# Talk:James Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan

I haven't read either of the cited books, but a TV doc I have seen suggests Raglan's orders which guns to attack (the ones to Cardigan's front or ones on the ridge) wasn't clear, & the messenger Raglan sent was disinclined to clarify, since he despised either Raglan or Cardigan (I don't recall which).  Trekphiler 10:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

After the battle he was honoured by an audience with the queen, Albert and their children to explain his actions. I will be inserting this.--Old Moonraker 08:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
This point has been elaborated today in Charge of the Light Brigade. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I just saw on a TV program that there were 674 men present, not 668.

Lord Haw-Haw says that this man was the first with that nickname. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.20.17.84 (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm here to say the same thing. Lord Haw-Haw links here; can somebody who knows something about this gentleman either add the info to this article or, if it's incorrect, remove it from Lord Haw-Haw. --kingboyk 16:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Only in fiction, and fiction doesn't count: George MacDonald Fraser uses it in some of the "Flashman" novels. It's not a nickname used in Cardigan's lifetime, AFAIK. However, journalist William Howard Russell does note an instance of his using the phrase in a conversation.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Like the 'Black Bottle' affair. Jooler 00:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Still working my way down the page. --Old Moonraker 09:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Inserted "black bottle"--Old Moonraker 11:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose replacing the Dr Bloy citation (see here) with a direct quote from Woodham-Smith: Dr Bloy is both quoting from her (acknowledged) and paraphrasing her. It seems to be a case of good-faith use of an intermediate source. --Old Moonraker 11:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The page seems to suggest that Lord Cardigan either fled, or behaved dishonorably during the Charge of the Light Brigade. This should be clarified, as all sources i have seen(The Crimean War, British Battle Series etc.) save this one, suggest that, while he, either mistakenly or deliberately misinterpreted the orders, was most courageous in carrying them out. e.g. He led from the front, as was proper, in at the time (at one point he reprimanded a young orderly for riding even with him), and he did indeed reach the objective and having taken the guns, turned back and rode back as calmly as he had rode forward.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.170.226 (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 

The matter was controversial at the time. The evidence was carefully weighed in the libel trial against Cardigan's detractor, Calthorpe, and the conclusion (that he led the charge with "valour...conspicuously displayed", that he did reach the guns, but he did not take them and retired prematurely) seems the most balanced available. This is included in the article. --Old Moonraker 10:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Opinion of Alexander Kinglake inserted: it is as the OP suggests. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A good start but more details needed on his early and later life. Some of the web sites used may not prove reliable and book refs need page numbers added. The newspaper refs I presume you must have got them via a web site can these be linked ? The lede needs to be expanded to cover his life and ideally should be about three paragraphs.  --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The newspaper refs can't be linked as they are on a subscription-only site from the Colindale newspaper library. My own (institutional) subscription has lapsed. The other online refs have, in the main, print equivalents. Page numbers can be supplied.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Lede still a bit thin at two paragraphs. "Later years" still to be augmented: I have material to go in. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
"Later years" plumped up a bit. Sorry I can't include all of the URLs: the WP policy when library material has to be sought out, rather than just linked, is at WP:Sourceaccess and WP:Offline sources. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:James Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
His contribution to government was minimal: he served with parliamentarians of great commitment and intellect, and he could offer nothing to compete. This reads like a quote, if so then put quotation marks around it. Couple of notes to clean up.
No, it's my summary of the page cited. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The inline tags fixed.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
B. MoS compliance: 
Some books have place of publication, some don't. Pick one and standardize them.
Locations included--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
What happened to Paget's complaint? Was it swept under the rug?
 expanded --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

In the section on his parliamentary career it is stated he was "thrown out of his seat" at Marlborough in 1829, and that he was "thrown out again" at Fowey in 1832.  More precise terminology should be used. While it is clear that the Fowey seat had been abolished under the 1832 Reform Act, the picture is less clear (from the article on the constituency) as to what procedurally happened over Marlborough - was he what is now called 'deselected' at constituency level or had he lost an election?Cloptonson (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I have read in his article in the History of Parliament volume 1820-1832, that he was forced to leave Marlborough by his patron kinsman who brought William John Bankes to occupy the future Lord Cardigan's place. It looks like a resignation forced on him by family pressure. The termination date is given as 14 March 1829.Cloptonson (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

A relative of mine who has a great interest and knowledge in both yachting and the Crimean War, and knowing that I had been a Wikipedia editor, has written to me to dispute the 'steam' description given to the "Dryad" in this article.  I've looked into a bit on his behalf, and there is no doubt that the boat is described as a steam yacht in several secondary sources besides the one cited in the article e.g. [1][2].  But many more, including sources in the 19th century, just call the Dryad a yacht or a cutter e.g. [3][4][5][6][7]. Interestingly, it is only post 1968, when the Dryad was portrayed as a steam yacht in the "Charge of the Light Brigade" film, does any source I can find describe the vessel thus. The most extensive description of the Dryad comes in the Crimean War Research Society's journal in a 2014 article entitled "Yachts, yachtsman and the Crimean War" which describes the "RYS Dryad" as "a cutter of 85 tons", and includes a photo of a model of the Dryad in the Science Museum, and two contemporaneous pictures (of a yacht). All this suggests strongly that the 'steam' is a recent, incorrect (though reliably sourced) descriptor, and I am going to remove the qualifier in the article in my next edit.--Slp1 (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

According to page 1  of The Times of 27 May 1852 Dryad was a "fast sailing RYS cutter built of oak by Camper". Camper's yard was famous for sailing yachts so this seems to be a good catch. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Afterthought: The National Maritime Museum has placed a photograph of the half-block model of the Dryad online and the builder is described on the model's display label as White and Sons, Cowes, and not as in my Times reference. Definitely a sailing yacht, though. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Possibly there was some confusion with a steam yacht built for the Earl in 1857, which a report in 1871 said was used in Crimea. Earlier reports had said the steam yacht was for Mediterranean use, eg. in 1859. A 2014 newspaper story about the steamship 'Airedale' summed it up, "After spending some time in the Crimea following the war she was then used as a steam yacht by Lord Cardigan, cruising the Mediterranean, before returning to England in 1869". Johnragla (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This acquaintance of Cardigan's, not properly identified in the article but playing a crucial part in Cardigan's survival after the Battle of Balaclava, appears to be Prince Leon Hieronim Radziwiłł who in 1854 was a Major General in the Russia's Uhlan Division serving in the Crimea. He was a member of a diplomatic mission to London in May 1844. However I can't find a reliable source that joins the dots to show that he is definitely the man. Anybody take this any further?--217.155.32.221 (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

London's Morning Post society column reports that Prince Radziwill, member of a diplomatic mission and accompanying Russian ambassador Philipp von Brunnow, attended social functions, also attended by Cardigan, on 9 and 11 July 1844. The only Prince Radziwill, Russian emissary, in  London at that time was the above Prince Leon Hieronim Radziwiłł. I'm now intending to add this meeting as a footnote.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Done.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

My good-faith edit here has been deleted without explanation. It's the culmination of a series of edits around the topic over the last few days—see my contribution history here.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

217.155.32.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): I undid this edition, not the one you have said. Tajotep (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry—my mistake. Apologies. However, I do believe that my disputed edit falls within the guideline "Preparing small amounts of information to be added to the article in the future ". See ==Prince Radziwill==, above. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Cardigan's "desire to lead a smart and efficient unit" is not a feature of the Flashman novels. For example, in Flashman at the Charge until the Crimean war he only appears tangentially: once in a chance encounter in Hyde Park and once when he is discovered, without his trousers, in a far-from-chance encounter in Flashman's wife's bedroom. I'm proposing to remove this from the article.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. The novel is still acknowledged in "Cultural depictions" later  in article.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This may refer initially to the re-equipping of the 11th Light Dragoons following the return from India in 1838. However, as the reference to the "Hussar officer's jacket" indicates, the situation would have been exacerbated by the re-classication in 1840 of the 11th Light Dragoons as a Hussar regiment- "Prince Albert's Own"- in recognition of the regiment's  role in the wedding of Queen Victoria to Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg. This resulted in even greater expense for officers with the more costly hussar uniform rendered more splendid with the addition of crimson 'overall' trousers reflecting their new Colonel's family livery. While Cardigan doubtlessly embraced this change with enthusiasm, it was not at his initiative- a nuance worth pointing out.
JF42 (talk) JF42 (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Added.--AntientNestor (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you.  I would suggest a slight amendment. I am unaware of controversy regarding the 11th Light Dragoons re-fitting on their return from India in 1838, although their uniforms were altogether more sober than those of the Hussar Regiments and so less costly to officers,despite the recent change from blue to to scarlet jackets in 1830. New uniforms were probably necessary on return to home service after the wear and tear of service in India.
However, George Ryan was writing in 1855 in relation to Cardigan's command of PAO Hussars (as the 11th LD had become). Therefore, to make the situation clear  I recommend the sentence: " George Ryan, a writer otherwise highly critical of Cardigan, estimated that he spent about £10,000 (equivalent to £1,000,000 in 2021) a year towards remounts and distinctive uniform for his troops" would be better placed after the sentence ending "expensive new uniforms[36]'
JF42 (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Woodham-Smith specifically states that "lavish expenditure" on uniforms and equipment for the 11th Light Dragoons during 1839 led to its preferment in 1840. However, the figure for Cardigan's personal expenditure of £10,000 pa (including the £10 supplement per remount) she applies to the PAO, as you (and Ryan) suggest. I will bring forward the W-S reference and also clarify the annual sum Cardigan was paying the PAO.--AntientNestor (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Certainly the Historical Record  (1843) indicates that in the year following the return from India, Cardigan had driven the regiment hard to meet his standards.  After a successful inspection in June 1839, Cardigan entered a somewhat coded  message in regimental orders thanking officers and NCOs  "for the support and assistance which they have thereby afforded him in establishing a system of duties, to many of which the greater portion of the troops were entirely unaccustomed, after so long an absence in a distant climate."
He went on. "The Lieutenant-Colonel feels confident, that but one feeling prevails in the corps, viz., a desire to uphold its honour and credit, and to maintain that high character which it has ever borne in the army."  This might be seen as intended to butter over the underlying tensions that Cardigan's programme had created. Not to mention the riot in which men of the 11th had been involved four months earlier.
JF42 (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

In "The Crimean War" by Denis Judd, it is stated categorically that Lord Raglan, the British top general, gave the order to charge. Before that, Lord Cardigan had resisted suggestions that he should charge. The book suggests that the charge was made against the wrong objective, and Lord Raglan's verbal order did not specify, or was not conveyed in sufficient detail by Captain Nolan, who "hated both Lucan and Cardigan". Captain Nolan was killed later that same day, so the details are shrouded in mystery. The fact is, no one really knows what happened that day and this article merely retails speculations and rumors. No one would even have an interest in the Charge if Tennyson hadn't written a famous poem about it, memorized by generations of students and the Errol Flynn 1936 movie. The tone of this article is very accusitory against a man who was brave and did his duty, but is now dead, so is fair game for a typical British tabloid salacious treatment. 47.232.145.208 (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)