Talk:Cyril Alington

Ancestry

Copied from user talk pages:

Cyril Alington was an eighth great-grandson in a direct male line from Sir Giles Alington of Horseheath, KB. Do you think describing his direct ancestor as "remote" is appropriate? I mean, would you describe the 1st Lord Home as Alec's "remote ancestor"? David Lauder 08:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think what I was trying to convey is that he was some way removed from the Alington main line. Yes I would say that a gap of eleven generations and five hundred years is remote - though I'm sure we could come up with a better wording. I did consider writing 'collaterally descended', but thought that 'remotely' would be more widely understood. The Home example is an interesting one since eight generations separated the 3rd Earl of Home from his "remote" ancestor the 1st Lord Home - and he therefore inherited the title from a seventh cousin, give or take a remove. But back to your analogy - Douglas-Home was also legitimately descended from Henry VII, and, yes, I would describe his connection to this monarch as remote. Flozu 10:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Cyril is 10th generation from Sir Giles (d.1522) his DIRECT ancestor in the male line. The point I made is that he is no more "remote" from his direct male ancestor than Sir Alec Douglas-Home is from his. I ask again: would you say Alec was "remote" from his forebears, or not? David Lauder 15:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry I thought I'd been clear on this. Yes, of course Alec Home was 'remotely' descended from the 1st Lord Home. Remote simply means 'far removed in place or time', and by most people's standards 500 years fits that bill. I do not mean to suggest that Cyril was not directly descended from old Horseheath, just that a lot of years separated them. Would you not agree that you are "remotely" and "directly" descended from Adam? Flozu 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It is wording that genealogists at least do not use. When we are speaking about famous families it is unusual to describe their direct ancestors as "remote". That would usually be used with lesser families from whom one is descended through a more indirect line: i.e: man/woman/woman/man/man/woman, if you get my drift. David Lauder 10:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I get your drift, but you are wrong I'm afraid. Genealogists constantly talk about remote ancestry and remote descent with regard to male lines, and do not confine their use of the word to distaff descent. I'm sure I could fish out hundreds of examples, but I'll start with just one from Sir Bernard, here [2]. Flozu 13:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm not wrong. 1000 years is remote. 1500 AD is not. You show a lack of good faith and civility in accusing others of being wrong (and therefore you right). David Lauder 15:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this a typo?

"His educational career began when he became sixth-form master at Marlborough College in 1886." Thay would mske him 14 years old, whoich doesn't seem very likely. Should the year be 1896? JH (talk page) 20:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Publications

All the blue links in the list of publications lead to articles with similar titles to Alington's books but which are not the books themselves. Tim riley (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Lionel Ford links to the subject, who was a relation of Alington's; Good News includes Alington's book in the list. The other two are mismatches. For what was Hester awarded the CBE? Motmit (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks

All of these works should not be redlinked. Can someone pick out the dozen most important works that should have their own articles and de-link the others? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Through the Shadows (1922)

This is hyperlinked to an Italian film, made in 1923. Was the film based on this novel? Valetude (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)