Talk:Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope

message: I assume "ABC" is notable enough to leave the middle name in the article title? ugen64 03:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think the change is fine it's a pretty tough argument that Cunningham is as famous as Mountbatten. C was well known publically for a small window in and around WW2, Mountbatten's royal connections ensured he had a profile from the war to his death with a widely covered funeral. Alci12 09:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: older entries

message: From the article:
...Cunningham was born in Rathmines, Dublin on 7 January 1883 and he attended several schools and colleges before he was enrolled at a Naval Academy, at the age of 10..
Maybe I don't understand the British use of the term college, but I've not heard of children under 10 enrolled in college, excepting the rare genius, and this article seems to suggest he was in a number of colleges before this age.
JordanHenderson (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: College in this sense of the term includes some Private schools in Britain. The British education system has an extremely complicated, confused and generally strange way of codifying schools. It is written in British English and does not refer to higher education colleges. Hope this clears it up. Woodym555 (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does.  Thanks! JordanHenderson (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Colleges before the age of 10?

message: The statement about Taranto being the first carrier-based air attack in history goes too far.  There was at least one raid from Japanese carriers during the Sino-Japanese war in 1937; there may have been others. Okumiya, M. and Horikoshi, J., with Caidin, M., Zero, pp. 22-27; E. P. Dutton & Co. (New York, 1956).   Possibly Taranto was the first carrier attack against enemy ships.  That quibble aside, congratulations to the authors of this interesting article on a worthy subject.  Kablammo (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree he was worthy, thanks for the congrats, and have reworded the lead sentence accordingly. According to the sources i could find to hand, it was the first completely all-aircraft naval attack in history. I will amend the blurb on the main page as well. Thanks for pointing it out. Woodym555 (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true either - see the Deutschland incident (1937) in the Spanish Civil war.86.42.198.159 (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "first carrier-based air attack in history"?

message: How does this section get in there so it doesn't show up on the edit screen and cannot be edited, no matter what I do.
It also messes up the edit section links below it, everything out of whack.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it was just vandalism removing the section, and I was going back to the version with it and trying to hit he edit links there.  I put that section back in.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Early naval career section is goofy

message: Excellent article. Well done to all involved. His Knighthood (KCB) is mentioned in the table of honours at the bottom by not in the main body, unlike his DSOs. Wouldn't it be worth a mention? Epeeist smudge (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Knighthood

message: Please note these is a strange "table" formed of coloured squares in a languaje that's not english, just before the first paragraph of the article. Don't know what it means, but it's pretty clear to me that it shouldn't be there. Can anyone please review and cleanup the article, if necessary?  Thanks DPdH (talk) 11:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Experimentation or vandalism, since removed.  Kablammo (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange Graphic in the Introduction section

message: "... schooling in Dublin and Edinburgh, Scotland". Dublin is not in Scotland.
"... enrolled at a naval academy, at the age of 10.". Is that correct? The age of 10? Hard to believe. - mbeychok (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it had already been pointed out earlier in the article that Dublin is in Ireland, it hardly needs to be continually emphasised. 82.35.59.204 (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and age of 10 is correct, especially within the context. In the 1890s it was common place. The Naval Academy was a prepatory academy for Dartmouth. Woodym555 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors in second paragraph?

message: Is there no recorded cause of death? Would be extra info for the article if it could be found. SGGH speak! 22:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Little has actually been written about his life in retirement and his death. I don't have the books to hand though I will check when and if I reacquire them. Woodym555 (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cause of death

message: Would not his title actually be Andrew Cunningham, Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope and not Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope due to the fact that he did not have anyone to succeed him in the title, and there was not a 2nd Viscount? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is to show he was a hereditary peer and not a life peer. He was the first in the line of Viscounts Cunningham of Hyndhope. Unfortunaty, he was also the last, but that doesn't matter for the distinction. There is some slight difference in ranking between a hereditary peer and a life peer. For example, a hereditary baron just have a higher order of precedence than a life baron. The prestige of a hereditary peer is also slightly higher than a life peer, althought this is a belief not supported by everyone. It's a fact that in the past hereditary peerages were given to persons of high age, from which they knew he or she didn't have descendants.   So, beforehand it was known the hereditary title couldn't be passed on. Still, they sometimes prefered to give a hereditary peerage instead of a life peerage. Demophon (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, all life peers have always been Barons, even with the law lords of the nineteenth century, so a Viscount is automatically recognised as a hereditary peerage.  Life Barons are also Baron xxxx of xxxx so there's nothing to be distinguished from by appending "of Hyndhope" to the page title as it "shows" nothing.  For a recent example of a rather pointless honouring with a hereditary peerage, see William Whitelaw. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 12:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not an expert, but to my knowledge in the (far) past also life peerages were created that were higher than the title baron. I agree, nowadays, and especially after the Life Peerages Act 1958, only baron titles are given as life peerages. But in 1840 Cecilia Underwood was made Duchess of Inverness, and this was a life peerage, not a substantive title and not a hereditary peerage. There are also other examples. But these are indeed a long time ago. Demophon (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought it was obvious from the Underwood article that her elevation to Duchess was a very rare case in a rare situation.  --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 19:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Should Baronet be included as part of his postnoms, my understanding was that the Viscountcy superceded that. Can anyone confirm or refute that? Woody (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen "Bart." or "Bt." appended to the list of post-nominals of a peer before.  There might be something in the order of succession of England to indicate where it would come in the list.  it's on Wikipedia somewhere but I always lose track of it. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 19:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question Woody... I would say yes (to be included), since it is an offical used postnominal, see Orders of Knighthood at the British government website and Addressing a Baronet at the website of The Standing Council of the Baronetage. However, these don't describe the situation of using the postnominal Bt. in case someone is a peer as well. But peers do use their knightly postnominals also. At the other hand, does a Baronetcy merge into a peerage? It's not a peerage at is own, and peerages don't have official postnominals.... We have to find this out. Demophon (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The gazette announcing his viscountcy does not use Bt, he's listed as Admiral of the Fleet the Right Honourable Andrew Browne, BARON CUNNINGHAM OF HYNDHOPE, K.T., G.C.B., D.S.O. (see )  I think the fact he's a peer trumps the baronetcy (in the same way you don't bother with "sir" for a peer who's also a knight).  David Underdown (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: (Sanity re-dent). Correct. Peers do not have Bt added. Check a random LG eg. "the Most Honourable the Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair, O.B.E." even though he holds a baronetcy from 1642 only the OBE is used. I have edited as such AllsoulsDay (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: What does everyone think about succession boxes? I think we now have a lot of boxes with little output. Shall we just wipe them all out completely?, cut them back? hide them under a master box? Or leave them as is. Personally, I think removing them altogether would be beneficial. All of the boxes are already covered in the text and add little to nothing to the article. Woody (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We've also got a whole section on honours.  It seems to me that we sould just mention in the text when these are awarded, and they canall be listed in the relevant section of the infobox for anyone who wants a list of them in one place.  David Underdown (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession boxes

message: The article seems a little unclear on what Cunningham did in late 1938-early 1940.
::He retained command [of the Battlecruiser Squadron] until September 1938, when he was appointed to the Admiralty as Deputy Chief of Naval Staff, although he did not actually take up this post until December 1939 (...) For six months during an illness of Admiral Sir Roger Backhouse, the then First Sea Lord, he deputised for Backhouse on the Committee of Imperial Defence and on the Admiralty Board.
::Cunningham described the command of the Mediterranean Fleet as "The finest command the Royal Navy has to offer" ... Cunningham was made Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, hoisting his flag in HMS Warspite on 6 June 1939, one day after arriving in Alexandria on the 5 June 1939. (...) In his role as Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, Cunningham had to negotiate with the French Admiral Rene-Emile Godfroy for the demilitarisation and internment of a French squadron at Alexandria, in June 1940, following the Fall of France.
Three questions arise -
a) did he actually become Deputy Chief in December 1938, and then serve until mid-1939?
b) If not, did he go back to London for six months and then return to the Med in mid-1940?
c) Why did he become C-in-C Mediterranean? This isn't actually explained; did Blake formally retire due to ill-health, or was Cunningham appointed to relieve him for other reasons? Shimgray | talk | 10:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha - so Blake was 2-in-C not C-in-C - that makes sense. The article manages to give the impression (at least to me) that Cunningham became 2-in-C because the commander was ill, not because his predecessor in that role was ill. I suppose it's worth mentioning Pound and thus explicitly clarifying why Cunningham got made C-in-C. Shimgray | talk | 11:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of the word "Commander" is never a good idea with British naval history, as a commander tends to be the executive officer of a big ship.  Blake was the first person to be both Vice-Admiral Commanding the Battle Cruiser Squadron and Second-in-Command of the Mediterranean Fleet (being preceded by Vice-Admirals S. R. Bailey and Sir Charlie Forbes respectively), Cunningham the second. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 11:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Start of WWII - some minor issues

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope. 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/20070615092848/http://www.dover-kent.co.uk/history/ww1a_dover_patrol.htm to http://www.dover-kent.co.uk/history/ww1a_dover_patrol.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610231710/http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3893 to http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3893
*Added  tag to http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=Bust_of_Viscount_Cunningham_of_Hyndhope_by_Franta_Belsky
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610231710/http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3893 to http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3893
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713083936/http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheets_andrew_cunningham.htm to http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheets_andrew_cunningham.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/sea-air_operations/7100391.html?page=3&c=y
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope. 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/20070927220012/http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/naval_battles/3029406.html to http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/naval_battles/3029406.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope. 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/20070610232131/http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3946 to http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3946
*Added  tag to http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=Bust_of_Viscount_Cunningham_of_Hyndhope_by_Franta_Belsky
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) 06:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope. 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/20070607014146/http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/chapter.asp?volume=18 to http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/chapter.asp?volume=18
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) 06:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does anyone know when ABC was in charge of HMS Lochinvar?  Clearly the current dates are wrong.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.140.168 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So apparently I introduced that error 14 years ago. It was 1924 to 1926. This backs it up though isn't used for the article as it isn't a WP:RS. Thanks for spotting the error! Woody (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS Lochinvar dates 

message: Content copied from WT:MILHIST:
* Honours section is unsourced. Article is referenced but styles vary throughout. Some primary sources are used such as census records for his family, which don't seem to cite all the information they claim to either. Likely non-RS sources include historyofwar.org, a word document listing naval appointments with no references, historynet.com, and unithistories.com. Other sources such as very old archived parts of the Royal Navy website could do with an update. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the unsourced list of honours. Dormskirk (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] review