Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

How was he Irish?

Weren't the Anglo-Irish protestant ascendancy despised in Ireland?

I have amended this to Anglo-Irish. LordHarris 23:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

They were but being hating by your own(even if they're only semi your own) does not mean you are someone else.Let's flip the situation: if a Hiberno-English person is hated by the English he's still English. Sioraf (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely the Colleys were Norman-Irish and having lived there since 1172 or so meant that they were great survivors. North-west Kildare passed out of English control in 1350-1500. By the eighteenth century they had conformed to the system but many other Irish people did not. I don't think it makes them less Irish, except in a POV sense.86.42.222.164 (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Colley is not a very common surname in Ireland. On wikipedia you can find George Colley, government minister and son of an IRA veteran, and George Pomeroy Colley.86.42.214.4 (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please clearly state why any Irish with an affiliation to the British establishment are so often described as "anglo-irish". I see this terminology being used repeatedly on wiki pages. It seems that Behan's criterion of "a protestant with a horse" has been the only one applied. Although used historically, anybody with an understanding of human history in Ireland will find this term ambiguous, and now largely redundant and potentially negatively discriminatory. We do not identify the english head of state "germano-english", clearly she is english, right? So why this terminology. I propose changing the opening paragraph to "was an Irish soldier and statesman. He was one of the leading military and political figures of nineteenth century Britain". I think the remainder of the article sufficiently describes Wellington's family background/ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micielo (talk • contribs) 14:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

--- If I remember rightly. Wellington's own comment went something like this: “You’re not necessarily a horse because you were born in a stable and you’re not necessarily Irish because you were born in Ireland.” - Campolongo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campolongo (talk • contribs) 13:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Remember rightly indeed. If you care to read into the matter further old boy you will find that this comment has been attributed to Daniel O'Connell, and not Wellington. Ref: Shaw's Authenticated Report of the Irish State Trials (1844), p. 93 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micielo (talk • contribs) 03:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It may be more complicated than just stating he was Irish because he was born in Ireland. I don't think Anglo-Irish is denying his Irish roots, it just a simple term to explain a more complex notion. Anglo-Irish describes the Protestants of English ancestry living in Ireland as a social group ascendant over the Gaelic Irish Catholics. They lived parallel lives to the Irish, in the same country but never the same culture. Historian Gordon Corrigan wrote that the Anglo-Irish 'professed attachment to an England which very largely ignored them. They considered themselves to be English expatriates surrounded by a large and potentially hostile population, as indeed they were. Unlike their Norman predecessors, they had not intermarried or been absorbed into Gaelic aristocracy'. BarretBonden (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is more complex than that. I would suggest everyone’s identity in Ireland (and elsewhere) is a lot more complex than that. However, we agree that he was Irish (the country of his and his families birth). You strive to identify his nuanced form of Irish identity. I do not think this is helpful, as this is contentious and can not be simply asserted in the opening paragraph.

So, if we have to discuss his form of Irish identity (I think dealt with quite sufficiently in the subsequent section, his protestant background etc) we need to understand that 1. Anglo-Irishness generally refers to the wave of “new-english” colonisation which occurred after the 16th century. Clearly Wellington’s ancestry pre-dates this time frame (Online: The Anglo-Irish, Fidelma Maguire, University College Cork). Indeed, the Norman invasion brought his family to Ireland along with other families such as Burke, Fitgerald, Darcy, Joyce, Barry, Clare etc., families which cannot but be declared simply Irish. 2. Since the 19th century, the term Anglo-Irish has been used in a prejudicial manner to marginalize a certain section of the Irish population (Online: The Anglo-Irish, Fidelma Maguire, University College Cork). The term is consequently contentious. 3. Finally, even for those historical figures whose ancestry does fall into the correct time frame according to Maguire, for example Charles Stuart Parnell, Isaac Butt, John Millington Synge, Oscar Wilde, George Bernard Shaw, WB Yeats, Samuel Beckett (or was he of Huguenot!), they are clearly identified as Irish in the literature and, rather importantly in this case, Wikipedia articles. I therefore see no reason why the same standards and logic should apply and why Wellington should not be included in such outstanding company. Can you? Micielo (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Micielo (talk • contribs) 21:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not one to be anal about such things, but even your reply shows the problems (and contradictions) associated with this topic ie “I don't think Anglo-Irish is denying his Irish roots” and “They lived parallel lives to the Irish”. Clearly there is a problem here.

To reiterate, I think it is quite acceptable, and I would say necessary, to state that he was Irish in the opening paragraph, and then deal with the complexity of his Irishness in the more descriptive, subsequent section. Is this not reasonable? Micielo (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micielo (talk • contribs) 22:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would still argue that Anglo-Irish is an adequate description in this instance – someone who was born in Ireland but with strong cultural links and attachment to England. Wellesley's father was born a Colley, a family that originated in the English Midlands, and had lived in Ireland for three hundred years without a single Irish name on its pedigree. The term has gone out of use in modern Ireland, but it is useful historically and for the casual Wikipedia reader, and anyone confused by the term can click on it and get to an article describing its meaning. I don't think you can compare the examples you have given (Charles Stuart Parnell, Isaac Butt etc) with Wellington. All were born much later with different circumstances. I see no reason why this term, in Wellington's case, is negative or discriminatory to anyone. BarretBonden (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a little concerned that you have completely missed my point. The fact that Parnell’s, Synge’s, Yeats’family arrived much later was exactly my point. It means that they fall into the correct historical time frame to be identified as Anglo-Irish. Wellingtons family does not.

That the Colley family (derivatives: Collie, Caulley, Caolley, Cowley, and indeed, MacColley and de Cowley; You will find Colley and its derivatives are frequent in Ireland) may trace its origin back to the English midlands almost a millennium ago is not, by any historians point of view, a justification to be called Anglo-Irish. There can be some active debate as to whether the family can be considered Hiberno-Norman, Anglo-Norman or perhaps even Cambro-Norman (MacLysaght, 1965; Duffy 2000; Orpen, 2005) but Anglo-Irish it is not. We have to be clear about the time frames here, and the terminology we use. I am trying to do this.

So, to summarise, I am pointing out that your use of “anglo-irish” in the opening line is not only unnecessary (in the sense the term is too loaded for an initial cursory description) but, more importantly, incorrect. However, we both agree that the term I propose to change it to (Irish) is correct albeit less complex (ie it is a higher order identity). Can we not agree on this and move on to work on the subsequent section which deals with the important issue which you have identified, his more complex Irish identity. Micielo (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, to clear up any issues of ownership, it was not me who added Anglo-Irish to the article. I said nothing about Parnell’s, Synge’s (etc) family history. Also, I didn't mean the Colley's had been in Ireland since the Norman invasion – from what I have read they moved from England 300 years before, displacing native Irish landowners, and intigrating very little with Irish culture. Whilst I don't agee that Anglo-Irish should be removed, I do agree that some content should be added to replace the content recently removed concerning Wellington's sensitivity to his Irish birth.

Could Anglo-Irish be changed to British? Or perhaps: ...was an Irish-born soldier and statesman, and one of the leading military and political figures of the nineteenth century. Born to a prominent Ascendancy family, he was commissioned an ensign in the British Army in 1787. BarretBonden (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In relation to what you call his "sensitivity to his Irish birth", what exactly is this assertion based on? I am curious to know of the facts based around this apparent sensitivity. While I might disagree with what you can clearly define as "Irish culture", I do think the Colley/Wellesley genealogy section needs more references. I have read various accounts of the origin of these families in Ireland, and it is not at all definitive. Micielo (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

I think that, in order to put this into perspective, it should also be pointed out that in Victorian times Wellington was regarded as "the Greatest Irishman in History - the long-nsed b****r that beat the French". Those who persist in calling him "Anglo-Irish" are adopting a very narrow definition, which is almost certainly politically-inspired. Stanley c jenkins (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wholly unlike your own opinion, of course. I contend that the most accurate label for Wellington is 'British' since he was British rather than Irish. Anglo-Irish does not do justice to just how British he was due to his contact with England -Eton education, Commander in Chief, Prime minister, lived in London.SomersetDevon (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"being born in a stable does not make one a horse."

This is not a quote by the Duke of Wellington. It is a quote about him by Daniel O'Connell.[1] - Victory's Spear (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a story that every genealogist in Ireland will tell that explains it. Apparently his family teased him because his mother had said that she was not sure if he was born in Dublin at the family house (that is now the Merrion Hotel), or was born at an inn somewhere between Dangan and Dublin. Naturally his siblings repeated the idea of him being born near enough to a stable, as a tease, and this was taken up much later and twisted by people such as Daniel O'Connell who was anti-Wellington; and by anti-Irish people as well, who liked to think of Ireland as a sort of stable. His reply was made to his sibs, and the other later contexts are misplaced and hardly worth amplifying upon.86.42.208.181 (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The quote is included in Richard Holmes book Wellington: The Iron Duke, and Gordon Corrigan's Wellington: A Military Life but both authors claim it is uncertain whether or not he ever actually said it, and there is no reference to it in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. However, the quote appears to have a reliable citation in the article. Maybe the sentence could be reworded to: Born as a member of the Protestant Ascendancy, he was sensitive to his Irish birth and it is claimed he stated that "being born in a stable does not make one a horse."? BarretBonden (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

They can be cited (just as Mein Kampf can be cited), but his involvement in the soon-to be-abolished Irish Parliament suggests that he was not in an enormous hurry to get away from Ireland in particular, though he had already spent time in England and France. Thereafter he moved with his regiment which was not posted to Ireland. He came back to marry Kitty in 1806, and was Chief Secretary in Dublin in 1807-09, the top position in the local civil service. In a busy and much travelled career it seems that he did return often, raising the questions - what exactly did he say? to whom? when in his life? what about (was it the inn story)? how was it relayed?

Also, would it be typical and characteristic for him to criticise the country that had built a 200-foot monument to him at Dublin (still the tallest stone monument there), and with another prominent pillar in Trim? I would say not. There is room in the article to include the quote with a wide caveat. Wikipedia approves quotes from secondary sources such as you mention, but the primary source is hearsay and with a lot of uncertainty.86.42.206.90 (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that this quote is misattributed, and it's originator was Daniel O'Connell. I have therefore edited this section. If you have an issue with this change please provide a reference which attributes this quote to Wellington and pre-dates O'Connells speach of 1843 Micielo (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Posting in Malabar

This section was recently added to the article [2] [3]. I've checked two biographies available to me (Holmes and Corrigan) but neither makes any mention of this incident. The two sources provided for this section are Kerala Simham by Sardar K.M Panikker and Malabar Manual by William Logan. However, none of the inline citations provide the relevant page numbers from which the content is sourced. I'm not familiar with Kerala Simham but from a Google search it would appear that the book is an historical novel and therefore unsuitable for use as a reference here. Malabar Manual can be found on Google books but the number of pages available to view is restricted. Although the book supports some of the claims made in the section, it does not say Welleseley was posted in Malabar to crush this particular rebellion, rather it was just one of several operations against rebels he oversaw as commander of EIC affairs in Malabar, Canara and Mysore. The section ends suggesting that Wellesley "studied Raja's tactics carefully and used them in Spain and Portugal where he bled Napoleon's Grand Army" which I find dubious (the cited source is Kerala Simham). Whilst it might be a good idea to add more information to this article about his time in Mysore and the tactics he employed against guerrilla warfare, this is misinterpreting the only reliable source and is perhaps a case of undue weight so I have removed the entire sub section. Barret (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

POV

The article is ridden with POV. See the italicized lines below:

In 1796, after a promotion to colonel, he accompanied his regiment to India. The next year his elder brother Richard was appointed Governor-General of India. When the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War broke out in 1798 against the Sultan of Mysore, Tippoo Sultan, Arthur Wellesley was given charge of an army division. After that war, his brother appointed him (despite cries of nepotism) to be Governor of Seringapatam and Mysore, positions he held with distinction until 1805. He reformed the tax and justice systems in his province, and he defeated and killed the robber chieftain Dhundia Wagh, who had escaped from prison in Seringapatam during the last battle of the Mysore War. Characteristically, he then sent Dhundia's orphaned son to England for a proper education. In the Maratha War of 1803, Wellesley commanded the outnumbered British army at Assaye and Argaum, and stormed the fortress at Gawilghur. On one occasion, he out-galloped the Mysore soldiers pursuing him and avoided being killed. (In fact, he had uncanny good luck life-long: despite exposing himself on the front lines for over twenty years, he was never wounded, injured or captured.) Through his own skill as a commander, and the bravery of his British and Sepoy troops, the Indians were defeated at every engagement. Following the successful conclusion of that campaign, he was appointed to the supreme military and political command in the Deccan. In 1804, he was created a Knight of the Bath, the first of numerous honours he received throughout his life. When his brother's term as Governor-General of India ended in 1805, the brothers returned together to England, where they were forced to defend their imperialistic (and expensive) employment of the British forces in India. India had taught him to abandon the common habit of infrequent bathing, and he is usually credited with popularising the custom of daily bathing in his own country.[citation needed] More importantly, campaigning in the arid reaches of Central India gave Wellesley thorough practice in logistics, while dealing with cautious-to-commit Indian allies taught him diplomacy. Both skills would prove invaluable in the future fighting in Portugal and Spain.

-Ravichandar 03:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this article is more that it is grossly undersourced, more than it is POV. And I'm not clear why you have chosen to focus on two distinctly innocuous little sections when there are worse examples, except that I could assume by your username you have an axe to grind with relation to the British in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agema (talk • contribs) 11:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me where the country 'Anglo-Ireland is?'. I remember the great Mohammed Ali saying when he was asked 'Do you like to be referred to as 'black', 'negro' or 'what' and he said 'American' as where were these other countries. Wellington spent a long time in living in Ireland for a man who despised it. I think the 'horse/stable' quote (whether he said it or not!) has been often quoted as showing his dislike but I have heard many people mention that this was not his intention and it should be taken more along the lines of 'not judging a book by its cover'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.217.34 (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Colley to Wesley, and Dangan

This article isn't quite clear about why the Colleys changed to Wesley. Was it a stipulation in a will that in order to inherit the Colley man had to change his surname? If so, would anybody have the specifics? Furthermore, was he inheriting Dangan, the ancestral home of the Wesley family? I was in Dangan the other day and it's just a massive pile in a field between Summerhill and Galtrim. It's very like that drawing from the 18th century, and you can still see a stone foot bridge where, presumably, the old manorial settlement was. But why, and when, was it abandoned? It's a most curious symbol of an abandoned world. Who owns it today? One further question, when the family took the title Mornington, what family were they replacing, the Draycotts? 86.44.44.218 (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Colley-to-Wesley transition is in Elizabeth Longford's biography (Wellington: The Years of the Sword). Everyone in his family flourished elsewhere and didn't want to retire to Dangan, which was a ruin by the 1840s.86.44.218.112 (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

HE WAS IRISH

Regardless of where his ancestors came from, if he was born in Ireland, so guess what that makes him???? IRISH!!!

Calling him Anglo-Irish is surely only a way of some English idiot supremacist as claiming him as one of their own. It is WHOLLY UNDENIABLE that he was born in Ireland, most likely either Dublin or Co Meath - as the article itself states. It is, therefore, WHOLLY UNDENIABLE that he was IRISH and nothing else.

If you insist on calling him Anglo-Irish, then by the very same definition Wayne Rooney, James Callaghan, Alfred Hitchcock, Noel and Liam Gallagher, Boy George, Jimmy Carr, Pete Doherty, Steve Coogan, Morrissey, Paul Merton, Sting and many thousands more are all henceforth to be referred to as Hiberno-English, and their articles will be permanently amended as such.

Appropriately so, Queen Elizabeth II will also be properly identified as German-English.

In all seriousness, Wikipedia's policy on nationality is very clear. Being born in Ireland, Wellesley WILL go down in the history books as being Irish. This is both factually correct and encyclopedic, and will therefore from now on be the nationality used in this article. Any further changes will be removed post haste.

There is absolutely no argument about it - it really is quite as simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.240.223 (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So which nation's army did he fight with? We could surely call him an Irish (-born) man and an Anglo-Irish soldier. What's the problem with that? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The topic of who or what was an Irishman always produces passionate debate. But I think there's a fairly simple and transparent way of handling the complexity of the issue, which involves Irish identity as both "nationality" and social class. As the Wellington article itself makes clear, he was from a family that had been established in Ireland for centuries, not late-comers from Elizabeth/James I or William III. I don't think it's productive to try to deny that he was Irish and was viewed as such by people at the time. However, he was definitely of the portion of the ruling class in Ireland, which included both "Old English" and "new" arrivals, that had very strong connections with England, and that looked to England for the education and professional advancement of their sons. That group can conveniently be called "Anglo-Irish", and there's an article already dedicated to explaining that group. So I think the most accurate and, for readers, informative way of dealing with the matter is to say in the text he was Irish, but link "Irish" to the "Anglo-Irish" page which explains the social class of "Irish" to which the Wellesleys belonged. I have taken the same approach with another Irish statesman who was Wellington's direct contemporary, Castlereagh. Castlereagh was even less "Irish" than Wellington -- his mother was the daughter of an English Marquess and granddaughter of an English Duke and he was raised by a stepmother who was daughter of an English Earl. Yet, as an Ulster Scot, he was identified and self-identified as Irish. And this was a matter of some consequence -- during the Irish Rebellion of 1798, the fact of his being an Irishman delayed by a year his being appointed by George III to the office of Chief Secretary of Ireland, which had never before been given to an "Irishman". So in the text on the Castlereagh article, he's identified as Irish, but the link for "Irish" is to the "Ulster Scots people" article, not to either the "Irish" page (which is a disambiguation page that links only to the "Irish people" article) or the "Irish people" article, which focuses principally on the origins of the Gaelic-speaking group as a distinct ethnicity, although it does have a few paragraphs on the late-comers. If one wants to include in the text itself a qualifier -- what type of Irishman Wellington was -- then it should read "was an Irish (Anglo-Irish) ..." Dunnettreader (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I have made the change proposed. I think this should satisfy most of those involved in the discussion. Micielo (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be just noted that Emma Watson was born in Paris but is not listed as French, Richard Dawkins was born in Kenya, Prime Minister Andrew Bonar Law was born in Canada, Napoleon wasn't born in France, Hitler wasn't born in Germany. There is more to the nationality that a person most identifies with than where that person's mother just happened to be located when she went into labour. How many Americans do you see that class themselves as Irish-American, or Italian-American just because they had one great grandmother from that particular country? I think that Wellington's ties to England are enough to warrant him being Anglo-Irish. He certainly didn't have an Irish accent. His family were like a secular English colony living in Ireland, they didn't mix with the locals. He then spent the majority of his adult life living in London.

What rubbish. All this biographic searching to validate your point and these are the only examples you can come up with. Well, Prime Minister Andrew Bonar Law’s father was born in Ireland and his mother in Scotland. Dawkins was born in Kenya because his father was stationed there during the war. Nobody would deny that Hitler was Austrian. I have always considered Napolean Bonaparte Corsican (Emma Watson? No idea who she is but I’m sure she is an equally poor example). However, Wellington was not only born in Ireland, but his ancestors had been in Ireland for at least 500 years. His family shares a similar history with many of the more common Irish (Norman) families.

There is more to the nationality that a person most identifies with than where that person's mother just happened to be located when she went into labour.

Yes, indeed there is. Some 500 years of family history in Ireland. Also, the term Anglo-Irish is not defined as you see it. If you cared to read “Dunnettreader” previous post you will see why.

Added to that retrospectively attributing nationality 200 years after is much more difficult than attributing one to a modern person. Was Joan of Arc French or English? Was the Tollund Man "Danish"? Was the Baryonix dug up in Dorking, England "English"? To now call him Irish associates him with the modern completely independent Ireland, which he was certainly not a part of.

Well, Britannica refers to her as a “French Heroine”, so I think I’ll go with French. But I can see the point you are trying to make. Tollund Man lived before the country of Denmark existed etc etc. Wellington was born in Ireland. It was offically the “Kingdom of Ireland” at his birth. In his speeches in the commons he consistently refers to the “country” of Ireland. It was not, as you imply, some non-entity but a very real country. Does calling Cromwell English associate him with modern multi-cultural England. No. But calling him English is a historical fact.

Finally, he mocked his soldiers for finding their British patriotism in a Gin bottle, in contrast to his "proper" British patriotism. Why would he be patriotic for a country that he did not class himself as part of?20:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.104.184 (talk)

As stated before, being Irish and British were not conflicting characteristics at that time, nor are they now for that matter. Finally, if you make an editorial change to this article please state so, and sign it so we know who you are. I have reverted your change. Micielo (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying Anglo Irish is fine, he is mentioned on that page so it can hardly be incorrect. There is no need to make the change you did. I oppose the change, we should stick with the previously agreed method wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

To say Wellington was Irish is a geographical fact of his birth, family heritage and his early life. Pointing out his military and political service to England is also a fact. But he was Irish with a 500 year family tree on the island of Ireland, not Anglo-Irish. Or else all Irish Unionists who ever existed in Ireland should be termed "Anglo-Irish".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.214.88 (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2009

He was born in the Kingdom of Ireland that ended with the Acts of Union 1800, when he was 31 years old. Before 1801 an Anglo-Irish person was legally Irish without any hang-ups within the overall British system. Afterwards the new United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland made it easier and more desirable for an Anglo-Irish person to feel and be "British". This political-cultural reality around 1800 explains why he was born Irish but long before his death would have considered himself British. It's likely that his whole family's surname change from Wesley to Wellesley in 1798 was a way of forgetting its Irishness, coming at the time of the embarrassing Irish Rebellion of 1798. His elder brother claimed that Wellesley was the proper spelling for Wesley, but he was wrong; it was also an embarrassment to share the same surname as John Wesley and Charles Wesley, leaders of the frightfully plebeian Methodist movement.86.42.206.116 (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Victorian soldier George Pomeroy Colley who fell at Majuba in 1881 also came from that part of northwest Kildare and was a distant (about a fifth) cousin of Wellington. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.193.47 (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing Years-- Waterloo to 1819

I see there are periodic attempts to bring this article up to a higher quality class. When next someone makes a serious attack on it, an important missing chunk of his bio should be added. Right now, it simply skips from the end of Waterloo to a return to political life in England four years later. During much of that "missing" period, he was responsible for the coalition's 150,000-man Army of Occupation in Northeastern France. As such, he was a central figure in the conclusion of the 100 Days period and the early stages of the Bourbons' Second Restoration, signing and enforcing, along with Castlereagh, the new treaty arrangements that imposed a much harsher peace on France than the 1814 agreement. Wellington was one of the most important men in Paris at the time -- both politicially and socially. He had a thankless task — managing the tricky business of not humiliating the French too much, which would add another source of internal tension to an already tumultuous political situation, while pacifying the Prussians and others who were, to put it mildly, insensitive to French interests and eager to extract indemnities and constrain France's recovery and future ambitions. It's also an important period in his personal development when his talents and stature as a statesman, not only a victorious leader of military coalitions, come to the fore. Dunnettreader (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

ok, i made a pass at it. Accotink2 talk 16:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

nice elaboration at User:Philip_Baird_Shearer/Sandbox#Waterloo_to_Paris Accotink2 talk 16:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion before editing

There has been a very long discussion about Wellingtons Irish identity, so can anybody intending to contribute to the article please read in full this discussion page, consider the weight of facts on this matter, and make a telling contribution to the discussion first. I am referring to "British Watcher" (smacks of POV already) in particular. Please also read the Wiki section under "dispute resolution" and consider referral to editor assistance. Micielo (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

For how long has it said he is Anglo Irish? The change you made breaks with the consensus of the past, which is why you should debate it here first. Im perfectly entitled to revert your change one last time but im sure you would undo it anyway. Why say Irish (anglo Irish) when you can say Anglo Irish. That seems fine to me so i oppose the change. If others here feel differently so be it. I dont feel strongly about this matter.. I just dont like to see a change take place to something which has been handled the same way for some time, without agreement on the talk page first. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish is acceptable. My goodness, Wellesley must have been British at some time in his life (jeepers he was 'British Prime Minister'). GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"jeepers he was 'British Prime Minister'. Well, there it is. Definitive proof he was not Irish!! Really, this is completely irrelevant. As irrelevant as me saying "jeepers, he was an Irish Member of Parliament for goodness sake". Micielo (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My change does not break with any "consensus". I made the change based on the majority of recent and informative contributions to the discussion and what seemed to be the most recent consensus on the matter. Why say Irish when you can say Anglo-Irish? PLEASE, can you read Dunnettreader's post and if you have an issue with his commentary please respond to it before you make your change. I have asked for editor assistance. Micielo (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a few people responded about the name change, and that was months ago but no change was made. This reliable source uses the term Anglo-Irish [4] Do you have sources for saying Irish (Anglo-Irish), it doesnt sound quite right to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a few. How many? And how many do YOU feel is sufficient? So despite most of the recent posts being supportive of a change, you felt a change was not necessary because ......???? The change that I made was in line with the most recent contributions and was clearly a compromise. I believe you reverted this compromise for no better reason than your POV. I am beginning to feel that you have not read any of the posts from the opposing argument. Have you? and if so why this ridiculous question. As stated clearly above Irish (anglo-irish) = Irish because the chap was irish and anglo irish in parentheses because he was a member of that particular Irish social class. Micielo (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you WP:AGF. I have said if you can find a couple of reliable sources that say "Irish (Anglo Irish)" then im fine with the change, it just does not sound like a normal way to describe him and as the source i provided shows its not like someone just made up putting anglo irish.. its used by a reliable source like the BBC.

I have read the previous posts, although they are scattered across this talk page and many of them many months old which does not help matters. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking back over it in full, 1 editor suggested Irish (Anglo-Irish) months ago and then you implemented that change recently. Nobody else responded in support of that, and infact others in the past have disagreed with you on your attempt to put Irish as separate from Anglo Irish. Also your edit has been changed by an IP who has removed the whole thing, so its not like you have full support for this change execpt for me, others dont fully support ur change. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wellesley's family was part of the "Old English" (that is Hiberno-Norman) stock. The people who became "more Irish than the Irish themselves", his family were not part of the Plantations. At the time of his birth, Wellesley's ancestors had lived in Ireland for 700 years. How long were they in England? Five minutes on the way over from Normandy? Obviously he was an Irish Briton. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make much difference to the discussion, but a couple of people have claimed that Wellington's family had been in Ireland for 500 or 700 years. The "early life" section of this article says "The earliest mention of the Wellesley family is in 1180", and "The Colleys had lived in that part of Kildare since the Norman Invasion of Ireland in 1169–72", but both these claims are unreferenced and possibly misleading. Richard Holmes biography of Wellington says the Colley's had originated from the English Midlands and had lived in Ireland for 300 years. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica says they had been living in Ireland for 200 years. I'm not denying Wellington was an Irishman, but I sympathise with the argument for describing him as Anglo-Irish. However, the description seems to be changed back and forth between Irish and Anglo-Irish every few weeks by various editors, and I would like to see a consensus established to create some stability. Perhaps a solution would be to say he was a British soldier and statesman? The following sentence says he was born in Ireland to a prominent Ascendancy family, so the reader can draw their own conclusions from that. It seems his particular "brand" of Irishness will always create some debate; I thought this article from The Independent was an interesting read [5]. Barret (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, what seemed to be an act of compromise has not been seen as such. My original position was that he should be stated as an Irish man, and to me is was not of primary importance to define what kind of Irishman he was in the opening sentence (ie anglo-irish, gaelic-irish, scotch-irish, afro-irish etc) as this is detailed later in the article. The use of Irish followed by parentheses with Anglo-irish, i felt, left primacy with him being Irish and placated those who wanted his flavour of Irishness underlined (although this is more accurately and effectively defined in stating he was a member of the protestant ascendancy).

Barret, I do not deny that there is some debate as to the origin of his family in Ireland. So, we need references here.

Many accounts (most that I can find) of Wellingtons family history describe his ancestors (Walter and Richard Cowley) first arriving in Ireland (Kilkenny) in the early 1500s from Rutland. Eg. - The military life of Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington. 1840. B. Jackson, C. R. Scott - The life of the most noble Arthur, Duke of Wellington. 1815. G. Elliot - Lodge's Peerage of Ireland. 1789. M. Archdall

However, In "The life of Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington, Volume 2". 1853. J.H. Stocqueler reviews and corrects this reported family history. The first correction is slightly trivial to our discussion and merely corrects the year in which lands were granted by Henry viii to the Cowleys in Kilkenny. The second correction is more important as it states that the Colleys did not move from Rutland in the reign of Henry viii (as was the commonly held belief) and instead provides evidence for settlement in Kilkenny at least a century prior to this date (at least prior to 1407). Stocqueler also states "we find some members of the Government in the reign of Henry viii writing of Walter Cowley [the earliest ancestor detailed in the initial references above] as an Irishman and a worthy example to the other natives."

B.H. Blacker (Gloucestershire Notes and Queries, 1890) refers to "Historic and Municipal Documents of Ireland, A.D. 1172-1320" and writes "Free Citizens of Dublin, A.D. 1225-1250; in it local names very frequently appear, and amongst them Hugo de Koleye, Radulphus de Kolee, and Ricardus Iuuenis de Coly. From this time the name Cowley, Colly, or Kolley, was common in Dublin." So there is also evidence that the family name at least existed in Ireland in the earlier part of the 13th Century.

Clearly we have great difficulty in identifying the precise timing of the arrival of Wellingtons ancestors, but it appears that they were certainly in Ireland prior to 1500, and it is probable they were norman arrivals. For this reason I am uncomfortable using the the term "Anglo-Irish" as the primary identity as it appears to be incorrect. What we do have is evidence that members of the english government in the early part of the 16th century referred to Wellingtons ancestors as "Irish" and "native", and we then have a family line that runs from these for an additional 400 years in Ireland. Why then, I ask you, can we not refer to Wellington as an Irishman? Micielo (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the reference used to support him as an "anglo-irish" figure. The reference used was a bbc online review article, stating several unsupported unreferenced assertions. Please find use a reference from the primary source. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.88.202.171 (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the primary source"? I have restored the reference because it seems reliable enough – the article was written by noted historian Andrew Roberts.--Barret (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is a reiteration of information contained in 3 publications (detailed at the bottom of the webpage; the primary sources). Please find the relevant information in these publications, not the summary article. I should add that we can find many references stating he is Irish, English, and British: take your pick. Therefore a reference that critically analyses his identity needs to be used. In addition this bbc article states that "he was not truely Irish" and "he was born in dublin". The former is unsupported and the later is also under question (as is evidenced from this wiki article) As such, I dont think your citation is necessary or particularly useful.

The BBC article was added by another editor in an attempt to support the Anglo-Irish description and prevent edit warring. I don't see where it says it's a reiteration of information contained in other publications – the top of the page says the article was written by Andrew Roberts and the bottom of the page merely lists four books (three of which are written by other authors) in which the reader may "find out more". Barret (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Colleys had certainly been in Kildare since the 1500s and the English Wellesley family had helped in the middle ages with Great Connell Priory further south; certainly a Wellesley was buried there in grand style. These have rather been conflated, not least by the Wesleys themselves. But let's stick to the facts; he was Irish by birth and ancestry in 1769, his family affiliation was typically Anglo-Irish and he succeeded in the British system. Rather like Oliver Goldsmith or Edmund Burke. Wellington was unpopular with Irish nationalists and that has coloured his description as Irish by many Irish people; had he died like Lord Edward FitzGerald he would be considered entirely Irish by them. But not all Irish people are Irish nationalists.86.44.218.112 (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Somerset connection & title

I'm currently editing the article for Wellington, Somerset and trying to work out why Wellesley took the title "Viscount Wellington of Wellington and Talavera" & what his connection is with the Somerset town when according to a town web site he only visited once. Any good sources?— Rod ^talk 16:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It has something to do with his ancestors owning land nearby. I found an old discussion about this back in the 2005 talk page archives. You might also find more info by searching Google books (for example [6] [7]). Barret (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not undefeated

Wellington's forces were defeated at the Siege of Burgos, the Battle of Quatre Bras, and another that I cannot remember at the moment. This source is not accurate. -- LightSpectra (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a draw in battle, one always has the upper tactical hand, battles are won or lost not drawn Johnkennedy58 (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Quatre Bras could be labelled as draw. However, Burgos was a defeat and Wellington was also defeated early in his career in a skirmish at Sultanpettah Tope prior to the Battle of Seringapatam. Therefore I would have no objections if the undefeated claim was removed from the article. Barret (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd consider Quatre Bras a French victory as much as Fuentes d'Onoro was a victory for Wellington. Both battles were tactical draws, but strategic victories for either side. And let's not forget that Quatre Bras was, in reality, a defensive battle for the French, since Ney's primary objective was to block Wellington. He was held in check and retreated after Blucher's defeat at Ligny. This could have had fatal consequences.

The first siege of San Sebastien was a failure, and this was conducted by Wellington in person. Wellington also suffered minor reverses at Sultanpettah Tope, Redinha, El Boden, Villa Muriel. At the battle of Toulouse, Wellington’s superior forces were repulsed on a number of occasions, and it is still unclear who won (I still believe he lost). He was repulsed during the siege of Badajoz following the battle of Albuera. On the strategic level, Wellington was bested on several occasions, by many generals he defeated in battle, such as Marmont. An example of this is when he was ejected out of Spain in 1809.

At Talavera, Fuentes d’Onoro, and Waterloo, Wellington came close to being defeated. At Fuentes d'Onoro he should have lost, but lack of cooperation and jealousy amongst Massena’s generals, rendering the battle a tactical draw. He came perilously close to defeat at Waterloo as well, in which he enjoyed huge advantages over Napoleon. He would most certainly have lost if he had stood alone (I sense this may start up a debate). Guard Chasseur (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's disputed that the Prussians played a critical role at Waterloo, but even so, Wellington counted on their arrival, so I don't see why you wouldn't count this as a victory for him. Nevertheless, we can agree that Quatre Bras, Burgos, 1st San Sebastian as well as others were defeats for the British, and thus the article should not say that Wellington was undefeated. -- LightSpectra (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in any way disputing the fact that Wellington did win at Waterloo. Napoleon did lose badly, all right, but the duke came incredibly close to losing even with the massive Prussian support and his formidable defensive position. However, the Duke of Wellington has the reputation of being invincible and that even Napoleon didn't know how to counter his tactics. This is false. He was a skilled general, I'll give him that, but I'm still of the opinion that Napoleon and perhaps even Massena were better generals (tactically and strategically). Guard Chasseur (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

coulda woulda shoulda, since there is a broad consensus about what happened, could we have a consensus to improve, adding refs to pennisula, and add "missing years" 1815-1819? i tend to agree, however, how did the superior strategy gain elba, and not Walmer Castle. Accotink2 talk 16:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

the waterloo section needs a major rewrite, it should be about what he did during the battle, and his impact on Napoleon, not about what Napoleon did and his strategy. Accotink2 talk 17:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

ok i've rewritten the waterloo section, borrowing liberally from the wiki battle pages, any critique welcome. Accotink2 talk 18:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Honours section

The subject of honours is handled right now far more expansively in its own article.
The short section herein mostly just reiterates what it dealt with in greater detail in the second article.
It does not appear to have a purpose.
Varlaam (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

A review of Summary style might be useful here. The section in this article provides a summary of the detailed article. john k (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That is true of course.

The assortment just seemed a little haphazard and arbitrary.

The highlighting could probably be more selective.

Varlaam (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure - why don't you have a go at it? john k (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. 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. VWBot (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation here. The above bot did a mass CCI edit on Dec 10 2010 incorrectly, reverting useful edits on around 900 articles. On review I see that work has been done on the article since the bot was here. Regular editors of the page may want to review the changes and re-add what was lost. Best wishes Span (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)