Talk:George Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston

message: Should not his attitude to the Declaration be mentioned? See the article on it, which draws on Gilmour's book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadowns (talk • contribs) 14:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balfour Declaration 

message: Several references lacking page numbers, and one work undefined. DuncanHill (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference problems 

message: Our article uses  to say that "Sir Charles Waterhouse falsely claimed to Stamfordham that Law had recommended that George V appoint Stanley Baldwin, not Curzon, as his successor". Mosley, in his book, identifies him as "Colonel Sir Charles Waterhouse", PPS to Bonar Law. The problem with this is that there was no such person as "Colonel Sir Charles Waterhouse", Law's PPS at the time was Lt Col Sir Ronald Waterhouse (). We need a source other than Mosley that gives the correct name. DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Mosley re Waterhouse 

message: As I remember from  Gilmour's book, the headmaster of Wixenford was also a sadist, the second in Curzon's boyhood.  Seadowns (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another sadist 

message: Currently the passage reads that Curzon "once wrote to the Commander-in-Chief in India, Kitchener, advising him that signing himself "Kitchener of Khartoum" took up too much time and space, which Kitchener thought petty (Curzon simply signed himself "Curzon" as if he were a hereditary peer, although he later took to signing himself "Curzon of Kedleston"). 
This may be correct (or not, despite the citation), but it omits a lot of background. On being appointed Viceroy it was protocol that Curzon should hold a title. He was therefore appointed Lord Curzon of Kedlestone in the Irish peerage, as this would not preclude him later becoming a British member of parliament. However, his cousin George Curzon - at the time, the 4th Earl Howe - had previously held the courtesy title of Viscount Curzon before succeeding his father as Earl Howe in 1900. Howe wrote to the King when he heard that Curzon was using an abbreviated signature. The King's private secretary, Sir Francis Knollys, wrote to the Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, and Salisbury's private secretary then wrote to Curzon, saying the King was "much surprised" by Curzon's use of an abbreviated title. There followed an acrimonious correspondence between Curzon and the King's secretary (which might be the true origin of the story) if which Curzon said it saved time to sign just the single word "Curzon" (as he was sometimes signing as many as 60 official warrants a day), and that he had the right to use the abbreviated title in any case.
The King's secretary then engaged a genealogical expert to counter Curzon's claim, and Curzon was thereafter forced to use the longer title. It is clear that this was a dispute forced on Curzon initially, though he appears to have relished arguing his own case, albeit unsuccessfully.
There is a detailed description of this in David Gilmour's biography (chapter 15) which gives citations, but there is no suggestion there that he ever wrote to Kitchener on the subject. Gilmour makes it clear that throughout his life, Curzon accumulated apocryphal stories of this kind from the gossip of his friends and enemies.
The current text suggest something more petty and less interesting. Thomas Peardew (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title and Signature