Talk:Lord Mountbatten/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Lord Mountbatten. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

His death

The man attended the indian independance day today, so obviously he's not dead. Go read msnbc.com if you don't believe me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.16 (talk • contribs)

I think you want to check your facts, he is a long time dead.--padraig

One of the funniest posts I've ever seen. ha! --Counter-revolutionary 16:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Makes a change from the usual edit warring.--padraig 16:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

- - - He was killed as a combatant in the war of Irish Independence and not murdered.**** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.99.54 (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No - he, and elderly lady and two children were murdered. Anyone who finds glory in that act is sick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.30.15 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Name of article

The name of this article seems a bit questionable. We don't normally list people under their titles unless that's how they are overwhelmingly best known and I don't think that's the case here. He's often referred to as "Louis Mountbatten", "Lord Louis Mountbatten", and "Earl Mountbatten of Burma" - any of those is as common, possibly more common than, "Earl Mountbatten". Opinions? Deb 14:46 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. "Louis Mountbatten" is my choice. I was new to Wiki when I did my edits, and would have changed it then. Hotlorp 17:09 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

I vote for "Earl Mountbatten of Burma", since that's how I refer to him! I've just discovered something very scary, though[1]:-

"The papers of the late Louis, Earl Mountbatten of Burma, and Edwina, Countess Mountbatten of Burma, form part of University of Southampton Library MS62, the Broadlands archives."

"The Mountbatten papers contain a total of approximately 250,000 papers and 50,000 photographs, including the 907 files of papers and 68 photograph albums of Edwina Mountbatten (nee Ashley), later Countess Mountbatten of Burma, 1923-60, with papers as Vicereine of India, 1947 (MB1/P-R, MB2/K-M); c.4,000 files of papers of Earl Mountbatten of Burma, c.1900-79, covering his service in command of Combined Operations during World War II, including material on the Dieppe Raid; as Supreme Allied Commander South East Asia Command, 1943-6, dealing with the Burma campaign, the actions culminating in the Japanese surrender in September 1945 and with the post-war settlement in the British, Dutch and French colonies in South East Asia; as the last Viceroy and first post-independence Governor General of India, 1947-8; and Lord Mountbatten's naval career in the Mediterranean and as Fourth Sea Lord, and his subsequent appointments as First Sea Lord, 1955-9, and as Chief of the UK Defence Staff from 1959-65, together with 30,000 photographs (MB2 and MB3)."

I hereby deny any connection with the University of Southampton, and deny that I have ever, or will ever in the future, go anywhere near the place, so I will be unable to do any reserach there... Ahem. Honest... ;) -- Oliver P. 19:54 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

I'm sure the most interesting were burnt... Hotlorp 01:12 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Fair point on title, Deb. The thing with Mountbatten is that he would be equally well known and recognised by any version;

Earl Mountbatten
Lord Mountbatten
Earl Mountbatten of Burma
Lord Louis Mountbatten

Louis Mountbatten might be less well known; in fact largely unknown. (The Brits and their damn alkward titles!) But any of the above four would be easily recognised. On balance, I would think Earl Mountbatten of Burma would be the best one to go with, as if we are going to use a title (and I think in this case it is unavoidable) it makes sense to use the full correct one. Lord Louis Mountbatten is another wordable one, but somehow it doesn't feel quiet right. (Apart from anything else, it sounds like a courtesy title, whereas he had a peerage. But then, maybe we should use 'lord' always rather than the formal peer's title of viscount, marquis, baron, earl, etc) JTD 01:59 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

The titles Lord and Lady (and others) have complex rules, partly shown here. This definitely excludes [Lord Louis Mountbatten]. In the scheme of the webpage cited, "Mountbatten" is the title, which happens to be the same as the surname in this case. Not shown on the cited page is the use of "Lady" when referring to someone who's been awarded the honorofic, rather than the wife of a man who's been honoured. We Brits find it hilarious when Americans talk of Margaret "The Lady" Thatcher! She's simply "Baroness Thatcher" or "Lady Thatcher" now. I withdraw much of my earlier support for [Louis Mountbatten] as the new title, after understanding Wikipedia's reasons for naming even minor royals differently. However, I'm a bit reluctant to go with the Burmese honorific, since that seems something strangely redundant by the time he died. Hotlorp 02:48 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Re his papers - I wish to God other people keeping their papers kept as many. I know Mountbatten was a rather vain man. but at least somewhere among that multitude there is some important information. Beats people keeping a single sheet of paper on which they mentioned some crucially important piece of info. There is nothing as irritating for a historian as looking through an archive, finding a vital bit of info, and find there is damn all info revealed. (I once came across an important speech scribbed on the back of a shopping list, with page 2 on the back of an electricity bill and the rest . . . missing. I uttered rather a lot of expletives!) JTD 02:04 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

It is sooooo complex, Hotlorp. I have been trying to get some sort of logical approach to using titles (or not using titles, and when to do so) on Wikipedia. The standard approach used to be simply not to use titles at all - which produced the farce of calling the Prince of Wales Charles Windsor which isn't actually his surname at all, and even if it was, wouldn't be understood by most Wiki users. Having finally worked out some sort of structure that allows us to know what to call royals from various states, we now have the problems of the likes of Louis and his name to deal with. (Aaaagh!) I think we have to use some sort of title - because invariably people know him by through Earl/Lord. I'm sure he'd love us just to write 'Mountbatten' but it wouldn't work in this context. I agree the 'of Burma' bit was a bit dated by the time he died, but in general, if we are going to use titles (and using them seems to create less problems than not doing so - particularly courtesy titles that are attached to people's names) I suppose we should include the 'of Burma' bit, for it was his title. But after the nightmare of trying to create a workable solution to 'royal names' (which before was a mess, with five different versions being used, and edit wars between people who fought over what was the more correct version) I'm too knackered to try to solve issues over Lord Louis. I'm in the middle of trying to get agreement on how we refer to the likes of '(Lady) Jane Grey' and '(Lord) John Russell' so 'Louis/Lord Louis/Earl Mountbatten/Earl Mountbatten of Burma' can wait. I'm cursing myself for ever getting into the names thing at all!!! What's an Irish nationalist doing trying to sort out the complexities of British and world titles! JTD 03:20 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

I'd been wondering that myself, JTD! It seems a bit odd, when a Welsh nationalist and an Irish nationalist are showing more interest in the royal family than almost anyone else. But that's one of the fun things about this place, isn't it? I seem to have been stirring up a lot of debates recently (I must have been bored the other evening), but, when it comes down to it, the only important point I want to make is that his title was "Earl Mountbatten of Burma", not "Earl Mountbatten". So unless we go back to calling him by his untitled name, I don't see much alternative but to leave the "Burma" reference in the title of the article. It was, after all, widely used....Slight pause, while I ponder...Yes, I remember when he got assassinated, I actually had to check with someone that it was the same bloke I thought it was, because I had heard him referred to by so many different soubriquets. Deb 22:40 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

OK, now my choice is [Louis, Earl Mountbatten of Burma] on grounds of recognition in search results and snagging most terms that someone is likely to type into Google... if anyone cares :-) This from an English supporter of the monarchy who thinks there must have been something good about the old anational states like Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Hotlorp 00:15 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who also thinks the abolition the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a disaster for Europe . . . but getting back to Lord Louis. I can see the logic of going for Hotlorp's suggestion of the full [Louis, Earl Mountbatten of Burma]. The only qualification is that the current Earl Mountbatten is not in public life, so he is unlikely to require a page. Which means we are likely to have just one Earl Mountbatten on Wiki. So I wonder if in this particular case whether the qualification of using 'Louis' is necessary to distinguish between earls. Though technically correct (and I'm all for technically correct solutions) in this case it might be a tad excessive in terms of making an already long article title longer. But I would have absolutely no problem with using it as a solution. I think 'Earl Mountbatten of Burma' has to be in; I'm open-minded on using 'Louis' and can see the benefits in keeping to a consistent style. What do you think, Deb? (I'm warming to the idea, the more I think about it. It does have consistency and logic, and the same rule can be allied to other peers. It is both workable and logical. Hmmm. To think I had a choice tonight, watch brain-dulling TV or think deeply about how to refer to British peers on Wiki! I'm currently in 'think deeply' mode.) JTD 00:50 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC) ps: it would also deal with the issue of how to refer to the two Lords Longford, the theatre manager and the author.

Hold on - the current Earl? I thought the current Earl was a Countess! I've just checked, and can't find any reference to the Countess Mountbatten of Burma having died. Her eldest son, Lord Romsey, will succeed her, becoming the 3rd Earl (sic) Mountbatten of Burma if his mother predeceases him, despite there having been no 2nd Earl. Unless you count a Countess as an Earl. ;) Hope that helps.

I think the technically correct was of referring to the Earl Mountbatten of Burma during his lifetime was as "The Earl Mountbatten of Burma", and since his daughter succeeded him, as "The 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma". I don't think first names are usually used with titles in the way Hotlorp suggests, and I don't think we should use titles in a way that is technically incorrect just to make things "clearer". Of course, I could be wrong that it is technically incorrect, as I haven't really been in "think deeply" mode over the past few weeks, but hopefully I'll get back to it soon and then I'll let you know what I think and wreak havoc with all your agreed naming conventions. Haha! :) -- Oliver P. 05:32 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

DON'T YOU DARE!!! (monster smile - only joking!) yeah I should have remembered Countess Mountbatten. But it might just be a solution to any naming complexities that no doubt will arise to use the form [{first name}, {rank} of {title}]. For example, Ireland produced two famous Lords longford, brothers, one a theatre impressario, the other an author. The second is known to older people by his ordinary name, to the younger as Lord L. So there would have to be redirects used, but rather than stating who was the nth Lord Longford (which even I don't know), first names could help create a distinction. anyway, i'm off to bed, having fought the good fight by defending the Australia & constitutional monarchy pages from some nutter who thinks Australia is a republic with a queen. Yes. And on that funny note, bye for tonight. JTD 06:33 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Heh heh! Well done on the nutter-fighting. My preferred method of dealing with weird edits is just to wait until hopefully whoever did them has gone away, and then change things back. :) Terribly cowardly, I know... As for the naming conventions, I still can't decide what would be most sensible. I suppose one could just use whatever people most commonly call people in the article title, but then give the correct form in the opening line, going on to explain that people actually call them something else for such-and-such a reason. I think that's the current consensus, but I think it's still being discussed on the mailing list. For this Mountbatten chap, I think I mostly hear of him being called "the Earl Mountbatten of Burma", so I still think he could go to Earl Mountbatten of Burma, and then we could move him if and when his grandson succeeds to the title. Maybe. I'll think about it some more. Goodnight, then! -- Oliver P. 06:58 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Just to be contrary, <G>, seems to me like we haven't exhausted all possible names.

from 1900, HSH Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas, Prince of Battenberg.
from 1917, Louis Mountbatten
from 1946, Viscount Mountbatten of Burma
from 1947, Baron Romsey, and Earl Mountbatten of Burma

-- Someone else 07:20 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC) (P.S. -- put me down for Francis Pakenham and Edward Pakenham, and a cross-ref for Antonia Fraser<G>).

Oh! The article doesn't have a "Nicholas" in his name. Did he ditch that as a middle name at some point, or was it just left out by mistake? By the way, I see that Lord Longford is at the rather long title Francis Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford, with his first name, last name, and title. So how about Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma. Just to annoy everyone... ;) -- Oliver P. 07:38 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Nicholas is really in there, I'll add it to the article. I think your proposed title is too short, though... [[Acting Admiral Lord Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas Mountbatten, C.G.V.O., K.C.B., D.S.O., 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma]]. -- Someone else 07:44 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Careful, I might take you seriously. :) -- Oliver P.

don't forget we have to mention Battenburg. I propose an additional two words formerly Battenburg :) JTD 18:34 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I think Oliver's last suggestion, Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, long-winded though it may be, is actually the correct one according to our established standards. Deb 18:59 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

What? When have I ever been right about anything? You're confusing me now... ;) -- Oliver P. 19:11 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Long titles are only bad if there aren't redirects or disambiguating pages at the shorter titles that are more likely to be linked to. Since we have these at Louis Mountbatten and Earl Mountbatten and even Earl Mountbatten of Burma, I think we'd be ok no matter where the actual article wound up, as long as they all pointed at it. I'm not sure there are any particular standards to apply: he wasn't royal, so it's a question of whether he's best known by his name or his title. I think using names when people have them is a good idea, using titles when necessary for disambiguation and using titles alone only when the person's name is virtually unknown. -- Someone else 20:39 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, but I think 'louis mountbatten' would not be widely recognised. Most of those who know of him would know him as in effect a British royal, as Charles' honorary grandfather (as he called him) or as Prince Philip's uncle. As a result, it makes sense to apply the general royal rules to him; though those who don't know him as a 'minor role' probably don't know of him at all!

I agree mostly with Oliver's proposal, subject to one qualification. As he used his surmame as part of his title, calling him [Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma] seems repetitive and a bit of a mouthful. I'd drop the first Mountbatten and simply say [Louis, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma].

From Philip Hurst: The inordinately lengthy discussion above of what his correct title is seems to me to be a fuss over the number of angels on a pin-head. He was certainly Earl Mountbatten of Burma, but in fact his correct full title was "Admiral of the Fleet 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma", followed by his honours and decorations: KG, GCB, OM, GCSI, GCIE, GCVO, DSO, PC, FRS.

My point, however, in writing this edit is not on his title, but on the photograph, which purports to show Lord Mountbatten as Viceroy of India. This is unlikely: the decorations are wrong. He MAY be wearing the star and sash of the Royal Victorian Order (hard to tell from the photo) but the other two orders are "foreign". As Viceroy, he would always have been wearing the orders of the Star of India and the Indian Empire. Neither of these appears in the photograph and so it is a safe bet to assume that this photograph was posed for some other purpose or occasion.

Criticism

I've just be reading "War of the Windsors" - (see it here at Amazon .) The book blames for the Royal Family of all sorts of hideous things. Also, and in particular, it ravages Mountbatten. It is certainly a jolly fun read. I might some stuff this article but before I do I wanted to know if the book has much credibility - I feel as I have read the unofficial story but not the official one. Pcb21| Pete 16:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust Picknett and Prince as far as I could throw them. That's not to say that I don't think that Mountbatten was a dangerously incompetent pathological monomaniac but simply that I don't think this kooky pair, who are addicted to cheap mysticism and conspiracy theories, should be taken with anything other than a large pinch of salt. Just my tuppence ha'penny. --Mr impossible 12:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

http://chrisspivey.org/monsters-inc-the-satanic-british-royal-family/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.40.24.4 (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Ancestry

I confess to finding the Ancestry section confusing. It's difficult to follow what is being said of the elder Louis, vs. the younger. I was initially rather confused when I thought it said that this Louis had had an affair with Lillie Langtry, leading to a daughter older than he was... I worked through it eventually, but it might help if someone with more immediate familiarity would reword the section to clarify who is who, since they have the same given name.-FZ 18:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Service as Viceroy of india

i've always associated mountbatten much more as the last viceroy of india, however, this article only gives passing mention of this fact. unfortunately, i know little of his service in india, but, hopefully, will add to this whenever i finish reading "freedom at midnight".

m.

I'd say that, in general, the article is subpar - a lot more could be said...unfortunately, I don't know very much either... john k 21:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jeanne Marie Langtry Malcolm

I don't see the relevance of Prince Louis of Battenberg's supposed affair with Lillie Langtry and the illegitimate birth of Jeanne Marie Langtry Malcolm to this article. Mountbatten wasn't even born until 19 years later, and the subject is already adequately covered under the articles that are actually about the participants. As it stands, it just confuses the reader (see previous talk contribution), so I'm going to remove it. -- Chris j wood 12:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ambivalence

"Local people condemn the murder."

I think the reaction in Southern Ireland was more ambivalent at the time than the article implies. Of course officially the death was condemned, one would expect nothing else and those who made a living from British tourists knew that they would feel through loss of business. But for example a school ground "joke" which did the rounds in Limerick and probably elsewhere just after his death was "Did you know that Lord Mountbatten had dandruff? -- They found his head and shoulders on the beach" (For those of you who do not know "Head and Shoulders" is the most popular brand of anti-dandruff shampoo sold in the UK and Ireland) --Philip Baird Shearer 12:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In the US as well71.63.119.49 23:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt such black humour proves anything either way. In the wake of every modern disaster or murder widely covered by the media such jokes do the rounds irrespective of what was thought of the victims. Dainamo (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV as regards to bewildering Canadian section

What? Are there any sources about his reputation in Canada? Or the Queens opinion of him? Or the fact that Canadian veterens are "staunchly pro-monarchy?" (Pelegius)

Sarah Bradford's George VI: The Reluctant King as to the Queen Mother's opinion of him, and for that matter the King's, and the Canadian veterans' (then) staunch support of the monarchy. As to blame of Mountbatten by Canadians for the Dieppe fiasco, Pierre Berton, Marching as to War: Canada's Turbulent Years ISBN: 0-385-25819-4. But what is bewildering about this section? Masalai

What a curious article. Is it quite comprehensive, reasonably well-written and appears to have been constructed by someone with some knowledge of the subject and the literature (although could do with more in some areas, e.g. wartime service) but is completely compromised by the unbelievably obvious point of view in the Dieppe section, as well as some other peculiar, irrelevent and redundant comments ('No doubt he was thinking of his own youthful and tumultuous marriage to Edwina; of course the Prince's own marriage to Lady Diana Spencer turned out to be even more tumultuous.')

Specific examples of the former:

'It remains an open question whether Queen Elizabeth's much-documented ambivalence regarding Lord Mountbatten had anything to do with her great fondness for Canada, which she frequently visited both officially and unofficially and often said was her "second home."'

'And the younger Royal generation's elaborate indifference to Commonwealth countries, including those which maintain the Queen as their head of state, will in due course render this issue entirely so.)'

eh? Apart from the amusement value I fail to understand what is going on here. The result of ongoing edit wars maybe, or subtle vandalism? I suggest the contributing editor refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV !!! I shall be checking back periodically to see how this is progressing, because apart from this strange passage the article is pretty good and worth the effort to get it up to a really high standard. Odd.86.142.232.45 04:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Have taken some steps in this regard. Comments welcome.Badgerpatrol 02:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the questionable citation used as a reference for the claim that Canadians, and particularly the RC Legion, resent Mountbatten. I have substituted a scholarly secondary source (from Brian Loring Villa's study of the Dieppe raid). I think part of the problem is that to Canadians, especially early baby boomers like me, hating Mountbatten is second nature; we don't need no stinking evidence. One of the values of Villa's book is that it demonstrates we've been demonizing him (and the rest of the world idolizing him). Approximate Vicinity 19:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Louis and Maria

Is it true that he kept a photograph of Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia by his bedside until the day he died? PMA 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep. I have his photo history album book and he mentions how he kept a photograph of her and cherished the thought of one day marrying her, although this was probably a childhood crush. 69.135.213.11 03:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Intimate with Nehru

What does "It is generally assumed that his wife Edwina had been intimate with Nehru" mean? A one-night stand? A long sentimental relation? A spiritual friendship?

Not everybody has a command of British euphemism.

Sounds to me as though you have a perfect command of it: it is deliberately vague because the extent of intimacies between dead people is often hard to verify and potentially libelous to assert. It was much rumoured during Mountbatten's viceroyalty and subsequently that the couple had an affair during their stay in India and may have resumed it on Nehru's subsequent visits to England. But according to The Pioneer, February 12, 2003, the recently deceased Lord Brabourne, Mountbatten's son-in-law and former naval aide-de-camp, citing the couple's hundreds of letters to each other, stated that "Philip Ziegler and Janet Morgan (biographers of Louis Mountbatten and Edwina respectively) are the only two people who have seen the letters apart from the two families, and neither of them thinks there was anything physical." But it would not have been a problem if the relationship had become physical, as the Mountbattens had an explicitly "open marriage". Lethiere 08:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal correspondence between the two reveals a satisfying yet frustrating relationship is about the dumbest statement I have ever seen. What was it? Couldn't have been both.

-- 84.180.187.143 (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Gandhi

Didn't he and KGV get along well with Gandhi? AllStarZ 19:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

"No doubt he was thinking of his own youthful and tumultuous marriage to Edwina; 
of course the Prince's own marriage to Lady Diana Spencer 
turned out to be even more tumultuous."

I have deleted this paragraph as it is a POV.

Correct usage of title

Debrett's confirms that while it is correct to refer to Earl Mountbatten of Burma, the informal usage is simply Lord Mountabatten. The 'of Burma' would only be used if there were two Lords Mountbatten. Balliol 12:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Even then, the informal usage would often be simply "Lord Mountbatten." Note Lord Curzon, for instance, who is almost never called "Lord Curzon of Kedleston," despite the existence of another Lord Curzon (Viscount Curzon is the courtesy title used by the heirs to the Earls Howe). john k 14:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Why don't you go ahead and delete the "of Burma"s, both here and in the "Edwina Mountbatten, Countess Mountbatten of Burma" article? It would certainly make for far greater readability. Masalai 14:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There are presently two Lords Wilson in Cambridge alone, and both masters of colleges, one the former Cabinet Secretary, the other a distinguished scientist. Yet each is simply referred to as Lord Wilson (except when nicknames too improper to be quoted here are used). The geographic suffix has now become all but meaningless, in good measure due to Mountbatten's vainglorious assumption of Burma to his Earldom. The Earl Marshall, the Duke of Norfolk, who did hold estates in that county, was persuaded against his better judgement as head of the College of Arms, I believe. Balliol 18:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Your reference to there being "two Lords Wilson" in Cambridge brings to mind the (in my opinion quite justified) complaint of Lady Young in the House of Lords: "However, it would help the whole debate if the noble Baroness did not keep saying that there are two "Baroness Youngs": if I may say so, I am the Baroness Young, while she is the Baroness Young of Old Scone. We would not run into such difficulties if the noble Baroness were to refer to herself in that correct form of address on all occasions." And I would have thought the existence of two peers with "Wilson" in their titles in close proximity would be all the more reason to be extra careful to distinguish between them (and "of Dinton" vs "of Tillyorn" seems much better than "of Emma" vs "of Peterhouse"). Proteus (Talk) 12:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly does Debrett's "confirm" this? And I'm afraid I must continue to assert that this usage (though, I'm sure, John, it's very common) is totally incorrect. Peers below the rank of Duke are informally referred to as "Lord <title>", and the title in this case is "Mountbatten of Burma". It may have been formed by combining his surname and a place name, but once created it became simply a combination of letters making up a peerage (and unaffected by such irrelevant events as the holder's surname changing and Burma ceasing to be called Burma). Calling him "Lord Mountbatten" as if you could refer to peers simply by sticking "Lord" in front of a convenient name is just lazy, and in some cases completely misleading. Lady Carnegy of Lour, for instance, was "Elizabeth Carnegy of Lour" before being ennobled, not "Elizabeth Carnegy". Her "of Lour" wouldn't be missed off as a normal person, as it's part of her name, and there's absolutely no difference between that and a peerage. I can see it's tempting to see the "of" as a connecting word rather than part of the title, but really it's no different to "de" in many older titles. To quote myself on a different talk page:

Lord Dacre of Glanton wasn't someone called Lord Dacre who came from Glanton (which would enable it to be snipped at second reference), he's someone whose title is "Baron Dacre of Glanton", and who definitely isn't Lord Dacre. If he isn't Lord Dacre, it's wrong to call him that, even at second reference. The fact that "of" is a connecting particle doesn't mean it should be treated as such when it's part of a peerage title, as grammatical rules shouldn't apply inside names. After all, it's just a translation of "de", found in some early peerage titles, and no one is going to refer to Lord Willoughby de Broke at second mention as "Lord Willoughby". If my legal name were "John Smith of Wikipedia", then I'd be referred to at second mention as "Mr Smith of Wikipedia", just as Henry Smith de Wikipedia would be called "Mr Smith de Wikipedia" — you couldn't truncate either of our names simply because they had an "of" (or a French version of "of") in them. Why should peerages be any different?

It might sound slightly cumbersome, but that's his fault for choosing that title (I have often suspected that people like Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare and Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon chose their titles for the very reason that no one will ever use the second part). I've never seen any justification provided for the (extremely common) practice of snipping off the "of Y" except cumbersomeness, and there are other British forms of address which provide similar cumbersomeness — Lord Justice John Smith (forced to be such due to the existence of plain Lord Justice Smith) must be (and always would be by decent sections of the media) referred to as such even after first reference: if you don't want to keep writing "Lord Justice John Smith" you have to write "the Lord Justice" or "the judge" or similar.

The situation is of course different for peers with "X and Y" titles, as they can quite correctly be called "Lord X" (and, indeed, if you called the Earl of Cork and Orrery "Lord Cork and Orrery" you'd get rather odd looks). Proteus (Talk) 17:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The "cumbersomeness" seems most relevant here: if you don't want to call him "Lord Mountbatten of Burma" very often (which I agree is cumbersome), then please call him "Mountbatten" (which is perfectly fine, as it's just a shorthand reference and doesn't imply that "Mountbatten" was his title). This is what WP:PEER says, as well: Peers whose titles are in the form "X of Y" should always be referred to by the full title, if a title is used, but use of the X alone, without a preceding "Lord" or "Lady", is fine. Example: the Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare should be called "Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare" or "Archer", but never "Lord Archer". I would have no objection to every reference in this article being to "Mountbatten". Proteus (Talk) 12:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And his wife?Masalai 19:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

On most occasions I see no reason why she can't be called "Mountbatten" as well. Looking through her article, most instances of "Lord Mountbatten of Burma" could be replaced with "her husband", which would solve most ambiguities (and probably make it flow much better). Proteus (Talk) 20:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that would be misleadingly and unnecessarily ambiguous. "Mountbatten" obviously universally means Louis (Lord Mountbatten [of Burma]) -- and not Edwina (Lady Mountbatten [of Burma]). You have not yet demonstrated any compelling reason why the demands of plain encyclopedic style and the usage of ALL published biographies of these people should give way to the arbitrary dicta of your wikpedia/nobility project when it comes to identifying these people. Masalai 11:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not in an article on someone else called Mountbatten. I'd imagine "Blair" pretty much universally refers to Tony Blair when used alone, but in an article on his wife she's quite naturally called "Blair" without ambiguity. By your logic she'd have to be called "Mrs Blair" throughout. And at least I've put forward logical argument, whereas you've just said "it's very common", which has never carried much weight as regards titles on Wikipedia. (It's very common to call Diana, Princess of Wales, "Princess Diana", and it's very common to call Queen Elizabeth II "the Queen of England", but that doesn't make them correct usage.) Proteus (Talk) 09:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling him "Mountbatten" is certainly not incorrect, nor is calling him "Lord Mountbatten" incorrect. It is simply informal. In formal contexts, like listing his title, the full title "Earl Mountbatten of Burma" should be used. First references, and so forth, are also fine. Otherwise, it's pure pedantry. It is no more incorrect to refer to him as "Mountbatten" than it is to refer to the PM at the time of the Suez Crisis as "Eden" rather than "Sir Anthony." john k 14:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No that's not the same thing, forename and surname can be seperate but you wouldn't normally split the surname itself or the forname. eg. Anne-Marie Douglas-Johnson could be called Anne-Marie or say Miss Douglas-Johnson but she's not correctly Marie, Douglas or even Marie Douglas. Alci12 14:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Except that you do split the name from the territorial designation in peerage titles. It's not the Curzon of Kedleston Line. I would be astonished to find any contemporary or later reference to Lord Curzon of Kedleston in which he is not regularly referred to as "Curzon". The idea that it is wrong to refer to "Curzon" or "Mountbatten" is ridiculous. It is, of course informal, but that's not the same thing at all. It would be incorrect to call Eden "Mr. Eden". But it is perfectly appropriate to call him Eden. It would, perhaps, be incorrect to refer to Mountbatten as "Earl Mountbatten," but it is completely acceptable to call him "Lord Mountbatten" or (certainly) "Mountbatten." Are people actually aruging that we can't call Mountbatten "Mountbatten"? john k 17:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not as far as I can see (in fact I explictly said it's fine by me). And of course it's not called the "Curzon of Kedleston Line", but it's not called the "Lord Curzon Line" either. (And as to it being "pure pedantry", that may well be true, but then a large part of this sort of thing on Wikipedia could be described as such. I'd imagine, if asked about it, most people would regard the recent discussion we had on whether people should be described as "King of Belgium" or "King of the Belgians" to be "pure pedantry", as well as the discussion on "Brunswick" vs "Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel", and that on "The Lord John Smith" vs "Lord John Smith", but obviously we realise that is is important to get these sorts of things perfectly right. And if being accused of being a pedant is what it takes for me to make Wikipedia totally correct, then that's something I'm willing to accept.) Proteus (Talk) 09:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Further to my modest suggestion that the correct informal usage of 'Lord Mountbatten' be adopted, rather than the more cumbersome 'Lord Mountabtten of Burma', I have now checked with a herald. Slains Pursuivant confirms that this is indeed correct. Balliol 22:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Great. It is a pity that you didn't at the same time confirm that "Lady Mountbatten" is correct, as the readability of the article on her is significantly hampered by this Proteus woman's insistence on "of Burma" at every single mention. Masalai 03:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, should have made it clear that I did and Slains confirms that 'Lady Mountbatten' is the correct informal usage. Adding 'of Burma' is not only incorrect it is a solecism. -- Balliol 09:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made a couple of minor but substantive (substantive being the operative word) edits to both this article and that on Lady Mountbatten, including reverting the recent foolish multiple insertions of "of Burma" that Proteus and her minions have insisted in inserting repeatedly. This lady appears to have an extremely extensive knowledge of the niceties of the forms of address in the English peerage but in the course of acquiring such knowledge she may somewhat have lost her perspective as to the object of the exercise, namely to impart knowledge in an accessible way. That being said, I am encouraged by the relative civility of her discourse in the present discussion: in other similar discussions she has been astonishingly unpleasant and at times extremely abusive, possibly rather invidiously trading on her age and gender vis-à-vis those who are inclined to delicacy as to persons like herself. I would strongly encourage her to apply her knowledge to improving the substantive content of Wikipedia articles such as this rather than obfuscating the informative purpose with trivial formalities, and at all times to treat other contributors with decency. Masalai 12:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Does anyone else find:

"Profession Admiral of the Fleet"

odd? Naval Officer/Commander A rank isn't a profession Alci12 14:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Admiral of the Fleet" definitely sounds odd. But I'm not sure either that "profession" is the best label for that field ("occupation" would seem more appropriate) or that that field's appropriate at all. It doesn't seem to add anything, and forces us to pigeon-hole him into a category when he doesn't really fit any of them. Proteus (Talk) 17:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, truth be told I'm not sure what the box does atm. Is his wife, 'profession' or religion really worth mentioning in an infobox. I think we either need a different and more suitable infobox or no box at all. Alci12 00:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Occupation" seems better than "profession". A rank isn't an occupation or a profession, but "naval officer" is certainly an occupation, and quite possibly a profession, in the second dictionary.com definition - "any vocation or business." Question, though - is George V's occupation "naval officer" as well? john k 17:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point is, do we really need it when the article covers the answer anyway and he wore several hats so it's no so simple as one answer. As to GV - occupation ""King of the United Kingdom and her dominions beyond the Seas; Emperor of India" ;) Alci12 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Murder vs Assassinate

His murderer was convicted by a British court in exactly the same way as the murderer of Pat Finucane was also convicted. It is PoV that one be murder and the other not.--Counter-revolutionary 11:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The guy was a leading military and statesman figure and was killed during a war therefore to state that it was murder is purely POV.--Vintagekits 11:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

During war my bum it was. If the Eire was at war, none was declared. How is that for keeping within the Geneva Conventions? If Eire makes war, NATO would turn up. As Eire however chooses to lock up IRA convicts, that consept seems like it will not happen. Eire is a stable country not because of the IRA, but in despite of the IRA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.222.233 (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

By that measure Pat Finucane was also killed during a war. (For the record I would describe that as murder). You disagree however.--Counter-revolutionary 11:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Do I disagree? Please show me where I disagree - I've never even edited the Pat Finucane article. Anyway this is about this article.--Vintagekits 11:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The policies should be consistent. If you disagree make wikipedia a better place and change the article.--Counter-revolutionary 11:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it was murder for goodness' sake. We are talking about an old man out for a sail on his boat with his grandson. To state that it was murder is not POV, it's simply completely accurate, although if one side or the other strongly objects to the term (I don't see how anyone could however) a compromise word could be arrived at (e.g. "killed"). What on Earth is going on here? Badgerpatrol 11:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. "Wtf?" summates the case fairly accurately!--Counter-revolutionary 11:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we simply continue to partake in the ongoing discussion over at the Village Pump, then when consensus has been reached edit the articles accordingly? Or is there something stupid about that idea? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is stupid. The man convicted of his murder was convicted of murder. That is that. --Michael Johnson 09:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No its not as simple as that - in this case "murder" like "terrorist" is POV - I dont see many murderers getting set free as part of a peace accord to end a war.--Vintagekits 09:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly McMahon was a murderer. He was convicted of murder in an Irish Court and imprisoned in Ireland. He was not involved in a war at all. He was one of several murderers who were freed as part of the Good Friday agreement, which makes VK plain wrong. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed stupid. Finucane was murdered, Mountbatten was murdered. Those are facts. Amnesties for criminals are common in many countries across the world, for whatever reason. Badgerpatrol 10:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yer all wrong. He was assassinated. It's an NPOV term that combines killed, murdered, leader, and war all in one. Rklawton 01:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If his assassins were indeed convicted of murder then he was murdered, but not otherwise. However, as Rklawton points out, "assassinated" covers all corners and also imports the political element. Masalai 05:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed it from murdered to assassinated, this discussion Here is a previous debate on this issue where it was agreed that murdered was POV and killed should be used in the lead of articles and that murdered should only be used if it appeared in quotes.--padraig 22:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it was a politically motivated murder and, therefore, assassination is the more precise term to use in our encyclopaedia. I disagree utterly that an agreement was reached in the Village Pump discussion you referenced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W. Frank (talk • contribs) 12:58:16, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

He was an officer in the navy and was killed by a Volunteer of OnaH - I see nothing wrong there - assassination should be reserved for top political figure.--Vintagekits 13:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So if only political figureheads are assasinated, John lennon was not? Öh my God, I dön't like changes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.222.233 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Was he not the Viceory of India or a German Prince or a member of the House of Lords? --Counter-revolutionary 13:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully the terrorists has left India that stage and if you look at the article, under occupation it states "Admiral of the Fleet" - a military position wouldnt you say!--Vintagekits 13:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think listing that as his occupation has been, and is to be, debated. --Counter-revolutionary 13:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Are these comments within the terms and spirit of your parole, VK? Badgerpatrol 14:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia as an encyclopedia must use the correct definitions irrespective of opinions and personal orientations. Mountbatten was killed for political reasons and therefore was ASSASSINATED (refer Oxford Dictionary or any other dictionary). If there was no political motive then he would have been MURDERED. Boatman (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Truly sickening stuff. "Murdered by the British Army" appears on quite a number of IRA gunmen's gravestones. Mountbatten doesn't have "assassinated by a volunteer" on his tomb, I'll bet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.182.184.113 (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

MacMahon was convicted of murder therefore there is no argument that murder is POV. I have left the heading as Assassination as there is scope for both points of view but have added several references to the term murder. If it is reverted I will change the heading from Assassination to Murder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.13.218 (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Assassinate is the correct term for a politically motivated murder. O Fenian (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You use the term murder yourself which proves my point. Regardless of the motivation he was convicted of the criminal offence of murder. His motive is POV. You cannot argue that a man convicted of murder did not carry out a murder and that the crime was not murder.

Collins English Dictionary - assassinate - "to murder (a person, esp a public or political figure), usually by a surprise attack". No point-of-view, just the correct term. O Fenian (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So you acknowledge the term Murder referring to an illegal killing which this unarguably was. Why do you want it to be excluded from the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.13.218 (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

@82 If you agree they are the same then why do you want to add a term that is emotive and doesn't really add anything. Mo ainm~Talk 12:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Mountbatten was not a political or religious leader. He was a retired 79-year-old man on holiday with his family. The introduction should state either that he was murdered or killed. I suggest killed would be better as it is the most neutral term. His murder by a group of unemployed terrorists was by no means an "assassination". (92.7.28.215 (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC))

There is no requirement for someone to be a "political or religious leader" for it to be an assassination as any prominent figure can be assassinated, and in any case it is called an assassination by reliable sources. I was not aware Mountbatten ever retired from being a member of the royal family? O Fenian (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't retire from being a member of the Royal Family, but he did keep his views on Ireland unknown for fear of causing embarrassment to the Queen who is required to be politically neutral. Mountbatten had been completely retired for decades at the time of his murder by a terrorist organisation. Multiple sources confirm it was a murder, which is what the killer was convicted of. You cannot say John Lennon was assassinated because he, like Mountbatten, was just a private citizen. (92.7.28.215 (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC))

Well I suppose here that there could be room for compromise as both sides agree that the definition of the context is more-or-less the same so I would suggest that maybe as a compromise you could put in there "illegally killed", that way it says that he was murdered and at the same time, that it was an assasination. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It was clearly an assassination, no need to compromise with an edit warring IP --Snowded ^TALK 20:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. Mo ainm~Talk 20:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Assassination is murder, it differentiates the common murderer from someone who does it for political reasons. O Fenian (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Since Mountbatten was not a political figure this in an invalid point. The introduction should say he was killed or murdered because the term assassinated is POV. (92.7.28.215 (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC))

He was a political figure, which is why he was a target. You are edit warring, you have broken 3rr and the 1rr restriction. You have failed to abide by WP:BRD. Best to wait for you to be blocked and then get the article semi-protected.--Snowded ^TALK 20:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In agreement with Snowded. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In agreement with Snowded. I'm no particular fan of the IRA nor a particularly strong critic of Mountbatten, and I find his murder appalling; but his political prominence, and the fact he was targeted because of it, clearly makes this murder an assassination. Yaush (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Killed" is the the prefered NPOV term elsewhere on the project. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Mountbatten was not a political figure by any definition, and at the time of his murder he had been retired for twenty years. "Killed" would be a far less POV term to use. (92.7.3.200 (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC))

Is the community gonna have to seek a range-block, to put a stop to you & your agenda? GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the IP editor cannot help contradicting himself. He repeatedly refers to the IRA as "terrorists" thus acknowledging that their violence was politically motivated, but then claims that "assassinated" (politically motivated murder) is "highly POV". It is not "highly POV" to suggest the killing of Mountbatten was politically motivated, it is simple fact. O Fenian (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The IRA are indeed terrorists under international law, although in reality they are all just unemployed losers. The murder of a retired 80-year-old man was in no way an assassination. (92.7.31.1 (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Mountbatten installation as Viceroy.jpg

Image:Mountbatten installation as Viceroy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Edwinamountbatten.jpg

Image:Edwinamountbatten.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Monarch during his time in India

The page lists Elisabeth II who did not start her reign until 1952, obviously it should read George VI

I understand the criticism always addressed at Wikipedia, because of sloppy editing like this. 58.69.54.172 (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Corrected. 77.102.248.170 (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Who divided India?

Masterpiece Theatre's 2006 documentary "Lord Mountbatten" faults the Muslim League's Ali Jinnah for divided India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.209.150 (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't care whose "fault" it is, but clearly the current version of the article which states that Jinnah sought to keep India united and that Nehru opted for partition just to get rid of him, is utter bullshit. There is a "source", but naturally it's a book, not a link, and impossible for most to check on. Even if the book DOES say this, though, it's one source against dozens that say the opposite. I'm deleting the statement. 98.82.194.33 (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Found the origin of the statement I just deleted: [2] Just another example of bullshit vandalism that somehow survived for nearly two years. The solitary edit by an anonymous editor.. What hope is there? We need to REQUIRE all editors to register. 98.82.194.33 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC).

Radio Detonation

"McMahon detonated the bomb from shore"

This statement is simply not possible. McMahon was in an Irish prison two hours before the bomb was detonated.

There were two theories as to the detonation of the bomb. First, that the bomb was triggered by an action of the crew (opening a compartment, for example). Second, that the bomb was radio detonated by a an unknown third assassin. Regardless, McMahon was in custody roughly eighty miles away when the boat exploded.

Octavian2009 (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If I may second that, I just watched a television program about the murder of Mountbatten and the subsequent efforts to convict his killers. Octavian is right: that must have been one amazingly small transmitter with amazingly great transmission power, b/c McMahon was in a Garda station far away at the time of the bombing. The show centered around the scientist who led the efforts to develop a forensic case against McMahon. He noted that while the prosecution theorized remote control (in part to leave open the possibility of future prosecutions of potential as yet unidentified co-conspirators) he was very skeptical of this, believing instead that the bomb operated by booby trap. Note that this is from the man who did all of the scientific work in this case.

-Peter July 26, 2009. 6:40pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.245.59 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger

I think that the article Earl_Mountbatten_of_Burma should be merged with this since both articles are about the same person. --Skbhat (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The article entitled Earl_Mountbatten_of_Burma should be about the peerage and the various persons who have held it. This article is about Louis Mountbatten, the person. Dormskirk (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. In a few years there will almost certainly be a new Earl Mountbatten of Burma, since the countess is 85 years old. john k (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose there are dozens of peerage related articles such as this one and there have already been two holders of the title so the articles should stay seperated.67.84.178.0 (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

usage of british english

this article about a british person has been written with americanized english... in quite a few spots at any rate.... in view of it being written about a british person, the 'american words' ought to be changed to their 'british versions'... now dont start any disputes over here - this format is used in practically most articles in wikipedia (sparing the ones not notified yet)... so i'm basically stating the necessity for the change... me cant start on it rite now, though.... thanks.... Krishvanth (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The type of English used is based on who first created an article, not on the subject matter. If an American started the article using American-English, that's what we stick with, per the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.2.55 (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Bisexuality

Given that it is common knowledge that he was bisexual, why is there no mention of this in the article??? Perhaps somebody who is more knowledgeable on this could put this in. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.155.45 (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a reliable source for that? A quick look didn't reveal anything - I found mentions of "hints", "rumours", "said to be.." - but nothing definite and useable. His wife, on the other hand, was often mentioned as the "bisexual Lady Mountbatten" - but not Louis. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(removed) - read the BLP policy

Styles and titles

An IP boldly removed many of the styles and titles form the article here. I reverted them, with a suggestion that such a change be discussed on the talk page here. The IP then reverted here, saying "Not necessary, just follow the guidelines acc. WP:MOSBIO". I've not reverted the IP again, but do think the matter should be discussed here on the talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

St Nazaire Raid

This article makes it sound like Mountbatten was a very important figure in the St Nazaire Raid, but that article does not mention him at all (other than in the References section, since his book is cited a number of times.) Should this article be corrected, or that one? Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

At the time he was Chief of Combined Operations, so yes, he did play an important role in the St Nazaire Raid

Ribbon Bar

The ribbon bar shows as its first ribbon a ribbon for the Order of the Garter. The Order does not have or use a ribbon. And as such should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.26.25 (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Succession boxes serve to illustrate succession. If there is neither predecessor nor successor, i.e. if there is no succession to illustrate, why should the box be there? Such boxes are normally not included, which isn't suprprising, since it's common sense not to put useless templates into articles. Also, why should there be seperate boxes for titles that were granted at the exact same time and inherited by the same person? That is not common practice; in fact, it's not even common practice to include the lesser of such titles at all. See relevant articles for examples. Surtsicna (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed for subsidiary titles in this case but be careful as titles created together and with a common heir can have a different remainder and therefore should be separated. Also you can have peerages with no succession where the same title has or is regranted to a sibling or relative where leaving the box as a link to the other titles has advantages. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on the subordinate titles, but what do you mean by "neither predecessor nor successor"? I don't see any examples here. Choess (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There aren't any anymore. I was referring to boxes such as this one:

New office	Supreme Commander of the Southeast Asian Theatre of World War II 1943–1946	Position abolished

We don't use succession boxes for life peerages for exactly the same reason (no predecessor + no successor = no succession = no need for a succession box). Surtsicna (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I might make the distinction between positions that intrinsically have no succession (e.g., life peerages) as against those that contingently lack a successor (a created hereditary peer that dies without heirs). I suppose you could argue for the retention of that example on the grounds that someone other than Mountbatten could have been assigned to relieve him in that position, but given the amount of cruft at the bottom of articles these days, I can't really bring myself to muster a strong objection to its removal. Choess (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

His father, wrongly-placed information, and other points

“In 1914, because of the growing anti-German sentiments that swept across Europe during the first few months of World War I, Prince Louis of Battenberg was removed from his position as First Sea Lord and publicly humiliated by King George V and First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill. Though both men professed 'sadness' at having to do this, private conversations and letters show them both perfectly happy to sacrifice their "blue-eyed German".[7]” Surely this belongs in the article on his father (if it is true)? PhilomenaO'M (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As nobody has commented I've removed it. I have also added the name of his "elder daughter" in the paragraph concerning his death (explosion onthe boat) as i found it confusing without. I think "famously cuckolded by" is POV. If you have an acknowledged "open marriage" you are not "cuckolded". There is still the silly phrase "satisfying but frustrating". PhilomenaO'M (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't know about the blue eyed bit, but the fact his father was abruptly removed from head of the navy seems to have made a deep impression on him and contributed to his determination to excel. He made a big thing of finally becoming first sea lord himself and sitting in the board room under his dad's picture. So it ought to be in there. The anti-german feeling affected his personal experience too as a cadet. However, the biography by ziegler suggests the navy on the whole respected Battenberg sr. and this fed through to him.

I suspect there ought to be more on his early naval career. He was first posted to the battlecruiser Lion under Beatty and seems to have had a similar temperament: a bit gung-ho but several of his actions were criticised afterwards for not doing the right thing one way or another. Praised for saving his ship after damage, but criticised for allowing it to be damaged in the first place. Beatty was brilliant at deflecting blame and organising media coverage of his own exploits and there seems to have been a touch of this about Mountbatten. It was an interesting point in naval history to have joined Lion, just after major flaws in ship's procedures had led to the loss of three british battlecruisers at Jutland and lion nearly went the same way.Sandpiper (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Major John Ronald Beaton

The beginning of the last paragraph in the section on World War 2 reads "During his time as Supreme Allied Commander of the Southeast Asia Theatre, his command oversaw the recapture of Burma from the Japanese by General William Slim and Major John Ronald Beaton"--Who was Major John Ronald Beaton: I suggest that his name should be removed.

Almost certainly vandalism that has escaped notice until now. I'm going to remove it. --Yaush (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair use images

https://www.flickr.com/photos/pimu/2407356256/

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/pimu/tags/gandhi/

http://www.oldindianphotos.in/2012/01/lord-and-lady-mountbatten-with-mohammed.html

http://www.pakistanipakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/14august1947-370x250.jpg

http://www.pakistanipakistan.com/2014/10/05/the-viceroys-interview-with-mahomed-ali-jinnah-and-liaquat-ali-khan/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703956604576109412540611194

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-MD097_igandh_H_20110128034906.jpg

Rajmaan (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Two-nation theory

@Skosoy: You have been edit-warring over this edit [3], which is quite unacceptable. To begin with, you need to provide a translated title of the book, page number, a quotation from the book that establishes your content as well as its English translation.

Your content itself makes no sense and adds very little information. The history of Two-nation theory is well known and documented on its page. There is no "Britain University" involved there. So, even if your source claims something like this, it is WP:FRINGE and should not be used.

Finally, what does all this have to do with Mountbatten? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Connections with Freemasonry

A friend once told me that Lord Mountbatten was a freemason, a very senior freemason. Is there any evidence to support this. I notice there is no mention of his masonic connections in the article. Has this been discussed before?

Klynchk (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)