Talk:Sir William Brockman

message: Would the tagger please discuss what they would like to see in a cleanup.  Thanks!  Sandwich Eater 00:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Query passed on. Please don't blank Talk pages. Tearlach 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems we're not going to get a reply from the tagger. It looks generally OK, but I said way back that the verbatim letters should be summarised in line with Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. Tearlach 02:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've reverted the tag. It's for the benefit of anyone who comes along, and doesn't require that the originator explain it. Some specifics now that I've looked at it properly. Summarise the letters, for reason explained above: It makes interesting reading. Let the reader be the judge of that. Sharpen up the intro: before wading into the biography, it needs a good topic sentence giving birth and death dates and saying who he was and why he's notable (the first sentence of Oliver Cromwell is a good example of style). Tearlach 08:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the Cromwell-esqu opening.  Left the letters.  I reviewed the rule and it discusses copying entire treatises and tracts of text, not a brief letter.  I think the letter adds to the article and is central to Sir William's notability. Sandwich Eater 03:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: June Cleanup Tag

message: I've deleted the 'and was therfore (sic) called Sir William' from the sentence beginning 'He was knighted by ...'.in the 'Prominence in Kent and Conflict with Cromwell' section.
'He was knighted by Charles I in 1632.' is perfectly adequate, as any man who is knighted under the English/British system of honours was and is automatically accorded the title of 'Sir'. There are exceptions to this (when honorary knighthoods are given to foreign nationals, for instance), but in this case and context, the addition is completely unnecessary. Edmundoconnor 00:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sir William being knighted 

message: There is more than one mention, in the WP articles, of a 'Father' Henry Brockman. Burke makes no mention of holy orders, nor does any similar source. A churchman might inherit a family coat of arms, but it is unlikely the king would grant the original Brockman arms to a Fr. Henry B., in 1606. For what? Churchmen might inherit estates but it would be abnormal for them to be involved in the business of buying up 3 manors to create an estate for themselves. With what capital? Both the church and the monarchy tended to look askance at temporal wealth accrued by clerics and English history has several instances of those who tried, even with church property, being given a premature ticket for an interview with their spiritual master.
Has a reader mis-read the opening reference, in Burke, to the Rev. William D-B, the squire at the time of publication? What is the source for the form of address? Protozoon (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Father' Henry Brockman

message: The figures for Fairfax's numbers differ somewhat: this article states 6000 Parliamentarians, using Burke. The Battle of Maidstone article states 4000, using Royle. Royle agrees that there were 6000, but that only 4000 marched on Maidstone. Both seem to agree the defenders were about 2000, once Brockman's reserves had been brought in. Either way, in pure numbers, the advantage was at least 2:1, possibly 3:1. Tradition prefers 3:1 odds for a successful attack, but Fairfax knew his troops were a better, and bigger, force, and that surprise and momentum affects the odds. Fairfax was right to attack in the rain, at once, whilst the two Royalist forces were still apart, and yet Brockman acquitted himself well with an improvised force and hastily-prepared defence against forces superior in numbers, training and experience. This sort of small-scale action is typical of the English Civil War, but the Maidstone story has a more pleasant ending than most.Protozoon (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Maidstone & Fairfax

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sir William Brockman. 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/20070311002806/http://collections.digitalmaidstone.co.uk/pages/results.asp?keysearch=Brockman&date=25&colid=19&catid=22 to http://collections.digitalmaidstone.co.uk/pages/results.asp?keysearch=Brockman&date=25&colid=19&catid=22
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) 14:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified