Talk:George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore

message: This article and hyperlinks referencing this article on other pages variably refer to George Calvert as either "1st Baron Baltimore" or "1st Lord Baltimore". Is this intentional or should one name be chosen to be preferred over the other? Does it even matter? I am not exactly very well versed with noble naming customs but I figured I should ask since to me it seems a bit strange. NipponGinko (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 1st Lord or 1st Baron?

message: "George Calvert was born at Kiplin in late 1579 (birth month and day yet to be researched).[2] His mother Alicia/Alice died on 28 November 1587, when he was fifteen years old."
Eight year gap, 15 years old. Which of these numbers is correct?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.186.146 (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Age

message: my name is phil how are you? I'm assuming it was Dublin. Can someone please advise?
No it was not in Dublin. It was Trinity College at Oxford which is England.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.82.28 (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: which Trinity?

message: The presence of the article "George Henry Calvert" is superfluous since it is about the same guy as the article "George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore". It needs to be merged or deleted—I hope quickly, because "George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore" is a current featured-article candidate. "George Henry Calvert" is superfluous because it contains almost nothing that is not covered in the other article and what few differences it has are unreferenced and so can't be blindly added to its fully referenced fellow. The differences are worth looking up, though, which I will do. I am happy to carry out the merge if no-one objects. qp10qp 01:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a typo, the village is called Newtowncashel. CsikosLo (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: George Henry Calvert merge issue

message: #Well-written: Pass
#Factually accurate: Pass 
#Broad: Pass 
#Neutrally written: Pass
#Stable: Pass 
#Well-referenced: Pass
#Images: Pass
This article continues to meet the Good Article criteria. I have already passed it once. For some reason it was renominated. --Bookworm857158367 15:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC 

message: I have added a considerable amount of information, largely from Codignola and Krugler, which either corroborates or extends the existing material referenced to Browne and Fiske, books I do not have access to. By and large, there's no contradiction: the only factual material I have removed is contained in the following, where I felt the motivations were unclear and the information contradictory (which isn't to say that all of it is necessarily wrong, just that I can't verify it from other sources):
*Stourton went to the Privy Council to complain about Baltimore, though the Council dismissed the charges.Browne, Page 23-24 Soon after, he was deprived of his second wife's company as she fled south to Virginia.Browne, Page 24 Further, the winter of 1628-1629 was a disaster, and like many early settlers the residents of Avalon suffered terribly from cold and malnutrition.
*Spurned by Virginia, Baltimore returned to England, unaccountably leaving his wife and children in Jamestown to follow him later.Browne, Page 28
Now, Stourton sailed for England in 1628, which would mean that Baltimore's wife "fled south" that year, not long after arriving at Ferryland. But why "fled"? And did she leave the children with Baltimore or not? It doesn't quite add up for me. I tend to believe with Luca Codignola that she stayed the winter with Baltimore and the children and travelled down to Virginia with him in 1629 ("When Baltimore sailed south to Virginia he had with him his wife and about forty settlers." Codignola, p 54). Though the article said that Baltimore left his wife and children in Jamestown, Codignola says (p.53) that in August 1629 Baltimore sent his sons and daughters back to England, his wife alone staying with him. It sounds to me therefore as if he sent the children back from Newfoundland before sailing down to Virginia with his wife, where he arrived in late September or early October. We know that Baltimore's wife was drowned in early 1630 on the way home but also that Baltimore's children were still alive (Leonard went on to become governor of Maryland), and so they could not have been in the ship with Joane when it foundered.
I cannot rule out that Baltimore's wife did sail to Virginia before him, though I don't understand the circumstances implied by the word "fled". If someone who has Browne can provide the explanation for that, then the information would be a welcome and intriguing addition to the article. The Dictionary of Canadian Biography, which is listed in "External Links", says: "Without waiting for a reply to this appeal, he left for Virginia, whither his wife had preceded him in the fall of 1628." (Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online). But I am not inclined to cite that page as a reliable source, as it contains some obvious errors. I have left the word "unaccountably" in, which I presume is Browne's, because I have seen no account of why Baltimore left his wife in Virginia. I can guess a reason, though: Baltimore needed to get back to England in a hurry, after being booted out of Virginia, and maybe there wasn't enough room on the boat for all his servants and possessions, so perhaps he left his wife behind in charge of them. Just my speculation. qp10qp 06:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Information removed for the moment

message: The only other potential contradiction between Browne/Fiske and other sources is that Browne and/or Fiske apparently say that Charles maintained Baltimore as a privy councillor. I have left that in, with the references to Browne and Fiske, but added notes to this effect: 
*"But Codignola says, "The king’s promise to keep him on as a member of the Privy Council was not to be maintained by his successor, Charles I, to whom Lord Baltimore refused to swear loyalty". Codignola, Page 12; Krugler says he left the Privy Council in March. Krugler, Page 5." 
And I have added (later in the text, so as not to make the contradiction look too startling) that Calvert had to resign his Privy Council seat because he refused to take the oath of allegiance. The reason I think these apparent contradictions can cohabit in the text is that a chink of logic exists which reconciles the two—viz: since Charles did not remove Baltimore from the Privy Council, Baltimore technically removed himself by resigning the seat after refusing to take the oath. qp10qp 06:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A contradiction retained

message: I propose to undertake the merge of this article and George Henry Calvert in two or three days (five from the posting of the merge template, as courtesy requires). I have added one or two little nuances from the latter, such as Anne Mynne's alternative name of "Mayne", but otherwise intend to lose the majority of the GHC article on grounds of adding nothing extra or inaccuracy. The only substantial differences or interesting extras, as far as I can see, are contained in the following:
"Afterwards he was sent by the king to Ireland to report on the success of the policy of bringing the Irish people into conformity with the Church of England. There was a great deal of discontent among the Irish, and several commissions were appointed to hear and report on the grievances. Calvert served on two of these commissions."
*The present article only mentions one commission. I can't find a suitable reference to Calvert serving on two, and so I have left it out. If someone wants to reference and add it (Google suggests the information might be in Browne), go ahead. 
"As a reward for faithful service the king granted him (in 1621) a manor of 2300 acres, in the county of Longford, Ireland, on the condition that all settlers "should be conformable in point of religion." Calvert, becoming a Catholic, in 1624, surrendered this manor, but received it again, with the religious clause omitted."
*Once again, these details are probably in Browne, but I'd rather steer clear of this, as the dates seem shaky to me (Calvert didn't declare himself publicly Catholic till 1625). The present article mentions the grant of Irish lands, anyway. 
"After the death of James, Charles offered to dispense with the oath of religious supremacy, if Calvert would remain in the council, but Calvert declined."
*That's interesting. But I can't find a source for it, and other sources contradict it. I think the matter is covered well and complicatedly enough, but others may wish to look into this.
"Baltimore's works are "Carmen Funebre in D. Hen. Untonum." in a collection of verses on Sir Henry Unton's death, 1596; "The Answer to Tom Tell-troth: The Practice of Princes and the Lamentations of the Kirk," (1642), a justification of the policy of King James in refusing to support the claim of the Elector Palatine to the crown of Bohemia."
*I didn't think mentioning these obscure works from the days of rent-a-tract would do much for the reader of the article, but here they are if anyone wants to add them (though with a reference).
qp10qp 07:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More about the merge

message: Since it is five days since the merger was proposed and nobody has objected, I have now carried out the merge. qp10qp 16:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged

message: "A decade before George was born, Sir Thomas Gargrave had described Richmondshire as a territory where all gentlemen were "evil in religion", by which he meant Roman Catholic;[2] it appears Leonard Calvert was no exception. During the reign of Elizabeth I, the royal government over the church and of compulsory religious uniformity were enacted by parliament and enforced through penal laws.[4] The Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity of 1559 included an oath of allegiance to the queen and an implicit denial of the Pope's authority over the church."
:This would be less weasel-like if there were links to the 1569 Northern Rebellion that took place on their doorstep in Yorkshire, and to Regnans in Excelsis of 1570. All other European kingdoms had oaths of allegiance and almost all of the Catholic kings controlled the Papacy's powers in their domains.86.42.194.225 (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words?

message: Centered images may be larger (up to 400px) when they are alone.
This image, which is an original sketch of Calvert, is thought to capture his personality the best. 
That's why I think it's worth keeping it centered. 
If someone still felt it was too big, it could go down to 350px or 300px. 
But it tells the story so well about Calvert himself (showing him more personally than the formal paintings) that it really contributes something unique to the article. 
Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Centered sketch of Calvert

message: just after footnote 73 in the text is the line 'As he wrote to Buckingham, "I came to builde, and sett, and sowe, but I am falne to fighting with Frenchmen [sic]".'  What does sic refer to?--2607:FEA8:D5DF:FEF6:45D5:59C4:CE26:3B41 (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "sic" 

message: In this article, I find "Baltimore eventually compromised by accepting redrawn boundaries to the north of the Potomac River, on either side of the Chesapeake Bay."  Were there already Virginia settlements on the southern part of the Eastern Shore (forerunner of Accomack and Northampton counties)? Carlm0404 (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Shore blockage 

message: The article is broadly excellent, but there is a degree of ambiguity in the "Political success" section. Opening with the observation that he named his son "Cecilius" in honour of Robert Cecil and then immediately using "Cecilius" to refer to Robert Cecil himself ("Calvert carried a packet for Cecilius from Paris, and so entered the service of the principal engineer of King James VI of Scotland's succession to the English throne in 1603") seems unnecessarily confusing given that Robert Cecil will be referred to multiple times throughout the section (as Robert Cecil, Cecil and Cecilius) while his son will not be mentioned again.
Moving the observation that his son was named Cecil (or Cecilius) to the end of the section, or to the Marriage and Family or Newfoundland section (where the son actually features) would resolve this. 90.241.46.58 (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity