Talk:Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet/Archive 1

Autograph Book
Arbil44, I see where you're going now with the flickr image. It's not generally considered good stylistically to leave bare urls in the text of the article, so I've embedded the url in at least one of the ways in which such information can be presented. That said, the autograph book image is so delightful a piece of history that you might wish to upload it as a wikimedia image and then show the image in the wikipedia article itself. See WP:COMMONS if you want more guidance on how to do this. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Fiachra10003 Thank you for your improvement regarding the autograph book image. It would be great to show it as you suggest, but I'm afraid it would be beyond my IT capabilities to do this. If there is any chance that you could do so I would be most grateful. Especially if you are able to turn it the right way round! Thank you. Arbil44 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.110.57 (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried to sign, this way 212.56.110.57 (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC) but it didn't show. Arbil44


 * Done. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are also able to help me deal with the following naked link, then that would be great too. Thanks again. Further reading The Economist, Perfidious America (December 20th 2014-January 2nd 2015) pages 64-66. http://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21636606-many-his-successors-americas-first-president-wrestled-ethics-war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbil44 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Try the citation templates such as cite news or cite journal:  will give:
 * I'll add that to the article. As an aside, when you sign a message on a talk page, the four tildes should immediately follow the message, not be added to the edit summary. Huon (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll add that to the article. As an aside, when you sign a message on a talk page, the four tildes should immediately follow the message, not be added to the edit summary. Huon (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

overly long
The article is way too long for such a relatively insignificant figure, I will start to trim at the weekend.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There was extensive unsourced material which I have removed. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Asgill and Washington
Apparently in 1786 Asgill claimed he was most cruelly treated while a special prisoner of Washington, after the lynching of Captain Huddy by  British forces. The article should also reflect denials of beatings, erection of a gibbet outside his cell etc by American sources, such as "The writings of George Washington Part III page 171 wherein Washington says he gave orders for Asgill to be treated well. The book quotes a letter from Asgill, "I cannot conclude, without expressing my gratitude to your Excellency, for ordering Colone Dayton to favor me as much as my situation would admit of; and in justice to him, I must acknowledge the feeling and attentive manner in which these orders were executed. Chatham, May 17, 1782." This book says the principal papers were published in The Columbian Magazine for January 1787, after Asgill's 1786 claims of mistreatment. Edison (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm just reading (talk)'s comments now, 18 months after they were written. Firstly let me say that I have in my possession a verified photocopy of Asgill's letter of 20 December 1786 (which he wrote to the Editor of the New Haven Gazette and Chronicle in the hope it would be published - as a rebuttal of Washington's version of events), and this letter ran to 18 pages long. In it Asgill has plenty to say about events which transpired during his captivity and explains that he was not treated well and suffered severe injuries. Following these injuries he was given a Newfoundland dog to protect him in his cell. Asgill's letter sold for US$16,500 in 2007 and went to a private individual who will not allow the original (or copies) to be in the public domain. The letter Edison refers to was written four and a half years earlier, on 17 May 1782, soon after Asgill's imprisonment and before the abuse took place; but the letter I refer to chronicles events which transpired later on, prior to his release on parole. Asgill was so angered by these events that he refused to write a 'thank you' letter to Washington following his release on parole. Washington never believed Asgill's account of events (which were talked about in coffee houses, and the British press of the day, and he dismissed it all as 'gossip'), mainly because the New Haven Gazette and Chronicle had refused to publish Asgill's account, thereby depriving scholars the chance to know the other side of the story. Washington regarded Asgill as a cad and a liar, which only caused more distress to the victim - Charles Asgill (my g-g-g-grandfather). Arbil44 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, please may I address you on a subject, above, which I addressed last year? Asgill's unpublished letter has been my driving force since 2007 when I first came across it. I have been trying to get it published ever since because it provides an alternative version of history. It was suppressed in 1786, no doubt to protect Washington's reputation, but it will emerge for the first time in December 2019. It would be impossible to chronicle how difficult this has been to achieve, for legal reasons, but after my research trip to America in May 2019 I was able to talk to a number of people face to face. This made all the difference and a journal in the US is going to publish. This decision was only made following lengthy legal scrutiny. The upshot of the legal advice was that the service to history outweighed any potential downsides. Imagine my excitement. I couldn't believe that I had achieved what had appeared to be the impossible! At the zenith of my excitement I crash to the ground, following the culling of so much work I had put in, over the years, on the Asgill page. I am unable to explain or express the anger and frustration felt. Especially given the attitude in which it was done, with remarks that Asgill was a person of little or no consequence. Asgill was the man whose circumstances threatened the reputation of Washington and the newly emerging America in what was that nation's first major diplomatic incident. The page has been ruined because people who neither care nor know have deemed it all inappropriate. Six A4 pages have gone! I grant you that I am incompetent when it comes to Wikipedia and IT. I am absolutely useless, but in my defence I am 75 years of age and very unwell (as indeed I was in May when I travelled to America). I will never be able to restore the work. Could I please ask that someone restore the Further Reading which has been culled? My anger at having been BRANDED because I am fortunately, or unfortunately a descendant feels like the process done by farmers on their livestock and the burning hurts greatly. It is something I will never get over and my previous elation has been totally ruined. I have devoted 18 years of my life to researching Asgill, absolutely NOT because I am descended from him, but because I find his life quite fascinating - and by that I mean from birth to death - definitely not for The Asgill Affair only, for which he is most famous. Why does Wikipedia want to cull the information I have found (believe me, the page contained but the most minimal fraction of my total knowledge, which runs to 459 pages actually)! It is said that the information was unsourced, well, there again, I just find the IT aspects beyond me. It seems I must be culled for being an old woman not brought up in the internet age. I do wonder at the wisdom of such decisions since I doubt there is anyone else alive who has worked on matters relating to Asgill - now, or even in the past - as much as I have. As to the publication coming out in December, my inclination is to keep it away from Wikipedia after the way I have been treated. I might not be able to succeed in that regard, but there are dangers ahead for those being very brave (how much I admire them) when there are 'enemies' in abundance here.Arbil44 (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have tried to restore the "Further reading" list as succinctly as I can, avoiding adding too much unsourced commentary but at the same time explaining the relevance of each book. I think I have included them all but please let me know if I have missed any. I hope that helps. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much Dormskirk. I do appreciate your efforts. I will double check (with someone else) what might possibly still be missing and, if necessary, let you know. Your help is so much appreciated.

I want to make one more amendment to the Phillips portrait listing but cannot do so until I find Charles Ogle's will. I rang Pam Moore (The Portsmouth Papers, A Worthy Admiral, author since she has the will) but she was just leaving for a visit away from home and cannot help me right now. If you by chance know where I can find it, that too would be so much appreciated. I've spent so many hours on the National Archives website, but cannot find it for some unknown reason. Found his father's but that's no help! Arbil44 (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I don't have a light to shine on that one. Good luck. Dormskirk (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I must try to be patient and wait for Pam Moore to return, and then she will let me know! Arbil44 (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll ask the question even if I don't get a reply. Pam Moore has a copy of Admiral Sir Charles Ogle's will, but this will is not listed on the National Archives website: Does anyone know how this can happen? Arbil44 (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

portrait
The picture at the top of the article is a recolored created by a user, it is not an original. We should be using the original or an unaltered picture (at the very least).Slatersteven (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine with me to use either version. Dormskirk (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Any colorization would be OR.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I apologise for lacking IT skills, but if any editor would be prepared to post the following for me I would be grateful. I tried - got it wrong - and it has been deleted. It would be good if Wikipedia users might be able to locate the original portrait (I've even engaged art detectives in my many years of trying to find it) but in the meantime the colourised mezzotint gives a good impression of what the portrait would have looked like. It's a bit of colour in a very monochrome environment. Careful research was undertaken to ensure the image was colourised correctly and it cost me personally £200. I would be most unhappy if, after all these years, it were to be removed. Wikipedia comes across as being a vindictive, aggressive and above all unfriendly community with no tolerance or understanding that some old people, try as they might, do not all have the same ability to cope with the intricacies of Wikipedia IT demands.

The Thomas Phillips RA portrait of Charles Asgill, painted in 1822 and exhibited at the Royal Academy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Academy_of_Arts that year, is listed in the National Portrait Gallery’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery,_London catalogue for the 1822 exhibition, and is recorded as: ''107 Portrait of Gen.Sir Charles Asgill, Bart. G.C.G.O. T Phillips. R.A.''

The current whereabouts of this portrait is unknown. Asgill bequeathed it to his brother-in-law, Admiral Sir Charles Ogle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Charles_Ogle,_2nd_Baronet for his family, in perpetuity https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D151254. After Asgill’s death Ogle wrote to the artist to ask if he could take possession and whether he was still due payment http://corsair.themorgan.org/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId=125160:

“Sir Charles Ogle requests Mr Philips will have the goodness to deliver the picture of the late Sir Charles Asgill to the bearer Mr Goslett - If Mr     Philips has any demand on Sir Charles Asgill, he is requested to send it to      Mr Domville, No. 6 Lincolns Inn.

42 Berkeley Sq, Oct 23 1823.”

At the time of his death Ogle disinherited his eldest son, Chaloner, 1803-1859 (dying less than a year after his father), so it is not known whether the portrait did remain in the Ogle family as Asgill had requested. Arbil44 (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Arbil44 (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply 05-SEP-2019

 * Please allow me to apologize first for your previous experiences using Wikipedia. It is hoped that everyone's experiences in Wikipedia be pleasant ones, and I personally hope that the time spent editing here for you contains more meaningful interactions with editors who will appreciate your contributions to the project, rather than the negative interactions that you've unfortunately experienced. Please give us more time to meet these expectations — I know that better experiences exist and they can be very rewarding.
 * With regards to your request, I'm having some difficulty discerning what needs to be done with the article here. To help me expedite your request, if you could kindly state each specific change in the form of verbatim statements which can then be added to the article (if approved) by the reviewer, taking care to include the exact location where the desired claims are to be placed. Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text to be removed should also be described. Finally, reasons should be provided for each change. I apologize in advance if you've already provided these items; if that is the case, perhaps it would be better if you could label each portion separately for me to review. An example edit request for how this would be done is shown below:


 * Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section:
 * "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length."


 * Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section:
 * "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length."


 * Using as the reference:


 * Reason for change being made:
 * "The previously given diameter was incorrect."

Regards, Spintendo  12:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with the verbatim text, the placement locations, and the reasons for making the changes. Be sure to add a template to your newer request. Thank you for your help, it's much appreciated!

Spintendo - you cannot imagine how much I appreciate such a kind and understanding message. The first since 2007. I have had another go at adding the above text in Images, on the Charles Asgill page, and I have almost got it right this time, but not quite unfortunately. It took me 8 attempts, and I was arrogantly and oh so rudely interrupted in the middle of trying to do it. It took me about an hour to still get it wrong! Luckily I did not realise I had been blasted to kingdom come until I had done my absolute best, which was regrettably not good enough. If people could stop metaphorically shouting at me I might be less nervous and do better, so thank you so much, again, for being so kind.Arbil44 (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the errors you're making is in how links to other Wikipedia articles are coded, . Rather than using, for example, the correct code is simply  . This works for links to any Wikipedia article - just put double square brackets around an article title to link to it. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * My apologies. The interruption was over a different matter. That's what happens when you are looking for trouble, given there has been plenty of form! Arbil44 (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you Cordless Larry. I finally got there and now feel exhausted! Arbil44 (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I am in trouble again, on several counts, but my attempts to add the following on the Sir Charles Asgill page have been removed twice. I've said it so many times before, but at 75 years of age I do not have the computer intelligence needed to do this again. Could someone please post this for me at the end of Legacy?


 * Lady Asgill was not only forthright in her demands her husband save the life of young Farrell, but the character ‘Lady Olivia’ in the 1806 novel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonora_(novel)                                                   by Maria Edgeworth was rumoured to have been based on Lady Asgill, thereby portraying her as a ‘coquette’.  She maintained a twenty-year or so secret correspondence with  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Graham,_1st_Baron_Lynedoch  They agreed to destroy each other’s correspondence but some letters survived since Lynedoch couldn’t bring himself to destroy them all.  One can be found here:
 * The graphite drawing of Sophia’s setter dog was created at the Lynedoch Estate in Scotland by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Loraine_Smith


 * If only people would address me in a slightly kinder fashion it would be most welcome Arbil44 (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing the verbatim text. I've modified that text slightly to account for markup needs. I've also placed strikeout font in passages that should be omitted, either for clarity or specificity. I've also placed some questions about the text (using inline templates) that should be clarified. If you could provide the additional information needed where indicated, it would be most appreciated. Here is the revised paragraph:"Lady Asgill was not only forthright in her demands her husband save the life of young Farrell, but the character ‘Lady Olivia’ in the 1806 novel Leonora by Maria Edgeworth was rumoured to have been based on Lady Asgill, thereby portraying which portrayed the character as a ‘coquette’ coquettish . Lady Asgill maintained a twenty-year or so secret correspondence with Thomas Graham, 1st Baron Lynedoch. They agreed to destroy each other’s correspondence but some letters survived since Lynedoch couldn’t bring himself to did not destroy them all. The graphite drawing of Sophia’s setter dog was created at the Lynedoch Estate in Scotland by Charles Loraine Smith."

Pinging for their input on this. Regards, Spintendo  21:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response Spintendo. I will try to answer your queries above, within your own text. I will capitalise purely so that my responses stand out. I am not shouting! Arbil44 (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have now found the reference here, but you have to scroll down quite a way to find the reference to Lady Asgill: I hope I have replied fully enough now for the paragraph to be added please? Arbil44 (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I would just add that if you click on the image of the setter dog you will see more about the Leonora reference and you will also see, on the image itself, that the artist has stated that he created the image at Lord Lyndoch's Scottish Estate. It states that the image has been sold - yes, to me! So, Sophia Asgill and her dog were in residence with him. Arbil44 (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I've moved your comments to just outside of the blockquoted section of text. In response to your question, we don't actually need an online linkable URL for the reference. You may supply the reference of the book if you like. With regards to the "disgusting familiarity" view of Lady Asgill and Lord Lyndoch, it could be re-worded to remove the "Was rumored" to be "was according to author ____, was viewed by some with 'disgusting familiarity'" if that was the view expressed in the book youre talking about. Please advise, and also be sure to use a template placed somewhere below this post along with your reply, that would be great! thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  03:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo. Thank you for your reply. Now that I have found the exact quote from the book, would it be possible to revert to something a little closer to my original edit because it is an exact quote about Lady Asgill being a 'coquette'? The following is so chock-a-block full of references it is hard to follow I am afraid and, as the entire world must know by now, I am computer illiterate and therefore find it difficult to present to you the way I am supposed to do. I apologise. Now that the exact Bold textreference has been found, it is no longer necessecary to bring in the "disgusting familiarity" quote. It would be overdoing the point I am trying to make! Thank you very much for the kind and helpful way you are trying to assist me, which is a welcome change from being threatened with being banned permanently because of my lack of IT skills.

The character ‘Lady Olivia’ in the 1806 novel Leonora (novel) by Maria Edgeworth was rumoured to have been based on Lady Asgill, thereby portraying her as a ‘coquette’. She maintained a secret correspondence with Thomas Graham, 1st Baron Lynedoch They agreed to destroy each other’s correspondence but some letters survived Since Lynedoch did not destroy them all, one can be found here: The graphite drawing of Sophia’s setter dog was created at the Lynedoch Estate in Scotland by Charles Loraine Smith. Arbil44 (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have fixed the formatting of your post, . It looks to me that we still need a source for the claim that Lady Olivia was rumoured to have been based on Lady Asgill, however. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see now that it's mentioned in the product description on Amazon. However, I'm not sure whether that is considered a reliable source, especially since the edition of the book concerned seems to be by a print-on-demand publisher that otherwise lets authors self-publish. Are there other sources that we could use? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggested source: here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much indeed for finding that Cordless Larry. It had defeated me! I have tweaked your find very slightly in order to go straight to the 'coquette' quote. Once this is linked, then perhaps I shoud simply copy and paste that on to the Asgill page, or would you? Arbil44 (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for to look it over first. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, Cordless Larry. I've just checked out the Wikipedia entry for the book Leonora, and all the references needed are actually there - right on our doorstep! Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonora_(novel) is quoted this:
 * “-- Lady Olivia in ‘ Leonora ‘ is now supposed by all Dublin to be a portrait of Lady Asgill [wife of Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet] and that wherever they go they have to defend me by asserting that I’m not acquainted with the said Lady Asgill”. Also, quoted on the Wikipedia Leonora page it goes on to say: “The woman, Olivia, is known as a "coquette," and her controversial behavior with regard to her marriage had driven her to France, where she cultivated an aristocratic, "French" sensibility that exists apart from conventional morality.”  Does this kill all our birds with one stone?  By the way, I have the whole book in a Word document, but I know that is of no use here! Arbil44 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside, I came across this "coquette" business decades ago when I was going a Google search for a "portrait" (as in oil on canvass) of Sophia Asgill! It is weird what you find when you are looking for something else.  I eventually found that "portrait" in the home of a Saudi prince! That was quite an experience in itself. I'd love to be able to upload the photograph I took of her when I was in his palace, but I know what a gruelling experience that is likely to be, so I guess I must abandon that idea. Arbil44 (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Feeling as though I have just stepped into Alice through the Looking Glass! Wikipedia already has an image of Sophia Asgill, who was Lady of the Bedchamber to the Duchess of York! She is sitting at the feet of the Duchess here: http://www.wikigallery.org/wiki/painting_199276/John-Hoppner/Portrait-of-HRH-Frederica-Charlotte-Ulrica-Princess-Royal-of-Prussia-and-Duchess-of-York  I tracked the Hoppner portrait to the palace of a Saudi Prince and took a close up of her alone. She was more than life-sized in the portrait. Does all this sound as though it would be simple for someone to upload my image?  I was witnessed at the palace taking the photograph, with full permission to do so. Arbil44 (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Following through on the idea of uploading my image of Sophia Asgill, here is a reference to her being Lady of the Bedchamber to Frederica, Duchess of York: Arbil44 (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to answer your questions before you ask them! How do I know it is Sophia sitting at the feet of the Duchess of York?  Because there is a portrait of her as a child, at Firle Place, which I have and she has hardly changed at all, and in the image as a child she has a setter dog, as a puppy, in her arms. The listing here is as a pdf. www.pastellists.com › Articles › Gardner coronation robes draws from Reynolds's portrait of Lord Rockingham ..... J.338.1024 Lady ASGILL, née Jemima Sophia Ogle ... ov., [c.1776] (Firle Place) ϕ. Arbil44 (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Continuing on...the pdf document referenced above reads: "J.338.1024 Lady ASGILL nee Jemima Sophia Ogle (1770-1819), with her dog, pstl, gch, 53x46 ov., [c.1776] (Firle Place)" Cordless Larry, is there enough evidence above to be able to upload my image of Sophia Asgill? Arbil44 (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I have so far, incorporating the new links as suggested by Cordless Larry and Arbil44. Let me know if this looks correct:"The Lady Olivia character in the 1806 novel Leonora by Maria Edgeworth was rumoured to have been based on Lady Asgill, thereby portraying her as a 'coquette'. Lady Asgill herself maintained a two-decades long secret correspondence with Thomas Graham, 1st Baron Lynedoch. The two had agreed to destroy each other’s correspondence but some letters survived as Lynedoch did not destroy them all. The graphite drawing of Lady Asgill's setter dog was created at the Lynedoch Estate in Scotland by Charles Loraine Smith." I changed the reference from Sophia to Lady Asgill in the prose and made some other minor tweaks. The final reference supplied of Lady Asgill with her dog I couldn't incorporate because its a link to a google image search. Let me know if anything else is missing. Warm regards, Spintendo  01:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much Spintendo. I think your revision is absolutely fine and I would be most grateful if, perhaps, Cordless Larry would kindly upload your revision to the Asgill page. Thank you for your kind assistance. Arbil44 (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I hope I have not done the wrong thing by uploading your edited text to the Asgill page Spintendo? Arbil44 (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As I'm not entirely sure that there is even a bonafide conflict of interest here I don't see that there should be any problem with your adding of that text. Other editors can always look here to the talk page to see where it came from if there is a question about it. I see that you are related to the subject of the article as a distant relative, which would make this a conflict of interest. Direct editing of the article should not be done. Regards, Spintendo  05:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would rather wait until we have the approval of other local editors before implementing this change, just to be sure. Pinging for their input here. (I apologize for the ping, I assume you are already watchlisted for this page but wanted to make sure we got your input/thoughts/ideas.) Thanks in advance for any time you can spare. Regards,  Spintendo  09:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am fine with the new text: it now looks well sourced. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with it too. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't studied the new text, but it looks OK at first glance. My involvement had been merely in trying to explain to the OP the difference between wikilinks, references, & external links. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have added the agreed text. I hope it is OK. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Request edit
Hi, Spintendo. I am making this my second edit request since it has no bearing on the Leonora request above (other than, for me personally, one search led to yet another back in 2011).

Lady Asgill was Lady of the Bedchamber to HRH Frederica, Duchess of York. The Hoppner portrait of the Duchess http://www.wikigallery.org/wiki/painting_199276/John-Hoppner/Portrait-of-HRH-Frederica-Charlotte-Ulrica-Princess-Royal-of-Prussia-and-Duchess-of-York shows Lady Asgill sitting at her feet. A cropped section of that image is shown here: (** insert image) Lady Asgill, together with Catherine Horneck (Mrs Bunbury), was godmother to Hoppner’s granddaughter, Helen Clarence, who was born on 31 May, 1791.

(**this image, taken by me at the palace of a Saudi Prince, could be emailed to Cordless Larry if this edit is permitted). If the above edit poses the question of how do I know the Hoppner image of Sophia, with the Duchess, is of Sophia, (which I can provide) then a comparison image of her as a child is listed in Neil Jaffares, Dictionary of Pastellists before 1800 [the online edition is in PDF format] where it is listed as “J.338.1024 Lady ASGILL nee Jemima Sophia Ogle (1770-1819), with her dog, pstl, gch, 53x46 ov., [c.1776] (Firle Place)”. I can see that so many mentions of Sophia’s dog has caused confusion, but one is of her grown dog at the Lynedoch Estate (mentioned in the Leonora edit) and the other is of a similar setter dog of hers whilst a puppy, held in her arms when she was a child. I would appreciate your approval of this edit. Warm regards. Arbil44 (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry Spintendo, just to say, in the event you approve my request for an image of Lady Asgill to be uploaded, I'm afraid that the technology involved would be beyond me. I need help, but how to get the image across? I cannot help my age and lack of skills, but feel I need to keep apologising for both. Arbil44 (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what issues would be raised with uploading an image that you've taken of a picture painted by someone else. Photographs of two-dimensional objects such as pre-1924 paintings often do not create a new copyright and would therefore still be in the public domain. As far as uploading the image you can use the File Upload Wizard — but you will need to know what license it would fall under, so I would check with either Cordless Larry or perhaps another editor at the Public domain talk page first to be sure about which one to use. If you have any problems getting help on that talk page, feel free to come back here to let us know, so we can help you find the right answers. Regards,  Spintendo  05:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Spintendo. I have emailed the image to Cordless Larry, but unfortunately he is too busy to help and also he does not know about copyright issues. I have copied this thread over to the Public Domain talk page. I'll let you know what happens, but in the meantime, is the text of the edit acceptable apart from my link not being done correctly? If it is, can it be posted, or must the edit and the image be done in tandem? Sorry about all these questions! Arbil44 (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've posted on your talk page, I think it's best if we move the discussion about the copyright issue over there to your talk page for now. Thanks! Regards, Spintendo  09:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Spintendo. I have now received the following reply regarding copyright. "On a practical level the image you have taken should be uploaded at Commons using the license tag c:Template:Licensed-PD-Art-two". What happens now? Is anyone going to be able to upload my image for me please? Am I able to reply to your emailed message to me and attach it to my reply email? I hope we might be nearly there spintendo! Thanks again. Arbil44 (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have added a cropped version of the painting of Princess Frederica Charlotte of Prussia showing Lady Sophia Asgill. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Requesting again that the following text be added alongside the image of Lady Asgill. ”Lady Asgill was Lady of the Bedchamber to HRH Frederica, Duchess of York. [1] The Hoppner portrait of the Duchess http://www.wikigallery.org/wiki/painting_199276/John-Hoppner/Portrait-of-HRH-Frederica-Charlotte-Ulrica-Princess-Royal-of-Prussia-and-Duchess-of-York shows Lady Asgill sitting at her feet. A cropped section of that image is shown here: (** insert image) Lady Asgill was godmother to Hoppner’s granddaughter, Helen Clarence, who was born on May, 1791”. [2] Arbil44 (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC) All references are at the bottom of the other references, [28] and [29] Arbil44 (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Sorry, the references are above here [1] and [2] Arbil44 (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * You successfully uploaded it and I have now inserted it. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Dormskirk. I am immensely grateful to you, especially since you also dealt with the above edit too. I hope you will guide me through how to add to your collection of Tireless Contributor Stars! You feel like my knight in shining armour right now! Arbil44 (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

There are two references to The New Haven Gazette and the Connecticut Magazine. This needs to be amended because that was one publication, not two, so the entire reference needs to be in italics. With the current non-italicised "and the" in two places it makes it look like two publications. Here is a link to the newspaper itself. I tried to adjust this myself but the edit page was just too confusing. Arbil44 (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! That steed of yours must be getting weary! Arbil44 (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I’ve been checking live links and I’m sorry to say some work needs to be done.

Footnotes: 11 - A better link for Kidd’s Own Journal would be https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&output=text&id=r8gXAAAAYAAJ&q=Asgill#v=snippet&q=Asgill&f=false

14 - Could an additional link be given for this, so people can hear the music played? Either https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3qmJiUiAh0 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1TYUSAPtx0

17 – I had a bit of trouble finding Asgill on this link – would a better one be a link to page 321 direct? https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aURnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA321&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Asgill&f=false

29 - Link to Lady Asgill’s Setter Dog isn’t working, but this one is: https://somersetandwood.com/charles-loraine-smith-lady-asgills-setter-dog-original-1809-graphite-drawing-jk-417

Further Reading Haffner, Gerald O., (1957) "Captain Charles Asgill, An Incident of 1782," History Today, vol. 7, no. 5. (Mentions the missing letter sent by Asgill on 20 December 1786). Nobody knew about the missing letter in 1957! Could comment be removed please?

Tombs, Robert and Tombs, Isabelle, (2006) That Sweet Enemy: The British and the French from the Sun King to the Present. London: William Heinemann. Could the link to Robert Tombs be changed to the following please? The current link doesn’t mention “That Sweet Enemy” He has played a huge part in the upcoming changing of history! https://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/directory/rpt1000@cam.ac.uk

External Links "Documents of the American Revolution: Joshua Huddy Era," Monmouth County Archives, Monmouth County, New Jersey. www.co.monmouth.nj.us/ —Catalog of an exhibition at Monmouth Country Library Headquarters, October 2004. This link appears to be as dead as a dodo now and so please could this new link be inserted? https://www.monmouthcountyclerk.com/archives/events-exhibits/2004-documents-of-the-american-revolution-joshua-huddy-era/

"General Washington's Terrible Dilemma," Massachusetts Historical Society, Letter from George Washington to Benjamin Lincoln, 5 June 1782. New link required please: http://www.masshist.org/database/1706

Sorry about all this, but I am trying to get the Asgill page in good shape since, come December, there may b extra traffic Arbil44 (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * All done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, but the link provided doesn't seem to go directly to p. 321 either. I'm going to try another one. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, but the link provided doesn't seem to go directly to p. 321 either. I'm going to try another one. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Dormskirk - thank you, that is all fantastic now. The only one I couldn't click on was the Lady Asgill's Setter Dog, but the screen said that they are working on their website, so that'd be the reason! Would you like another ice cream?!!

Cordless Larry, I don't know what the link is that is there now, but trust me, I've just checked it out again to be sure, but this URL goes directly to page 321 (plus, above it, 2 other references to Asgill) - those 3 numbers are even in the URL link: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aURnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA321&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Asgill&f=false What do you make of it Dormskirk? - I prefer the link given again here... Thank you both for your continued efforts. Just this last link and then I think it is sll over. Arbil44 (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * On my computer, Cordless Larry's link does go to page 321 (without the 2 other references to Asgill). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, my link goes to p. 321 alone, whereas Arbil44's goes to a search of the book with three results, including p. 321. I judged the former to be better, because the reference is to p. 321, not all three pages. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Arbil44 - Trying clicking on "General of the Army" at the start of the citation. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, but I now see that p. 321 doesn't contain the information that he was promoted to full general on 4 June 1814, so presumably that's not the correct page reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact, the book doesn't seem to verify anything in the paragraph that the reference is attached to, so without wanting to open a can of worms, I think we need a better source. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this would suffice Cordless Larry? Arbil44 (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The source cited there is the same book. I think this is a better bet (although it doesn't support the whole paragraph). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Here are the two promotions preceding that - could you enlighten me as to how many references you require? Here’s one to Lieutenant General Here’s one to Major General Arbil44 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

To avoid a whole raft of references this covers just about everything, including his promotion to full General: Arbil44 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

On the basis that you pass on what you receive, I am currently giving them grief on the Peerage page, where there are so many mistakes it is laughable. Arbil44 (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I have worked on all of this every single day since 21st August (evem on the day of my own operation and that of my husband) and I have received absolutely nothing but criticism - never a single word of thanks or encouragement. Nothing is ever right, no matter how hard I try to obey orders. Frankly it gets very tiresome indeed. How many millions of submissions are there on Wikipedia? Edited to add - 5,944,399 for the English Widipedia! Do all those contributors get nothing but criticism? Nobody asked me to ensure the links were working, and several of them were included by other people, not even me, but I wanted the page to be right, so I checked them all, which took all morning even though I had workmen in the house, drilling away, replacing my study floor. Was I thanked? Not a chance. Can we bring all this to an end now and use his Obitusry [4] to cover the whole shooting match so that I can get some sleep before 4am on a daily basis? Please cancel our emailed Ticket Number. I was wrong to think I could trust you and will not be returning to that system. Come December I am perfectly capable of dealing with the James Gordon page (I am not banned on COI from that page) and the Asgill page only needs a couple of words changing. This will be a FACTUAL CHANGING OF HISTORY where no contest can be entertained. This I will be doing without your leave. Just let this end, here, now because I can take no more of this Arbil44 (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That source looks fine, but I will take a closer look when I'm at a bigger screen later. None of my comments above were criticism of you. I am trying to ensure that the article is properly sourced, so that there aren't reasons for the material to be removed in future. You asked for a reference to be changed, and in the process of helping to change it, I realised that the source didn't support the material in the article, so I raised that here. This is all very standard practice on Wikipedia. There is no need to stay up at night trying to find a replacement source - in fact, it's not necessarily your responsibility to do so. Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavour, and as you can see from my comments above, I was more than happy to look for sources myself. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Since you are complaining about this "Hayden, Joseph (1851). "General of the Army". The Book of Dignities: Containing Lists of the Official Personages of the British Empire ... from the Earliest Periods to the Present Time ... Together with the Sovereigns and Rulers of Europe, from the Foundation of Their Respective States; the Peerage of England and Great Britain ... Longmans, Brown, Green, and Longmans. p. 321. OCLC 315391171." (whatever the link was, it was not appropriaste either since I could not find any mention of Asgill) and also this "Tombs, Robert and Tombs, Isabelle, (2006) That Sweet Enemy: The British and the French from the Sun King to the Present. London: William Heinemann" was previously wrong, because previously there was no mention of "That Sweet Enemy" I would like it to be investigated as to just who did put those two incorrect links there since I asm the one being pilloried for them now. Arbil44 (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I will investigate when I get time. You are not being pilloried; the problems I am pointing out are with the article, not you. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This edit from 2007 is the one that first added mention of That Sweet Enemy, from what I can tell. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I misunderstood. The book title was linked to the author's website. I've now removed that link. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, it wasn't me who put that link to Professor Tombs ever, I just thought it needed to be improved when I saw it yesterday. However, is there anywhere else where a link to Professor Tombs could be included? He's on Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Tombs He has played a "fantastic" part in the process coming to fruition in a matter of weeks from now. Could his Wiki article be linked to "That Sweet Enemy"?

Fearing that someone will come along and delete the Setter dog link, I have just spoken to Julia at the Art Gallery. For the attention of Julia Re; Lady Asgill's Setter Dog

From "Arbil44" To:enquiries@somersetandwood.com 8 Oct at 10:56 Hi Julia

Nice to talk to you just now and thank you for your confirmation that you will send me a permanent link to this item once your website has been reconfigured. This is much appreciated.

Yesterday I found it here https://somersetandwood.com/charles-loraine-smith-lady-asgills-setter-dog-original-1809-graphite-drawing-jk-417 but realise this may change.

Kind regards etc.etc.

So, it may be a while before this can be confirmed and I don't want it deleted in the meantime Arbil44 (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I hadn't spotted that there was a Wikipedia page about Tombs. Thanks. I'll link the author name to that now (and then must get back to work!). Cordless Larry (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - I see the Lady Asgill Setter Dog link is working now, but wasn't earlier this morning. It may be as a result of my phone call since I explained that the system on Wikipedia is to delete first and ask questions later. I nevertheless feel nervous and I'm sure that they will confirm one way or another when they casn. In the meantime I do not want the link removed. Arbil44 (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

To summarise - Currently the Lady Asgill's Setter Dog link works, but I remain nervous. I will let Dormskirk know if there is any change.

The Obituary is now linked for proof of promotions, so that is now done.

The only outstanding item, for when Cordless Larry has time, is to link Robert Tombs Wiki page to the Further Reading of "That Sweet Enemy". What a marathon this has been and I thought it had all ended when Dormskirk changed the links yesterday. I need to get out of this environment, which is what I had hoped and prayed I could have done on the night of 1st October. Arbil44 (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already added the Tombs link. There's no need to worry about the dog link - as long as a reference works at the time it was added, that's enough, even if the link does subsequently go dead. I've submitted a request to the Internet Archive to preserve the current page, so that we have a permanent link even if the page does go dead or move. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Dormskirk, thank you for your link to "46th (South Devonshire) Regiment of Foot". regiments.com. Archived from the original on 22 October 2007. Retrieved 14 July 2016. In his Service Records Asgill writes: Colonel 2nd Bn 46th Foot 9th May 1800 - Colonel Half Pay 2nd Bn 46th Foot – (no date given in his Service Records). I have tried to search the National Archives for his Service Records (which I think the two references on the Asgill page should have a link to) without success, and just cannot spend another month doing so when I have copies of the original buried deep in cupboards now inaccessible on account of workmen replacing a crumbling floor.

Here are the details of my 2007 battle to get recognition, not only for the 2nd battalion, raised by Asgill, but his position as Colonel of that Regiment – something which is still not recognised on your link even today. My battle didn’t get the results I had hoped for, so if anyone here knows how to do better than me, that would be great.

Re: General Sir Charles Asgill, Bart Yahoo/Asgill

DCLI Museum  To:Arbil44 2 Apr 2007 at 14:22 Dear Mrs A I humbly bow to your superior knowledge! Thank you very much for pointing out the existence of the 2/46th Foot in the early years of the 19th century. This had not been picked up by any of our previous regimental historians. I regret that I had not noticed the reference to two battalions in Records and Badges of the British Army. I have the greatest sympathy for Richard Cannon. I have always assumed that he was the Adjutant General's chief clerk. I can just imagine the Commander-in-Chief telling the AG to produce short histories of every regiment, and the AG promptly passing the buck to a hapless member of his office staff. I don't know how many of these histories were completed, but they were obviously compiled from the reigmental (sic) files held by Horse Guards. Almost the best part of these booklets are the superb engraved frontis peices.(sic) Yours sincerely Hugo White

Arbil44  wrote: Dear Major White Thank you for your undated letter about General Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet. This arrived in Gibraltar on 29th March 2007.

The historical facts are clear. The 2nd Battalion did exist, and Asgill was its Colonel, albeit for a very brief period. Richard Cannon's "Historical Record" does indeed omit any mention of a Second Battalion, but other published sources (e.g., "Records and Badges of the British  Army" by Chichester and Burges Short) do acknowledge its existence, and, more importantly, it is acknowledged in the Army Lists and the London Gazette, both official publications. Cannon either did not discover its existence or did not think it worthy of mention in what was, after all, a fairly slim volume covering a fairly lengthy period of history. Cannon was something of a hack writer, who was commissioned to write regimental histories of every regiment in the British Army. He churned out dozens in a very short space of time. It is no surprise to me, and should be no surprise to anyone, that he made errors of omission, and perhaps even as-yet-unnoticed errors of commission. Even the  most meticulous of historians commits errors of fact to print, and he was not the most meticulous of historians. The entries in the London Gazette are definitive, and not subject to revision by anyone. I therefore attach to this email the relevant entries. I will also attach the enlarged section of Asgill’s Service Records which confirm his statements. After viewing these documents you may wish to adjust your assessment? You will certainly see that the 2nd Bn 46th Regiment of Foot was certainly not a fiction of anyone's imagination - least of all Asgill's - which you state to be the case in your letter to me. Yours  sincerely Arbil44 (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi - My understanding is that Asgill was definitely Colonel of the 2nd Battalion of the 46th Regiment of Foot from 1800 and that is reflected in the statement "Asgill was appointed Colonel of the 2nd Battalion 46th Regiment of Foot (South Devonshire Regiment) on 9 May 1800. I hope this is OK. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Another misunderstanding I'm afraid Dormskirk. I didn't think you didn't believe me, but it is very disconcerting indeed that the link gives no mention whatsoever of Asgill, so I am not surprised you said "added a reference about the regiment being disbanded: I am not sure which disbanded regiment he continued to be colonel of, with half pay, but it is likely to have been the 46th Regiment of Foot" - yes it was, but it was the 2nd battalion where Asgill's service lay. All those years ago I tried to get history corrected, but even the words of Hugo White, that he bowed to my superior knowledge, still didn't result in the link you gave being amended. I would end that, since this is a collaborative endeavour, if anyone knows how to find a link to a) Asgill's Service Records and b) knows how to get the link you gave amended, then possibly it would involve contacting Michael Hargreave Mawson  whose page you have linked to? Personally I think I have already given blood, sweat and copious tears, so it stays as is unless anyone else can help. Arbil44 (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Understood. I have tweaked the words accordingly. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , the bit you added about the half pay doesn't seem to be mentioned in the source cited. Or am I missing something? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I know this is getting ridiculous beyond words, Dormskirk, but strictly speaking (a) the link should be and, far more importantly, Michael Hargreave Mawson should be encouraged to do something about that page. All the evidence is in my correspondence with Hugo White and it is an insult to the soldiers who served in the second battalion that their memory is not served in any way, shape or form - they are a ghost regiment. Indeed, Hugo White actually told me that it was all a "figment of Asgill's imagination" because no regimental historian had ever "found" the 2nd battalion. Can you begin to understand how that made me feel? You probably know by now that I am a perfectionist and don't like sloppy history! If I'm honest, I'd have preferred that all this hadn't been dragged up again. Your link has reminded me of yet another dreadful research project. It would have been different if I had succeeded, but I didn't. Edited to add - I too was ghosted! Arbil44 (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed and tweaked a bit further. Many thanks and best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't see Cordless Larry's comment about half pay - that was the reason I asked for help to find a link to Asgill's Service Records - that is where all this reference concerning the 46th should be linked to. This is what Asgill says in his Service Records, as already mentioned: "Colonel 2nd Bn 46th Foot" "Colonel Half Pay 2nd Bn 46th Foot". That is the only reference needed. Could anybody find an online reference to this? - they are at Kew's Nationall Archives. Edited to add. I see you have changed the link to Asgill's Obituary Dormskirk, but Cordless Larry wants a link to the "half pay" quote. This is only in Asgill's Service Records and I spent some time today trying to find them, without success. If this is truly a collaboration, then could I ask for help please? Arbil44 (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi - I have not been able to access Asgill's Service Records myself (I am not familiar with finding my way round the online National Archives files) but have added a citation indicating the original source of the information. Many thanks and best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Dormskirk. I think for now that is much better. I'm glad I'm not the only one who cannot find the Service Records online at Kew. We all have different talents - mine tend to be finding things that nobody else finds, whereas I do not have anything like your excellent IT skills! I still maintain that if anyone can find a link to Kew's Service Records, that would be worthwhile, since there are already a couple or so references to those documents. Thanks again. Arbil44 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The listing of the records added by Dormskirk suggests that they've not been digitised, so I presume that's why you've been unable to find them online, Arbil44. It sounds like they're only available to access in person at the National Archives. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

That is a comforting thought Cordless Larry, but every single item at Kew is catalogued. I believe they have 100 miles of shelving. I never thought it would have been digitised. You have to pay extra for that to happen. I paid them £88 for an Asgill court case they put on disc for me, but I knew its reference number before going there and was able to pre-order as a result. I think someone cleverer than me would be able to find a "listing" and, along with it, a PRO reference number for Asgill's Service Records. I think unless or until that happens, what Dormskirk has done should be left as is. Arbil44 (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Giving up is not in my nature - so I've battled my way to difficult to reach cupboards in the study and found the hard copy, now that the workmen have left for the day. Stamped on it is this reference WO 25/744 A. Just tried to find this on Cordless Larry's link but it doesn't seem to help knowing this reference. I think it is only of slight help. But maybe it would assist Cordless Larry if he has time to look, but the link given is of too late a period of time. Arbil44 (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I thought you were looking for the content of the service record online - I didn't realise that individual records were catalogued. I will take a look later using that reference. PS: The link I gave above is the one in the article at present, not one I found myself. I did think the dates were odd. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help at all, but at the top of the document is stated: "Statement of the Service of Lieutenant General Sir Charles Asgill Bart. Colonel of the 11th Regiment of Foot". The Reference number already given is stamped on the side (long edge) of the document itself. Arbil44 (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is probably enough information for the reference anyway. I'll still look, but we don't actually need to link to the online catalogue. 16:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I've found it, . I haven't been able to find a catalogue entry for his individual record, but I did find WO 25/744 A, and it's been digitised. The record is here and it can be downloaded as a PDF (for free) using the order feature on the right. It's all handwritten, so I might need some help finding Asgill's record within the PDF. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Found it: page 8. I find it impossible to read the details, but anyway, we now have a complete reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Very clever of you Cordless Larry! It isn't free though - it says free to view if you go to Kew! There's an 'add to basket' option for anyone wanting to buy a digitised copy. Anyway, you may not be interested, but I will upload my transcription, but I can only give the main body of the text because in order to keep it aligned to the original layout I have had to use many text boxes for each page, but here goes with page 1 to begin with:

Employed from the Period of my first Appointment on Duty with the Regiment and without any Leave of Absence.

In the beginning of the Year 1781, went out to South Carolina in America and from there joined the Army under the Command of the Marquis Cornwallis and served in the Campaign, was afterwards at the Siege of York Town in October 1781 and was taken Prisoner with the Army and ordered afterwards to March up the Country with it where I remained until May 1782 at which period all the Captains of the Army amounting to thirteen were ordered by General Washington to draw Lots that we might be selected to suffer Death by way of retaliation; the unfortunate Lot fell on me and I was in consequence conveyed to the Jerseys where I remained in Prison enduring peculiar Hardships for Six Months until released by an Act of Congress at the intercession of the Court of France. Returned to England on Parole in December 1782. From that period until 1790 I was employed on Duty in London and on the Recruiting Service, and was Appointed Equerry to His Royal Highness The Duke of York, and had leave of Absence for a few months for the purpose of going to Paris to return thanks to the Court of France for having saved my Life. (N.B. The visit commenced on 3 November 1783. A letter from the Royal Archives dated 28.8.2002 states that he was appointed Equerry in March 1788 and held the position until his death in 1823).

Did Duty with the Regiment until the beginning of the Year 1794 excepting when in waiting as Equerry to His Royal Highness The Duke of York; I then went to the Continent and joined the Army under the command of His Royal Highness The Duke of York, served the Campaign and was present at the whole of the Retreat thro Holland and at the end of it returned to England.

Continued to do Duty with the Regiment and commanded a Battalion of the Guards at the Camp of Warley (N.B. a regimental camp in Essex).

page 2. Appointed to the Staff of Ireland, was very actively employed against the Rebels during the Rebellion in 1798 and received the repeated thanks of the Commander of the Forces and the Government for my Conduct and Service. Remained on the Irish Staff til February 1802 when in consequence of the Peace I was removed and returned to England.

[N.B. I guess the year February 1802 to March 1803 was spent in London?]

On the 18th March 1803 I was reappointed to the Staff of Ireland, and placed in the Command of the Eastern District, in which the Garrison of Dublin is included; I was in Command during the Rebellion which broke out in the City in July 1803.[N.B. This is the time when 'Leonora' was modelled on Sophia and she was instrumental in saving William Farrell's life] In August 1805 I had the command of a very large Camp which was formed at the Curragh of Kildare; and since that period have continued in the same Command in the Eastern District:-  Whenever any Armament or Expedition was preparing I always offered my Services to the Commander in Chief and should have been highly gratified had they been accepted. From the nature of my Command in Dublin (where there is always a considerable Garrison) I have been much in the Habit of strict Exercise of Weapons, and in respect to my competency it is for the General Officers to decide, under whose command I have had the honor of Serving. [N.B. He was serving under Cornwallis once more} My Leaves of Absence have been very short, and not frequent. I am acquainted with the French Language [his mother was French], and was also with the German [he went to university in Germany], but from want of practice have nearly forgotten the latter.

Dublin				Charles Asgill 30 November 1809                   Colonel 11th Foot

As I say, there are lots of columns (including the columns with information about the '46th' and 'half pay' which I quoted earlier) but it would be too complicated to try to include them here. I've seen the new footnotes for the 46th which seem to be fine now. It's good that this is now sorted! Footnote 9 is linked to History Today's "Saving Captain Asgill" but really should be linked to his Service Records now - and the other reference to his Service Records too? I think the article has now been as 'restored' as I can make it but I hope Cordless Larry and Dormskirk will keep it safe from any further plundering. I cannot keep re-reading it all the time to ensure nothing has changed. As Arnie would say "I'll Be Back" ... in December! Arbil44 (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is free,, because it's already been digitised. Next to "Add to basket", the price is specified and it's £0. I downloaded it for free myself. But thanks for adding your transcription above, which is helpful because, as I wrote, I can barely read the original. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Aren't you the lucky one then Cordless Larry! That is probably because it was digitised for me, when I had to pay for it in 2003 I expect we are the only ones wanting it since it was written (and available at the NA)! You even get a free transcription as well. Actually, come to think of it, it wasn't digitised for me, it was photocopied on huge sized paper (double A4 - is that A3?) which helped with the transcription. It was written by Asgill himself. You can probably compare the writing with the copy of his signature. Arbil44 (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Could the following be linked to his Service Records Please: Asgill writes about this experience in his Service Records, wherein he states, "The unfortunate Lot fell on me and I was in consequence conveyed to the Jerseys where I remained in Prison enduring peculiar Hardships for Six Months until released by an Act of Congress at the intercession of the Court of France."[9] and what about the seccond mention of his Service Records too? By the way, I shall try, again, to get something done about the 2nd Battalion of the 46th which must be the only Ghost Battalion the British Army ever had. Arbil44 (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's guidelines recommend using secondary sources rather than primary ones, where available (see WP:PSTS). I therefore think it's better to cite the journal article than the service record where possible. I haven't actually had a chance to read the History Today article, but I will do at some point when I can get along to the library. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Save yourself a journey Cordless Larry! The History Today article is being re-printed in the Journal in December - slightly amended, to bring it up to date with more recent research. The Journal in December will be the new and definitive account of The Asgill Affair and although it can only be obtained from the US, it will be a far better acquisition/read. You already know how to go about getting it.Arbil44 (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, it didn't take long to hear from Mike, with not particularly good news!

Many thanks for your e-mail ... The Second Battalion of the 46th Regiment is not so much a "Ghost Regiment" as simply a very short-lived one that never saw active service [I didn't know that, so have learnt something at least] ...

If you want to find out where the battalion was, who served in it, who commanded it, and what it was doing for the two years of its existence, the Muster Rolls and Pay Lists are securely stored at Kew, and readily available to any Reader who wishes to consult them. See:

And if you wished to write an article based on the contents of those files*, I should be delighted to publish it on 46thFoot.com.

Kind regards, Mike Michael Hargreave Mawson

* Definitely not going to happen! The regiment, or rather battalion, doesn't sound very interesting, but has nevertheless been totally forgotten to history. I'm still glad I finally got to the bottom of this mystery. So thanks for dragging that up for me Dormskirk!!! Arbil44 (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Spaces between phrases
Cordless Larry, I realise that I need to ask you a question. It relates to the quote I will be putting up on the James Gordon page shortly. You have seen a screenshot of the quote, so you will know there are a few phrases which are separated by spaces, rather than full stops and capital letters. How do I do this, since the Wikipedia text joins up unless one does this.......which will be entirely inappropriate. Your advice would be appreciated. Arbil44 (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean by spaces. Isn't that simply the justified typesetting of the source text? By the way, I'm not going to be online much today, so my responses might be slow. For this sort of query, you could always ask at WP:Teahouse for a faster response. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Direct_Quote_from_a_1786_manuscript Arbil44 (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)