Talk:Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

Eating Habits

The Earl made his own cocoa for breakfast, ate plum pudding for lunch every day and diluted his wine with water.

I always suspected the British aristocracy were good for nothing much. If this is the best we can come up with, we're better off saying nothing at all about him. It's embarrassing, so I've removed it. JackofOz 08:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure that these comments are as valueless as you suggest. From them we know (1) he was (a) unusually domesticated for a Victorian gentleman and (b) not stuck-up, because he made his own drink; (2) he was man of rigid tastes, because he ate the same thing for lunch everyday; and (3) he was abstemious and temperate, because he watered down his wine. Furthermore, you also deleted the comment about him embracing his children and following a normal close family life, without either deleting the reference or changing the comment "he was fond of his children" which makes that section now seem slightly odd. I have partially reverted but dropped the mention of plum pudding, which does sound ridiculous, and changed the wording to make it clear that he only diluted his own wine, not that served to his guests. DrKiernan 11:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You have to laugh at the first comment, you describe the aristocracy in the context of reading THIS article that you suspect the aristocracy for being good for nothing and further comment in respect to THIS article that they're good for nothing. Let's have a look at the article then and the picture which proves it and then let us firmly say he was a soldier in the Black Watch. A good for nothing waster. If that's what you believe then you are a seriously misguided and troubled individual. May I perhaps advise professional help? Seriously statments like yours really annoy me because in your hatred for monarchy and the aristocracy (invariably out of jealousy for their positions to which the majority had no say) you reduce yourself to making criticism about them, without any evidence to corroborate what you say and what's worse is that in making these ludicrous assumptions, you make yourself look igornant, arrogant, naive and complete rediculous!!

• To whom it may concern: What I wrote was "I always suspected the British aristocracy were good for nothing much". I said it once, not, as you claim, twice. It was a light-hearted jibe, not any kind of attack on the monarchy or the aristocracy. I'm sorry you read it a different way. It was meant to relate to the inclusion in this article of material relating to the Earl's eating habits. I could not see back in February, and despite DrKiernan's post above, I still can't really see, what purpose the inclusion of such material serves. It seems completely out of keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. If anybody thinks it's important enough to state that the Earl was unusually domesticated for a Victorian gentleman, not stuck-up, a man of rigid tastes, and abstemious and temperate, then they can go off and find a source that says precisely those things and put it into the article, and I would be the very last person to challenge such an edit. However, what we have at the moment are certain mundane facts that can be interpreted in any number of ways. At face value, they are trivial in the extreme, most unfitting for an article about the Queen's grandfather.
• You talk about me making "ludicrous assumptions", yet I'm afraid that's exactly what you yourself are guilty of. I have no hatred for the monarchy - the very fact that I am striving to improve the quality of this article and many related articles is testament to my deep respect for the institution. I have no jealousy towards them as I do not aspire and have never aspired to be in their shoes.
• Your edit has crossed the line into a personal attack against me ("a seriously misguided and troubled individual. May I perhaps advise professional help?"). I'm not taking this any further on this occasion, but I caution you about this kind of thing. Say whatever you like about my edits, and we can argue the toss forever as reasonable colleagues, but do not attack me or anyone else "personally".
• As for being "igornant" (sic) and "complete (sic) rediculous (sic)", I can at least spell the words ignorant, completely, and ridiculous. Please take extreme care when accusing another editor of being ignorant.
• Finally, it's very poor form to make criticisms from behind the veil of anonymity. Please have the decency to sign and date your edits, using 4 tildes. Then, I'll know with whom I'm communicating and whose arguments I'm about to demolish. -- JackofOz 04:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)