Talk:Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

University of Oxford Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. inactive .HertfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HertfordshireTemplate:WikiProject HertfordshireHertfordshire articles

Salisbury was offered, but refused - possible on the grounds of the cost of maintaining that style, a dukedom by QV but I can't find a citation at the moment.Alci12 11:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 31st Jan 1886 he turned down a dukedom on the grounds of cost and refused another dukedom offer again in 1892. (Roberts, Salisbury, p. 374 + p. 579.)--

Johnbull 12:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I have edited that in, if you have his biog perhaps you can add some flavour as iirc he was somewhat unusual spending much of his time even as PM testing chemicals and 'experimenting' which resulted in considerable damage to his home and not a little risk to his heath and safety.Alci12 14:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous: Lord Salisbury said: "I think that the constant study of maps is apt to disturb men’s reasoning powers" -- comes exactly from one who divided Africa like a pizza and is responsible for the millions of deaths caused by wars, discrimination and conflict because he drew borders randomly. Harold Macmillan too. http://www.tothevictoriafalls.com/vfpages/devel/capetocairo.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.251.229.128 (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please confirm the spelling of Gascoyne? I think it should be Gascoigne (the name of a big family that the Cecil's married into). If correct the entire line of Salisbury Wikipedia entries may need to be changed.

(For interest, Salisbury Road intersects Gascoigne Street, in Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong.)

Can anyone explain to me the exact relationship between Brownlow Cecil (b.1725 d.1793, 9th Earl of Exeter) and Sir Robert Cecil (1st Earl of Salisbury)?

I also vaguely recall the Viscount Wimbledon title being associated with the Cecil family. However, I don’t see it mentioned anywhere. At the Wimbledon parish church I recall seeing a plaque dedicated to the marriage of Sir Christopher Wray, bt. (Lord Chief Justice of England, who sentenced Queen Mary of Scots to death) who married Albinia Cecil.

The Cecil family, I believe, is traceable to a famous Roman family of the same name.

- Eltharian ^Talk 10 September 2006

Name is correct see burkes or any other peerage source. The 1st earl of Salisbury and the 1st earl of Exeter were half-brothers. Alci12 15:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salisbury was not the last Prime Minister in the House of Lords. Please see the article on Alec Douglas-Home, who held the position of Prime Minister while sitting in the House of Lords for a short period in 1963. Flozu 13:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone explain the discrepancy that Salisbury was worth over six millon in 1900, but three years later his estate was valued at 310,000.Natalie West 19:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several fascinating points of connection between

Milner's prerogative. Hmmm . . . £5.7 million, where oh where could it be?? - gospelnous 00:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I would suggest you look up his probate record or report of his will when it was probated (eg in the press). The lower figure may refer to "personal estate" (a figure that did not include "real estate" in the form of lands and houses owned). It was usual for wills then to be reported as a gross figure, followed by a "net personalty" figure which was the value of the personal estate, not including real estate, after deducting debts and funeral expenses.Cloptonson (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That quote by Attlee is fascinating, and perhaps demands some elaboration, given the extent to which the ideology of the two differed.

Attlee (born 1880s) was a Tory as a young man, which explains it a little.--User:171.192.0.10

The full quote from Roberts' Salisbury is:

Shortly before he died, Clement Attlee was invited to Chequers by Harold Wilson and asked whom he thought the best Prime Minister of his lifetime. Without hesitation Attlee replied 'Salisbury'.

Roberts gets this from Wilson's The Governance of Britain (1976), p. 31n.--

Johnbull 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I note he is listed in two categories, People with Prosopragnosia and Nobility with Disabilities, but these do not appear demonstrated in the article. I note in the article on Prosopragnosia he is listed as a sufferer.Cloptonson (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lede carries more information about this election than the article does. Both the 1892 and the 1895 elections ought to be featured in more detail, as Salisbury was closely engaged in them. Valetude (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a host of references of the form "Roberts, p. 16." and the like. Unfortunately, there are at least four sources used by Roberts. There is "Andrew Roberts (2012). Salisbury: Victorian Titan. Faber & Faber", another edition of the same work (but the page numbers may differ) "Roberts, Andrew. Salisbury: Victorian Titan (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1999)", "Martin Roberts (2001). Britain, 1846-1964: The Challenge of Change. Oxford UP", and "Roberts, Andrew. "Salisbury," History Today, (Oct 1999), Vol. 49 Issue 10.". This is clearly not acceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a perfectly sensible Wikipedia guideline,

46.69.8.41 (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of paragraph 4 of the Early History section is the sentence, "He found the Kaffirs 'a fine set of men – whose language bears traces of a very high former civilisation', similar to Italian. They were 'an intellectual race, with great firmness and fixedness of will' but 'horribly immoral' as they lacked theism." "Kaffirs" is linked to an article declaring it to be (in this context) "pejorative" and "extremely offensive", and the word is on the official list [[1]]. Since it's not part of any of the relevant quotes, is it necessary to retain it at all? Many if not most readers will have to go to a dictionary, and will then find that it doesn't help them much. If Salisbury was referring to a specific group, the name of that group should go here; if not, then some broad and neutral term like "South African natives" or "local Africans". Scutigera (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any harm in retaining his view of the native South Africans, as it’s not all pejorative and shows he was more open in his views than many at the time. If he actually referred to them as Kaffirs, perhaps explain that at the time, he wouldn’t have meant in an insulting way, patronising perhaps, but not insulting. Times, views and language change, but history remains the same. Colonialism was far from ideal, but it had both good and bad points, so we must portray it from a neutral standpoint, even if it makes us occasionally wince and shudder. Giano (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• PS: I just looked for an alternative; however, to my ears, Coloureds sounds even worse. so perhaps ‘Native South Africans’ without a link is best. Giano (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that we should keep the word if he actually used it, but the format of the sentence implies that it's the author of the wiki page who used it, as the quotes from Salisbury appear later and don't contain the word. "Kaffir" in period text would naturally be interpreted according to that period's usage, but in the wiki page apart from quotes it's likely to be interpreted in its modern sense. "Native South Africans" seems perfectly acceptable. Scutigera (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]