Talk:Harold Macmillan

message: Why are all references to his role in Forced Repatriation removed?
He has been accused of being a war criminal by many people,
that pov should be represented.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Repatriation

message: Why do we list the grandchildren and even who they married? PaddyBriggs 08:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Grandchildren

message: Why remove the Harold Macmillan out of my edit to "Harold Macmillan, The First Earl of Stockton." That's his name, although his original first name was Maurice. To me your revert of this has no value. --65.73.0.137
: His name was "Maurice Harold Macmillan, The First Earl of Stockton", informally merely "Harold Macmillan", but the form "The First Earl of Stockton" is (in this, and most cases) both unique and more appropriate for the required size.
: I have re-performed Proteus' revert.
: If you think that the standard for all Prime Minstership pages should be changed, please argue your case (here, or somewhere else); don't just ignore the wishes and opinions of others.
: James F. (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name and title 

message: The Supermac label was applied by cartoonist Victor Weisz, better known as Vicky.   It was intended as mockery, but backfired badly.  
Vicky's Supermac - 
Introduction by Michael Foot - £14.99 (£11.99 to PCS Members)
 
A unique anthology of the finest examples of Vicky's best known creation 'Supermac' (Harold Macmillan) to mark the 30th anniversary of the artist's death. Though 'Supermac' was originally intended as an attack on the Prime Minister, it somehow took on a positive role and in fact strengthened the image of the ageing Edwardian Prime Minister in the 1960s. Review of 1996 book
As for Mac the Knife, it is related to Mack the Knife, Vicky tried associating Harold Macmillan with this character from (I think) Bertolt Brecht.  But I don't believe it ever caught on and should not be referenced as such.
See also this link
--GwydionM 21:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Mack the Knife" is used to refer to Macmillan in a 1960 episode of Hancock's Half Hour ("The Emigrant") suggesting both that it did briefly catch on and also that it predated the Night of the Long Knives, despite what the article currently suggests ("Weisz tried to label him with other names, including 'Mac the Knife' (at the time of major cabinet changes in 1962; see below)...)"). Timrollpickering 16:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vicky also made a cartoon in 1963 which shows a stabbed Rab Butler lying on the ground with a knife in the back and Macmillan running away. --Michael G. Lind (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supermac & Mack the Knife 

message: Was Macmillan bisexual? There is no mention in the biographies but I once saw Julian Clary on TV make a passing jokey reference to Macmillan's visits to the Turkish Bath (the famous London homosexual haunt which closed in the late 70s), and he used what seemed to be Macmillan's camp nickname...which, if I recall, had the word 'vapors' or 'steamy' in it. The audience laughed as if some were aware of it, as if it was underground folk knowledge, in the same way Mountbatten's sexuality was. It was an intriguing incident. I think Michael De-la-Noy's biography of Eddy, Lord Sackville-West, makes some reference to the young Mac in this vein. Does anyone have a copy to hand? 
I found this on an Irish politics forum: 'Harold Macmillan's bisexuality, along with his transvesticism [sic], were widely gossiped about. A slightly drunk JFK, a friend of Macmillan's, once reportedly inquired of the British ambassador whether "Her Majesty and Her Majesty's Prime Minister shared the same dress designer?"'Engleham 11:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexuality

message: I would like to add this regarding the death of his brother-in-law if I may:
On 26 November 1950, Lady Dorothy's brother Edward Cavendish, the 10th Duke of Devonshire had a heart attack whilst visiting Eastbourne. He was attended by John Bodkin Adams, the suspected serial killer, who was present when he died. The coroner was not notified as he should have been, despite the fact that the Duke had not seen a doctor in the 14 days before his death. Adams himself signed the death certificate stating that the Duke died of natural causes. 13 days before, Mrs Edith Alice Morrell, another patient of Adams, also died. Adams was tried in 1957 for her murder but controversially acquitted.Cullen, Pamela V., "A Stranger in Blood: The Case Files on Dr John Bodkin Adams", London, Elliott & Thompson, 2006,  Malick78 13:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: John Bodkin Adams

message: And how about something regarding the controversy of British policing methods in Nyasaland? It produced both the Devlin and the Armitage Reports in 1959. Malick78 11:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nyasaland

message: "His paternal grandfather, Daniel MacMillan (1813-1857), was the son of a Scottish crofter who founded Macmillan Publishers."
I was going to edit this, but thought I'd better make sure that it was actually Daniel, rather than a Scottish crofter, who founded MacMillan Publishers. Can anyone confirm this?Dinch (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MacMillan Publishers 

message: "Earl of Stockton" wasn't an "honorific suffix", it was his name. And we put a person's most recent name in their infobox. Proteus (Talk) 13:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a link to the wikipedia section covering that policy. Secondly, clarity is something to be considered - 'Harold Macmillan' should really be put in the infobox title. Thirdly, when you edit, give reasons so others understand your edits. You didn't last time. Thanks. Malick78 (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like most things on Wikipedia, it's just common practice, not explicitly stated anywhere. We started off doing what you suggest (putting people's names whilst PM in the infobox), but they were too often "updated" ("John Major" was being changed to "Sir John Major" on a ridiculously frequent basis, for instance), and if that is done there is nowhere obvious in the article stating what a person ended up as. And as "Harold Macmillan" (his most well known name) is already up there in great big letters as the title of the article, it just happened that we gave up on excepting PMs from the general practice of using the last-held name in the infobox, so the article title generally states their name whilst PM and the infobox their name when they died. And once he became Earl of Stockton, he wasn't "Harold Macmillan, who also happens to be the Earl of Stockton", he was simply "the Earl of Stockton", and was referred to and referred to himself by that name. Proteus (Talk) 15:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, it is controversial so a policy must be official: people have been editing this one bit of the article for months now and have failed to reach a consensus. Hence me reverting your edit for not stating a reason - the first time I've got involved so far. As for me, his most widely known name has to have prominence, that's just common sense I feel. The honorific is mentioned too - which should satisfy your POV. Shouldn't it? Malick78 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And checking the article, I see you have reverted my change without stating an edit reason again. That is unhelpful and makes wikipedia much less efficient. Please cease doing that. Malick78 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: They were how I have changed them back to for a very long time before they were changed. If you want them some other way, I suggest you say why it should be so. Proteus (Talk) 00:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you have several of us informing you that its abnormal not to have a persons name in their info box, no matter who they are. Simply saying I want them without a name as you appear to be doing is not an argument that carries any weight. Please answer the points made on the Margaret Thatcher talk page where the main discussion is taking place. Thank you. - Galloglass 22:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Macmillan's term as MP for Stockton should be added to the infobox. Jim Michael (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Could someone who knows about this guy flesh out the intro? It's far too short for such a major person and makes the page look embarrassingly underdeveloped. Malick78 (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro too short

message: His mother was American, as the revival of the 'special relationship' is mentioned and he is well known for his assertion that the British were to the Americans as were the Greeks to the Romans, her nationality is significant. Could this be added to the article?
Dean Armond (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationality of mother

message: It is claimed that Macmillan left Eton after only one "half" (ie term), but I doubt this. And if he did, where did he continue his education in order for him to get an exhibition to Balliol? "Who's Who" makes no mention of any school other than Eton. Ausseagull (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Eton College Book confirms he was withdrawn in April 1910. He was then tutored privately by Dilwyn and Ronnie Knox. I'll add it to the article. Lachrie (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks. Ausseagull (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Eton

message: This is one of the least interesting and encyclopaedic things about him. We need to know the main things he did as prime minister.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Nickname

message: Are common or garden back-bench MPs entitled to "The Hon" in the UK?  We show him as The Hon from 29 October 1924 to 30 May 1929, and again from 4 November 1931 to 1942.  Members are referred to as "The Honourable Member" within the chamber, but that does not necessarily mean they get "The Hon" as a prenominal.  Also, such a style is never lost, unless subsumed in The Rt Hon etc. but we have Macmillan losing it when he left the parliament.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The Hon when a back-bench MP?

message: The section on the Profumo affair presently contains the sentence "He survived a Parliamentary vote with a majority of 69, one fewer than had been thought necessary for his survival, and was afterwards joined in the smoking-room only by his son and son-in-law, not by any Cabinet minister." Presumably the son-in-law was Julian Amery, but further down the article lists Amery as a member of the Cabinet. Opera hat (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profumo section 

message: Is macmillan the PM who squashed talk about an anti-smoking policy, since it brought in so much money and killed off working class pensioners quickly?Keith-264 (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smoking 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:OperationGrappleXmasIslandHbomb.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I removed a great deal of text added by an IP editor from the south-east of England, one who extensively cited a 2009 book by Charles Williams: Harold Macmillan. The IP editor has used the following IP addresses:
*92.7.0.36
*92.7.14.7
*92.7.1.20
*92.7.13.102
*92.7.4.162
*92.7.8.30
*92.7.31.144
*92.7.15.126
*92.7.22.1
According to the Daily Mail, "Charles Williams is a retired businessman who spoke for Labour in the House of Lords before he turned to writing, producing serviceable biographies of De Gaulle, Petain, Adenauer and Don Bradman." I believe the author has a Wikipedia biography at Charles Williams, Baron Williams of Elvel.
I have removed the work of this IP editor because of its overreliance on a single source, for failing to adhere to WP:NPOV, and for WP:UNDUE emphasis on certain aspects of Macmillan's life. For instance, Macmillan's involvement with the Suez Crisis is given too much emphasis by the IP editor, with collusion and deceit colouring the verbiage. Later, the IP calls the first UK hydrogen bomb test a "supposed British triumph." Williams's conjecture is given voice by the IP, regarding a possible reason for Macmillan accepting an earldom (because of his failing eyesight).
I would like to see a more balanced expansion of this article using more than just the Williams biography. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Suez Crisis absolutely deserves its own section and its importance can hardly be overstated since without it Macmillan would never have become Prime Minister. We now know from the records that were released under the 30 year rule act just how much Macmillan was involved in the secret collusion with Israel. (92.7.0.36 (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You will want to give WP:NPOV a nice, long read in order to fit the tone of your additions to an encyclopedia. As well, you ought to balance several sources to give the article a wider scholarship. Charles Williams was described by the Daily Mail as "bitchy" in his writings about Macmillan, so it stands that we should cast a wider net in looking for good sources. Regardless of our sources, we must write with a neutral tone, not a tone designed to anger the reader. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

text: But would you trouble yourself to read Thorpe? Horne? Fisher? Lamb? Would you widen the scope of your sources? Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: the problem is not the williams book--it's the misreading of it by 92.7.0.36, who takes the fringe view that Britain actually WON the Suez crisis. Rjensen (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree with User: Binksternet that the Suez section is being edited tendentiously by IP 92.7.x.x. but also with User:Rjensen that Charles Williams is a reliable source that meets WP:RS. The wholesale removal of claims based on Williams on grounds of “revisionism” is probably too a drastic solution. In my view, the unbalanced criticism just needs to be toned down and rebalanced with other informed commentary to meet WP:NPOV. Lachrie (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Williams is a reliable source, but he's also one of many. The language being used is a bit sensational and the emphasis in the article should be on facts rather than commentary. Some of the facts themselves are still disputed. Just balance the criticism and use measured language, and the dispute shouldn't become intractable. Be aware that it's controversial. There are a variety of views about Suez and the nature of Macmillan's involvement, and we ought to try to reflect the full spectrum in the article. It was a turning point in his career and his involvement deserves very full treatment. Lachrie (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Please try and reach consensus on Suez here and don’t start an edit war about it by reverting without discussion. Your changes don't actually have consensus, so please don't try to force them through without addressing the concerns of other editors. I have to admit I am uncomfortable with the way the section is being framed with hostile opposition commentary, and Harold Wilson and the Manchester Guardian are being treated as impartial sources. The economic argument is also too vague. In the end the Government backed down not because it had to, but because it prioritised the convertibility of sterling over securing the Canal. Lachrie (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Williams biography of Macmillan 

message: The IP editor 92.7.x.x has been repeatedly blocked, including yesterday and today, for edit warring. He is an insistent revert warrior. Please keep an eye out for further dynamic IPs in the general range making non-mainstream edits and quickly restoring them after being reverted. Here is a list of IPs that have been used by the editor:
*92.7.0.36
*92.7.14.7
*92.7.1.20
*92.7.13.102
*92.7.4.162
*92.7.8.30
*92.7.31.144
*92.7.15.126
*92.7.22.1
*92.7.5.181
*92.7.1.108
*92.7.4.36
*92.7.25.210
*92.7.14.190
*92.7.6.232
*92.7.19.156
*92.7.1.246
*92.7.13.187
*92.7.25.110
*92.7.21.145
*92.7.2.86
*92.7.23.212
*92.7.25.162
*92.7.18.52
*92.7.16.113
*92.7.31.87
*92.7.8.66
*92.7.16.202
*92.7.3.249
*92.7.10.93
*92.7.25.234
*92.7.241.136
Here's a list of articles that interest this IP editor:
*Harold Macmillan
*Anthony Eden
*Suez Crisis
*Cuban Missile Crisis
*British Empire
*Dwight D. Eisenhower
*Clement Attlee
*Muammar Gaddafi
*Gamal Abdel Nasser
*War of 1812
*Burning of Washington
*Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936
*Tony Bennett
*Braveheart
*Irish American
*West Lothian question
*Scottish independence
*2011 Libyan civil war
*Harold Wilson
*George V
Let's keep these articles as neutral as possible, with a broad scope in sourcing. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dynamic IP edit warring advisory

message: I fail to see how it is wrong to call the UK nuclear missiles a deterrent, as this was during the Cold War and the Soviet Union had threatened to launch rockets against London during the Suez Crisis (although this may have been a bluff). (AdrianCoyle (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NPOV. --John (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: John seems unable to explain his position. The Wiki rule is that we follow the RS, including all sides in disputes, but giving most attention to the dominant view. So what do the RS say--they say deterrent. a) See book title: Britain's strategic nuclear deterrent: from before the V-bomber to beyond Trident by Robert H. Paterson (1997) and P. Malone, The British Nuclear Deterrent: A History (London: Groom Helm, 1984; b) see chapter title: "Interdependence and the British Nuclear Deterrent " in Ashton, Kennedy, Macmillan, and the Cold War: the irony of interdependence (2002) p 152; and "De Gaulle, Macmillan and the Nuclear Deterrent" in Ruin and resurgence, 1939-1965 (1966) by Robert Mowat; c) see text: "the first British H-Bomb about to be detonated, Macmillan's emphasis, then and always, lay very much in dependence on the nuclear deterrent" in Harold Macmillan: 1957-1986 by Alistair Horne (1989), Rjensen (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, no, I am perfectly able to explain my position. There are certainly sources which refer to Britain's nuclear weapons as a deterrent; I would argue that as there are equally sources which do not, and as more modern sources tend not to use this dated term, we would be better to use the more neutral term. Calling them a deterrent is a euphemism that some may agree or disagree with, hence it is contentious. Calling them nuclear weapons is a neutral and objective term which is beyond dispute. Hence it it the better term to use. --John (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "deterrent" is the technical term used by historian and political scientists. It explains why they were desired, which "forces" does not. No, this is not a euphemism for something.  John claims he has his own RS -- but has not produced a single citation to support his POV. Rjensen (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so. This article is not the place to discuss deterrence theory in detail. --John (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: John is wrong saying that "nuclear deterrent" is "dated" Here is a recent scholarly articles in a leading journal that use "nuclear deterrent" in the title : Thomas Robb, "Antelope, Poseidon or a Hybrid: The Upgrading of the British Strategic Nuclear Deterrent, 1970-1974, " Journal of Strategic Studies, Dec 2010, Vol. 33 Issue 6, p797-817 ... still not a single citation from John to any book or article --- that rather undermines his credibility here. John seems unaware of publications like The United Kingdom's Future Nuclear Deterrent Capability (published by Parliament in 2009). Or David Owen's 2010 statement on "The Need for an Open and Informed Debate on Britain's Nuclear Deterrent" online. The term is also used regarding China and other countries in the literature published in the last couple years. Rjensen (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of word "deterrent" 

message: Not encyclopedic in the least, but the picture being used in the infobox is just awesome. Marvelous. Just saying.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.160.113 (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Macmillan....redrew the world map by decolonising sub-Saharan Africa.
This statement, in the introductory section of this page, is rather sweeping and suspectedly Anglocentric - the issue of allowing independence to countries in sub-Saharan Africa was also being faced by France, Belgium and Portugal, with varying degrees of enthusiasm. I sit more comfortably with the discussion in the section dealing with his Premiership that he was "a major proponent of decolonization"; the implementation of decolonization was another matter, with Portugal not finally relinquishing its sub-Saharan colonies until the 1970s. Also, it implies all sub-Saharan Africa was decolonized - where does this leave the then white-governed South Africa (not a crown colony before it became a republic) and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe)? Cloptonson (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Role in decolonization

message: Am presently preparing some material for the biographies of Asquith and Lloyd George. As part of the abortive "land campaign" (abortive because the autumn 1914 general election never took place, for obvious reasons), I've come across a mention of Lloyd George speaking at the Oxford Union on 21 November 1913. I remember a mention in Macmillan's memoirs about how he had been impressed by his dazzling oratory, "as if a Cleon or a Danton had suddenly invaded our quiet academic groves". I dare say he laid on every cheap trick of oratory and debating to overawe his student listeners. It's probably the same occasion, although one can't be exactly sure unless some book specifically says so. It will make a useful footnote to Lloyd George's biography in due course.
There was also, iirc, an occasion in the 1920s or 1930s where Lloyd George had a quiet word with Macmillan after one of the lengthy, dreary speeches for which Macmillan was famous at that time, and advised him to make two or three points and make them well, rather than a dozen or more points as if he were writing an academic paper - that caused Macmillan to modify his speaking style and probably belongs in Macmillan's biog.Paulturtle (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Macmillan writes about the Oxford Union speech in . Later in the same chapter, pages 57- 60, he recounts LlG's advice to him on speech-making. He also discusses the Coloured Books - "four of the most remarkable state papers ever produced by a private individual". DuncanHill (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers.Paulturtle (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Lloyd George at the Oxford Union

message: D.R.Thorpe says that the Falklands War Cabinet was set up specifically on Macmillan's advice. Having a think about this, I'm sure there must have been other people giving her the same advice, so if anybody has a copy of Charles Moore's recent tome(s) handy and that is what he says, it can be amended to say that he was one of several who "advised her thusly" as Sheldon Cooper would put it. I do recall that the exclusion of the Treasury was very much his advice, although as John Campbell points out, if Eden had "excluded the Treasury" in 1956 events might have turned out somewhat differently.Paulturtle (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Macmillan was certainly not the only person to give Thatcher that advice in 1982. Things would not have turned out differently in 1956 because Britain had lost its ability to act independently. (Sdjkl1 (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Thorpe dismisses that theory. (Sdjkl1 (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's irrelevant because Britain no longer had an independent foreign policy after World War II. (Sdjkl1 (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Britain was no longer a major power after World War II, nothing changed with the Suez Crisis. The Americans had already sent a very clear message that colonialism was over when they forced Churchill to sign the Suez Canal Base Agreement in 1954. (Sdjkl1 (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Eisenhower administration was determined to end Britain's military presence in Egypt so the country would cooperate against the Soviets. The Truman administration pressured Attlee to withdraw from India and Palestine. (Sdjkl1 (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Americans were not going to support British colonialism in Egypt, regardless of who the Prime Minister was. And Attlee's government only followed a semi-independent foreign policy for 18 months - from the beginning of 1947 they supported everything the US did. (Sdjkl1 (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Britain didn't get involved in the Vietnam War despite Johnson's pleading with Wilson in 1969. Sounds pretty 'independent' to me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.158 (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Falklands War Cabinet

message: Somebody recently posted a link to the "London Gazette" for 1920 stating that Macmillan held the rank of and was demobilised as a lieutenant in 1920. And yet he called himself "captain", a claim universally accepted by his biographers. Amongst the possibilities are: a) The "London Gazette" is wrong; b) he was given another promotion (I had a look for it but couldn't find it); or c) Macmillan was lying, or bending the truth by using an acting rank which he had held.
I have to say I think it's pretty unlikely either that a) a grown man in his mid-twenties with distinguished war service would be demobilised as a lieutenant, whereas calling oneself "captain" was perfectly respectable in the interwar period or that b) a public figure would have lied repeatedly about something like that and risked public disgrace if discovered, although I suppose it was easier to fib in those days when records were harder to check and the faux officer (e.g. Captain Peacock, who turns out really to have been a corporal) or man with an invented war record was a familiar type.
I didn't find anything in Vol I of his memoirs, and the biographies do differ a little. Horne 1989 (p.52) says he spent "a year as a captain 1919-20" whereas Williams 2008 (p.55) says he was promoted prior to demobilisation. I can't see where they are getting their information from so there may be some guesswork or sloppy writing going on here.
I'm not normally one to get uptight about "Original Research" - rules are there, as the saying goes, for the guidance of the wise and the blind obedience of fools, and the rule against Original Research is there to stop people from writing bollocks in articles, not to stop competent people from flagging up when the books are clearly in error. However, I think on this occasion it's a step too far to decide that Macmillan was a fibber (about this particular matter) and that all his biographers are wrong on the basis of looking up the "London Gazette". I've left the "London Gazette" in there but I think we have to go with "captain" unless more evidence comes to light.Paulturtle (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Captain was a rank to which promotion was automatic over time. So no big deal worth fibbing for. (Indeed, Major was the same.} Retired Captains were often landed gents who had given some military service before leaving to manage their estates, whereas retired Majors may have completed their careers without further promotion. Seadowns (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captain Macmillan 

message: Paragraph likely needs a re-write as over-emphasises some details in the article ... e.g. use of bold and term 'permanent way'.  Understand 1955 modernisation plan was thought by 1960's not to be giving a good investment/return ratio and Beeching was appointed to review and recommend.  The report was published under MacMillan's term but adopted subsequent to it.  Understand MacMillan may have had reservations.  He also is reputed to have has a life-long interest in railways.  Redo'ing this paragraph in a way that is proportional to the article whilst remaining attributable to Macmillan with appropriate cites is beyond my skills.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second government, 1959–63 - Reshaping of British Railways 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harold Macmillan. 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/20070515190448/http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page131.asp to http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page131.asp
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) 03:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harold Macmillan. 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/20170104091317/https://uk.news.yahoo.com/video/macmillan-eisenhower-084053231.html to https://uk.news.yahoo.com/video/macmillan-eisenhower-084053231.html
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) 15:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "An hereditary peerage" sounds affected to me, and not usual British usage. DuncanHill (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is correct usage, if perhaps a little pedantic, if the stress is not on the first syllable: "a history of Britain" but "an historical book".Paulturtle (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A little old-fashioned, rather than pedantic, I would say, unless you are not aspirating the h of historical. DuncanHill (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ...as people didn't in Victorian times. Valetude (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "An heriditary peerage" 

message: Isn't it true that he won the MC for an outstanding act of bravery, the rescue of a wounded soldier? If so, shouldn't this be mentioned, especially as I once heard him and Eden described as poltroons , or cowards, on TV. (Eden's similar MC is mentioned in his article.) Seadowns (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No mention of an MC in the ODNB article on him. He was undoubtedly brave, and was wounded on a number of occasions. DuncanHill (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

text: He did rescue a Frenchman from a burning aeroplane in the Second go, and was badly burnt himself. DuncanHill (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you might be confusing Anthony Eden, who as you say won the MC for leading a stretcher party under fire (to rescue one of his own NCOs iirc). I don't believe Macmillan had the MC. It was later claimed that NCOs in the Guards had urged men to be "as brave as Mr Macmillan" but this is thought to be a later invention by MPs with overactive imaginations. At least one biographer (Ball in "The Guardsmen", I think) has flagged up his near-death in the burning plane incident as a life-changing experience - somebody else (Davenport-Hynes in "The Macmillans" I think) likened him to the Count of Monte Cristo from about 1942-3 onwards.Paulturtle (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWI record 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The infobox mentions that he received the British War Medal and Victory Medal for his WWI service. However, he was serving on the frontline in France in 1915, notably at the Battle of Loos - would he not have also qualified for the 1914-15 Star thereby?Cloptonson (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: He’s wearing it in this picture. Opera hat (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Medals, in infobox

message: The section of his tenure as PM is too long...Thatcher, Major, etc. all have separate articles about their premierships. Ak-eater06 (talk)  07:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split into "Premiership of Harold Macmillan"?