Talk:George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham

message: This article, as currently written (3/2/06), is quite, quite bizarre. It commences by stating that as a youth Buckingham was noted for his beauty, was introduced to King James, and then proceeds to catalogue Buckingham's astonishing rise to fame and fortune as if it all happened for no reason, apart from him being perhaps a pretty presence at Court. Someone could read this and go away without the slightest idea that Buckingham's fame and fortune rested on one shining fact: a king fell head over heels in love with him. Otherwise he would have remained a forgotten commoner. -- KitKat.
I agree completely, and a reference to a love between them is made elsewhere in wikipedia - the article Disciple whom Jesus loved contains the following:
"Meaning of the phrase
While many readers of John interpret the phrase 'disciple whom Jesus loved' to mean that he was particularly close to one of his disciples, others find evidence in the phrase of a romantic relationship. For example, King James I of England justified his relationship with the Duke of Buckingham by saying Jesus had his John and I have my George. However, the Greek word for love used in the Gospel is not erotic, and no early Christian commentators made this claim."
If the quote from James in that article is verifiable, it certainly seems relevent both to this article and to that on James! -- Saluton
I concur with the above statements and would add, for the sake of accuracy, that Charles was not the Duke of York when they went to Spain.  He became the Prince of Wales in 1616, a few years after his brother Henry's death. ---Paddy
In conjunction with the above comments, I would like to add Villers possessed all of the characteristics of a favorite: he was gorgeous, courtly, and a brilliant dancer, pianist, and horseman. He proved to be an efficient private secretary, protecting the monarch from an army of petitioners and position seekers. Buckingham was successful in James I's eyes because he was confident in his talents, which helped Villers achieve riches and renown. --SMH  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smh24 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: The surname has been changed from  to  ("villers"). This seems to be well within the poster's field of expertise so, rather than disfigure the lead with a  request, may I  ask here for the source? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronouncing the surname 

message: I have removed the following "This prompted Buckingham to declare war on France, putting him into conflict with the Bourbons of France and the Habsburgs of Spain and Austria, by far the two most powerful dynasties in Europe." I'm not sure that Buckingham was in a position to "declare war on France". Perhaps someone could rewrite it. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  War with France 

message: Simon Thurley states unambiguously in the episode of the television series English Heritage about Apethorpe Hall that it is unknown what the room linked to the king's bedroom at Apethorpe was used for. He also suggests that it might have been a closet, and it suitable for conversion to a bathroom. It seems rather unlikely that a duke would have slept in a room of the size and lack of grandeur that closet and bathroom imply.  It should also be emphasised that there are passages and doors connecting rooms in most if not all large houses of this era: corridors were almost unknown in English architecture until the 18th century. The existence of this passage in only seems significant if one doesn't know what these houses were usually like. Thus the story put about by some media outlets that this is proof that they were sleeping together is very shaky. It is flimsy speculation/wish-fulfilment presented as fact, so I have removed it. Alex Middleton (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Apethorpe Hall

message: This header is for a one-sentence paragraph dealing with Buckingham's escape from impeachment. I hesitate to remove it, because it's been deleted and reinstated once already. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Afterthought: The "War with France" topic, above, may explain the background. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  L3 Header "War with Habsburg Austria, France, and Spain" 

message: Though i have not permitted myself to modify the article, i'm pretty horrified by what i understand to be a complete false statement:
Seven english warships indeed participated in the event of Saint-Martin-de-Ré : Lord Buckingham and his troops actually sieged the french fortress in this town, and were aided in this matter by several hundred "huguenots" from La Rochelle. It was never a matter of so-called betrayal from Richelieu, since no alliance had been passed between France and England on the french internal religious crisis. 
In fact, english troops came to destroy this fortress (and failed, driven back in the end by an army led by Marechal Schomberg), then came back later to help out the town of La Rochelle, sieged by french army. And then again, the warships failed in rescuing the besieged townspeople, and later faced heavy damage from french navy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.37.212.185 (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  English expedition in La Rochelle and Saint-Martin de Ré 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham. 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/20110815014128/http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/surname-pronunciation/vavasour-to-woburn.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/surname-pronunciation/vavasour-to-woburn.aspx
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) 08:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have just been through the citations homogenising them on short inline and long citation in the References section. Most of the existing short citations did not contain a year/date parameter. This causes problems and does not fail safe when a person adds another book with the same author unless additional information like volume name is added. But that is not fail-safe if another edition is added. This is what has happened with the citations to Lockyer in this article (see here). The list of inline cations includes: 
#Buckingham: The Life and Political Career of George Villiers, First Duke of Buckingham, 1592–1628 Lockyer, Roger; Longman 1981 , p.22
#Lockyer, Buckingham, 250-4; 266
#Lockyer, p.460
#Tudor and Stuart Britain 1471–1714, by Roger Lockyer, 2nd edition, London 1985, Longman.
#Robert Lockyer, Buckingham: The Life and Political Career of George Villiers, First Duke of Buckingham, London 2014, p.458
There is also a long ciation in the References section:
*Lockyer, Roger (1981), Buckingham: The Life and Political Career of George Villiers, First Duke of Buckingham 1592–1628, London
This means that  inline citation (1) is the same source as that in the references section. So far so good. But citation (2) could be to either (1) or (5) as they are different editions of the same book. (3) could be to any of the thee long citations. If one does not have access to the sources. the only way to find out which long sources are coupled to the short two short citations is to check the edit history at least the took Wikipedia:WikiBlame speeds up the process! 
The citation "Lockyer, Buckingham, 250-4; 266" was added with Revision as of 00:53, 25 November 2016 by 149.12.6.70, this was one of a series of edits by that IP address] that also added the long citation to the References section so the full short citation is "Lockyer 1981, 250-4; 266". 
The second citation is a problem it was added by user:Jgrantduff on 26 November 2016. All four long citations were already in the article so there is no way to tell which long citation the short one relates.
-- PBS (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Short citation without a date

message: Not an expert on this content but for the attention of someone who is, I believe this section could be improved. First two paragraphs of the section for me read a bit muddled, and I was not following well at all by the following, third paragraph: 
:“These failures provoked the Commons to refuse further levies of taxation to fund Buckingham's extravagant adventures, while at the same time the duke was accused of being enraptured by intrigues; of dealing a blow to the international Catholic conspiracy. Yet even before they set sail the food was consumed awaiting the Board of Ordnance to deliver the cannonry and musket balls. On this occasion…” 
The “occasion” referred to was I believe the “Cadiz Expedition of 1625,” linked to in the next sentence to the phrase “the expedition,” and I’m sure that event was what was being described in the first two paragraphs, but to me it seems editing could make all three paragraphs clearer. Also wondering if “international Catholic conspiracy” might be defined or linked.
As a former news editor, on this my first time contributing to Wikipedia I’m very impressed to see collaboration on this high plane. Many thanks to contributors, from a big fan. Melinda-pixel (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd agree, that paragraph is rather hard to understand. I've read it several times and I'm really not sure I fully understand it yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've fixed all these errors, made numerous clarifications, and reordered the material to put it in chronological order. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section “Charles I, the Lord Admiral and foreign affairs”  

message: Hello Sweetpool50: Before reverting my recent edits again, please look more closely at the changes I made. I was fixing errors that several other users pointed out above on this Talk page. I corrected multiple errors of fact, made numerous clarifications, and reorganized material to put things in chronological order. I also fixed a number of non-sequiturs from previous, poorly implemented edits. These were sentences that literally did not make sense as their referents were moved or missing. I also imported relevant material from other articles on Wikipedia, such as the article about the expedition to Cadiz. If you have issues with specific language, please edit the specific language itself rather than simply reverting and re-introducing all of the previous errors. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be more fixated on proving previous editors wrong than on achieving an encycopedic style. I reversed you earlier for lack of WP:NPOV in your vocabulary and made that clear in the edit summary. Describing Drake's raids as "glorious" and the attitude of Parliament as "enraptured" is not acceptable by WP guidelines. I see you've restored that offending language and will reverse you again unless you remove it. I'll give you 24 hours. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sweetpool50: I must say I am surprised by your exceedingly belligerent attitude. After all, we are all on the same team here! Please recall WP:AGF. In response to your comment, you'll see that I already did tone down the "glorious" part to make it clear that was Buckingham's personal view. And once again you did not really have a close look at my changes, since "enraptured" was not my word at all but was in the original text that you reverted back to. But I'm happy to remove that, as it's not even my word choice. If anything, I respected previous editors' word choices too much. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The original text of the article in earlier versions, before it was garbled by some strange edits, read: "These failures provoked the Commons to refuse further raises of taxation to fund Buckingham's extravagant adventures, while at the same time being enraptured by the intrigue of dealing a blow to international Catholic conspiracy." In any case, I agree with you and I've gone ahead and removed "enraptured." --Ash-Gaar (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

text: I'll also reiterate, your editorial stance in this case does not make much sense. Reverting and restoring garbled text and numerous errors of fact simply because you don't like two words doesn't make any sense and you should just edit those particular words in future cases. Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise and not a zero-sum game between editors. If you had just changed those offending words, we would have never had any issue at all. Blanket reversion should be reserved for actual vandalism or entirely erroneous edits. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent edits 

message: According to the editorial guidance above, edits that add material outside the subject of the article should be discussed here first, if they are challenged. Who plays Buckingham in a film that has not yet been showed is not relevant in a section which plainly deals with the fictional story line in which he has a part. The function of Wikipedia is not to provide advance notice of forthcoming works per WP:NOT and I am therefore reversing the edit. In the previous edit summary, Brandon Targaryen declared his intention to start an edit war until he gets his way. He should look at the guideline before doing so and avoid future trouble. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're both missing the point. The big piece of information highly relevant to this article is that there is a forthcoming miniseries about Villiers. I suggest the sentence needs revising to explain that more clearly, not just stating the name of the lead actor. Atrapalhado (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

text: TV series usually have articles about them before they are launched (see eg just the first example I found here of a show coming next year: A Man in Full (TV series)). That a show is being made, what it about, and who the actors are, are neutral and objective facts. #Notpromo is designed to prevent marketing and PR content. Atrapalhado (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:IRRELEVANT]]