Talk:Thomas Eyre Macklin

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

A fact from Thomas Eyre Macklin appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 June 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the bronze statue atop Thomas Eyre Macklin's 1907 South African War Memorial in Newcastle became known as the "Dirty Angel" (pictured)?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Eyre Macklin.

Message to editors[edit]

At the time of writing, this article is still in the process of expansion and restructuring. It is important for you to know that while a large number of sources are being consulted and added to the article, it can happen that some sources are contradictory, some turn out to be inaccurate (disproved by other sources) and some sources may be about to be replaced by other, better ones. Therefore it is unwise to remove the under-construction tag until the editor(s) doing the expansion/restructuring say that they have finished. At the time of writing, this article has been entered for DYK, and there is a notice on the DYK template requesting potential reviewers to kindly wait until the under-construction template is removed before reviewing, thus saving themselves and everyone else a lot of wasted time. So please refrain from removing the construction template, and please be assured that the editor(s) concerned will remove it at the right time, in order to allow the DYK reviewers to see a completed piece of work. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Storye book (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Parentage section matters[edit]

Please do not remove large sections of the parentage section without discussion. Macklin very likely lied about his birthplace and his father's birthplace in order to be seen as a local artist, and to fit into the community, in order to promote himself as an artist and get work. His birth certificate is missing from the England and Wales index, and his father's and mother's baptism certificates are missing from England and Wales lists. They may have all grown up in Newcastle, but it is unusual to find no evidence that any one of them was born there. There is, however, circumstantial evidence that the three of them may well have been born in what is now Northern Ireland, since they all spent the last years of their lives there, they had an Irish name, and Macklin said he had Donegal ancestors. He may have got away with pretending to Newcastle origin, but he would not have got away with pretending Donegal ancestry in Irish newspapers. So we can question the Newcastle claim, but we don't yet have reason to dispute the Donegal claim.

Therefore it is worth including detail of his parentage and the character of his parents, where information is available, to aid future research into Macklin's origins. Macklin's father and wife were both closely associated with one of the Newcastle newspapers, and the father used to write long and possibly embroidered articles there about his past exploits as a soldier. The wife wrote stories in the same paper. Both did it well, and it could well have assisted newspaper sales. During Macklin's later career, even after old John Eyre Macklin had died, and Macklin's marriage had broken down, that same newspaper continued to remind readers in a positive manner of Macklin's father and wife, when mentioning Macklin's successes as an artist. It was all part of his public persona. He was an intensive networker, belonging to various influential social groups both in Newcastle and in Northern Ireland. In those days, though, it mattered who your parents were, and you were judged on that. That is his historical context, and we cannot leave that out. If Macklin had been one of our contemporary living artists, that would be less important today, because we can make our own way in a career with or without parental support, or social class approval.

Macklin and his parents were obviously Irish. His father possibly had an Irish accent. They all had an Irish surname. The Irish had been strongly discriminated against since the mass immigration of poor, starving, uneducated Irish people, driven by the famine of the 1840s. From that time, the Irish in England suffered severe racism, and it was very difficult for many of them to find work. I remember in the 1950s in England, seeing that sign still there, "No blacks, no Irish, no dogs" on rental and bed-and-breakfast houses. So Macklin had his work cut out to make a name for himself as an artist, and being a local artist was not just buying into the inter-city rivalry which then held force throughout England. It was about not being Irish.

Therefore, please do not delete information about his parentage. We need to assist further research into the social background of this artist, because it reflects directly on who he was, and how he dealt with that. The parentage section is not about pointless genealogy. It is about where Macklin fits into British social history, and it is also about whether he was successful due to having rich, acceptable or supportive parents, or whether he succeeded in life against almost-insuperable odds. Storye book (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update. The birth certificate of Thomas Eyre Macklin has now been found, erroneously registered under the surname Eyre. So he didn't lie about his birth place. However, I am glad that we did have all that bmd information in the article notes, and the above comment, because it prompted the correction, for which we can be grateful. Storye book (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cavrdg, for finding the birth certificate! Storye book (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1907 or 1908?[edit]

@Storye book: As this is about to hit the Main Page soon, could you clarify whether the Dirty Angel is from 1907 or 1908? The Man Page entry currently says 1907, please ping me or use WP:ERRORS if this is wrong. —Kusma (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I have seen support 1907, but it should still be clarified why the article talks about 1908. —Kusma (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The monument was sculpted in 1907, and unveiled in 1908. The EH listing says it was sculpted in 1907. The newspaper says it was unveiled in 1908. I have clarified the article accordingly. It is better to say 1907 in the hook, because that is the date given in the official listing for the sculpting, and that is the source that most people will expect to be able to check out. In truth, EH errors and omissions are plentiful (sigh), but in this case they have got the date of sculpting correct. Storye book (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is better. I thought it was something like that, but I was confused for a moment when I did some checks when I promoted this for Main Page appearance. —Kusma (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birth registration[edit]

How about this one? Name: EYRE, THOMAS MACKLIN; Mother: CHARLTON; GRO Reference: 1863, Apr-Jun Quarter in NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE; Volume: 10B; Page: 10 --Cavrdg (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the likely related marriage Jul-Sep Quarter 1862 NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE; Volume: 10B; Page: 222; Eyre, John Macklin and Charlton, Margaret. --Cavrdg (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! Thank you. I see now why I didn't find it: both of those are registered under the surname Eyre, instead of Macklin. I have added them to the notes in the article. So they didn't lie about their birth places. That is good to know. Storye book (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I see there is an 1851 census record for a Margaret Charlton, age 14, born in Carlisle, in Warwick, Cumberland where she is shown as an Adopted Child so her birth name may not have been Charlton (though it may have been if she was a niece or cousin). --Cavrdg (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - Thank you! As you probably know, there was no formal adoption until (I think) about 1921-ish, so it depends on what they meant by adoption. I think they meant in general just sort of taking the child on, and there were so many different scenarios for that in those days, weren't there. There were of course far more deaths in childbirth than there are now. Also, large families would loan out a kid or two to uncles or grandparents who needed help in the family trade or whatever. And that's before you get to the foundlings, and the unexpected extra sibling etc. I know that "nephew" and "niece" were sometimes euphemisms for illegitimate offspring. I guess we'll never know about Margaret Charlton, though I'd love to know. Storye book (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the 1841 census, it seems Margaret was already with the Charltons in Warwick. It looks like her surname was originally written as a Do. after the Charltons but then changed. Ancestry has it transcribed as Berrell and FindMyPast as Burrell. There are no other Berrells in Cumberland and all the other Burrells are in Penrith. There were some people with the surname Birrel or Birrell in Carlisle and three Birrell deaths registered there in 1839. As you say, we'll probably never know for sure - unless a descendant decides to do some research and takes a DNA test. Her birth was probably just too early for civil registration. --Cavrdg (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - you are doing a brilliant job of detection! I have added your info into a note in the article, in the hope that future biographers can use it. Cheers. Storye book (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]