Wikipedia:Peer review/Randall Davidson/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Randall Davidson[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

.

Christmas seems a suitable time to put up a Christian subject for PR. This is a biography of the longest-serving Archbishop of Canterbury since the Reformation: he served for 25 years from 1903 to 1928, through momentous times. Randall Davidson is rather a forgotten figure, and I originally intended to give his article a quick wash-and-brush-up, but the more I read about him the more I felt he deserved the full treatment, which I have attempted to give him, and I hope to take the article to FAC. As always, comments on prose, sourcing, balance – everything really – will be welcomed. – Tim riley talk 20:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

All good so far, nicely illustrated and on an interesting subject. On a quick read through of the first couple of sections, I noticed these:

  • "In 1862, at the age of 14, Davidson became a pupil at Harrow School. The school was Anglican in its religious teachings and practices, and Davidson took part in confirmation classes." -- do we need the second Davidson?
  • "The greatest influences on him at Harrow were..." -- influences on who? Tait, Henry or Randall?
  • "On his return he began a course of study in London with Charles Vaughan, Master of the Temple, with a view to ordination. His health was still precarious..." Davidson, I trust, and not Vaughan?
Excellent. All very much to the point, and acted on. Thank you. Looking forward to more in due course (but no rush, natch). Tim riley talk 14:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now down to "Archbishop of Canterbury", with nothing further to quibble about. More, soon. CassiantoTalk 10:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "He was the longest holder of the office" reads as if he were a very tall priest.
  • "secretary to the Archbishop of Canterbury" Just a thought, insert a 'then'?
  • Hmm. Not persuaded. I think it's crisper and wholly clear as is. Tim riley talk 22:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your use of upper case in job titles does not match my reading of the MoS.
  • I've tried to be consistent: caps when it's the one person and lower case for the generic, which I think is right. If I'm wrong, no doubt some MoS Expert will blow me out of the water at FAC. Tim riley talk 21:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "much of his time throughout his term of office" his twice in four words.
  • "Davidson nevertheless played a key role in the passage of the reforming Parliament Act 1911, urged moderation on both sides in the conflict over Irish independence, campaigned against immoral methods of warfare in the First World War and led efforts to resolve the national crisis of the 1926 General Strike." Possibly a case for the use of semi colons?
  • You may be right. I've changed commas to semicolons, and wait to see if anyone else has views. (There are those) Tim riley talk 22:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Davidsons were deeply religious without being solemn, and it was a happy household" Per MOS:QUOTEPOV, this may need in line attribution.
  • "where he had hoped to compete for several senior prizes" I was unsure if the forfeited prizes were for physical or academic activities.
  • Both sporting and academic, but I don't think we need make the distinction here: the point I'm trying to get across is that the injury mucked up his last spell at Harrow and his chances of a scholarship to and a good degree at Oxford. Tim riley talk 22:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "go on to ordination as a priest" Consider 'to be ordained ... '
  • Not entirely persuaded it's an improvement, but I'm happy with it, and 'tis done. Tim riley talk 22:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his mother never recovered from the blow" Consider "the blow" → 'this'.
  • "Davidson took the lead on Tait's behalf in the controversy in 1881 between high church proponents and evangelical opponents of ritualism, and in 1882 played an important part in discouraging Anglican overtures to the Salvation Army, an organisation in which he thought too much power was in the hands of its general." A hardworking sentence.
  • "on a charge of ritual illegalities" May I suggest that few of today's ill-educated pagans, among whom I count myself, will have any idea what this means.
  • I've added an explanatory footnote. It seems bizarre that people got in a state about such things as recently as 1888. I was brought up middle-of-the-road Anglican, and our vicar routinely committed all the crimes listed in my new footnote and nobody thought twice about it. Tim riley talk 21:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest linking "Anglo-Catholic" at first mention in the article, as well as in the lead.
  • Disambig "papal"
  • I am not sure that the last sentence of Rochester merits its own paragraph.
  • I know what you mean, but I tried tacking it on the preceding para and it just didn't seem to fit there. I'll leave it pro tem and see if anyone else has thoughts on the matter. Tim riley talk 21:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Roman Catholic belief in Purgatory and praying for souls in it" I don't think that RCs have a belief in "praying for souls". Possibly 'the efficacy of praying for souls presumed to be there' or similar?
  • "which he condemned with unusual vehemence" Unusual for him, for the times, or for these particular issues?

I have run out of steam. I shall try to get back to the rest later. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is most helpful, thank you, Gog. I'll enjoy working through them (though at first glance I think most of them are a fair cop). More, please, though not till you're good and ready. 21:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome Tim. For information, I consider a reviewer’s role at PR to be to throw in whatever comments occur to them, with a lower bar than FAC, for the nominator to make of what they will. I rarely read feedback unless pinged. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Part ii[edit]

OK. So I did read your feedback. Happy to have been of some help.

  • "One of the issues in which Davidson failed to achieve his aims" I bow to your superior expertise, but is that grammatical?
I don't feel strongly about it, but how about 'An area where Davidson failed to achieve his aims was ... '
Fine. Will do. Tim riley talk 23:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "Christian Science".
  • Is there a link for "materialism" in this context?
  • Footnote 10: it may be helpful to give the number.
  • Excellent idea. I'll look it up, and add. Not sure if the numbers are the same now as then, and I'll add both if different. Tim riley talk 23:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These fiddling details are all I can come up with. Personally I can see no obvious omissions nor obvious areas for improvement. It flows well, and kept me, who cares little for past dignitaries of the C of E, interested; even, mostly, through the accounts of the internal theological back biting. Should sail through FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog, thank you so much for these excellent points. Very much appreciated. Tim riley talk 23:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS Could you ping me when this goes to FAC? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I shall certainly do so. Thank you, sir! Tim riley talk 00:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smerus[edit]

A person about whom I knew nothing, so thanks for some interesting Xmas reading. Not that I am in any way competent to comment on the meat of the article, but a couple of passing remarks:

  • "Dean" - at the end of the section. The actual comments of The Times on the book add little (in fact, nothing) to the article: indeed, given the era, The Times could scarcely have said anything other than this standard usage. So I suggest that the deletion of the last sentence of this section could be in order.
  • "Domestic affairs, 1909–1911". The Parliament Bill section may be a little unclear for those who don't know something of the background. " The King died, and was succeeded by George V" - might be better "King Edward VII died, and was succeeded by..." You mention the hundreds of peers towards the end of the story, but my understanding is that Asquith had already got the reluctant consent of George V to create these if all else failed; the article summarizes this post-hoc after mentioning Davison's vote. I tentatively suggest an editing/reordering of text along these lines:
The Lords continued to resist the will of the Commons, even after a general election fought on the issue. The Prime Minister, H.H. Asquith, proposed the 1911 Parliament Bill, which enshrined the supremacy of the Commons in British law, and obtained King George's reluctant undertaking to create hundreds of Liberal peers, should it become necessary to ensure its passage. Davidson, having unsuccessfully striven to bring the party leaders to compromise, voted for the bill. The votes of the Lords Spiritual were crucial in the bill's passage through the Lords, where the majority was only 17. There were strident protests that the bishops were harming the Church by taking sides, but Davidson had come to regard this as a matter on which the Church must take a stand. He believed that were the bill not passed, the mass creation of peers would make Parliament and Britain a world-wide laughing-stock, and would have grave constitutional implications for church and state. Davidson's speech in the Lords was credited with tipping the balance.

Season's greetings, --Smerus (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings cordially reciprocated. Your suggested changes seem spot-on to me and I've redrawn accordingly. Many thanks! Tim riley talk 13:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noswall59[edit]

I wonder whether Matthew Grimley's book might be of interest: Citizenship, Community, and the Church of England: Liberal Anglican Theories of the State Between the Wars, Oxford Historical Monographs (Oxford University Press, 2004). —Noswall59 (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, Noswall. I'll order it at the British Library for next week and see if there's anything in it I can usefully take. Tim riley talk 15:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A useful source, now used – thank you, Noswall59 – Tim riley talk 17:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

  • I think the first sentence is actually a pretty tricky one. Can I recommend adding something like who was the?
  • Do you have occasional rogue sentences in your prose that stubbornly refuse to come right however much you change them? You know as you write them they're going to come back and bite you? This is one. The excellent Yiddish word "farpotshket" comes to mind. Changed. Tim riley talk 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth identifying some of the people who taught him at Trinity? At the very least, could you explicitly identify the subject(s) of his study?
  • I could name the dons, but they aren't well known. The only one with a WP article is Samuel Wayte, whom Davidson described unflatteringly in his private correspondende. But yes to his studies (law and modern history) – good idea, and added. Tim riley talk 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There were no children of the marriage" Are children of marriages or from them? I think I'd use the latter, but I defer to you.
  • This is a formula from Times obituaries over the years. A touch quaint perhaps, but hallowed by custom. Tim riley talk 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""high church proponents" I think that's a compound adjective, but I leave it to you whether you want to be strict with dashes.
  • Indeed. Gowers quotes with approval the dictum "If you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad" (anyone for a second hand book shop?) but this case is clear. Now hyphenated. Tim riley talk 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "much struck … Mr. Davidson" I confess I don't know what the MOS says, but would ... not be neater?
  • Indeed it would, but the MoS insists on this form. (Perhaps something to do with accessibility and screen readers, I'd guess) Tim riley talk 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if there's any controversy over the claim that he "developed close personal relations" with Victoria, given the footnote you include in the previous paragraph? Also, I'm surprised there's no mention of his working closely with Victoria in the lead, as that will mean a lot to many readers.
  • I think Dark (editor of The Church Times, and not a bad writer by any means) was rather over-egging this, but he was writing before Bell's authoritative biography came out. The idea that a mere chaplain could have prevailed if the Prime Minister had different views doesn't hold water, me judice, but I thought I ought to mention it in a note, to give the requisite cross-section of the authorities. Good idea to mention HM in the lead. Done. Tim riley talk 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "included all London south" I'd say of, but defer to you.
  • In a BrE article I prefer to stick to our usual idiom. "all of London" would be fine in AmE, of course. Tim riley talk 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was much more forthcoming on atrocities by the Belgians in the Congo Free State and the Bulgarians in Macedonia" Do we have some articles that could be linked to? Somee readers may not be familiar with these issues.
  • The sentence beginning "The chief subjects of discussion were": Would semi-colons not be preferable? And is "etc" not a little informal?
  • Some people have Strong Views on semicolons in lists. I haven't, and have duly semicoloned, but I shouldn't be surprised if the contrary view is expressed, here or at FAC. I've redrawn to remove the "etc". – Tim riley talk 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if there is a little inconsistency on your use of "church" vs "Church"? I know it's a pain, but perhaps you could search through and check each instance? In the "domestic affairs" section, for instance, you have "would have grave constitutional implications for church and state" followed immediately by "the question of legislation affecting the Church".
  • Not a pain at all. There is a key difference between the Church as an institution and the church as the edifice in the high street, and it is important that I get it right throughout. Done. There are some "Churches" that may attract comment at FAC, but I think I can defend them. – Tim riley talk 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the false information put out to hide British military reverses, the use of poison gas, the punitive bombing of Freiburg in April 1917, and the targeting of non-combatants" Again, I wonder if there might be some links that could be dropped in here.
  • Done.
  • Could you check for dashes and MOS:LQ compliance in the final paragraph of the WWI section? (Very interesting, by the way.)
  • LQ attended to – thank you. The dashes are OK. The MoS calls for either unspaced em-dashes—like this, or spaced en-dashes – like this.
  • Could we have wikilinks for spiritualism and attempts to communicate with the dead?
  • Final paragraph of the general strike section: MOS:LQ may require that period inside the quote marks.
  • It seemed you used serial commas more often than not, so I've added them where they were missed. If you don't want them, then feel free to remove them all.
  • My rule of thumb is to use the Oxford comma when seems helpful and omit it where the meaning is unambiguous without, but I don't feel strongly on the matter and am happy to leave things as they are. Tim riley talk 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might like to hear a bit more about his views (though I realise this may be tough) and especially his published work.
  • He published the biography of Tait, of course, which is a mighty work, and a history of the first three Lambeth Conferences (1896), but he was not a scribacious theologian. He published collections of his sermons and addresses as The Christian Opportunity (1904), Captains and Comrades in the Faith (1911), "The Character and Call of the Church of England" (1912), and "The Testing of a Nation" (1919). I could list these in the Reputation section and rename it Legacy and Reputation, but in truth I don't think they'd add very much. As to his views, his successor-but-one, William Temple (who was a scribacious theologian), who loved him dearly, thought "he was 'not in the least mystical' and was unlikely ever to have spent much time in private prayer, but he was regular, direct, and sincere in his religious observances" (ODNB). Tim riley talk 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, JM, for your comments. Some exceedingly valuable suggestions, for which I'm very much indebted. (Reciprocal reviews available on being prodded.) Any further thoughts will be most welcome, here or at (I hope) FAC. Tim riley talk 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Hope this is helpful. I made lots of very small edits along the way, but generally found this very readable and accessible. To repeat myself from elsewhere: Please feel free to revert my addition of commas if this is unhelpful. We seem to have different approaches. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I shall enjoy working through these suggestions: warmest thanks. Tim riley talk 09:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A quick foray into Google Scholar suggests that you're citing all the names to cite when it comes to Davidson. This looks very interesting. From Cranmer to Davidson: A Church of England Miscellany has a chapter called "Randall Davidson: A partial retrospective", which may be of interest. And it looks like there was a book about his family history. Probably not worth citing (probably hard to track down!) but maybe worthy of a further-reading listing.... Josh Milburn (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get the British Library to dig out the Kuhn book. Likewise the curious little monograph, though that's one for "Further Reading", I agree. Tim riley talk 10:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you once more, JM. I've spent a happy afternoon at the British Library, and the Cranmer to Davidson book in particular has been a fruitful source. Tim riley talk 17:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tim: I'm pleased to hear it, but I note that Cranmer to Davidson is an edited collection, so you should probably cite chapter (and chapter's author) rather than the volume as a whole. That said, I see that the chapter's "author" is listed as its editor, so I'm not fully clear on what the source itself is. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JM, I know what you mean. The section is stated to be "edited" by Melanie Barber, but I can't think how to credit an editor within another editor's edition. (Parenthetically an earlier chapter in the book was by a late friend of mine Brett Usher, and dealt with pretty much the same high-v-low church punch-ups that Randall Davidson was striving to pacify four centuries later.) As the purpose of the sources is to facilitate WP:V I think I'll rest content with "Taylor", though I quite see that an academic might purse a lip or two. Tim riley talk 22:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only looking at the Google Books preview, but it looks to me like the chapter is an introduction by Barber, and then has formerly unpublished papers edited by her. I would normally say quote the paper with Barber as an editor, but I agree with you that multiple layers of editors is a bit silly. Perhaps a suitable middle-ground would be listing the paper as by Barber (at least some of it is), but citing the unpublished papers as a "quoted in"; i.e., "Davidson, quoted in Barber [year], p. #". You could even put the date of the Davidson paper. I realise that there are few things more boring than conversations about citation formatting, but I'm just aware that the chapter may have had very little to do with Taylor, and everything to do with Barber - indeed, there's every chance that Barber says things with which Taylor would disagree. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've convinced me. I've just attributed the chapter to Barber and left it at that, not mentioning her as "editor". If either she or Stephen Taylor ever sees our article I doubt if either will boggle at the bibliographic style. Thank you, JM! Tim riley talk 18:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Full review to come, but there seems to be some stuff in the following publications. I don't know the standard or depth of coverage, or whether it is a repetition of better sources you already use, but for completeness, I include them here:

  • The Cathedral 'open and Free': Dean Bennett of Chester, Alex Bruce. Liverpool University Press, 2000 9780853239246
  • History, Religion and Identity in Modern Britain, Keith Robbins. A&C Black, 1993 9781852851019

Prose review coming up (although by the time this finishes, we may just do away with standards of clarity anyway). - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, I'm grateful to you, and to Noswall59 and Josh Milburn, for suggesting some potential additional sources. Bell's 1933 double tome is masterly but I have struggled a bit to find as many recent sources as I should like. I'll be interested to see what the five suggested publications have to say. Meanwhile, looking forward to your detailed comments. No rush – JM has given me plenty to be getting on with. I've added a few words on the general FAC page encouraging armchair critics to bestir themselves and contribute to reviews. Tim riley talk 19:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll wait for the review below to finish before I give any prose comments. There is no point in my comments if things are going to change in the meantime. - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SchroCat, thank you for those two books. Bruce gave me one piece of corroborative detail, and the Robbins book has given me one excellent quotation I have now used and another I am pondering how to work into the text seamlessly. Tim riley talk 17:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Later: discussed off-Wiki with SchroCat and agreed no great need for further prose review in view of extensive contributions above and below. Tim riley talk 09:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Fowler&fowler[edit]

  • (General note) Dear Tim riley: The article looks beautiful. I mean it literally. It has an attractive appearance. It is well laid-out. It has unusual images; I was especially won over by George V, M of T, the Archbishop and others. That gesture of prayer, of concentration, of directing one's thoughts inwards, of perhaps shielding the eyes from the brilliance being contemplated, is only occasionally seen now.
    • Thank you! On the subject of pictures, do you think this picture would work in the 1911 section of the article? I've asked the wizards in the Photography Workshop to remove the line down the middle, and would like to use it if the detail isn't too small to work on the page. Tim riley talk 15:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC). Later: the wizards have worked their magic: I think the picture works. Views welcomed. Tim riley talk 16:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I just noticed this. Have already cast a vote for the old stuff below.  :( But it is great either way and very appropriate for 1911. No the detail isn't too fine. I love the crumpled, rummaged, discarded papers on the floor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Second general note) I might quote the grammar chapter and verse. No judgment should be interpreted. It is just a way of dusting off my old knowledge and making sure I'm being true to it. You are free to ignore any and all.
  • (Third general note) I am reading entirely for prose issues. I don't have the time right now to look at the sourcing. Here goes:
    • (Sentence; grammar): Randall Thomas Davidson, 1st Baron Davidson of Lambeth, GCVO, PC (7 April 1848 – 25 May 1930) was an Anglican priest, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1903 to 1928.
      • The noun phrase in the predicate needs a relative clause. You had it earlier. So, in my old-fashioned view, it might be less confusing with: ... Anglican priest who served as Archbishop of Canterbury from 1903 to 1928. (no comma after priest, as this is restrictive. Sorry to be pedantic.
        • No apology is ever required for being pedantic. In any case, as Fowler said, "The term, then, is obviously a relative one: my pedantry is your scholarship, his reasonable accuracy, her irreducible minimum of education and someone else’s ignorance". The opening sentence has been much rewritten in the course of this review, and I have now adopted a version of your wording: the "also" has been invaluable.
    • (Sentence; style) He was the longest-serving holder of the office since the Reformation and was the first Archbishop of Canterbury to retire.
      • My preference would be: The longest-serving holder of the office since the Reformation, he was also the first to retire from it.
    • (Sentence; usage) untouched by the controversies between adherents of the high-church and low-church factions of the Church of England.
      • The controversies were between the high church and the low. The adherents were merely voicing received wisdom. So, perhaps, "untouched by the arguments and debates between the adherents of the high-church ...
    • (Sentence; query) remained in office until his resignation in November 1928.
      • We have said earlier he was the first to retire. People who retire don't typically resign. Should we say "until his retirement?"
    • (Sentence; language) Under his leadership the Church gained a measure of independence from state control, but his efforts to modernise the Book of Common Prayer were frustrated by Parliament.
      • "state control," "a measure of," and "modernise" stand out. The first because it seems too jargony for a history of religion article; the second because I am wondering if "a small measure," "some," "limited," or "very limited" might be more precise; the third because it is not clear if the language was to be modernised (a pity) or the content or both. Your call.
    • Sentence (grammar): Though cautious about bringing the Church into domestic party politics, Davidson nevertheless played a key role in the passage of the reforming Parliament Act 1911; urged moderation on both sides in the conflict over Irish independence; campaigned against perceived immoral methods of warfare in the First World War; and led efforts to resolve the national crisis of the 1926 General Strike.
      • Though and nevertheless probably shouldn't be used together. They both subordinate the first sentence. I would get rid of nevertheless.
      • The remainder of the sentence is a little confusing. Semi-colons are certainly used with non-independent clauses, but they are used to emphasize a list. Here the reader has no idea that a list is coming. So perhaps, "Though ... into domestic party politics, Davidson did not shy away from larger political issues: he played a key role in the passage of the reforming Parliament Act 1911; urged moderation on both sides in the conflict over Irish independence; campaigned against perceived immoral methods of warfare in the First World War; and led efforts to resolve the national crisis of the 1926 General Strike.
        • Yes. Done.
    • Sentence: He was a consistent advocate of Christian unity, and worked, often closely, with other religious leaders throughout his primacy.
      • Nice
    • Sentence: On his retirement he was made a peer; he died at his home in London at the age of 82, eighteen months later.
      • Very nice. (Grammarly is telling me there should be a comma after retirement. The heck with Grammarly.) More later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Grammarly is American. American beaks have much to answer for, propagating the imbecilic superstition that one needs a comma after a temporal reference – a superstition as half-witted as the English one about split infinitives. Davidson would have been surprised to open his Bible and read "In the beginning comma God created the heaven and the earth" and "And on the seventh day comma God ended his work which he had made".
        • Ha ha. Not sure when it started. William Cobbett's grammar, written during his exile, was very popular in America ... Though it couldn't be him ... I don't remember anything unusual in the Rural Rides. ... probably the teachers, as you say, ... mid 20th century? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps. Mark Twain was not a subscriber to the superstition: "and when she saw the state his clothes were in her resolution to turn his Saturday holiday into captivity at hard labor became adamantine in its firmness". To borrow from A P Herbert, "My brothers, let this [comma] be sabotaged by every possible avenue!" Tim riley talk 11:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sentence: Both parents were Church of Scotland Presbyterians (Henry's father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were Presbyterian ministers),...
      • Might be better to separate with semi-colons or m-dashes (whose fan I'm generally not): Both parents were Church of Scotland Presbyterians; Henry Davidson's father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were Presbyterian ministers; however, the family ...
        • Oh dear! If you aren't a fan of parenthetic dashes you won't enjoy my prose much. I find them v. useful for clarity combined with brevity. I am allergic to "howevers", however, and avoid them whenever possible. I'll go for dashes instead of brackets.
    • "narrowly sectarian" I have a feeling that the collocation narrowly (here, strictly) sectarian (zealously attached to a sect) is more that of the 19th-century, but I'm not sure. Would "did not hold (highly) sectarian views" be just as effective? Note: "narrowly sectarian" does not seem to be 19th-century. Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've replaced the phrase with Davidson's own words – Tim riley talk 15:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sentence, style) After being educated by his mother and a succession of governesses and private tutors, Davidson was sent, aged 12, to a small private school at Worksop in the English Midlands.
    • This use of after, makes the homeschooling imparted by Mother and governesses, over some eight years, all too anonymous, almost inconsequential. At the very least, in my view: "D was educated by his mother and a succession of governesses and private tutors, before being sent, aged 12, to a small private school at Worksop in the English Midlands.
      • Not entirely sure I agree, but I'm happy with the change, and have made it. Tim riley talk 15:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sentence, query) The teaching there was inadequate; in particular, Davidson regretted all his life his lack of grounding in Latin and Greek.
    • He was there for two years. "in particular" implies that lifelong deficiency in Latin and Greek was the result of inadequate instruction during this period. This may well be true if the school was a preparatory school for the better-known public schools, but something more may need to be said here.
      • It's curious, but the biographers, including Bell, don't refer to the place as a "preparatory school", but merely a private school, though it seems reasonable, in an OR-ish way, to assume that it was supposed to be a prep school for the Harrows of this world. RD seems to have regarded it thus: he recalled, "I do not remember learning anything very thoroughly at Worksop ... I have all my life suffered from not having been thoroughly well grounded in Latin and Greek grammar in the way boys are grounded now in good preparatory schools; also the school was too small for producing good results at games, and the successive ushers during my two years were anything but capable men or competent teachers".
        • Very interesting. Creighton, on the other hand, was called "Homer" (as you know) The nickname stuck around the same age, at a local school before he moved to Durham Grammar School, so it may have been an age thing: boys learning Latin and Greek between the ages of 9 and 14? Have to check Tom Brown's Schooldays. It's somewhere here, an old faded copy.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sentence) The wound was severe and could have been fatal, but he slowly recovered.
    • Nice.
  • (Sentence) ... he was not greatly interested in them, being, as always, more concerned with religious than with ecclesiastical considerations.
    • Nicely explained. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was torn between "ecclesiastical" and "liturgical" here. Any thoughts on that would be welcome. Tim riley talk 15:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't think about that. Ecclesiastical can be used (in the sense of churchly), but liturgical is probably better; it has fewer other meanings. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Curate and chaplain section). This section has a near-perfect flow. At only two places did I snap out of a trance.
    • (sentence fragment) "the first was a moderate high churchman and the second was of the evangelical Anglican wing"
    • Would a change to: "and the second an evangelical Anglican" be better? moderate high churchman to moderate high-churchman?
      • Yes, a nice systole and diastole with the two "moderates" (though watch someone with a tin ear for language object to the repetition when I go to FAC) Later: I've just realised I misread what you said, above, but I rather like my revised version nonetheless. Please see what you think. (Not at all sure "high churchman" should be hyphenated, though I am open to persuasion.) Tim riley talk 15:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Archbishop placed total confidence in his son-in-law."
    • Would "complete confidence" be better?
      • Fine with me. Changed.

Note: I especially liked the learning "both in pastoral work and in piety". Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Bags to be getting my teeth into there. I shall enjoy working through these points (and those of JM, above, too) now that the festivities have died down. Thank you so much for the input so far, and of course no rush at all for the remainder! Happy New Year. Tim riley talk 20:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very welcome. The quality of this article makes the task of the reviewer pleasurable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Dean Section)

  • "attached to him; they developed closer personal relations after the death of her youngest son, Leopold, Duke of Albany, in March 1884. That, and other private tribulations, led her to turn to Davidson for religious consolation"
    • He became Dean in May 1883, Leopold died in March 1884; That's only 10 months. The prose here has lapsed into the formulaic. I think.  :(
      • This reflects what the source says. As to the prose, it reflects suggestions made above and below. Tim riley talk 11:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (sentence) In other matters there was conflict from time to time, when Davidson thought it his duty to offer unwelcome advice or to remonstrate
    • too vague: "conflict," "offer unwelcome advice" and "remonstrate (intrans)"; also some overlap between them.
      • This is the source: "These confidential relations between the queen and Davidson were not, however, without occasions of conflict, when the dean felt obliged to offer distasteful advice or to make a remonstrance." Now you prompt me to look again I feel this sails too near to close paraphrase, and I have redrawn. Tim riley talk 11:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (sentence) His biographers instance his tactful but unbudging counsel that Victoria would be ill-advised to publish a
    • You must like "instance (v)" so I shouldn't say anything here, but ... what the heck, here goes: "cite" says pretty much the same and is less confusing to most readers. But it's your call. Also "counsel" and "ill-advised" (which can have the meaning either of imprudent or of ill-counseled) could be confusing to some. Might "His biographers cite his tactful but unbudging counsel that Victoria would be imprudent to publish a ..." be clearer? Also, note that there is too much advising going on: ill-advised to publish another volume of her Leaves from the Journal of a Life in the Highlands.[n 4] She reluctantly followed his advice.[35] As well as advising the Queen, Davidson remained a key adviser ...
  • Changed. Don't be reluctant to point out any words I use too much. One never spots them oneself. Tim riley talk 11:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Last paragraph) It reads like a CV padded with a list of accomplishments. May need to be rewritten, or done away with entirely.
    • There's a palpable change in this section. The star performer of the last section seems to be staring out of the window in this one. Usually a sign of boredom. Was the source material less interesting?  :) More as I find snatches of time. Sorry, I'm a little tired. I'll look at it again tomorrow morning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not wildly interesting, perhaps, but this just summarises what the sources say. Nothing much to add or leave out, I think. Tim riley talk 11:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Rochester) Back in your stride overall. One query: in "... lay in that Diocese, and I have so large a knowledge of its clergy' and he was certain he could do more there than in Worcester, which he hardly knew." In don't know if MOS allows such constructions, but should "and the was certain" be changed to "that he was certain?"
    • Typo corrected. The full quote runs "…so much of my work, during my years of residence at Lambeth, lay in that Diocese, and I have so large a knowledge of its clergy, that I feel no hesitation in believing that such powers as I possess would be more appropriately exercised there than in the, to me, almost unknown regions of Worcestershire and Warwickshire" – you can see why I have boiled it down a bit. Tim riley talk 09:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Later: On reflection I have turned the quoted words into reported speech. Tim riley talk 10:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Westminster Abbey on 25 April 1891 Benson consecrated Davidson as a bishop. ...
    • Nice. Has shades of Macaulay (at his subdued best, that is).
      • Thank you. My original draft read, "On 25 April 1891 Benson consecrated Davidson as a bishop in Westminster Abbey", which rather suggested he wasn't a bishop anywhere else. Tim riley talk 09:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Winchester) "and renewed his regular contact" to "and an opportunity to renew ...?"
    • Now I look again I think the sentence could do with breaking up, which I have done. The workload and the royal connexion don't really belong together. Tim riley talk 09:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temple unlike his two predecessors, did not turn to Davidson for advice.[n 10] Davidson was not alone – Temple had a reputation for isolating himself from all the bishops and their views[53] – but he greatly regretted his sudden exclusion from national Church affairs.[53]
    • Could it be shortened to: "Temple unlike his two predecessors, did not turn to Davidson for advice; he had a reputation for isolating himself from all the bishops and their views. Davidson greatly regretted his sudden exclusion from national Church affairs?" I know it has a staccato feel to it, but less ambiguous?
  • He spoke frequently in the House of Lords, to "Davidson spoke frequently ...?"
    • I think the previous "Davidson" is recent enough to make a pronoun preferable to repeating the name here. Tim riley talk 09:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He involved himself when he could in national Church policy. (Nicely nuanced.)
  • "the art of stating with great clearness and sympathy the gist of opinions from which he differs" (What happened to that art in our political age?)
  • "Four months after crowning the King, Archbishop Temple died and Balfour nominated Davidson as his successor." (Elegant ending) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Archbishop of Canterbury)

  • There had been three candidates under consideration for the Archbishopric in 1896; in 1902, Davidson was the only one.
    • (The reader might not easily make the connection that 1896 refers to the year of Temple's election) Perhaps: "In 1896, at the time of Temple's election to the archbishopric of Canterbury, there had been three candidates under consideration; in 1902, Davidson was the only one."
      • Redrawn.
  • It was a generally popular choice
    • choice --> selection (lest the reader ask, "if he was the only one what choice was there?")
      • The source (Times) says "choice", and I think it's safe. (Indeed, without getting excessively theological, I think under the doctrine of apostolic succession he was deemed to be the choice of the Holy Spirit, though that is beyond the range of WP:V). Tim riley talk 17:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davidson's constant concern was for what he called "the great central party in the English Church"
    • Beautiful use of both central and party each with manifold meanings. Do you think the reader needs some help here, a more explicit allusion before or after the quote to Central Anglicanism?
      • It would be nice, but the sources tend to assume a certain background understanding on readers' parts, and though I know what I think this means (am quite sure, in fact) I don't feel justified in adding my WP:OR. Tim riley talk 17:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This success was followed by a failure:
    • This accomplishment in North America was followed by a setback at home.
  • but he declined to do so in the abstract and insisted on detailed proposals before expressing support.
    • (but he declined to do so only in the abstract, insisting on detailed proposals before expressing support)
  • The resolutions showed a will for reunion, but a caution in taking any step towards
    • Nice

(Domestic affairs)

  • Over the following three years Davidson attempted to follow a cautious line in domestic politics. When David Lloyd George as Chancellor of the Exchequer found his radical budget blocked by the Conservative majority in the House of Lords in 1909, ...
    • (the mention of the year in the enumeration of sorts that the reader expects is too delayed, I think) --> When in 1909 David LG ...?
  • In the middle of the crisis Edward VII died, and was succeeded by George V. The Lords continued to resist the will of the Commons, even after a general election fought on the issue.
    • We don't need "in the middle of the crisis," when we have, "the Lords continued to resist." Far better in my view, to say as you did earlier, "In May 1910, Edward VII died, and was succeeded by George V." I know this means there will be many sentences beginning with, "In this year," ... "in that year," and they will need to be adjusted in some fashion in the narration, but without some explicit hook of time, an average reader will get confused.
      • This bit now redrawn in response to this and other suggestions. I think your point is covered. Tim riley talk 17:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the same vein: "A a general election was fought (and won) on the issue in December 1910, but Lords continued to resist the will of the Commons?"
  • The Prime Minister, H. H. Asquith, proposed the 1911 Parliament Bill, to enshrine the supremacy of the Commons in British law, and obtained King George's reluctant undertaking to create hundreds of Liberal peers, should it become necessary to ensure its passage.
    • Nice.
  • the mass creation of peers would make Parliament
    • I'm not a fan of the adjectival "mass." Do you think, "the excessively large number of appointments of new peers" would be too wordy? Or some massless rewording? Maybe it is in the source; I'm not sure if this collocation is that old, though.
  • (Picture) Beautiful, although I much prefer: File:Parliament-Act-1911-Division-in-House-of-Lords.png, but I understand the modern sensibility. What is it though? Lithograph, painting of some sort, retouched photograph.
    • I think it's a drawing - ink I assume, but I'm not sure. The Illustrated London News was big on drawings of almost photographic accuracy. You can certainly identify which of the two pro-Conservative bishops was which, even though they are in the semi-background. Tim riley talk 17:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (WW1) Opinion among the laity and most of the clergy was against Gore, but Davidson, who hated unnecessary conflict, was distressed by the controversy, and even considered resigning.[96] Despite Henson's fear that the Archbishop might weaken,[97] Davidson stood by him,
    • Opinion among the laity and most of the clergy was against Gore. Davidson, who hated unnecessary conflict, was distressed by the controversy, and even considered resigning.[96] But, despite Henson's fear that the Archbishop might weaken,[97] Davidson stood by him ...

(Lambeth, 1920)

  • From this they developed the major initiative of the conference, ...
    • "this" is a little weak here. (From these fundamentals they developed?) I'll wrap this up tomorrow. Sorry for taking so long. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of pictures, is there a reason that you have not considered this picture? Is it from Davidson's visit to these shores or Andrew Carnegie's to yours? If the former, it could go alongside the US visit. Mrs D probably would not have appeared in the lineup necessarily in those days. Notice that the artist, sitter all have been of happy memory for >70 years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was taken in Aberdeen, I just noticed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think there's comfortable room for it, though it is interesting to see that Dsvidson would have romped home in an Alistair Sim impersonators' competition. Tim riley talk 17:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to working on your latest suggestions tomorrow. (Too tired after unwonted concentration at the British Library all afternoon. One gets out of practice in retirement!) Tim riley talk 17:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know that feeling. My afternoon has barely begun and a nap is already beckoning. I envy you your BL. All we have here are deer, coyote, hawks, robins, turkey ... and they are not much help. Meanwhile, here is Ultimate-Part1 below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(WW1, again)

  • For him, Christian idealism must be accompanied by political realism.
    • Must in the past tense is probably rare usage. I don't see it much these days. Would "was by necessity to be," "was necessarily to be," "was obliged to be," all very old-fashioned, and (of course) "had to" be better? Not sure about BrE here. or MOS.
      • I don't know that I meant "must" to be past tense. As one of the eternal verities "must", I think to Davidson, applied then, now and always. Tim riley talk 17:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • With this in mind, he was a strong supporter of the League of Nations when it was set up after the war.
    • "Would "With/Holding this view/conviction in mind he suported the ..." or if future-in-the-past constructions are allowed: "he would support" or "he was to support." etc.
      • Redrawn. I have a strong, and not altogether explicable aversion to "he woulds" and "he was tos", and have gone for your first suggestion.

(Lambeth, 1920)

  • At Davidson's instigation the sixth Lambeth Conference was held as soon as practicable
    • "instigating," these days, as you well know, has a more common implication of stirring up, inciting, goading. Would urging, persuading, ... be better? Or maybe he was inciting ...
      • You genuinely surprise me. I don't think of "instigating" as anything other than neutral. I think I'll leave this and see if anyone else boggles at it at FAC. Tim riley talk 17:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • as was practicable? (old fashioned me)
      • I think the omission of the verb is OK as in "as possible" etc. Tim riley talk 17:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bishops denounced birth control, spiritualism, and attempts to communicate with the dead. Christian Science and theosophy were stated to involve grave error, but were given credit for showing a reaction against materialism.
    • Nicely balanced. Didn't realize theosophy (involved in Indian nationalism by way of expat Irish) was in their sights.

(General strike, 1926)

  • an attempt to force the government to act to prevent wage cuts and worsening conditions for British coal miners.
    • a little confusing. Would "force the government to do something to prevent wage cuts and ameliorate worsening conditions for British coal miners" work?

(the Book of Common Prayer)

  • Davidson – like his Tudor predecessor Thomas Cranmer, according to The Times – had "immense and perhaps excessive faith in a new Prayer-book as a means of composing differences and restoring discipline within the Church".
    • It would be great to have a sentence before this one describing both BCP 1549 and 1662. Cranmer (1549) is mentioned, but Laude/Juxon 1662 are not (that granted was a turbulent period). The picture is of the 1662 version.
      • There is now a sentence before the "Like Cranmer" sentence, but it arises from another suggestion on this page. I've put in a footnote explaining that the 1662 version was not vastly different from the original and the revisions between Cranmer's and 1662. Tim riley talk 17:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The House of Lords agreed it by an unexpectedly large majority of 241 votes.
    • agreed to it/consented to it/approved it/...? (there probably is an agreed (transitive), ... "approved", I just noticed, has been used in the previous sentence, ... More later today. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC) Hmm. I have checked. I can see that agree (trans) is being used in the age of Boris Johnson as well. Have gone through all 17 meanings of agree in the OED. It is the 15th: "15. transitive. To arrange or settle (something requiring the consent of several parties); to come to an agreement on. In modern use chiefly British. Apparently rare in the 19th cent. 1897 Times Law Rep. 13 482/2 He had no more power to agree the price than to enter into a formal contract. 1928 Britain's Industr. Future (Liberal Industr. Inq.) 140 These councils should have the power to agree factory rules. 1959 Bookseller 13 June 1982/1 The Russians have agreed a wide list of categories. 1992 Holiday Which? Mar. 84/2 Tipping is a way of life in Egypt—and so is haggling. Agree a price before getting into a vehicle. 2007 C. Elliott & F. Quinn Eng. Legal Syst. (ed. 8) iv. xxiv. 549 This does not stop retrials being ordered where the jury has failed to agree a verdict." So, it is OK, but be warned that readers outside Britain might be randomly changing it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Reception)

  • "for not giving a clear enough lead, and for being too ready to wait on circumstances."
    • Hear, hear. Not to be knocked. Circumstances are sometimes different from human intimations of them.

With that, dear Tim riley, I record my satisfaction at reading your fine article. It's not often that in the course of reading I find myself silently mouthing the words. You have my support at FAC. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful for the detailed scrutiny you have given the text, and for so many excellent suggestions, for which the article is the better. As no good deed goes unpunished I shall have no scruples in nagging you from time to time about Mandell Creighton (who, by the way, The Times hinted in Davidson's obituary might have got Canterbury in 1903 had he lived). I shall most certainly take you up on your offer of support at FAC. Tim riley talk 17:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KJP1[edit]

You've enough, and wiser, eyes on prose than mine, so I thought I'd go through my sources to see what may be useful. KJP1 (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources
  • Curate and chaplain
  • Second para. Reading F. E. Smith's very feline portrait of RD in Contemporary Personalities, it's clear FE thought Davidson had an eye to the main chance in staying close to Tait. "Within three years, [Tait] cast a favourable glance in his direction. The smiles of Archbishops are very pleasant to young curates. The secretary soon became familiar with every fold of that mantle which he now so decently becomes." (Lord Birkenhead, Contemporary Personalities, Cassell and Company, 1924, p.56)
  • Third para.: Mrs Davidson had firm views of her own. Amery Diary, 10 November, 1923 - "Dined with the Willie Bridgemans - met there the Archbishop and Mrs Davidson. Mrs D was very anxious F.E. shouldn't be asked to join the government - thought this would offend all decent people." (John Barnes and David Nicholson, eds, The Leo Amery Diaries, Volume 1: 1986-1929,Hutchinson, 1980, p.355)
  • I'm with Mrs D (as a Scouser I am genetically programmed to be suspicious of people from Over the Water – i.e. the Wirral – and FE was a frightful human being, however witty) but I don't think her views will comfortably fit in to the text of the article. Tim riley talk 15:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dean - You rightly highlight the closeness of RD's relationship with Victoria. I wonder if the text, or the footnote, might include his comment on persuading her not to write a biography of John Brown - "There is a good deal more difficulty in dealing with a spoilt child of sixty or seventy than with a spoilt child of six or seven"? (Andrew Roberts, Salisbury: Victorian Titan, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1999, p.318) Perhaps unsurprisingly the comment, made in his private journal, was not included in Bell's biography. On a related point, and ignore me if, as is quite possible, I'm wrong, but the footnote ends - "… particularly for her relationship with her ghillie, John Brown, about which, he thought, the less said the better". Should this be "about whom" or am I confusing 'ghillie' and 'Brown'? Ignore me - on re-reading, I see that it refers to the ‘relationship’.
    • "Spoilt child" quote now included. Thank you. Tim riley talk 15:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archbishop of Canterbury - opening section: I quite like his comment on Campbell-Bannerman, no one more constantly sought his advice and more seldom took it. It's echoed back in a letter from C-B to RD - "I am using much freedom with you, in always bothering you, and, as you once said, never acting on your advice". (John Wilson, CB - A life of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Constable, 1973, p.577)
  • Domestic affairs, 1909–1911
  • Second para. - I think the discussion RD organised at Lambeth Palace in April 1910 where Balfour offered to form a government to extricate Edward VII from his peers pledge might be worth mentioning. The sincerity/practicality of Balfour's offer has been debated, but George V, when he became aware of it three years later, thought it important. "It was not until late in the year 1913 that the foregoing letters and memoranda came into my possession. The knowledge of their contents would, undoubtedly, have had an important bearing and influence with regard to Mr Asquith's request for guarantees on November 16, 1910." It's well covered in a number of sources. Kenneth Rose is probably as good as any. (Rose, King George V, Phoenix Press, 2000, p.123) RD's involvement in rounding up as many bishops as possible is also covered in James Pope-Hennessy's Lord Crewe. "I saw the Archbishop this afternoon on the question of the division in the Lords … [he] said in conclusion that though he could not act as a Whip to get the bishops to vote, yet he would help generally as far as he could". (James Pope-Hennessy, Lord Crewe: The Likeness of a Liberal, Constable & Co, 1955, pp.125-126)
  • I have ordered several books at the BL for Monday, and will look into this here discussion at Lambeth Palace, which isn't mentioned by Bell. Definitely worth following up. More anon. Tim riley talk 15:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tim riley - A few of the sources I’ve got mention it, so let me know if you want me to dig further. Esher and Stamfordham were both there, which suggests the King pushed RD to do it. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, KJ. Despite Bell's silence this seems compelling. Shall follow up. Tim riley talk 18:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third para. - Rose also has a little bit on RD's appalled reaction to George V's suggestion that he crown himself Emperor at the Delhi Durbar. "The Archbishop led the opposition to that unexpectedly Napoleonic flourish [arguing] that coronation implied consecration; and that in a land of Moslems and Hindus, any such act of Christian worship would be misplaced".(p.132) That said, I doubt it's worth mentioning, although it might be another footnote to the Delhi Durbar. Actually Pope-Hennessy also mentions it, where he includes Crewe's description of the King's desired, "Napoleonic auto-Coronation". (as above, p.94)
  • First World War, 1914–1918
  • Third para. Attacks weren't limited to members of the public. Regarding RD's criticism of official attempts to cover up the sinking of HMS Audacious, Churchill wrote to Asquith "With regard to your letter about the 'Audacious': I arranged some time ago not to publish any more Navy Lists during the war. I don't know who studies them except the German Admiralty and the Archbishop of Canterbury"! (my exclamation mark) (Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill, Companion Volume III, Part 1 August 1914-April 1915, Heinemann, 1972, pp.495-496)
  • Fourth para.: I don't have access to Marshall, but I've a slightly different take on RD on Casement. Although he initially suggested clemency, John Campbell suggests that he, and the Bishop of Durham, "withdrew their pleas for Casement on being shown the [Black] diaries". (John Campbell, F. E. Smith, First Earl of Birkenhead, Jonathan Cape, 1983, p.420) RD was certainly given a copy of the diaries, although Roger Sawyer suggests that he didn't read them; "copies of the Black Diaries were seen by … the Rev. John Harris, on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Davidson could not face reading them himself)".(Roger Sawyer, ed., Roger Casement's Diaries, Pimlico, 1997, p.11) It would be interesting to know what this says [1]. And you'll have access to this, I think [2]. This, [3], doesn't make it clear whether RD actually made an appeal or not. This suggests he did, but subsequently withdrew it on Harris' advice, [4].
  • Tweaked. Now "spoke against", which is common ground. Tim riley talk 13:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fifth paragraph: Henson himself took a slightly less charitable view of RD's stance over Hereford. "I came away from [Lambeth] Palace with an uncomfortable suspicion that the Archbishop would like to throw me over if he decently could!" (John Grigg, Lloyd George, War Leader, Allen Lane, 2002, pp.361-362)
  • I've added a few words on HH's apprehensions. Tim riley talk 13:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enabling Act, 1919 and Welsh disestablishment, 1922
  • Second para.: Quite a nice Asquith quote, from Friday 7 August 1914, three days after the outbreak of war; "I've just had a long letter from the Archbishop, talking about the [1914] Welsh Bill. What little minds they've all got! I should call the Archbishop's letter hypocritical." (Margot Asquith, Michael and Eleanor Brock eds., Margot Asquith's Great War Diaries: 1914-1916, OUP, 2014, p.16) As an odd aside, Margot herself comments on RD in her autobiography; "I have known him since I was ten (he christened, confirmed, married and buried us all)". (MA, The Autobiography of Margot Asquith, Cedric Chivers, 1962, p.72) RD must have known her father?
  • Interesting, but I'm not inclined to use these unless you feel strongly about it. Tim riley talk 15:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tim riley Absolutely not. I’m just digging ‘em up, whether you use them is your call entirely. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the same issue, actually the Postponement Bill to the 1914 Welsh Disestablishment Act, you have a comment by HHA to Lloyd George on the front bench, recorded by Frances Stevenson. Of RD "They call the Archbishop of Canterbury 'God's own Butler' but I think those two Welsh Bishops (who opposed the bill) must be God's odd job men". (Frances Stevenson, A. J. P. Taylor ed., Lloyd George: A Diary by Frances Stevenson, Hutchinson, 1971, p.40)
  • doesn't really fit here, except chronologically, but his support for Churchill during the debate on the Amritsar Massacre in July 1920 may be worth inclusion. In another principled stand, on an issue over which society was very polarised, he described WSC's speech censuring Dyer as "unanswerable". (Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill, Volume IV 1917-1922, Heinemann, 1975, p.411)
  • This is mentioned by Bell, but he runs to 1442 pages, and for our article it is a question of what to leave out. RD spoke on many international matters, and took the lead in some, but to keep within reasonable limits I have tried to home in on the most conspicuous. Tim riley talk 09:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also chronologically, but if wanted, you'll need to weave them in somewhere, two rather good quotes from Ruth Lee's diary. February 13, 1923. "We had our first K.P.G (Kensington Palace Gardens) dinner party tonight and the 16 guests included the Archbishop of Canterbury and Mrs Davidson. There was one embarrassing incident. A[rthur] said to me beforehand 'I think you ought to ask the Archbishop whether he would wish to say grace' and I did so as he was arming me into the dinning room. Whereupon he looked at me searchingly under his very bushy eyebrows and said, 'May I ask, my dear Lady, whether it is your usual custom to say grace in this house?' I had to admit that it was not. To which he replied, 'In that case I do not think I had better introduce an innovation'. It was he of whom Archbishop Temple said (when Davidson was first appointed a bishop) 'My only doubt is whether so much political sagacity is altogether compatible with perfect piety'." (Arthur and Ruth Lee, Alan Clark ed., A Good Innings: The Private Papers of Viscount Lee of Fareham, John Murray, 1974, p.236)
  • Excellent. I've added this to the footnote about Temple's suspicion of Davidson. Tim riley talk 15:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Strike, 1926 - second para.: perhaps worth mentioning he was eventually allowed to broadcast, on 11 May when the strike was nearly over. (Keith Middlemas & John Barnes, Baldwin: A Biography, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969, p.413)
  • KJP1, I'm finding this rather a puzzle. There is no mention of an 11 May broadcast by Davidson in the minutely detailed Bell biography, or in the archives of The Times or The Manchester Guardian. It seems barely imaginable that a broadcast by the Archbishop of Canterbury on the central issue of the day would been ignored by both The Times and The MG. Have you got another source that corroborates what Middlemas and Barnes say? Tim riley talk 23:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a little more here: pp. 346–47]; although this one says he was refused, which doesn't help clarify things. - SchroCat (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me have another look. I did find another source that had more detail on RD’s interventions. I just need to remember which one! It might be Willie Bridgeman. KJP1 (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's no clearer. M&B don't cite a source for their statement, "The Archbishop's broadcast was not made until 11 May, nearly at the end of the strike". Are they mixing it up with his broadcast sermon, from St Martin's, although I think that was on Sunday 9 May? Philip Williamson, Willie Bridgeman's editor, says of the 'Appeal from the Churches', "Though this was printed in the strike-depleted Times on 8 May, it was not published in the government's official broadsheet, The British Gazette, nor was the Archbishop allowed to broadcast on the B.B.C. (see Bell)."[p.197] Gilbert doesn't mention it in the main WSC biography, and unfortunately the relevant Companion volume is one I don't have. Middlemas and Barnes is generally very good - indeed the only full biography of Baldwin ever undertaken, if one discounts Woy's slim tome. But I can't say whether its 1000+ pages are entirely without error and, at 50 years old, it's not the most up-to-date scholarship. I'll continue to look but perhaps best omitted unless a supporting source can be found. KJP1 (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Asa Briggs source above states it definitely was broadcast on the 11th. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, sorry, I missed that. It is indeed explicit, and supports M&B. Did the Times/Guardian not cover it because they didn’t appear, or were severely restricted in scope/scale? Gilbert does have a lot on the acute shortages of print paper - due to WSC swallowing up as much as he could for the BG. KJP1 (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what has happened here. Davidson did not broadcast on 11th, but, after The Times and others had already printed the 144-word text of the Christian leaders' joint appeal, Reith finally allowed it to be read out on air by an unnamed BBC employee on 11th ("The Archbishop's Call", The Manchester Guardian, 12 May 1926, p. 2). Churchill's "British Gazette" printed it the next day, following protests in the House of Commons about its suppression. Davidson's sermon was relayed on Sunday 9th, as you say, KJ, but was of an uncontentious and pastoral nature (Bell, Vol 2, pp. 1311–1312). M&B are clearly wrong in saying RB broadcast on 11 May; Briggs is not actually wrong but fails to make clear that the 11 May broadcast was not by Davidson but merely featured the reading of the text, which was common currency by then in any case. Tim riley talk 09:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes indeed - well done! KJP1 (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revision of the Book of Common Prayer
  • William Bridgeman's diary has a couple of good quotes on the Prayer Book Measure debate, for which he led in the Commons. Bridgeman himself described his speech as "the worst in [my] life" and RD, who'd asked him to propose the Measure said afterwards, "he absolutely muffed it … a poor speech with no knowledge and no fire". (William Bridgeman, Philip Williamson ed., The Modernisation of Conservative Politics - The Diaries and Letters of William Bridgeman, 1904-1935, The Historians' Press, 1988, p.212)
  • I've used this, thank you: Bridgeman makes a good balance to Joynson-Hicks in the text, and, with a spot of rejigging, the revised version is only 22 words longer. Tim riley talk 12:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retirement - Not sure how/whether you'd weave it in but pleasing to see that relations between RD and WSC had been restored by 1926. WSC to CSC 4 February 1926: "Last night I dined at Grillion's - after 4 years - and found myself next to the Archb of Canterbury. We had a delightful talk - the first I have ever had with him - 78! & he plays squash rackets often." (Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill, Companion Volume IV Part 2 July 1919-March 1921, Heinemann, 1977, p.1373)
He did at 78! As a former squash player who took to less exhausting physical regimen such as running and rowing in my 30s, I have renewed respect. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I was rather surprised, given the many health problems he’d suffered earlier in his life. KJP1 (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now added to the note on RD's health. Thank you, KJ. Tim riley talk 09:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, KJ! They'll throw me out of the BL when I order that little lot. I shall do it in batches, I think. In all seriousness, thank you so much for going to the trouble of seeking out all these references. I fancy the finished article (insofar as articles are ever finished) will be the richer for some of the above. Tim riley talk 16:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim - Sorry! But you’ve chosen a figure in my period so I thought I’d just look through my shelves to see what a trawl of the indices for Davidson threw up. I don’t for one moment think you’ll use any/all of this, but I thought some of the quotes might be useful for illustrative purposes. However, I do appreciate I am more addicted to using quotes than is actually proper! Though I’ll be disappointed if the WSC on HMS Audacious doesn’t make it in - it’s a cracker. Either way, you’ll be relieved to know I’m done now. Happy New Year and I look forward to seeing Cantuar at FAC. KJP1 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Churchill quote in a footnote. Happily, I am able to see the quotation via Google books, thereby meeting the requirements of WP:SAYWHERE. It is undoubtedly a good line. I'll look further into your excellent suggestions over the next week or so. Tim riley talk 21:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The books you recommended have been of considerable help. As well as the additions already mentioned above, I have now added the Rose one about the private meeting in April 1911. Many thanks, KJ. Tim riley talk 17:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tim - My absolute pleasure. Delighted that the books - which J maintains I never read and which serve only as wall hangings - were of some use. KJP1 (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt[edit]

Sorry to be a tail ender here; at least it's left me with little work.
  • "and Davidson was chosen to succeed him.[19] " If it was the archbishop doing the choosing, I would say so.
  • "She quickly became attached to him;" Wasn't she already?
  • "That, and other private tribulations," Such as the death of John Brown?
  • "When the see of London again fell vacant in February 1901, on the death of Mandell Creighton, it was offered to Davidson, who refused it on firm medical advice.[52] Remaining at Winchester, he was at the bedside of the dying Queen Victoria, and played a major role in the arrangements for her funeral in early 1901.[53] " Why is this not in chronological order?
  • Would it be useful to know when he became entitled to sit in the House of Lords?
  • How is it that Davidson was unable to accept the see of London in 1901 for medical reasons but was healthy for Canterbury?
  • The Bishop of London had a helluva job in those days. The high-v-low church battles were at their most ferocious in the Diocese of London, and there were many Anglo-Catholic priests there who tried to do their own thing in defiance of the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Bishop. Tough cookies like F. Temple and, much later, Geoffrey Fisher did battle quite successfully; less assertive Bishops like Arthur Winnington-Ingram struggled and chaos was never far away. At Canterbury the Archbishop was to some extent above the fray. This is my take on the facts and I have no WP:RS to back it up, but think it's pretty much right. Tim riley talk 22:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds right. The last sentence of the Creighton article is: "Perhaps recognising this, a canon of St Paul's, while welcoming Creighton to the diocese of London in 1897, ominously remarked, 'It is a frightful burden to lay on you: I hope you will use up everybody except yourself.'" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link Lang and refer to him as if the reader had not been previously introduced to him (I remember Brian's excellent article on him).
  • Attended to. I too remember BB's fine article on Lang, and I can tell you with all the earnestness at my command that it has been my guiding star but also extremely daunting when doing the present overhaul. How I wish he could review it for me! Tim riley talk 22:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just knew you would bring in Iolanthe.
  • Well, could you have resisted the temptation? Besides, I think it points up the fact that what seems to us a bizarrely obscure issue was highly topical in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Tim riley talk 22:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to write a refutation of the Germans' claims" I might substitute "contentions" or similar for "claims", a word I try to avoid.
  • I too avoid the word. I can't think what I was thinking of! Tim riley talk 22:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and attempted to thwart the Prime Minister's nomination of Henson for a bishopric.[90]" I might clarify that it was Lloyd George by then, as you have not mentioned him as PM.
  • True, but I have attempted to squeeze LG into the sentence without sinking it, and I can't. I have footnoted the information. Tim riley talk 23:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wehwalt. I'll enjoy working through these over the weekend. Tim riley talk 21:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, I was drawn back to them quickly! Replies – I hope satisfactory – above. Thank you once more: excellent points and the article is the better for them. – Tim riley talk 23:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing PR[edit]

I can't remember when I last had the benefit of such a comprehensive and thorough peer review. Thanks to everyone who took part. I hope to take the article to FAC later today, after one more read-through, and I hope to see you there. Tim riley talk 09:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Randall_Davidson/archive1&oldid=934770120"