Talk:Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle

Old talk page post

The dates of his rule as PM --- An edited bio. of Duke of Newcastle argues he can really be seen as PM only from 54-56 and not 57 to 62 when he was in the Newcastle-Pitt-George III triumvariate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varuag doos (talk • contribs) 02:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There is considerable debate over who was and wasn't a Prime Minister during the eighteenth century. Things are made very confusing that there wasn't an official Post of Prime Minister. Despite this there is a general scholar consensus that the First Lord of the Treasury is considered the PM, even if in fact there was another man dominating the government (in Newcastle's case Pitt). It was a similar situation in the earlier government of Lord Wilmington, who was First Lord between 1742 and 1743, but the Ministry was entirely dominated by Lord Carteret. Nonetheless it is Wilmington who is considered the PM Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Name

It is unnecessarily pedantic to insist on "Duke of Newcastle-upon-Tyne" in the article title. The guy is always called simply "the Duke of Newcastle" (as also everybody else who has ever been Duke of Newcastle). The only reason "upon Tyne" is ever included is to distinguish this guy's two dukedoms of Newcastle. The guy is called "Duke of Newcastle" and we should use that as the title of the article. john k 22:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage would disagree with you here; it only seems logical that if you put a peer at a title, he should be at the actual title, even if it's not what he's usually called. TysK 05:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The full title is often incredibly long and complicated. Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in the county of Northumberland, and 1st Duke of Newcastle-under-Lyme, in the county of Stafford would be the full title. And it's absurd. There's absolutely no reason to include "upon-Tyne" in the article title. john k 01:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat this. There is absolutely no reason to use "Newcastle-upon-Tyne" rather than simply "Newcastle." john k (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, I agree completely. This article should be moved to Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle. Proteus (Talk) 06:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Consistency about the "Two Days" & "Four Days" Prime Ministers

Please see Talk:List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom#The Two Days & Four Days Prime Ministers for discussion about consistency on how to handle the events of February 1746 and June 1757 on the various lists on ministers and ministries. Timrollpickering 22:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Marquis of Newcastle

Marquis of Newcastle currently redirects here. What makes this person more famous than the Civil War general (William Cavendish, Marquis of Newcastle) who held the title Marquis of Newcastle during part of Civil War (when he was flourishing) and only became a duke after the Restoration? I suggest that the redirect Marquis of Newcastle be altered to link directly to the article Duke of Newcastle. -- PBS (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure. Marquis would not have eben used as a courtesy title as it is the same as the main title. Accoordingly, the Civil War general is the only person who bore the title, save as a subsidiary one. I think a "redirects here" hatnote would do the job. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

last occasion on which a British monarch was able to remove a Prime Minister purely because of personal animosity - C.J.Fox '83?

Fox may not have been de jure PM in the Fox-North Coalition of 1783, but he surely was de facto, no?

It was the first govt. filmed against the monarch's wishes. Fox, North and their borough-owning magnates could rustle up more MPs than the King. So George III, when the EIC Bill reached the Lords, got his mate to tell them that the King wouldn't consider any man his friend that voted for it.

It was defeated. And it was in large part down to the fact that George and Fox detested each other.

Shouldn't this at least be mentioned?

Any thoughts on adding it?

Ganpati23 (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607051803/http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page170.asp to http://pm.gov.uk/output/Page170.asp

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Dismissal section

I have two comments as to why this section is problematic: From what I've read and heard elsewhere, Newcastle fell from power 1762 because:

1. He and Bute disagreed as to whether to keep funding Fredrick the Great, with Bute demanding that funds earmarked for Prussia be redirected to help Portugal
2. Newcastle complained about Grenville interfering with the Treasury, and this is what was the immediate cause of Newcastle's forced resignation.

The current paragraph seems to imply that Newcastle was kicked out solely because George III just didn't like him, which seems unfair to George. Yes, I need to cite some sources, I'll come back to this later. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)