Talk:Lord Randolph Churchill

Death
I've added the possiblity of Lord Churchill dying of a brain tumor. The Churchill Center website offers a plausible analysis that strongly suggests he died of a brain tumor, though, one could suggest they may have a bias in favor of an alternate diagnosis. This can be found here: http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.145.236 (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2005 (UTC)


 * That's the Mather article, isn't it? Yes.  I've read about this, too.  I think the entry is somewhat coloured by the diagnosis of the specialist in charge of Lord Randolph; he did indeed diagnose syphilis.  However, Lord Randolph's wife never contracted the disease - despite it being, apparently, highly contagious.  Richard Holmes advances the theory that he died of some other cause, probably a left brain tumour, in "In the Footsteps of Churchill", p.32. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.67.64 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the reference to Holmes's opinion that if LRC had had tertiary syphilis, he must surely have passed it to his wife and thence to their children. Latent syphilis is not contagious: see for example http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec14/ch194/ch194i.html Davidiank (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I hardly think the cited article "explodes" the idea that Lord Randolph had syphilis. The article states "The dramatic deterioration in his health and the various descriptions of his behavior in his last three years might support a diagnosis of dementia paralytica in late or tertiary syphilis, which affects the brain and appears ten to twenty years after the primary infection. This would likely have affected Jennie and their two sons, Winston and Jack. But if a diagnosis of advanced syphilis is to be accepted, there must have been an initial infection."
 * The transmission of syphilis is complex, and it is also quite likely that Lord Randolph contracted it after Winston's birth (that is Robert Massey's belief, IIRC). Additionally, it is highly unlikely that Jack Churchill was Lord Randolph's son.  It seems to me that the key thing is that in order for LR to have had syphilis, he would have had to contract it, and that this is unthinkable.  In fact, it is not.  Both LR and Jennie were quite active outside their marriage, sexually speaking, and this is pretty well acknowledged by everyone not trying to whitewash Lord Randolph's reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P97dav45 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: << ''[Churchill's infection is touted as] unthinkable. In fact, it is not. Both LR and Jennie were quite active outside their marriage, sexually speaking, and this is pretty well acknowledged by everyone not trying to whitewash Lord Randolph's reputation.'' >> Well, especially when you consider that the couple spent long periods of time apart, and that the bloom seems to have gone off the romantic side of their relationship rather early. Considering the sense of perogative that entitled men had at that time, it's kind of "unthinkable" to me that he did not have relations outside his marriage (perhaps with men as well as women, as mentioned in Ralph G. Martin's well-researched book.) Codenamemary (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In his book, Mercury Poisoning: The Undiagnosed Epidemic, David Hammond notes that symptoms exhibited by Churchill prior to his death are consistent with mercury poisoning. A common treatment for syphilis at the time was mercury chloride. Hammond mentions "slurred speech, balance problems, dizziness, palpitations, and intermittent numbness in [Churchill's] hands and feet" as well Churchill having become "quick-tempered and combative". He also explains that the possibility that tertiary syphilis can be explained by mercury poisoning was investigated (in 2010). However, I've not edited the article to include this information, mainly because there's presently no part of the article dedicated to Churchill's death and syphilis is mentioned only in the context of Churchill's marriage. Pololei (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Winston premature?

 * How could he have married her in June if his son was born in November of that year? I read somewhere else that he wedded Miss Jerome in April. Still, that suggests that Sir Winston was, sir-reverence, illegitimately conceived. Anglius
 * Pre-marital conception was not uncommon in those days, though I believe the official version is something like destiny could not wait! Timrollpickering 20:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree, Mr. Pickering, for the vast majority of Victorians were moral, but I appreciate your reply. However, please do not make a vulgar jest. --Anglius 20:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that he married in April. Here's the ODNB, from its article on Randolph:
 * Randolph and Jennie [see Churchill, Jeanette] were married at the British embassy in Paris on 15 April 1874, and their first child, Winston Churchill (the future prime minister), was born prematurely at Blenheim Palace on 30 November 1874. Their younger child, John (Jack), was born in February 1880.

The article on Winston goes into somewhat more detail.
 * Jennie and Lord Randolph were married at the British embassy in Paris on 15 April 1874. Winston Churchill's date of birth has given rise to speculation that he was conceived before the wedding, but the only certainty is that he was born prematurely. Preparations were made for the birth to take place in London, but after slipping and falling during a visit to Blenheim Jennie went into labour, the local doctor was summoned, and the baby was delivered at 1.30 a.m. on 30 November.

7.5 months is at least plausible, especially if the birth was clearly premature, as it seems to be. john k 22:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * From recollection various Winston biographies are in disagreement on this. Jenkins (the only one on my shelf at the moment) goes for premature but doesn't delve into this (instead giving space to the question of Jack Churchill's paternity) whilst My Early Life ignores this completely. I think Pelling and/or Ponting goes to pre-marital conception and also argues that the Churchill family hid the real cause of Randolph's illness and death for decades. Timrollpickering 23:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your information, Mr. Pickering and Mr. Kenney.Anglius 00:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The first child can come anytime. The second one always takes nine months.John Paul Parks (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Without comment
His widow, Lady Randolph Churchill, married George Cornwallis-West in 1900, yet retained her noble prerogative earned through her marriage to Lord Randolph.In addition,in his 1995 book "Bloody Red Baron" novelist Kim Newman described Randolph's son,later prime-minister Winston Churchill as a vampire, personally devoted to sucking a blood of previously whiskey-drunked rabbits.This surprisingly reminds of sir Winston's most famous personal habbits. 213.240.6.72 19:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Syphilis
The discussion about syphilis seems rather to favor the family view. Of course, the family would try to keep hidden that Randolph had the pox, but limiting the inquiry to the time immediately after Winston's birth fails to take into account what might have happened in the 20 years he had yet to live. In the article on Lady Randolph, it is suggested that her second son was by a different man, despite the fact she was married to Randolph at the time. I also recall a 1970's PBS special on the Churchill family, in which Randolph painfully tells his wife that he has the SEE-fi-lis. She then consults with his doctor, who is concerned that she might have it too. She reassures the doctor that there is nothing to worry about, because she and Randolph have not been together for years. If I can find the name and broadcast date of the PBS special, I will update this information.John Paul Parks (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Homeschooling
I took out the link to homeschooling, since Churchill was evidently not "homeschooled" but rather educated privately. There's a bit of a difference. When you're homeschooled your parents or their associates teach you (as you can see); when you're privately educated at Blenheim your father, the Duke, brings in the best private tutors available. Sort of a different tradition. 99.231.111.157 (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper
What! No mention of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.183.214 (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Article rename
Naming conventions (people) states that titles "are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known". Not being British myself and thus unfamiliar with the man, are we asserting that Churchill is best known as "Lord Randolph Churchill"? If not, then this article probably should be moved to "Randolph Henry Churchill" or "Randolph Churchill (1849–1895)".  howcheng  {chat} 17:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I should think it would have been regarded as gross impudence at the time for anybody other than his social superior or a close friend to call him plain "Randolph".20:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Paulturtle (talk)


 * "Lord Randolph Churchill" is without question "the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known", indeed one would be hard-pressed to find a clearer example of a courtesy title forming such a name. DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh sure, you and I know that. He is the subject of at least four biogs (Rosebery, his son Winston, Rhodes James and Roy Foster) specifically called "Lord Randolph Churchill", and he had a grandson called just plain Mr Randolph. I was merely smiling gently at the fact that there were no less than two contributors on here objecting to the title - one below gravely informing us that it is "contrary to wikipedia standards" and must be changed. The crowds used to shout "give it him hot, Randy!" though, as he was ridiculing Gladstone.Paulturtle (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Contradiction in place of birth
The body of the article gives his birthplace as Blenheim but the column to the right gives it as Belgravia. This should be sorted out. 65.93.12.84 (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - The "Fourth Party"
I'm concerned about the neutrality of the comments regarding Charles Bradlaugh, many of which display some prejudice on the subject.

The concern over neutrality really comes from several different points in the section. First, the passing remark about Bradlaugh's views - "avowed atheist or agnostic" - is, of course, very poorly articulated, and lazily researched. Most importantly, perhaps, the article does not give an accurate portrayal of the Bradlaugh case: "Charles Bradlaugh, the member for Northampton, who, though an avowed atheist or agnostic, was prepared to take the parliamentary oath". This is a quite partisan and certainly unhistorical statement. The dispute was a legal one primarily (according to contemporaries), but also bound up in judgements about the morality of the atheist. Historically, the dispute began first in 1880, when Bradlaugh asked to affirm rather than take the oath because of his personal views, in view of which he deemed it inappropriate to swear an oath with religious binding (a concern obviously shared by many others later). Indeed, the conflict was sparked because of his unwillingness to take the oath, not, as the article suggests, because he was an open atheist who attempted to lie his way through a religious oath; this reflects a conflation of the later event, when having been denied the ability to affirm Bradlaugh attempted to swear the oath (having been given no alternative). Framing the narrative as it is, the situation is neither accurately nor neutrally described. This is further emphasised by the completely inappropriate description of Churchill as showing himself to be a "parliamentary champion", "who added to his audacity much tactical skill and shrewdness" by heading this cause. If these judgements were referenced to contemporaries then it would be understandable and correct, but unreferenced they have no place in an article.

With some rewording this could probably be avoided, but the section (and indeed article) is littered with value judgements and inappropriate remarks - beginning with the name of the article "Lord Randolph Churchill", which doesn't comply with Wikipedia's standards - so I'm unsure whether this will get to the bottom of it. However, for the time being at least, I would suggest that the overtly judgemental sections are removed, and in the longer term that the section is rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.169.154 (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Anachronisms
I have removed a number of gross anachronisms from the article. Mainly these are calling someone by a title they did not hold at the time of the events being recounted. Please could people be a little more careful over this! Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Reference problems
Who or what is "McKinstry" or "McKistry"? DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Found him, he's Leo McKinstry. I assume the work is Rosebery: Statesman in Turmoil. DuncanHill (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Cause of death (cont'd)
Some have suggested other neurological conditions, such as epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s disease), chronic alcoholism or a brain tumor. It seems likely that Lord Randolph had been convinced by his doctors that he had a severe degenerative neurological condition, possibly syphilis, as early as 1886. But this is not clear because Dr. Roose uses the term “general paralysis” to refer to a condition caused by the disease, and to a condition caused by “exhaustion.” He once commented, “Chronic inflammation of the brain attacks persons of exhausted habits, brought on by excesses and irregular living. The patient has frequent headaches and gradual loss of health, and then gets a perversion of most of the senses, as of sight, taste, smell,etc., and in fact, all the symptoms of the incipient mania. The only treatment is to try and combat the various morbid symptoms as they arise and improve the general health in every way; but, in two or three years, general paralysis is almost sure to occur.”18 Here the term “general paralysis” is clearly associated with exhaustion–not syphilis. At the end, it was evident that Drs. Roose and Buzzard were convinced that Randolph had “general paralysis,” which many people have taken to be a code word for syphilis of the brain. Dr. Buzzard, in response to an inquiry from the Prince of Wales’ physician, explained in December 1894 that “Lord Randolph is affected with General Paralysis the early symptoms of which in the form of tremor of the tongue and slurring articulation of words were evident to me at an interview two years ago. In Lord R’s case the physical signs–tremor, faulty articulation, successive loss of power in various parts of the frame have been much more marked than the mental ones which have hitherto been of comparatively slight character, grandiose ideas however, not being absent at time & on some occasions violent of manner.” Are there diagnoses other than syphilis that explain the reported changes in Randolph’s personality, the problems with speech, and the evidence of neurological and other deterioration? Could the changes simply have been the evidence of “exhaustion,” as may have been Dr. Roose’s notion? “At the present day ‘want of tone’ is the characteristic feature of disorders in general and in none is it more obvious than in those which peculiarly affect official and professional men working at high pressure. Excessive smoking, too much alcohol, tea, and coffee, often resorted to by overworked persons, are frequent causes of sleeplessness,” wrote Dr. Roose two years after his famous patient’s s death.21 Lord Randolph’s personality appears to have been intense, and one psychiatrist has concluded that he was a manic depressive. Brilliant in many ways, Lord Randolph was also brisk and impatient. Much of his behavior during his last five years seems to be no more than an accentuation of his prior personality. Lord Rosebery described Lord Randolph in comparable terms: “His wit, his sarcasm, his piercing personalities, his elaborate irony, and his effective delivery, gave astonishing popularity to his speeches. His slim, boyish figure, his mustache which had an emotion of its own, his round protruding eyes, gave a compound interest to his speeches and his conversation.” Another friend, George Smalley, commented, “Lord Randolph had…an imperious temper, an intellectual disdain of natures from which intellects had been omitted, moods of black despair late in life, but all through life acted to win his battles without much thought of the cost–all these he had, and no one of them nor all of them broke or impaired the spell laid upon those about him.”24 And A.L. Rowse, the Churchill historian and biographer, asserted, “Though a very quick and piercing judge of a situation, Lord Randolph Churchill’s judgment was not really reliable. He was self-willed and impulsive, above all impatient. If he had only had patience all the rest would have come into line. But he had the defect of an artistic temperament, what we in our day of psychological jargon diagnose as the manic depressive alternation–tremendous high spirits and racing energy on the upward bound, depression and discouragement on the down.” It is necessary to say, however, that Lord Randolph’s uncontrollable rages were an embarrassment to him. In 1892, Winston inadvertently annoyed his father by firing a shotgun under his window; his father lost his temper, then quickly made amends. “Understanding that I was distressed,” Winston wrote, “he took occasion to reassure me.”26 There were other similar incidents, for which Lord Randolph was immediately apologetic. Lord Randolph had always had a slight speech impediment, and as a youngster he had had hearing problems, so it is difficult to single out problems with his speech, once thought to be a clear and common symptom of syphilis in its late stage affecting the brain. In the same sense, the muddled thoughts, memory lapses and profound confusion, all features of syphilis's paralytica dementia, were absent from Randolph’s writings until the end of 1894. He wrote more lengthily, and his script became shaky, but it was never unintelligible. Until the last, when he was in a coma, his thoughts expressed in writing were rational; they include a cogent letter to Winston while on the world tour in August 1894. https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/winston-churchills-parents.html  "In 1895, within six months, first Winston's father, then Mrs. Everest, died. Winston now faced the world without his idolized father and without his primary emotional support and mother figure. Winston's father had been in declining health and increasing dementia for several years. But, his erratic behavior and his dissatisfaction with Winston remained robust. Winston was not told the diagnosis - thought to be syphilis - and for many years believed that he too would die young. 'Is it forty and finished?' he pondered. In a letter to his mother on 8 October 1894, Lord Randolph describes how he cured the numbness in his hands and feet by putting them in hot water.28 If he had been suffering from dementia, he would not have been able to write such a cohesive letter. A likely explanation for the longstanding problem with his circulation is his chain-smoking. Spasms in the arteries reduce circulation which causes numbness and pain due to lack of oxygen in the tissues. His speech problems caused Randolph great frustration. “I know what I want to say but damn it, I can’t say it,” he told his friend Wilfrid Blunt in May 1894.29 At several times he expressed similar anxiety over the difficulty of articulating his words. These fugue states, or “psychic seizures” are strongly suggestive of a variety of epilepsy found in the deep parts of the brain, close to the speech area. The progressive march of the disease process strongly suggests an expanding lesion or mass. Consistent with his right handedness is the possibility that Lord Randolph developed a left side brain tumor, for which no surgery was available. This would also be consistent with the circulation problems in his hands, which in turn would be related to his intermittent heart failure and arterial spasms from nicotine in cigarettes. Even Dr. Buzzard might have agreed when he said “…intense pain in the head, when it is coupled with amaurosis (or prostration) is very suggestive of the presence of an intra-cranial tumor…If instead of atrophy of the discs we had found optic neuritis, this condition, when taken in connection with the intense severity of the pain in the head, would have gone far towards enabling us to pronounce a somewhat confident diagnosis of intra-cranial tumor.” If Dr. Buzzard had been convinced that Lord Randolph Churchill had advanced syphilis, he would certainly have treated him with mercury and with potassium iodide, which he strongly espoused for all neurosyphilitic patients.31 But Buzzard makes no mention of such treatments in any of his papers during Randolph’s illness–and, had Randolph taken these two, their toxic effects would have been evident." "Casual researchers have been all too ready to accept the myth, first voiced in the 1920s by political enemies of Winston, that Lord Randolph died of syphilis, allegedly contracted sometime after the birth of Winston. This has recently been authoritatively rebuffed by the research of Dr John Mather, a member of the Churchill Center's Board of Governors. Later biographers mainly avoided taking a definitive position on the cause of death, and Winston only states that his father's illness was 'a very rare and ghastly disease.' Ghastly perhaps, but syphilis is not rare, and was more common still in Lord Randolph's time. This is not the place to get into Mather's analysis, except to say that whatever Lord Randolph died of, it was highly unlikely to have been syphilis." Quis separabit?  02:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy Title
Is it the case that the subject of this article had the style of "Lord" from birth? Or is it rather the case that he only became "Lord Randolph Churchill" at the age of 8 (when his grandfather died in 1857)? If the latter is true (and I'm thinking it might be) then our account in "Early life" is wrong. The point is that his father's title of Marquess was itself a courtesy (as opposed to substantial) title. It's not clear to me therefore that his younger son would have the style of "Lord". But I'm not sure. Tillander 08:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying this is the definitive answer to question (because i wouldn't use us as a reference for us), but one of our articles says, "...[T]he children not only of all peers but of those who bear derivative courtesy titles as male-line descendants of a substantive peer bear specific titles (Lord/Lady) or styles (The Honourable) by courtesy."  That being so, yes, he was Lord Randolph Churchill from birth. happy days, LindsayHello
 * Thank you so much! Tillander 09:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)