Talk:Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool

message: Was he known by all three names, or should this be moved to Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool? The article calls him "Robert Jenkinson", but I thought I'd check first. Proteus (Talk) 09:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has said anything, and I think inertia more than anything gave all our peerage articles middle names. I'm moving it. Mackensen (talk) 19:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: How could he enter the House of Commons in 1790? He was only twenty, or perhaps even nineteen, years old.
:Although Members had to be 21 to take their seats, it was quite frequently the case that sons of noble houses were elected to the House of Commons before this time and only took their seats on turning 21. The minimum age was also not strictly enforced and there are cases on record of active MPs in their teens. David | Talk 17:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entrance to the House of Parliament 

message: I have read or heard somewhere that his mother was partly of Indian lineage.
:I've taken the liberty of removing the short reference to Lord  Liverpool and the A2 syllabus. If anyone wants to say that there has been a renewal of interest in him in recent years, that's fine; but to say that this, that or other is or isn't in the A2 syllabus is a very odd thing to find in an encyclopedia entry.
Jenkinson's mother, Amelia Watts, was the daughter of the former Governor of Fort William in Bengal,  William Watts and a well known Eurasian woman, already twice widowed. It was not uncommon for the members of the East Indian Company to marry women from where they worked. Racism had not reared its ugly head in this area JMAlter
::Lord Liverpool was the son of Lord Liverpool and Amelia Watts, who was the daughter of William Watts (one of Robert Clive's bagmen) and [Frances Johnson], who was the daughter of a chap named Croke and one Isabella Beizor.  So I think it's fair to say he wasn't mixed race at all, sadly.  I'll amend the page accordingly. Eithin (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added more on the ancestry of Amelia Watts at her father [[William Watts]' talk page.  Begum Johnson was erroneously believed to be Eurasian. If she was is unclear from her portrait in the National Portrait Gallery. (Personally, looking at Begum Johnson's portrait, I would more readily believe her to have mulatto ancestry than Indian).  Her mother was one Isabella Beizor and her father the British Governor of Fort St. David (Coromandel coast)..  If Amelia Watts was mixed-race, she was at best, one fourth Indian or whatever (assuming that Isabella Beizor was born Indian). Wikibiohistory 01:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the 'part-Indian' qualification of Amelia Watts as she was (see William Watts) the daughter of 'Frances Altham, née Croke', herself daughter of 'Isabella Beizor a Portuguese Indian Creole' (unsourced qualification), which does not mean Beizor was even partly Indian, just a Portuguese born in India of whatever ancestries, and anyway this was not the correct term used then in Portuguese India: "In the seventeenth century, the term Castiço came to be applied to Portuguese persons born in India without any infusion of Asian blood, and the term Mestiço to anyone who had a European ancestor, however remote." (citation in art. 'Mestiço'). Moreover, according to Vyvyen Brendon (Children of the Raj, 2015) "Mrs Croke's father was an English civil servant and there is no evidence that her halfPortuguese mother, Isabella Beizor, was Eurasian." and Ivor Edwards-Stuart wrote in 1990 (The Calcutta of Begum Johnson) that "Isabella, as her name implies, was of Portuguese descent. Some later writers have insinuated that she was of mixed blood, but this is very unlikely" --Minorities observer (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

text: I have created an article for Begum Johnson, as the best-known name of Lord Liverpool's grandmother. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian Heritage

message: Which did he attend? The article says Oxford, the category Cambridge. Timrollpickering 01:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oxford, LordHarris 18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was at Oxford between April 1787 and April 1790, having taken a few months out to perfect his French in Paris in 1789: so he must have claimed "privilege of nobility" as the eldest son of a Lord. That meant he did not have to attend lectures or take examinations, and could proceed directly to the MA after two years' residence, without taking the BA on the way. NRPanikker (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford or Cambridge? 

message: Ive just done a massive edit to the page and wikified it. Ive expanded the PM section from a couple of paragraphs to almost a dozen and have added subcategories for the important times of his ministry including the unrest at home, the corn laws, catholic emancip, end of the napolenic war and vienna congress. I have added some references, creating a new reference section and a new bibliography section. Also made edits to his early life and his late life, as well as a few other general edits. LordHarris 18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 

message: It tells us everything about his time at university but his course  --RaphaelBriand (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He must have claimed "privilege of nobility" to acquire an MA as quickly as he did: so he was free to study as much or as little as he felt like.NRPanikker (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did he study? 

message: It says he had a stroke and resigned as Prime Minister in 1827,   and he died the following year.   So, why does it state in the same paragraph that he died in office ?This is an error as he did not die in office- he died at home on 4th December 1828. JM Alter
It also says that the Hawkesbury River in New South Wales was named after him.   This seems unlikely,  as it was named in about 1789,  which was before his political career.Lathamibird (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just revised the early part of the article, part of which involved removing the words "in office" as clearly untrue. Harfarhs (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

text: More to the point, the title Viscount Hawkesbury did not exist until the creation of his father's peerage in 1796 so it rules out connection with naming of Hawkesbury River.Cloptonson (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Charles Jenkinson was created Baron Hawkesbury in 1786 and Earl of Liverpool in 1796. Opera hat (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd claims 

message: "Agriculture remained a problem because good harvests between 1819 and 1822 had brought down prices and evoked a cry for greater protection. When the powerful agricultural lobby in Parliament demanded protection in the aftermath, Liverpool gave in to political necessity. Under governmental supervision the notorious Corn Laws of 1815 were passed prohibiting the import of foreign wheat until the domestic price reached a minimum accepted level. Liverpool, however, was in principle a free-trader, but had to accept the bill as a temporary measure to ease the transition to peacetime conditions."
This (subsection Corn Laws and trouble at home) could do with a re-work because the chronology appears skewed. The years of good harvests followed (unintendedly) the passage of the Corn Laws 4 years earlier.Cloptonson (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Un-chronological narrative re agriculture and Corn Laws

message: This is much more appropriate image  The old image is cropped from a painting that’s already being used in the article :File:Sir Thomas Lawrence (1769-1830) - Robert Banks Jenkinson (1770-1828), 2nd Earl of Liverpool - RCIN 404930 - Royal Collection.jpg Orson12345 (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I have just done that. Thank you for reminding. DavidDunnymede (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement.  Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem