Talk:Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

He was made a life peer (as Baron Carington, one 'r') to enable him to continue to sit in the House of Lords. Doesn't that mean that he would have first had to renounce his existing hereditary title as 6th Baron Carrington (2 'r's). His inability to continue to sit resulted from a change in the law about the constitution and powers of the House of Lords, but nevertheless he remained a peer by inheritance (just without voting powers). So, before accepting a life peerage to enable him to continue to exert political influence and to vote, surely he would have had to renounce his existing title. Life peerages are only available to people who are not already peers, aren't they? Am I missing something here?? Cheers JackofOz 01:58, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • People with hereditary peerage titles don't need to disclaim them in order to receive an additional life peerage title. In Nov 1999 the 6th Lord Carrington, the 7th Earl of Longford, the 2nd Lord Shepherd, the 3rd Lord Windlesham and the 2nd Earl Jellice (all hereditary peers) were all granted life peerages. - Nunh-huh 02:16, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I was wondering that myself. His name's "Carington", but his peerage is "Carrington"? Thought it was a massive typo or something... =P cryptfiend64 18:28, May 30, 2004 (UTC)

This should really be moved to Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington, but I can't do it. Proteus (Talk) 17:22, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done.
James F. (talk) 17:34, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. Proteus (Talk) 17:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A thought - you shouldn't say "He had an unbroken run of consecutive government positions for over 30 years" when he was actually in opposition from 1964-70 and 1974 -79. Also, in that sense , High commisioner is a diplomatic rather than a government position. Perhaps you should say something like "He was prominent in British Politics for x years, serving upon the Conservative front bench in both government and opposition and as High Commissioner to Australia.

Why?[edit]

We are given this fact in the article: "It might be noted that his family surname (which the family assumed in 1839 in lieu of Smith) and life peerage are both spelt Carington (single "r"), whilst the hereditary peerages are spelt Baron Carrington (double "r")." But what is the reason for this? Is it to fit in with the Thynnes, Petres, Blounts and Cholmondeleys? DavidFarmbrough 16:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This obit of the 5th Baron from The Times says:
The second peer changed his family name to Carrington in 1839, and the third peer (who died Marquess of Lincolnshire) and his brothers changed the spelling of the name to Carington in 1880. G.E.C. says of this change: "It is stated in the petition that their father had altered the orthography of his (so recently assumed) name of Carrington to that of Carington prior to the birth of the petitioners, i.e., in the short period between 1839 and 1843."
But it doesn't go on to explain why (other that to suggest that surname-changing was something of a hobby for the Smith/Carrington/Carington/Bromley-Wilson/Pauncefote family). Prouder Mary 16:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reports of Lord Carrington's death[edit]

Twice now, I have undone a revision stating that Lord Carrington died on 15 September 2008. I have not done so lightly, but I cannot find any other source which reports his death. Before reverting, can a source be quoted please? Informed Owl (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl[reply]

I note that a date of death was added again last night, but was promptly removed. How can this vandalism be stopped?Informed Owl (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl[reply]
You could request semi-protection at WP:RPP to stop anonymous edits, but the level of vandalism is rather low for that action at the moment. You shouldn't feel you need any justification to remove significant changes in matters of fact that have been made without giving a source. See WP:V and WP:BLP. William Avery (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the person who has made the assertion a number of times now has today said that "Sadly my Uncle did indeed pass away". As the most recent "reverter" has pointed out, the Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington, who is the subject of this article is alive and attended a memorial service earlier in the week. I would suggest some form of "semi-protection" then. I have every sympathy for a poster whose uncle has died, but he will know full well that it is not the same Peter Carington who is the subject of this article.Informed Owl (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl[reply]

Why has the protection of this article been removed? The anonymous vandal has pounced back almost immediately. The subject of this article did not die on 15 September 2008. Please stop this anonymous vandalism.Informed Owl (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl[reply]


Name[edit]

Is it "Carrington" or "Carington"? This page doesn't seem to know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.67.157 (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As is explained in the article, it's quite tricky as the surname (and life peerage) has a single "r", while the hereditary peerage title has double. It's quite normal to refer to peers by their title, rather than their surname, so one can make a good case that both are correct (at different times). David Underdown (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation about Mrs Thatcher being stupid[edit]

I'm not sure that this should be included without qualification. Even a cursory web search reveals a report that he has denied saying it. e.g. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/lord-carrington-would-not-use-the-fword-about-mrs-t-8663285.html William Avery (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arms[edit]

The arms' description is not correct. There is a confusion between fleur(s)-de-lys and trefoils. The colours are not indicated in a homogeneous order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.115.11.232 (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency in Arms[edit]

I've noticed that the artistic representation of the Carrington arms does not completely match the blazon (description). In particular the dexter (right hand) supporter should have three fleurs-de-lis on its body to distinguish it from the sinister (left hand) supporter which has three trefoils. Currently the picture has both supporters the same. I know it's a minor point but, as a pendant, I like things to be correct! Not sure how to fix it though? MightyWarrior (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the creator of the file, maybe he can fix it. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a pedant I must correct your spelling of the word "pedant", which you claim to be! Sorry!Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IRA suspects[edit]

Carrington's involvement with the internment of IRA suspects is covered e.g. in State of Emergency: The Way We Were: Britain, 1970-1974 by Dominic Sandbrook: here. I expect there are others. But I'm not sure if the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion in the article. Any other views? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People go on about it, but from Sandbrook's account, pp.247-8, it seems the decision to let the Army use the 'Five Techniques' (mainly hooding and white noise) on detainees, a carry-over from colonial policing, was taken jointly by Carrington and Home Secretary Reginald Maudling and was only in force from April to August 1971, at which point an enquiry was ordered. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. That's exactly how I read it. To hold Carington solely responsible is just way off the mark. And disregards an awful lot of Whitehall history tied up with the H-blocks etc. If anything I would have thought Maudlin, as Home Secretary, really carried the can for that. And of course where is Heath in all of this? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nijmegen[edit]

I've corrected 'rail bridge' to 'road bridge', because that was the one that Carrington's Grenadier Guards troop actually took. The rail bridge downstream was taken earlier in the day by American paratroopers after an assault crossing in boats, but the Americans hadn't worked along the far bank to the road bridge by the time the Grenadier tanks forced their way over. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Carington,_6th_Baron_Carrington&oldid=1216555661"