Talk:John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher

message: Hi:
It doesn't really touch on the two factors of Fisher's career that make him a figure of interest. First are his many reforms, often shoved through against the resistance from the powers that be, in munitions, operations and training methods. Second, was this flamethrower personality.
There's quite a lot that can be added. Here in no particular order, is stuff that comes to mind: The current article goes from 1898 to 1902 without mentioning the entente cordialle; Fisher's work habits (his "I have nothing to do" sign"); the period of technical innovation from sail to steam; the innovation of the submarine threat and the torpedo threat; the Naval acts of both England and Germany (ie the general context -- Kaiser' William's idiotic foreign policy).
To psychologists the most fascinating aspect of Fisher's life/career is its illustration of how much personality counts for in human affairs.  Fisher had the energy and personality of a speed addict before there was speed (or its accompanying tooth loss), and utter devotion to his work and to Great Britian.  As a result he rose from a nothing son of a nothing born on the fringes of the British empire to becoming not only one of the dozen or so most significant people in the world by 1900, but also perhaps the only person in the world who could, at the very hight of the empire's power, shake his fist in the face of King Edward the VII without reproach (yet be considered one of the King's good friends before, and after), be invitied to dine with Kaiser Whilhelm and with Tirpitz, and dance with the Grand Duchessess of Russia.  Fisher was truly a remarkable man, and if he were in an American school today, without doubt he would be put on Ritilan and would never be heard from again.  A true human volcano!
:From the "Last modified on" date of this page, as of this writing, the above unsigned entry dates from March 15, 2006.  It is possible that all the suggestions have been addressed by now.--?? Zaslav 03:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original HMS Vernon was a frigate operational from 1832 to 1848; she was laid up until 1867 as a floating coaling jetty, then in 1872 she became a hulk anchored to HMS Excellent as a tender. In 1876 the hulk of Vernon together with ex-frigate Ariadne and the lighter Florence Nightingale were commissioned as HMS Vernon, the Royal Navy's Torpedo Branch, separate from HMS Excellent, the Torpedo and Mining Training school. Over the next 30 years or so the various hulks were renamed, and moved about, and finally in 1923 the organisation moved ashore with the original ship names being applied to various buildings. This site may better explain the rather complex history. -- Arwel (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworded that bit in the article to make it clearer. Jll 14:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: career

message: Hi, I just noticed your recent edit to Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher. The statement which you deleted about HMS Inflexible's armament was not particularly bizarre, as it took between 2.5 and 4 minutes to reload the muzzle-loading main guns. -- Arwel (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might have done, but that's no reason to say the guns were "useless for naval warfare". The Land 20:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If that's the case, then I take your point. -- Arwel (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS Inflexible's armament 

message: I have deleted second part of the following statement.
Inflexible was a very prestigious appointment, the most powerful warship of her day, although in practice the four huge muzzle-loaded guns took so long to load that she was almost useless for naval warfare.
It was true that the rate of fire of the 16in MLRs on Inflexible was slow.  According to Astley Cooper Key they could do 1 round every 4 minutes.  
This compaeres with:
* 1 round per 2 minutes for the 12.5 in MLRs on the Dreadnought.  (Source: Astley Cooper Key)
* 1 round per 3 minutes for 13.5 in BLRs on the Admiral, Trafalgar, and Royal Sovereign classes.  (Source: Fred Jane)
* 1 round per 5 minutes for the 16.25 in BLRS on the Benbow, Victoria and Sans Pareil.  (Source: Fred Jane)
* 1 round per 8 minutes for the 13.4 in BLRs on the French Brennus.  (Source: Fred Jane)
* 1 round per 15 minutes for the 17 in MRLs on the Italian Duilio and Dandolo.  (Source: papers translated from Italian into English  in the Public Record Office.)
So what is wrong with a rate of fire of 1 round per 4 minutes?--Toddy1 21:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, then I take your point. -- Arwel (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Answer

message: The following quotations come from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles):
*Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem.
*For ... peers: use the dignity in the title, unless the individual is exclusively referred to by personal name. For example: "Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone" (not "Quintin McGarel Hogg"), but "Margaret Thatcher" (not "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher.")
*In general, use the most commonly recognized English-language form of the name. Create redirections or disambiguations for other plausible links. A good way to find this form is to look up the subject in a few reliable English works of general reference. For example, Alexander von Humboldt is so called in the New Cambridge Modern History. Where this leaves a choice among common names, the simplest unambiguous one is often preferable.
This guidance is not wholly consistent (since "most common" is not consistent with "exclusive") and could be used to support either the proposed title or Jackie Fisher. The drawbacks with Jackie Fisher are that it is ambiguous, and that is not used in many resources and indexes relating to Fisher, (unlike, say, Babe Ruth's nickname, it was little used in the subject's lifetime). What is certain is that the current name of the article does not tie in with Wikipedia convention at all.
Regards to all, John Moore 309 14:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind your delisting on the grounds of lack of concensus but I take a dim view of your POV remarks about the territorial designation. Further, as a point of information, an early and major biography of Jackie Fisher is entitled Fisher of Kilverstone (Mackay, Ruddock F. OUP, 1973 ). --ROGER DAVIES TALK 10:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKiernan (talk • contribs) 11:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This one is just Lord Fisher because he's the senior Fisher (the other ones are subsequent creations). Britannica call him Fisher of Kilverstone, I see (Fun this, innit?) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on naming conventions for biographical articles

message: Is he related to William_Wordsworth_Fisher? I can't find a reference, but same career and shares Jakie's fathers name?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudruns (talk • contribs) 17:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't rely on Massie. Interesting reads but there are frequent errors of detail. I will see what Mackay has to say about the matter. The Land (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: well it is a footnote about his siblings p.408 in dreadnought. Seems unlikely it would be wrong, on the face of it. Says: Four of Fishers siblings died in infancy. Two of his younger brothers followed him to england and into the navy. One, Philip, became a lieutenant and drowned at twenty seven when his ship foundered and went down in a storm at sea. A second brother Frederick William, became a full admiral and was knighted. But he was nine years younger than Jack, who left home before he was born. They scarecly knew each other, and william appears in Fishers correspondence even more rarely than his mother. I would guess, it doesn't say, he is thinking of reading from 'Fear god and dread nought: Correspondence of admiral  of the fleet lord fisher' edited by A. Marder, johnathan cape 1952-59 which he references extensively here and there, but does not specifically cite here, though I suppose there would not be any specific part to reference. Sandpiper (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't dispute the facts: Mackay says Capt. W. Fisher (d.1866) had seven children who survived infancy, and three sons who were naval officers: John Arbuthnot (Jacky); Frederic William; and Philip. William Wordsworth Fisher's father was one Herbert William Fisher (1826-1903); can't see anything to indicate that H.W. Fisher was related to Capt. W. Fisher. Interestingly enough Mackay says that Jacky fisher descended from a line of baronets in the 17th and 18th C and parson at Bodmin in Cornwall. No idea if H.W. Fisher was from the same line or not. The Land (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related? 

message: Mackay states that Fisher's commands as Captain were as follows:
*Pallas, Meditteranean, corvette ram, November 1876 to January 1877, temporary command 
*Bellerophon, flagship North America & West Indies squadron, 1877 (March?) to May 1878
*Hercules, flagship Particular Service Squadron in the Channel, May to August 1878
::On both Bellerophon and Hercules Fisher was 'flag-captain' to the Admiral concerned (Cooper Key). This was not quite a proper command.
*Valorous, frigate, August to September 1878, temporary command.
*Pallas, corvette ram, Meditteranean, January to July 1879
::(interval spent writing a gunnery manual)
*Northampton, flagship North America squadron, September 1879 to January 1881.
*Inflexible, Meditteranean, battleship, January 1881 to August 1882
::In the interval between Fisher's appointment to Inflexible and the ship's commissioning (not until October 1881) he was 'on the books' of the harbour tender Duke of Wellington. I am not sure whether this involved any duties, or whether it was just a method of accounting for his employment on full pay when 'his' ship was not yet ready.
*Fisher was then Captain of HMS Excellent, the gunnery school in Portsmouth. This role was interrupted by a further brief period of service as flag-captain of Minotaur, the flagship of another short-lived Particular Service Squadron, in June and July 1884.
*In 1886 Fisher was appointed to the post of Director of Naval Ordanance at the Admiralty. While in this post he was promoted to the rank of rear-Admiral in August 1890.
In total this makes 9 appointments as Captain, to 7 ships and one shore command. Two of these (Pallas first time and Valorous) were temporary appointments to cover absence by other officers, and one or two (Minotaur and perhaps Hercules) were commands of reserve ships during a crisis. The Land (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fisher's service as Captain 

message: *Support per above. Woody (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher

message: * Support — based on WP:NCP, since it is the more general, overarching guideline. More specific guidelines (such as the above referenced WP:NCNT#British_peerage) certainly can "override" the more senior ones where such changes are required and are otherwise uncontroversial, but the more general policies need to have precedence so that Wikipedia can generally maintain some semblance of order.— V = I * R (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *His titles are part of his name though, and part of who he is as a person, hence why we have naming conventions about them. Your support ignores those guidelines without any comment. Woody (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not ignoring the guidelines, please don't suggest I am.  I have read the conventions and the discussion above and I personally feel that this name is most appropriate.  And I have commented on why.  His title may be part of who he is, but he is first and foremost Mr John Fisher.  I'm not going to get into a debate about it, we've been asked to comment at WT:MILHIST, here's my comment. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Note: Although you probably weren't intending to suggest I had personally ignored the guidelines!  Sorry if this message seems prickly, it isn't meant to be. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he is not called Mr John Fisher, nor was he for a very large proportion of his life, but I get your point. You have your opinion, you don't think titles are a part of his life. First and foremost though, this is a discussion; don't enter into a discussion if you don't want to discuss or debate your points. I didn't say that you hadn't read them, merely that you haven't relied or used them here. What do you think about WP:NCNT if as you say, people come first and foremost and not titles. It would seem to go completely against your opinions? Woody (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - the trouble with peers of the realm is that they change their names several times during their lives, and it is quite wrong to call a peer by his given name after he is ennobled. He was Sir John Fisher (not Mr) before he was Lord Fisher. It would be both discourteous and anachronistic to refer to peers by their given names. We don't call the Duke of Wellington "Arthur", or Lord Raglan "Fitzroy Somerset". WP:NCNT is there for a reason. Cyclopaedic (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair point and I accept it - I must admit it makes a convincing point.  However, I would say we aren't addressing him here, this is an article about a man who's one consistent name throughout his life was John Aurbuthnot Fisher.    Woody, I wouldn't say that I was totally at odds WP:NCNT at all, as in the Maggie example mentioned above. He was only a lord for 11 years of a 79 year life. And I am more than happy to discuss, but not debate. Ranger Steve (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Debate is a synonym of discuss, to debate is to discuss in an orderly manner. I do understand that you don't want to argue, but this is not an argument. What I am saying is that your earlier opinion disregards titles "His title may be part of who he is, but he is first and foremost Mr John Fisher." The same goes for Wellington by that argument. The sources I have read tend to use either Lord Fisher or his rank. Regards, Woody (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: John Arbuthnot Fisher

message: *Support "Jacky Fisher" or "Jackie Fisher", as that is how most material refer to him as. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jacky Fisher

message: *Support This is the correct title per WP:NCNT#British_peerage. The middle name is not required (as the title provides the disambiguation) but the honour of Kilverstone is required. I thave thought for some time that WP:NCNT#British_peerage is inconsistent with the general rule that we use the best known name, but there it is. I don't have access to enough sources to form a view about whehter he is universally known as "Jack", but like most peers I suspect he was best known, and is described in sources, as "Lord Fisher" (or Sir John before his elevation). On that basis WP:NCNT#British_peerage applies. I don't like it, but that's the guideline.Remember, too, taht in his time only his most intimate friends would be likely to use any first name as a form of address. Cyclopaedic (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *The title itself was only Baron Fisher, while of Kilverstone served as the territorial designation, so this variant would be utterly wrong. By the way the life peerage Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone, of Herstmonceux, in the County of Sussex, created for Quintin Hogg should not be confused with the title Baron Hailsham, of Hailsham, in the County of Sussex, created for his father. ~~ Phoe   talk  ~~  00:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm transferring allegiance to John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher of Kilverstone

message: The debate is of some general importance because it turns on the interpretation of WP:NCNT#British peerage. Points under debate include whether the personal name part of the title should follow WP:NCP and use the name by which he is best known, excluding his peerage title, which in this case seems to be a nickname, "Jacky Fisher" (but that looks odd when combined with his peerage title), his given name by which he was best known (John Fisher) or his full name (John Arbuthnot Fisher); whether that decision turns on John Fisher being ambiguous (which it would be if the peerage title were not also used, but it isn't ambiguous with the title); and whether, in the title of a barony, it is necessary to include "of Kilverstone" even if there is no other Baron Fisher, and again whether that turns on ambiguity with or without the personal name. The debate arises from the inherent conflict between the two guidelines (WP:NCNT#British peerage and WP:NCP), given that peers are hardly ever known in sources by their full peerage titles. Cyclopaedic (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of debate so far

message: As he is the man who killed the most British sailors, where can I find a good source to pin the "speed is armor" quote on this donkey?  Hcobb (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you actually believe "he is the the man who killed the most British sailors" then you might want to do some actual research on Fisher, battle cruisers and the Royal Navy in general during his lifetime.  You might just learn something. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 17:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Speed is Armor

message: Is this a quote? If so, who said it? Rumiton (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "A congenital idiot with criminal tendencies"? http://books.google.com/books?id=-3G9gMNCpowC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=%22On+the+British+fleet+rests+the+British+Empire%22&source=bl&ots=qZgHJmkthD&sig=NasXGx5nT2nad3lfCq3_9RpiMEw&hl=en&ei=pgChS5OdKc-_rAe2mbylDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CA8Q6AEwBA Hcobb (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fisher said it, in a speech at the Royal Academy banquet in 1903, reported in Jan Morris, Fisher's Face, p.69: "Upon the British Navy, said Fisher, rested the British Empire. 'Nothing else is of any use without it, not even the Army. We are different from continental nations. No soldier of ours can go anywhere unless a sailor carries him there on his back.'" JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: His speech ended, "... but the great fact which I come to is that we are realizing — the Navy and the Admiralty are realizing — that on the British Navy rests the British Empire.  Nothing else is of any use without it, not even the Army.  We are different from continental nations. No soldier of ours can go anywhere unless a sailor carries him there on his back.  I am not disparaging the Army.  I am looking forward to their coming to sea with us again as they did in the old days.  Why, Nelson had three regiments of infantry with him at the battle of Cape St. Vincent, and a sergeant led the boarders, and, Nelson having only one arm, it was they who helped him up.  The Secretary of War particularly asked me to allude to the Army, or else I would not have done it.  In conclusion, I assure you that the Navy and the Admiralty recognize their responsibility.  I think I may say that we now have a Board of Admiralty that is united, progressive, and determined — and you may sleep quietly in you beds." --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 07:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: On the British fleet rests the British Empire

message: I see someone changed the lead picture from Fisher and churchill to one of Fisher looking rather odd. I liked the churchill picture, because it simultaneously made a point about the pinnacle of his career. Any thoughts? Sandpiper (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion the current lead picture, :File:Adm. John Fisher.jpg, does a better job of showing us what he looked like. In that photograph he's clearly a highly-decorated military man, whereas in the photograph with Churchill he could be any politician or businessman of the period. And he did look rather odd, so in that respect it's a fair representation. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

text: The best picture in the article is the portrait by  Sir Hubert von Herkomer.--Britannicus (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead picture 

message: Is their a cite for Fisher being the narrator of Al Stewart's "Old Admirals"?  I ask because the storyline doesn't quite fit.  The narrator was not called for service in WWI and Fisher was.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.198.70 (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the claim - it is unsourced and doubtful. Dormskirk (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture 

message: Under Character and appearance section he is described as having predicted in 1911 (the year of his first retirement from the navy) war with Germany to take place in October 1914.  However I later read under First Sea Lord section that he said to have made this in 1908 - which of the two is correct?Cloptonson (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Check year he predicted 1914 War

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher. 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/20080630040950/http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheets_john_fisher.htm to http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheets_john_fisher.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) 18:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Robert K Massie's Dreadnought claims that Fisher suffered from a bout of meglomania near the end of his career where he disappeared fro a few days. This intrigued me and much writing about Fisher glosses over this.
Also, the History Channel episode 'Great Ships - Dreadnoughts' claims that Fisher bore grudges with passion and persued the wives of other officers. These are the first I have heard of this and think these could merit some follow-up. The episode is on YouTube and the clip in question is 16 minutes and 33 second in. I would link to it but Wikipedia is complaining.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.154.184.130 (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fisher's personality  

message: This guy is one of the most prominent men in the history of the Royal Navy, and arguably his reforms made sure it was ready for WW1, against a wall of habit and complacency. He was quite famous in his own time and long after, yet no ship was ever named for him. Interesting. Anyone care to check out what's been written about him and try to come to grips with this remarkable absence? 83.254.138.136 (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Through no fault of his own he wasn't a famous fighting admiral. 2) Arguably many of his reforms generated more heat than light. 3) It can not be overstated how much his behaviour divided the Navy before he retired from office the first time in 1910. Many of those affected didn't die for 30 years or more after he did. 4) H.M.S. Fisher just doesn't sound very good in my opinion. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 12:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy; names of ships (absence thereof) 

message: Apologies all, I thought I had found a citation error, but then I realised I actually hadn’t so immediately reverted. I’ve been fixing hundreds of errors lately, on this occasion I made a mistake. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistaken edit 

message: Hi 
I have been doing a great deal of work on the Fisher Family recently for my own family history website (the page on Fisher's parents is a work in progress). I am a descendent of one Fisher's brothers - Francis Conrad Fisher. 
I was slightly shocked to see a number of errors on the page so I have tried to rectify them and add a bit of interest. So his grandfathers name was Alfred not Charles, his mother was Sophia (I have her baptism certificate) and his grandfather was purveyor of mineral water to the King (which I just added for interest because it is kind of fun)... all of which I have now managed to add with appropriate citations. 
I do have a record that I have paid for from Sri Lanka which states the date of his fathers death as 1866. He fell of a horse. In the article it says that Fisher was 15 when he died. If you do the maths he was 25 and he died the same year as Fisher got married. 
Is it possible to cite the records without having a direct link to them. I have a copy of the article here:
https://commonancestortales.co.uk/2024/01/09/updating-the-jacky-fisher-entry-on-wikipedia/
This article also quotes the inscription givig his death date.
https://www.sundaytimes.lk/151018/plus/from-orphan-of-the-empire-to-admiral-of-the-fleet-167980.html
It also says in the Jan Morris book that is used as a source already in this articlee that Sophia Lambe was 46 when her husband died. He was her first son and she married young. So Jacky Fisher was definitely not 15 when his father died. 
Is this sufficient citations to change his age from 15 to 25?
Also the article states that Jacky never saw his mother again after leaving Sri Lanka aged 6. This is completely untrue. He did not have a good relationship with her but he did see her. Jan Morris discusses his displeasure at having to see her. 
So perhaps this should just be deleted. 
Lisa Chimp17 (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added these edits Chimp17 (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fisher's age at Fathers death 

message: Hi 
I have been doing quite a bit of research on the Lambe family (the much maligned Sophia Lambe Jack Fisher's mother was my greatx3 grandmother). My grandfather was brought up in Sri Lanka himself. I added a few corrections earlier this week based on this research (see above).
I have a couple of further suggestions.
I noted that the current wikipedia article states that Fisher came from Ceylon to live in New Bond Street. I suspect this is because that is what Jan Morris put in her book Fisher's face but I think she is wrong. It was the son Alfred Boydell Lambe who was living there in 1851. There is pretty good evidence that shows that actually his grandparents were living in Bethnal Green - they are there in 1841 and Ann Lambe and family are there in 1851. Alfred is working up in Manchester. Fisher does state quite clearly in Memories that he was living with his grandfather Lambe.  I have written up the evidence in this blog post:
https://commonancestortales.co.uk/2024/01/12/where-did-jack-fisher-live/
However I can't find any other source that says this. It was pretty hard to find in the 1851 census because the wording was quite over exposed and entirely mistranscribed. Luckily Find my past had a better version than ancestry although it was also mistranscribed (surname Laube). I guess my proposal would be that we simply remove the location "New Bond Street" unless we can use this census informatiion as evidence somehow?
I don't think we should leave in something that is factually inaccurate. 
The second thing is that Fisher went to school at Coventry Grammar School - a brand new boarding school that opened in 1848. My post includes a copy of a pretty well researched newspaper article that states this. 
I wondered if we could add a sentence to that effect. I think it is of valid interest. And I am sure Coventry would be happy to have that association mentioned here. 
Thanks
Lisa Chimp17 (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove that Fisher was living in New Bond Street when he first came to England