# Talk:Thomas Coke, 1st Earl of Leicester (seventh creation)

Discrepancy:  Article says 7th creation, but the title says 2nd creation.  I shouldn't imagine that there have been 7 creations, but they did well if they only got to 2. Geogre 01:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I created this page. To be honest, my interest in the guy is through the area of Norfolk he worked in, and his work in agriculture. When I started looking, I realised there were some pretty serious mislinks of the name 'Thomas Coke'. Tthe article on the British Agricultural Revolution incorrectly attributed the agricultural ideas to a methodist bishop, whilst the List of Privy Counsellors (1679-1714) had the same methodist bishop appointed to the privy council some 40 years before he was born. So I made an attempt to resolve this ambiguity, creating both the disambiguation page Thomas Coke and this page.
The ambiguity actually originates in the article Earl of Leicester, in its list of holders of the title. This article does list seven different creations of the title of 'Earl of Leicester', and talks about them in text as the 1st to 7th creation. However its link to the Thomas Coke of agricultural fame contained the disambiguator (2nd creation), and that is apparantly because, believe it or not, he is the second '1st Earl of Leicester' to be called 'Thomas Coke'.
I neither know (nor to be honest care) enough about the minutiae of the way British aristocratic titles work to know whether the two different ways the Earl of Leicester article uses creation ordinals is reasonable or not. I'll try and clarify why the ambiguity occurs in the article; if you or somebody does know that this usage of creation ordinals is wrong, please correct what I've done. -- Chris j wood 09:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You've been misled by a mistake in the Earl of Leicester article. This gentleman was not an "Earl of Leicester" but rather the first "Earl of Leicester of Holkham": the article probably belongs at Thomas Coke, 1st Earl of Leicester of Holkham. Coke, in the words of the Complete Peerage, "prevailed on the Melbourne Ministry to grant him a sort of sham duplicate" of the Earldom of Leicester "so as to appear to be an Earl of Leicester", which his collateral relatives had actually been, but which title had already been recreated for, and was held by, an unrelated family. - Nunh-huh 10:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification, and the rename of the page. I've amended all the pages that linked to the old page name to now link to Thomas Coke, 1st Earl of Leicester of Holkham, and changed text in line with this. -- Chris j wood 13:15, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There is a letter in The Times of 2 December 1938 p 10 to the effect that the then 95 year old Earl had a half sister who had died 150 years before in infancy - his father having married first in his 20s then in his 70s (the earl being the product of this marriage). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification:  Under "Death" it is reported that Coke's last words were "perhaps I have talked too much".  Notwithstanding that Coke's foremost legacy was as an agricultural reformer, let us not forget that the secondary but also significant accomplishment of Coke's life was his approx. 50 years as a member of parliament, and as such, the "greatest commoner in England".  Thus I fear that without additional background, reporting that Coke's last words were that he talked "too much" could be misconstrued to mean that as a member of parliament, for example in opposing the war in the colonies and incurring the displeasure of his Sovereign, he should have been wiser and kept quiet.  While various historical accounts of Coke's life report that Coke was a great storyteller, as a politician it is also reported that he was not an expert orator and preferred to let his friends do the political speechmaking. The background relating to his last words is as follows:  Coke spent the last day of his life unable to speak.  In the evening, however, he regained his strength for a few hours, and spoke for a few hours about various personal matters, including how grateful he was for the love of his second wife Anne, that people had scorned his decision to remarry at such an old age, but that it had brought him so much happiness.  It was after exhausting his strength in this personal conversation, unrelated whatsoever to his life as a politician, that he uttered the last words "perhaps I have talked too much".  For the sake of the integrity of this page, due to the lack of background offered and because the statement is potentially misleading if read as applying to his political career, I respectfully propose that this comment be removed. User:Ekvcpa 09:58, 14 Jun 2011 (UTC)

Could we not just reorganise a tad? I'm loathe to remove information if it could be included in a more accurate form with a bit of tweaking. Ironholds (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thomas Coke, 1st Earl of Leicester (seventh creation)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
This is, at first glance, looking brilliant, so I'd imagine a lot of what I say will be nitpicky. It's a shame you've had to wait so long for a review. J Milburn (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


### Preliminary issues
File:Humphry Repton.jpg uses a template nominated for deletion, and is clearly PD-old. If I was being picky, I would say File:Obelisk.jpg could do with Template:Information and perhaps moving to Commons.
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I wonder about the categories- could they perhaps be reordered so all the MP ones are at the end? Do we have a cat for Earls of Leicester? Do we have a cat for where he was born?
No to the last two questions - why reorder them, precisely? Ironholds (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Just thought it'd look neater. It's not a big deal, I'm not fussed. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Sources look appropriate, and the only two formatting concerns are the bare url (http://www.thepeerage.com/p1793.htm#i17922) and the fact "p." should probably be replaced by "pp." when there are multiple pages cited.
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


### First read through
"the owner of a 30,000 acre Norfolk estate" Does it have a name?
Not that the sources provide, or that I'm aware of. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"Returned to Parliament in 1776 for Norfolk" Returned to? He's not been yet? Or is this a term I just haven't come across?
"returned to" is official parlance for "elected to" Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"Earl of Leicester" Link?
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"as "the real hero of Norfolk agriculture"." Even in the lead, I think I'd want to see direct quotes cited
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"70 snipes he'd killed" Avoid contractions
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"he finally consented to their marriage on 5 October 1775." Is this the date of consent or of marriage. If the former, what was the latter? If the latter, perhaps it would be worth rephrasing?
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"in an attempt to raise funds the king asked subjects to donate." Who was the king at the time? (You mention it later)
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"at St James's Palace" Link
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"that "the most important and symbolic act of Coke's political career" occurred." In-text attribution would be useful here
It's got a citation one word later; I think the attribution is fairly clear. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"The two disagreed constantly" King and PM? Or secretaries of state?
Clarified. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not all that clear how the last para of "Entry to Parliament" ties in with Coke specifically. You mention in the lead that Coke lost his seat due to support for Fox, but this isn't made explicit in the main body of the article
Any suggestions? Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, in the prose, it isn't all that clear that he lost his seat because of his support for Fox, which is what was made clear in the lead. If you reiterate in that para that Coke was very much with Fox, and that, subsequently, Fox being removed contributed to his own loss of popularity (if what I'm saying is correct) eventually leading to him losing the seat, it will tie in the paragraph with the lead and make clear why it belongs in the article. J Milburn (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
"Sandys created a large woodland, planting over 7,000 trees in 22 acres near the Eastern Lodge, another ten acres near the lake, and four acres on marshland." Oddly formulated sentence
Any better now? Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"the Mainz Psalter for" Italics?
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"In 1822 Elizabeth, Coke's daughter, recorded that 800 birds were shot in one day." Comma after "1882"?
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"planting of Scottish turnips" Link?
There isn't one I'm aware of. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Did his sheep breed have a name?
There isn't one I'm aware of. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"with even the American ambassador Richard Rush attending in 1819. along with the French Consul and the Duke of Sussex." Is that meant to be a comma?
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"to Parliament in 1796" Link to election article?
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"With the death of both William Pitt in 1806" What does this mean?
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"the army estimates" What does this mean?
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"described with "absurd"," as? And by whom?
Fixed, and the source doesn't say. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"Coke remained in the prime of life;" perhaps add "after his retirement" or something?
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"and having another child three years later." Do we know nothing of this child?
Not in the sources. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Generally looking great; solid research and very well written. J Milburn (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on the fixes above, I'm happy to promote. The article's looking really good, and I can't really offer any advice for FAC beyond the obvious- head back to the library, see if there's a book you missed and include anything new, and, if possible, look into the comments I made that you were unable to fix. This is well written, stable, a good length, answers all the questions and sourced to appropriate scholarly literature. J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)