Talk:Edward Carson

message: The appearance of in this page's ToC of sec'ns that are not visible on the page is a side-effect of a bad design decision in one of the relevant WikiProjects. This talk page needs the ToC to do its job, and i think we can assume that it the project will find a better way of accomplishing its design goals, and eventually give us an accurate ToC.--Jerzy•t 01:25 & 01:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed per request at the Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical). Anomie⚔ 14:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just when it feels like WP is hurtling into permanent incomprehensibility, Linus's Law delivers again. Thanks to Anomie (apparently NTBCW User:The Anome) (and, for all i know, anonymous others) for the quick resolution of the nagging weirdness. Hmm, does something now need to be done about the nagging weirdness of my now cryptic references to "open tasks behind the curtain"? [wink, shrug] --Jerzy•t 17:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pay no attention to the Open tasks behind the curtain 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*If this article is about a person, please add  along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 09:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Auto peer review

message: This and other articles say that Carson was opposed to partition. When?  He certainly supported it in 1920-22, and he seems to have supported it in 1914 by ensuring an exemption for Ulster from the Third Home Rule Bill.  I assume that his first desire was to avoid any Home Rule in Ireland, and failing that then to ensure Ulster (or most of it) remained in the UK.  That cannot fairly be described as opposing partition: it was an opposition to Home Rule at all, but with a fall-back position. --Henrygb 21:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Carson and partition

message: === 1910 - explain? ===
The opening sentence in the section Unionism that reads, "In 1910, the House of Lords' opposition to the Third Irish Home Rule Bill was about to be overridden through the Parliament Act." This needs to be cleared up. The Third Home Rule Bill was not introduced to the Commons until 1912 and the Lords was "about to be overridden" until 1914. --sony-youthpléigh 08:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Parliament Act was clearly on the cards by 1910, and was passed in 1911. It replaced the Lords' veto by a power to delay legislation for up to 2 years. The Home Rule Bill was introduced in 1912 and was due to become law in 1914.Paulturtle (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: The opening sentence in the section Unionism that reads, "In 1910, the House of Lords' opposition to the Third Irish Home Rule Bill was about to be overridden through the Parliament Act." This needs to be cleared up. The Third Home Rule Bill was not introduced to the Commons until 1912 and the Lords was "about to be overridden" until 1914. --sony-youthpléigh 08:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Parliament Act was clearly on the cards by 1910, and was passed in 1911. It replaced the Lords' veto by a power to delay legislation for up to 2 years. The Home Rule Bill was introduced in 1912 and was due to become law in 1914.Paulturtle (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  1910 - explain? 

message: The article refers to Carson being made a life peer in 1921. Yet to the best of my knowledge, there were no life peers then. But I can't find any record of anyone succeeeding to the peerage on Carson's death. Can someone please explain? Millbanks 23:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Law Lords were effectively life peers from 1876 onwards - see Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. Timrollpickering 21:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, although they were not technically life peers under the 1958 Act.  This is a particular bête noire of mine. --Counter-revolutionary 21:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  They should be referred to as Law Lords, not as Life Peers.  Ganpati23 (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Life Peer?

message: In the newly available index of wills for England & Wales, we see that Carson left £150,295 18s. 5d. - a huge sum of money for the time. Probate granted to his widow the right honourable Ruby baroness Carson in 1935. PeterClarke 18:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He was the highest paid barrister of his generation. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, in price terms, top barristers then earned much the same as what top lawyers in London (whether commercial QCs or heavyweight partners at the Magic Circle firms of solicitors) earn nowadays: the equivalent of hundreds of thousands into the low millions per annum, in today's money. However, the average earnings of the ordinary man or woman were much lower then, as were income tax, property prices and school fees, so it was possible for a man of modest origin to become "rich" at the Bar, far more so than today when a person earning that kind of money is still on the treadmill with surprisingly little disposable capital after paying school fees and a mortgage on a house in London. (I know, I know, the heart bleeds, remind me to get my violin out, I hear you all say).Paulturtle (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wealth 

message: I'm not convinced he did play.  Marjoribanks' biography states that he continually suffered from ill health in youth and was unfit for games. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hurling

message: This is a minor point but ought to be cleared up. "The fictional barrister, Morton, is a somewhat different character from Carson, younger and more lively."  I suspect this statement is based on Robert Donat's performance in the 1948 film, I doubt if the script mentions his age.  In the 1990 TV version he is played as a late middle aged stern and not very likeable character, which I suspect may be closer both to Rattigan's original conception and Carson in real life. PatGallacher (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Winslow Boy

message: JonC's claim that there was consensus is quite simply untrue and is very dishonest. There was no consensus despite what he claimed and the long protracted 'discussion' with the same few editors is evident of that. It was interesting and unsurprising to see that the 'editors' here of unionist leanings, leap at this opportunity. Keep your stupid politics out of your editing please. ÓCorcráin (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I pointed out above (on another IP in another part of GB - I am on holiday now) that he is of more direct Scots-Irish ancestry than Anglo-Irish, but I'm not even saying he should be called Scots-Irish!!! Consensus needs to be built, and I really don't see any real agreement for sure.--82.8.226.105 (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed 109.77.76.230 (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Irish unionist" is Jonc'S latest effort, and appears to me a very useful way around these difficulties. 131.111.29.31 (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  JonC's change to Anglo-Irish 

message: Normally, on the right hand side, under the photo, after listing all the govt. positions held, the time as an MP is listed.  Which seats, which dates, for which party and predecessor and successor.
Can someone who knows the details stick them in, please?  Ganpati23 (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is his parliamentary seat(s) not listed below his jobs below the photo? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Edward Carson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208181845/http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/sir_edward_carsons.htm to http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/sir_edward_carsons.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified