Talk:Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald

Nickname

The lead says Cochrane was kown as "El Diablo" ("the devil") by his enemies in South America. However, this is unsourced and in Brian Vale's book Cochrane in the Pacific: fortune and freedom in Spanish America (page 203) he writes apart from Cochrane's claims there is no evidence he was ever called this. Interestingly, Vale says the only nickname recorded was "el metalico lord" which translates as the "count of cash" or the "lord of bullion". Barret (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I found it on a website about the liberation of South America. However, after searching the internet I can't find it again! I will keep on trying. DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.

I have just found it again here. DAFMM (talk), 3rd September 2009.

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately I don't think the website can be considered a reliable source because basically its just a book review of Cochrane: Britannia's Sea Wolf written on a self published website. Ideally the page number where this nickname is mentioned in the book needs to be provided before it can be included. Or perhaps another reliable source can be found. If a source is provided, it should be made clear it is dubious whether this nickname was ever actually used by his enemies. Barret (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. Thanks. I will do some more research. DAFMM (talk), 3rd September 2009.

Is Marquess do Maranhao Hereditary?

All,

After some detail research conducted by both myself and mainly Tonyjeff we have discovered that much evidence points to the title not being hereditary. We therefore ask for your advice on the subject as all the articles related to the Earls of Dundonald (etc.) describe it as being hereditary. What do you all think and what information have you got?

Thanks a lot.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.

First Sea Lord vs First Naval Lord

I checked on First Sea Lord and it seems to be contradictory, it refers to the title as First Sea Lord being used from 1828 but then heads the section listing them up from 1828-1904 i.e. until Jackie Fisher as "First Naval Lord" with no explanation. My apologies for being abrupt in the Edit summary but it puzzles me as I have never heard the term First Naval Lord used anywhere. Dabbler (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

For all that, Thomas John Cochrane's article makes no mention of him being First Sea Lord, nor is he listed on the First Sea Lord article. Lavery and Rodger in their studies of the Nelsonic-era navy make note that there was not yet no established position of 'First Sea Lord' (the term 'First Naval Lord' does not appear). Benea (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't 'First Naval Lord' used for the 'First Sea Lord' from 1828 - 1904? Isn't that what it says on the First Sea Lord article, though I am no expert. With etc.. DAFMM (talk), 3rd September 2009.

The actual quote from First Sea Lord is "The title of First Sea Lord was first given to the senior Naval Lord on the Board of Admiralty in 1828." Thomas John Cochrane does not appear on the First Lord of the Admiralty. He was Vice-Admiral of the United Kingdom. Dabbler (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The list on First Sea Lord changes with no explanation in 1904, having previously stated the term was 'First Sea Lord' from 1828. The First Sea Lord article originally ran as 'First Sea Lords' from 1828 to the present. User:Choess split the article at some point into pre and post 1904 (i.e. around the Fisher reforms) and the title for the pre-1904 post became 'First Naval Lords'. (Another odd split occurs in 1964, leaving David Luce having held the post from 1963 to 1964, and again from 1964 to 1966. Was there a substantive change in the title rather than just the duties, which necessitated him relinquishing and then taking the post again? If so this should be mentioned). While the 'first naval lord' does crop up to describe these individuals and their duties, all sorts of pre-1904 documents call the apparent first holder of the post, Sir George Cockburn, as 'First Sea Lord'. 'First naval lord' seems to be a variation on this, not the official title itself. Cockburn's biography by Morriss used 'First Sea Lord', but 'first naval lord' (the latter only ever in lower case, indicating a description rather than title). Benea (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion would seem to be more appropriate at Talk:First Sea Lord. I think though that the reference to Thomas John Cochrane being Admiral of the Fleet or First Sea Lord or whatever should be changed as he does not seem to have ever held any of those posts. Dabbler (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

He clearly didn't, Laughton's entry in the OBND lists all his titles but not the Sea Lord. I'll move the discussion, this has clearly broadened into a wider examination of the title. Benea (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In think everyone seems to be thinking different on this one! Why don't we all go away and do some research and then agree on what we have found. Then we will be able to tidy up all the related articles. DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.

Ancestry

I haven't stopped by here in a while... just noticed the collapsible ancestry table is gone. Were there particular objections to it? If not I might reinstate it. Comes.amanuensis (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to reiterated- if there are no objections, I'll reinstate the Ancestry section. I'll wait a couple of days before proceeding. Comes.amanuensis (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

French translation - literal or correct? Done

I agree that the literal translation of the French "Le Loup des mers" is "The Wolf of the Seas". However, that is not the idiomatic way that it is translated into English and most English writers translate as the Sea Wolf. See the following refs http://sydneymediajam.com/sitebuilder/2012/10/22/cochrane-the-man-napoleon-called-the-sea-wolf/

http://www.amazon.ca/Cochrane-The-Real-Master-Commander/dp/1400155428

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Sea-Wolf-Admiral-Cochrane/dp/1843410079

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/making_history/makhist10_prog12a.shtml

https://books.google.ca/books?id=3X47AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT50&lpg=PT50&dq=Cochrane+le+loup+des+mers&source=bl&ots=BY_oyaLC4M&sig=veMuNoBWfD99InD25vukdhxUZcE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XyBfVZ-NAov4yAT914OABQ&ved=0CEYQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Cochrane%20le%20loup%20des%20mers&f=false

Dabbler (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

right.--Joe McNeill (talk) 09:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Forester

Forester mentions Cochrane twice in the Hornblower books, once negatively (possibly referring to his political complaints), once positively about coastal shelling of land forces. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Virtually all?

The lead includes the sentence: "He was successful in virtually all his naval actions."

Whether true or now, my inclination is that this isn't a particularly encyclopaedic way of conveying his success. I would suggest rephrasing this to a more neutral form. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fractalfalcon (talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears to be a true statement, however you're right the wording leaves a lot to be desired. Perhaps "He was and remains well noted for his consistent success throughout his naval career and variety of engagements." or something similar? Then cite some references after 'noted' that exemplify this. 86.5.160.43 (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)