Talk:David Armstrong-Jones, 2nd Earl of Snowdon/Archive 1

Archive 1

How should he (and this page) be named?

"David, Viscount Linley" is insufficient.

Put "David, Viscount Linley" into Google and you get 2 hits!

Should be moved to either David Armstrong-Jones or David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley to include his courtesy title. Mintguy 00:55 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

My understanding is that his surname is Linley, not Armstrong-Jones. His father is Armstrong-Jones, but peerages often have multiple surnames, and the son tends to have a different surname. For example the current Marquis of Cholmondeley may now be David Cholmondeley, but until his father died his surname was Rocksavage and he was called David Rocksavage. Viscount Linley uses Linley as his surname - he introduced himself to me as David Linley, he uses Linley for work (his company is called David Linley), etc. Therefore I can only conclude that he thinks his surname is Linley. When his father dies he will become David Armstrong-Jones and his eldest son will be Viscount Linley. So ... I think that we should change the name of the page to David Linley, Viscount Linley or David, Viscount Linley. Those who call him David A-J are probably Americans who don't understand British naming conventions - the same people who call the wife of Paul McCartney Lady Heather Mills McCartney, when the correct way to refer to her would be Lady McCartney (only daughters of Earls and higher peers can be called Lady Heather). Marcus Tully 12:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Will also add that "david armstrong-jones" gets 716 hits on Google. "david linley" gets 41,500 ... Marcus Tully 12:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, his legal surname is Armstrong-Jones – however, like most peers, he uses his title like a surname. Nonetheless, his legal surname (which doesn't change no matter how many times his title does) is his real name. DBD 12:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"When his father dies..." - his father has died (in January 2017), so the suggested name revision should now be pertinent. 2.31.164.119 (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I've always been led to believe (by my solicitor) that the legal surname is the one one uses, which does not have to be the one born with. My legal surname is the one I use, and which others use when speaking / writing about me, not the one I was born with, for example. I understand your point though, and think we're both correct on this point - then it comes down the which one he uses, and people mostly use when refering to him ... and it's Linley. Otherwise we'd be listing the Queen as Elizabeth Windsor, etc. Marcus Tully 12:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Viscount Linley redirect here?

Almost every Google result for "Viscount Linley" is about this person. This is the primary search target for Viscount Linley (regardless of the current news). 172.200.250.96 00:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes ! Marcus Tully 12:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Can this talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 19:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the protection, which dates back to May 2008. I'll reprotect it at the first sing of trouble that I notice.   Will Beback  talk  19:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Arms

The blazon and write-up for these arms is quite a mish-mash, a combination of English and French blazon. From what I see, neither one is correct and assumptions have been made. I will be re-blazoning these arms within the week Kiltpin (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kiltpin, I'm anyway curious about the correctness of the arms of Viscount Linley itself. Is it correct that the creator of the picture assumed that Viscount Linley inherited the arms of his mother, quartered with that of his father's with the addition of a heraldic label?? I sincerely thought that it was not the practice anymore since the end of the 19th century to join and quartering the coat of arms of a British royal princess, into the coat of the son. So, if I’m correct, the current coat of arms of Viscount Linley should be that of the Earl of Snowdon, with the addition of a three-point label. Nothing more, nothing less! Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Heraldic heiress: Margaret had the right to pass her arms (her father's) on to her son(s) since there were no male relatives to inherit the arms at the time of her father's death. The label on Margaret's arms is a charge to difference the arms, not related to cadency: Margaret was never heir apparent, Charles having been born four years before Elizabeth ascended to the throne. As his father is an armiger, Viscount Linley quarters the arms of both his parents, will remove the label on the Snowdon arms when he becomes Earl, and the undivided quartering will become the coat of arms for the Earls of Snowdon. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The differenced Royal Arms have never been inheritable except by specific Royal Warrant, such as for Earl Mountbatten, however on 24 February 1975 The Queen issued a Royal Warrant making the Arms of the grandchild of a Sovereign, bearing a Label of five-points, inheritable. Princess Margaret's Arms therefore were not inheritable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.110.49 (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! The coat of arms depicted on Wikipedia is thus false! I googled a lot but could not find such a coat of arms or sources describing such a arm, and therefore think that this is an (incorrect) invention of some Wikipedia-editor. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation for the warrant would be helpful as this comes up from time to time in various articles. Garlicplanting (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to raise an issue with regard to the coronet used in the arms for the 2nd Earl of Snowdon. The coronet depicted is not that of an Earl, rather the Type 5 Princely coronet reserved for those grandchildren of the sovereign through the female line. I am not saying that the 2nd Earl of Snowdon is not entitled to such a coronet, it's just a specific warrant must be issued by the Sovereign for such an entitlement. Is anyone aware that such a warrant from the present Sovereign has been issued to this effect? Ds1994 (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Patrick/Ireland

Re his given name. Sure Patrick is the Patron Saint of Ireland. His mother was born in Scotland however, so why say in honour of her place of birth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.183.114 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Charles' mother, Serena Stanhope, was born in Limerick, Ireland, according to her page here; Margaret, Charles' grandmother, was born in Scotland. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Polly Fry

I removed Polly Fry as Viscount Linleys 'half sister'. There has been no proof provided anywhere-all we have is what Polly told Anne de Courcy in 2004 for her book regarding Snowdon-also no proof of a DNA test was ever provided to anyone-all we have is heresay and media articles about this 'DNA test'-which Snowden denied ever participating in; Jeremy Fry, Pollys REAL father in all legal sense of the word, claims what Polly refers to is 'utter nonsense'.

Polly Fry has no place in an article on the Viscount.

Brattysoul (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In the article about his father there are references that confirm Polly Fry is his half sister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.29.55 (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Blackmail attempt

Shouldn't the attempt to blackmail Linley in 2008 be in the article? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Earldom

I thought that the custom was for new peers to refrain from using their new titles until after the funeral of their predecessors. Opera hat (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Source for arms

User:Re5x has hidden the image and description of Armstrong-Jones' arms of this edit, which I support. I have found a possible source here. I have various concerns about this source. Firstly it appears to be self-published, so we should use caution before citing it, particularly in a biography of a living person. The website is used in other articles [1]. The second issue is that it does not give the Escutcheon details. My third concern is that this source does not have an image of the arms, and my knowledge of heraldry is insufficient to judge whether the image we had accurately implements the description.

Is this source sufficient for the restoration of the arms? Verbcatcher (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem here was the arms being quartered with the mother's arms. We may have a source for the unquarterd arms but I'm not so sure we have one for the other. --Re5x (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the Cracroft's Peerage page may be a source for the unquartered arms. I note that the page says "Last updated 8 Feb 2010", so it has not been updated since the 1st Earl died. I haven't found a reliable source for the quartered arms, so they might have been an unsourced creation by the person who made the original quartered arms image here. It may be of interest to you to see a conversation from a few years ago here. -- Blairall (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The Cracroft's Peerage page here now indicates that the page was "Last updated 16 Jan 2017", so it has been updated since the 1st Earl died. It lists the current arms as the unquartered arms. I haven't seen a reliable source for the quartered arms, so I'm not sure why they are being used in this Wikipedia article. -- Blairall (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible improved link

Wikimedia was contacted ticket:2017020510000964 with a possible improvement for what is currently reference three: existing link The proposed replacement is: this link

I'd prefer that someone familiar with the article make the assessment whether this link should be replaced.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Armstrong-Jones, 2nd Earl of Snowdon. 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/20080430201419/http://www.claridges.co.uk/accommodation/news/ to http://www.claridges.co.uk/accommodation/news/

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) 14:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

'Descended from Charles II...'

Stanhope descends from... one of the illegitimate children of Charles II.

This claim is always trotted-out, as though it denotes some exclusive royal kinship. Actually your local plumber or greengrocer is probably descended from Charles II at least twenty times over. Valetude (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Correct coronet

He is entitled to the coronet of the child of the daughter of the Sovereign, as set out by the royal warrant of November 19, 1917. This is the same coronet used by, for instance, Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall, who are also children of the daughter of the Sovereign. However, the arms on this page display an earl's coronet. I would have thought that the royal coronet would be used because it denotes a higher status. Looking at the history of the image Coat_of_Arms_of_David_Armstrong-Jones_as_Viscount_Linley.svg, it seems that the artist originally used the royal coronet and later changed it to a coronet of the peerage. Does anyone know whether Armstrong-Jones ought to be displaying the royal coronet instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ff462 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking into the matter further, at the coronation, the 7th Earl of Harewood wore a physical rendition of a coronet of a child of a daughter of the Sovereign. The fact that he wore this instead of an earl's coronet suggests that such a coronet outranks an earl's coronet. As such, Armstrong-Jones ought to display the royal coronet instead of an earl's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ff462 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Quality of photo

The quality of the photo on the page is quite low is it not possible to get a better ome 81.131.183.45 (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)