickshire. However, the html://www.jeremybrett.info/about.html page says his father was a Lieutenant Colonel, so maybe that's where the misapprehension arose. Rojomoke (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just noticed the comment two sections up. He was a Deputy L.L.  I'll modify my edit.  Rojomoke (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic
This article sounds more like a fan page than an encyclopedia.

And is it really necessary for a causal reader to view infighting with some guy who has been "banned for life" .. .as opposed to some other ban? ... As a Wikipedia article, this is about 5/10, and as a talk page 3/10. Get it together and stop boring people. 76.102.1.129 (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no such thing as "banned for life" at Wikipedia. In any event, the obvious solution if one is bored is to find a different page to read. Alternatively, one might identify specific problems with the article and propose solutions. Rivertorch (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Nicholas and Alexandra (1971).
I believe that Bret was not in Nicholas and Alexandera in 1971

This search is my material: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22nicholas%20and%20alexandra%22%20brett

Gary4books (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Intro paragraph: Slight revision
Hello All, I am an occasional Editor on Wiki, generally only making minor edits, such as correcting typos. However, upon reading through this article, I've noticed that there are several passages that are oddly phrased, have questionable punctuation, may or may not rely on reliable printed sources, or are unsourced altogether. I am going to take a crack at improving a couple of them, but IMO someone with a strong editorial background with more experience in making more extensive edits to Wiki articles needs to read through the entire article & improve the writing to be more scholarly & encyclopedic. I'm going to explain my rationale for my changes in separate sections on this talk page.

First, a minor change to the intro paragraph. Current wording <>. I don't think the 'famous' is necessary here, so I'm going to remove it. SaturnCat (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

-- Result: <>. I think this is better. SaturnCat (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)