Talk:Frederick North, Lord North

Untitled

Sir Frederick North had one full-sister and several half-sibs. Do you have any information on what happened to his full-sister? She was disowned by the family for some reason. If you can't help, do you know who might?

Gayden Warmald

My family tree, which led me to this reference lists Fredrick Lord North as having a daughter Margaret (I think). Given the research I have done to date and the sad state of my source material (family heirloom), it is possible that this person was not in fact his daughter but his disowned sister. She is listed as being married to some fellow called "O'Neill". He is not given a first name and given that his is an Irish name, marriage to the sister of an English Peer of this period it is entirely possible that this is the "tradesman".

I will be making further investigations but hope this is of help.

This page should not be at "2nd Earl of Guilford", I don't think...we shouldn't fetishize highest titles. He was known for his entire career by the courtesy title. For people like Chatham or Beaconsfield who were known for most of their career by one name, and then got ennobled, it's one thing to put them under their peerage title (and see my rather bitter comments over at Chatham's page, which I just removed.) But it's quite another to do it for someone like North (the same might be said for, say, Shelburne/Lansdowne...) john 09:52, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The discussion on the matter, for those interested, as well as a discussion of general ideas regarding the naming of articles on peers, is continuing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage. -- The Earl of Emsworth

Shouldn't the title of this page be either, Lord North or Frederick North? And then one or the other redirects to the actual article?

No, the current format is standard format for courtesy peers. john k 05:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: Moved. Station1 (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford → Frederick North, Lord North — Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) cites North as an example under the British peerage section as one of the people who are "best known to history by a courtesy title", in this case the "Lord North" title, which is the one that should be used. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd concur with that. He is always known by his courtesy title - a fairly recent biography is called Lord North. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral. Unlike the case with Castlereagh, say, or Shelburne, in this case the name by which North is best known ("North") is still present in the article title. There seems less need, then, to use the courtesy title as the article title, since it was just his surname. But I don't really oppose it, as it does seem to fit the guideline. john k (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support. What he is actually called is Lord North, but this is ambiguous. I could support a revision of WP:NCNT to make this, and parallel cases like Lord Palmerston, Lord Byron, and Lady Byron, article titles as primary usage, but that would be a major change. In the meantime, it is just as well to include Lord North in the title, as an assurance to the reader that he is at the right article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no real strong opinion on this, I just think Wikipedia should be consistant when it can. Personally, I think just having this article titled Lord North is the best option, as it it already exists as a redirect, so it can't be that ambiguous. Obviously, that debate would have to take place on the names and titles page. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

American Revolution

The American Revolution section needs to be rewritten; it has too many grammatical errors, which makes it difficult to follow. The tone also seems to be an issue; it isn't scholarly. The section would also benefit from more research. Alligatoraids (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The use of language in this section is quite appalling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.27.147 (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

Really, the attempted colony on the Falklands in 1770 was a "first step to the conquest of Britain"? I'd like a source on that - other than Margaret Thatcher's nightmares. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Louis XV's first minister Choiseul wanted to make good the losses of the Seven Years' War so he arranged the seizure of the Falklands by their ally Spain for the purpose of igniting a war. The Falklands was an important rest stop for British shipping and there was a crisis as a result, but Louis XV decided France was not ready for a war, fired Choiseul, and told his cousin the king of Spain that France would not support their seizure of the Falklands. North had mobilized fleet and was ready to respond to Spain with force, so this show of strength early in his ministry was a big reason for his longevity. 2601:700:4180:7900:A84A:60CF:EFB5:8371 (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Typo (hopefully) in the "Early political career" section

Can I get an explanation for why the heading labeled "Early political career" has the years 1779-70? Usually, it would be the other way around, like 1770-1779. Can somebody sort this out?

WeirdnSmart0309 (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It was vandalism. It should say 1754-1770. I've restored the previous version. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

--85.216.101.104 (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)The description of North's tenure focuses on foreign/colonial aspects only. But his ministry established relative domestic stability after the constant toppling of ministries and fierce politics of the 1760s. The only domestic issue mentioned is constituted by the Gordon Riots which indeed mark the end of that phase.

Decendents

Looks like someone vandalized this section. There's something about a General Ryan D. Pepper, who, among other things, is apparently a Mario Kart expert. Can someone point me to how to pinpoint when this was added? Thanks. Krimsley (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Related to 3rd Earl of Bute" - clarification needed

Under "Early Life", it is mentioned he was "related to....the 3rd Earl of Bute", another Prime Minister who served under George III. This mention of that relationship would benefit from an explanation of the family connection. (I am at moment looking up Prime Ministers who were related to each other.)Cloptonson (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have yet to find any evidence of the two being related in their lifetimes but I have today discovered that his granddaughter Lady Maria North (daughter of the 3rd Earl of Guilford) married the 2nd Marquess of Bute, great-grandson of the Prime Minister Earl of Bute, early in the 19th century. However does that make it relevant to note in this page, as neither contemporary ex-Prime Minister lived to see the marriage?Cloptonson (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Study at University of Leipzig - better information wanted

Also under "Early Life" it states he studied at the University of Leipzig while on Grand Tour. However there is no mention of the university in his biography in the History of Parliament. I have therefore raised a citation need. It would be appreciated if dates and further information on his study that are available would be mentioned. If it is the case he was a student there, this would make him the third British Prime Minister (after Earl of Chatham - ex Utrecht - and Lord Bute - ex Leiden) educated at an overseas university.Cloptonson (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cloptonson: I am now working on this – the evidence I can find is as follows:

• DNB: "After leaving the university he travelled for three years on the continent, in company with William, second earl of Dartmouth (Hist. MSS. Comm. 11th Rep. App. v. 330), and devoted some time under Mascove at Leipzig to the study of the German constitution (Correspondence of Geo. III with Lord North, vol. i. p. lxxxii)."
• The North American Review: "He travelled through the principal countries of Europe, visiting each country in turn; and at Leipzig he made a long stay for a course of studies under the celebrated Mascow, whose lectures on the "Present State of Europe in Respect to Politics" gave him especial interest."
• Whiteley: This gives more detail on the chronology of the tour made by Dartmouth and North (among a fair quantity of waffle):
  • End of July 1751: departure on Grand Tour
  • Passed through The Hague and Hesse Cassel
  • [Date unknown]: arrived in Leipzig; stayed "nearly nine months"
  • February 1752: from Leipzig, made a trip to the carinval at Dresden
  • April 1752: in Leipzig, North receives news of his father's earldom
  • Travelled on to Hanover and Vienna, then into Italy (Venice, Verona and Milan)
  • December 1752: arrived in Rome
  • After Easter 1753: left Rome, travelling via Florence, Genoa, Turin and Switzerland
  • October 1753: arrived in Paris
  • Early 1754: North and Dartmouth return
  • General election of April 1754: North elected MP for Banbury

I hope this helps. North was certainly in Leipzig from February to April 1752; further chronological reconstruction is speculative, but I suggest late 1751 to mid 1752 as an approximation. LookLook36 (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

House of Commons

How does a lord sit in the commons? 2A00:23C5:E08D:8A00:59E2:4276:BCCB:CC5C (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Seven children are claimed - only 6 are named. I don't know about O'Neill, or Margaret - but my grandmother, born in 1868 in Banbury, also told the story of a daughter who ran off and married 'for love'. She didn't give a name, but hermother's forename was Lydia - unusual for the time among the classes her parents seem to have belonged to. More details would be welcome¬¬¬¬

Fall of Minorca

North's resignation coincided with the British defeat at Minorca, but there is no mention of this in the article. I know, I know, the British are never defeated by the French or the Spanish, they execute strategic withdrawals or engage in fighting retreats to retrench. The article should also mention that the Spanish launched a campaign from New Orleans under Galvez and conquered West Florida, and the British bargained away East Florida in exchange for the Bahamas. 2601:700:4180:7900:A84A:60CF:EFB5:8371 (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Frederick North's children

It says in the article about family that he had seven children but only six are listed. Could the seventh be James North who had a daughter called Harriet/Harriot FNorth92 (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)