User talk:David Lauder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Major Bonkers says hello

Sorry to see that you fell into the trap so carefully prepared. Nil desperandum! --Major Bonkers 12:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems that way doesn't it. Never mind. Thanks for calling by. David Lauder 20:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This might cheer you up. 'Nuff said!--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Didn't open - said "page cannot be found". David Lauder 11:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Go to The Daily Telegraph's homepage and type 'Essjay' into the search engine. Major Bonkers (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh bugger! Well, you'll have to do it yourself then. Go to the DT's homepage, locate their search engine (top right corner) and type in 'Essjay'. Sorry for the duff links. You need to upgrade your computer to a Mac! Major Bonkers (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giffards

Good start. I had asked you previously about details because, although I had been brought up on tales of the family, having lived not far from Gifford as a child, I don't have any hard copy or confirmation of them. The interesting thing abut your assertion about their dependency on the de Varenne family, is that this presumably is one and the same as the de Warenne, Earls of Surrey. Also Countess Ada of ecclesiastic fame, and it is thought that Harvei de Keith, the Marischal , used this Nomen prior to obtaining the Barony of Keith through his wife.

I am sorry to see that you've been subject to a large amount of 'biting'. I find hitting inanimate objects helps! Brendandh 13:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm inclined to agree that it is probably de Warenne. Maybe thats what Barrow meant and it is a typesetting mistake? I have more information somewhere on the Giffords but it is a question of finding it. David Lauder 13:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that rather than a typesetting error, it may be the fact that a V phonetically in Latin is a W. I seem to remember hearing somewhere that the original de Warennes, had something to do with victualling the Dukes of Normandy, from the same root as rabbit warren, probably fallacious tho'. On another note, I've been rearranging some referencing on Douglas related articles. You have one on the Archibald the Grim article, citing Crawfurd's Peerage, I wonder could you give me the date of your edition so I can put it in? I'm trying to smarten it up and adding some more beef, so it might get better than a B rating. Thanks Brendandh 15:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I shall try and find it for you. David Lauder 16:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Phew! Found it under a pile. It is 1716. David Lauder 11:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lords of Galloway

I take it this is a reference to my comments on the Archibald the Grim edit box. The lord of Galloway wasn't a feudal lord, he was a prince. You should be careful about applying continental feudal rankings to Scotland without reading between the lines and dealing with ambiguous Latin terminology ... i.e. what do ordinary people think about and call the Lord of Galloway or the Lord of the Isles, as opposed to the lord of Ardrossan. Dominus could refer to two things: it could refer to a feudal large or small-scale lord who had no right to be an earl (mormaer), or to a king[let] (rí) who the Scottish crown couldn't very well style Rex (or even regulus) to the rest of the European world. Not the same thing, I assure you. And if you think that kind of thing is irrelevant by Archibald's time, then lemme quote you a Spanish diplomat accounting for Scottish lordships, Don Pedro de Ayala writing in 1498:

"There are four Duchies in the Kingdom. Three of them are in the possession of the King [Albany, Rothesay and Montrose]; the fourth is held by the eldest brother of the king, who is Duke of Ross. There are fifteen counts, not counting the younger brother of the king who holds two of them. Nine other counties are in the possession of the king

But he goes on:

There are two principalities; one of them is the principatus insularum [Lordship of the Isles] and the other the principatus Gallovidiae [Lordship of Galloway]. Both are held by the king. There are two archbishoprics and eleven bishoprics".

And how can the Lordship of Galloway possibly be a less worthy title when it formerly incorporated the earldoms of Wigtown and Carrick, retaining territory larger than either even after both had been created/ Archibald the Grim took the earldom of Wigtown because he believed it was part of the Lordship of Galloway. So you see, much more complicated than you were suggesting. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Riddell does indeed state that Galloway was once independent of both the Scottish and Pictish kingdoms and was governed then by Reguli, or Princes. It is debateable, however, that they were recognised elsewhere as such. About 500AD Whithorn in Galloway was, it appears, one of the Northumbrian bishoprics. Riddell continues that "after the annihilation of the Pictish kingdom, the monarchs of Scotland assumed a feudal superiority over the lords of Galloway, even though disputed by the Gallwegian reguli." In the reign of David I of Scotland he gained a greater influence over the lords of Galloway. Riddell gives many references for the 7th and 8th centuries but all refer to Lord of Galloway. It appears to me that the term "Prince" whether popularly used or not was legally incorrect. Galloway was never a principality, as such, and it is a debateable point whether it was ever on the same level as the Lordship of the Isles. Macbeth killed the then lord of Galloway and Canmore is said to have usurped the revenues of Whithorn when Fergus was Lord of Galloway. The history of the Lords of Galloway from thereon down, Alan, et al, is well documented, but whatever category you wish to put the Lordship of Galloway it surely has no bearing on that of an Earl in the time of the Douglases when the continental feudal system regulated these things. There have been a variety of dream-like traditions associated with Gallwegians and Galloway but that is not uncommon in Scottish history. Personally it seems to me that the lords of Galloway were just magnates of their time not unlike, say, the later Dukes of Sutherland who had tens of thousands of acres and tenants under their control. Unless you can direct me to where a foreign court regarded the Lords of Galloway as Princes in their own right after, say, Canmore, or where a Scottish King called himself Prince of Galloway, we shall just have to agree to disagree. (An Account of the ancient Lordship of Galloway, from the earliest period to the year 1455, by Robert Riddell of Glenriddell, Esq., Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, November 15, 1787). David Lauder 16:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

David, you're really far off. I don't know where to start. The Lords of Galloway have nothing to do with the 8th century , and 18th century sources are practically worthless ... as the various views your citing should show you (I mean, neither Máel Coluim III nor Mac Bethad had any documented relationship with any Galwegian prince - no Lord of Galloway is attested until 1034, Suibne mac Cinaeda, I could go on). Pretty please don't write anything on wikipedia based on that kind of source! Anyways, I direct you to my last post. The Lords of Galloways are styled "King" in Gaelic sources (and I believe Norse sources), and Fergus styles himself rex Galwitensium in a surviving charter. The Scottish kings never use any title except "King of Scots/Scotland" until very late. Another thing, you overestimate the importance of the "feudal system" - whatever that is - to Scotland, as Scotland had no peerage system until the 1440s. BTW, your article Hugo de Gifford, you might wanna check out Earl of Buckingham; also, the spelling should be Giffard - Gifford is the result what linguists call "false assimilation". Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I shall nevertheless stick to what you descibe as my flawed sources which are regarded by the most prominent historians as acceptable. No-one is perfect. I cannot condemn the great historians of the past as though we are somehow superior to them. Victor Hugo entreated us, on his deathbed, to honour and respect our forefathers. That includes the chroniclers of our history. Yes, I realise the surname was originally Giffard but most post 16th century sources are spelling it Gifford and I just didn't want to get into an argument with people who would have been citing them as well as the name of the town and stream etc., and messing the article up. Its called aiming at consensus: you will note that in the opening line I have given Giffard in brackets. Probably that is wrong also. It was almost certainly originally Gifart. I will look at the Earl of Buckingham (thanks) but I am aware of the English Giffards etc. I have much documentation on them. I was asked by another User if I would start something on Hugh, so I did. You could always edit it. I'm not really into edit wars. I prefer simple discourse. David Lauder 18:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "most prominent historians"? Edward Gibbon, Thomas Carlyle, Thomas Macaulay, John Pinkerton, David Hume? These guys are all dead; been dead for a while now! No historian today would even look at this kind of source, unless they were writing about 18th/19th century/enlightenment historiography. It's not that they were dumb, it's just that the techniques to sort good from bad sources were not availble to them; so, for instance, George Buchanan or Hector Boece were just as good a source to them as the Annals of Ulster or the Life of St Columba for early Scottish history. They thought they knew things they didn't know, we have a better idea of what we can know. So, we are superior to them in this way! Regarding Galloway, you have no need to consult (what would now be regarded as essentially) historical fiction from the 1700s, Richard Oram released a book this century on the topic. I ask you as a favour not to edit wikipedia based on 18th or 19th century works ... at least not without confirming their information from reputable modern works. Happy editing. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 08:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate you may be a purist but I am editing Wikipedia according to their laid down source requirements. You are not in a position to dictate to all of us what is a proper source and what is not. These are your opinions. Maybe I should put my history degree down the toilet, eh? David Lauder 10:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm no purist, I just don't want trash being dumped on wikipedia; if you base any article you do on those sources, chances are it will be source-based trash. You can't attack me for this, surely? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not attacking you for anything. But most British historians do not regard their time-honoured historians as "trash". Everyone has something to offer. Naturally we are all aware of the many inaccuracies of chroniclers and historians over the centuries. These are always being exposed and history is under constant revision as a result. And I am sorry but Wikipedia does not belong to you, and I do think that your personal instructions to other editors as to what consititutes historical accuracy and research could have been couched in better terms. A valid source remains a valid source, whether or not you approve. We are all trying to do our best. David Lauder 18:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
And that includes me; I'm only interested in improving wiki too. I've no intention of owning wikipedia ... just improving it. You're a nice guy, and I really didn't mean to offend you, and I respect your contributions; but using a 18th c. historian as an authoritive source of information about the Dark Ages stretched my credulity. Like I said, I respect you, but I do urge you not to rely on such sources for wikipedia edits. All the best, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bruntsfield House 1897.jpg

Hi. I found this image while patrolling images tagged as replaceable. This designation is only relevant to non-free images and if this is a scan from a book over 100 years ago, it's fine. But could you specify in the image the exact source (you scanned it yourself vs found it on a website), as well as the name of the book, the author, and the copyright date? Even if the image has lapsed into the public domain, we still need to cite our sources. I am going to retag the image as one needing a source, but once you have provided the necessary information, you can remove the tag. Thanks. --BigDT 12:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I have now complied. Let me know if that is insufficient. Regards, David Lauder 17:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] &

Heja, it is possible to move the article John Bellenden of Auchnole & Broughton, you have created, to another qualifier for example John Bellenden (judge) or John Bellenden (clerk)? I fear "&" is a sign nobody will look for. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 14:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC) ~~

Hello. I am not averse to that. Why not John Bellenden (Lord Justice Clerk) ? David Lauder 14:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I have moved it ... Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 18:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC) ~~

[edit] London theatres

Thanks for improving the articles on London theatres, they are all a bit deficient - and deserve better. The next stage I hope to move onto is providing references to information found in the articles. This will help to improve articles no end. It would help if when you add information to the articles you could provide a reference as to where you found it. Cheers. Kbthompson 12:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, suddenly my watchlist is full of theatres. All the best. Kbthompson 12:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Just following instructions! David Lauder 13:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Court Theatre

Why the deletion today? Do you think it's not true the RHS made its debut in the Theatre Upstairs? As one who was present, I can assure you that it did. El Ingles 15:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Er...what deletion. Have I deleted something? I will look again. Possibly I felt the chronology of the reworking of the interior and the upstairs downstairs auditoriums had been awry. It had originally been one large theatre/auditorium with a big 'room' on the top floor.. I have been there several times before the major refit which took several years, not just a few months as the article indicated. David Lauder 16:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The deleted phrase was "(in what is now the Theatre Upstairs)." El Ingles 17:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Cannot understand why I did that. Why not reinsert it? David Lauder 21:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the way it's been re-worded makes that a bit awkward. I'm content to let it go. Cheers. El Ingles 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding info to theatre articles

Hello, David. Thanks for your excellent contributions. I don't mean to be critical (and I agree with you that most of the theatre articles need considerable work), but I have a request: When you add information, would you please try to conform the style of the new info to the rest of the article (unless, of course, you are rewriting the whole article)? For instance, in some articles, only the *years* of events are listed throughout the existing article, but your new info has *months* and years, which makes the article look internally inconsistent. I don't think that, in general, a reader needs to know which month someone appeared at a theatre in order to understand the important facts about that theatre. Also, when you add the Reference, please add it to the existing list of References, without making a second heading for "references", as you did in the Savoy Theatre article. Thanks, and no criticism intended. -- Ssilvers 19:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Terribly sorry but I did not realise there was already a references section on the Savoy theatre page. How did I miss that? These things do happen, so many thanks for sorting that out. I note your comment about 'months' but most theatres have numerous plays in one single year, so I would argue that the month is important. Also, I was disappointed that you removed the reference and date for Basil Rathbone's first ever appearance on the London stage. A first also for the Savoy! David Lauder 12:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove it, although I slimmed down the reference a little. I didn't mean to drop the reference to his debut. Check it again, as I think it's OK now. (I'm not sure what you mean by "a first for the Savoy"? Lots of artists made their stage debut there....) Best regards, -- Ssilvers 13:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was it was a first London performance for him and in relation to the Savoy his first appearace there. I wonder whether we could not identify a lot of those who had their first London appearance at the Savoy and compile a list. What do you think? David Lauder 16:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that an actor's debut information should be noted in their bio article. I don't think, in general, that it's very significant to a theatre's article, which actors made their debut there, unless it is someone incredibly huge, like, say Laurence Olivier or some other really household name. Just my opinion, but I don't see how compiling a list like that would add notable information to the theatre's article. Indeed, the fact that a particular actor appeared at a theatre is not very important information in the context of a theatre's article, unless that actor is much more important than the thousands of other actors who have appeared a the theatre over its lifetime, or unless there is some other notable connections, like if the actor was also the artistic director or owner of the theatre, or was the leader of a theatre troupe that spent a lot of time at the theatre, or if there was some historic innovation that concerned both the theatre and the actor, etc. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree that it is important to put those details in an actor's bio, but I think that a theatre without mention of the more important stars who appeared there is not really a theatre. Rather a ghost house. Thousands of actors and actresses whose names are realatively meaningless or at best not notable, pass through theatres. (That may seem a little hard on them but it is nevertheless true). But there are categories of quite famous actors and actresses, many of whom, as you say, like Olivier, remain well-known and well-established British stars and if I owned a theatre and there was an article about it I should like to see those people mentioned as appearing there. Indeed, many of the London theatres are prestigious for one reason or another, and one of the latter reasons must surely be who trod their boards, and especially if it was a London debut for one or both. Most people have never heard of or are interested in the artistic directors etc., so it is debateable whether or not they should be included unless they are particularly famous. I think such people would be better attached to articles on the shows for which they were responsible. Just my views. Regards. David Lauder 11:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, to answer your question on Kb's talk page: The Royal Court Theatre at Sloane Square was opened in 1871 and closed in 1887. A new theatre with that name was built on a different site in Sloane Square in 1888 and survives today. I'm pretty sure there were no other significant theatres with that name since then. The Theatre Museum in London has a major collection of information about this theatre. I just beefed up the article, but it still needs more work. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 05:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but my query was whether or not that is the Court Theatre in so many old references. If so, when did it acquire the 'Royal'? David Lauder 12:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It was certainly called Royal after rebuilding in 1888, but some references say it was even called Royal when it was the first building. Look at the revised article. I see no evidence of any other Royal Court Theatre or Court Theatre in London, so it appears this was the only one. Or do I still not understand your question? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 13:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You're saying that as far as you can see it was always called the Royal Court. That's clear. I shall investigate further to see if the many references to London's Court Theatre actually refer to it. Seems possible. Regards, David Lauder 16:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I said the Royal epithet used to be added when Royalty adopted the theatre - very popular with the PoW, if Ss remembers, I've not seen a Court Theatre. I think rather than worry too much about achieving a consistent style between us, just go ahead and put it in if you consider it notable and relevant; aim for consistency, but it's not the major concern at the moment. If we then do a round of all the theatres for consistency at a later date, we can hit the problem in one go, then try putting 'em all up for GA status at the same time! I think most of them are getting away from stubby and heading for OK. There's certainly some that are already most of the way to GA. Have a look at Drury Lane for the FA standard. You might be interested in [1], but I don't think we can get away with fair use. It gives some idea of just how complex it was backstage and the shows achieved spectacle. Kbthompson 12:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. We're making progress on articles for many of the older London theatres. They're considerably more complete than they were just a few months ago. If you're feeling energetic, you could write one on the "Globe Theatre" on Newcastle Street, London, which opened in 1868 and was demolished around 1902. This should be distinguished from the various other theatres called "Globe". Best regards, -- Ssilvers 19:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look but am a bit busy at the moment. David Lauder 10:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Tim has now put one up -- it's called Globe Theatre (Newcastle Street). Regards, -- Ssilvers 19:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyril Alington

I think what I was trying to convey is that he was some way removed from the Alington main line. It is fair to say that a gap of eleven generations and four hundred years is remote - though I'm sure we could come up with a better wording. I did consider writing 'collaterally descended', but thought that 'remotely' would be more widely understood.

The Home example is an interesting one since eight generations separated the 3rd Earl of Home from his ancestor the 1st Lord Home - and he therefore inherited the title from a seventh cousin, give or take a remove. But back to your analogy - Douglas-Home was also legitimately descended from Henry VII, and, yes, I think I would describe his connection to the throne as very remote. Christina Kaye 10:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cyril is 10th generation from Sir Giles (d.1522) his DIRECT ancestor in the male line. The point I made is that he is no more "remote" from his direct male ancestor than Sir Alec Douglas-Home is from his. I ask again: would you say Alec was "remote" from his forebears, or not? David Lauder 15:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Eh? Yes, of course Alec Home was 'remotely' descended from the 1st Lord Home. Remote simply means 'far removed in place or time', and by most people's standards 500 years fits that bill. I do not mean to suggest that Cyril was not directly descended from old Horseheath, just that a lot of years separated them. Do you not agree that you are remotely but directly descended from Adam? Christina Kaye 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It is wording that genealogists at least do not use. When we are speaking about famous families it is unusual to describe their direct ancestors as "remote". That would usually be used with lesser families from whom one is descended through a more indirect line: i.e: man/woman/woman/man/man/woman, if you get my drift. David Lauder 10:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I get your drift, but you are wrong I'm afraid. Genealogists constantly talk about remote ancestry and remote descent with regard to male lines, and do not confine their use of the word to distaff descent. I'm sure I could fish out hundreds of examples, but I'll start with just one from Sir Bernard, here [2]. Christina Kaye 13:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I am accomplished sufficiently to know what I am talking about. You cite Bernard Burke talking about 1064 as remote. I'd agree. 1000 years is remote by anyone's standards. But not 1500. I have never heard of a peer (or noble family) being told that his ancestry from his 16th century forebear was "remote". Its just slightly insulting. I recall from the Lord Hume episode that you like an argument/the last word, but I don't, so lets not pursue this discussion please. David Lauder 14:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Savoy Theatre

Thanks for the message. I agree that the image is not optimal (although that is where the entrance to the theatre is), but I am completely useless when it comes to uploading images to Wikipedia. All I know how to do is copy them from another article and insert or them to where I want them. Are you able to upload a more appropriate image? If so, by all means. BTW, If you look at the St. James page, I disagree with what the editor did with the pictures there, and I think it looked nicer before. But he was adamant, and I didn't feel like arguing with him, and as I said, images (and the technical stuff) are not my main interest at Wikipedia. I mainly like to do research and create new articles or expand existing ones. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 19:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Knowing the Savoy well I know that is the standard picture of the main entrance to the hotel off the Strand. The theatre, on the extreme right and virtually not in that picture, has a sign saying Savoy Theatre. To get a photo of the theatre you'd need to walk up that cul-de-sac into the entrance courtyard, over to the Savoy Grill and face the theatre, opposite, and take a shot. As it stands the image is wrong. I am probably in the same boat as you re images. But I am not such a stickler for pedantic detail. However, because we live in a visual age I think people expect them today, unlike when I was a child and many books had no illustrations whatsoever in them. Inconceivable today! David Lauder 19:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I found two images (of the 1881 theatre) as a consolation prize. You're rushing ahead on theatre related stuff - leave a few! Kbthompson 20:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
OK. David Lauder 12:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ada de Warenne

Hi, I've started this article and would be glad of any input. You seem to have a far better access to statistical accounts than I do! Regards Brendandh 21:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Back in the depths of time there. I'll look at it. David Lauder 07:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[3] I found this list as part of an interesting essay on the development of sheriffdoms in Scotland. It describes Haddington as a Thanage and cites Barrow, unfornatunately I cannot find the maps relevant to the essay. Also, me-bad, I've been mixing up Dower with Dowry! Regards. Brendandh 14:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Barrow is pretty good but I'd be very surprised if there was a Thanage there. Miller too falls into the dowry trap. Also, Haddingtonshire was in England until 1020. If you can get hold of a copy of Miller its a good read. Pages 172-3 deal with the early eccesiastical records. Clearly there was a monstery/abbey there before Ada arrived. Are you sure she settled lands in Garvald upon the nuns? Was it not then in the parish of Bara, East Lothian? Regards, David Lauder 14:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
G.W.S. Barrow and Alexander Grant both include Haddington as a thanage. I've left the grisly details on Brendan's talk page. Also shown on p. 188 of the 2nd edition of McNeill and MacQueen's atlas (but that's a map based on Barrow's work, so not a separate source). The atlas is worth a look if you can get your hands on it. I picked up a copy for a tenner, although I've seen it priced a lot higher. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll look at Barrow (I may also have Grant). Does he say what the origin of the thanage is? David Lauder 14:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, the origins of each and every thanage is a mystery, whether in Scotia or in Lothian. As Grant notes (p. 45), in the south-east thane did not always mean the same thing as in Scotia. Although he and Barrow assume that the thane of Haddington was of the Scotian variety, that does appear to be guesswork. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, probably. David Lauder 15:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aldwych Theatre

Glad you liked it. Speaking of theatres, there is more to write about the Aldwych Theatre contained in at least two of the links at the bottom of the article. I think all the info you will need is already there. If you have time, would you mind spending a half hour or so extracting it and adding it to the article? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 12:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jacobite Peerage

Yes. I'll try editing it. Proteus (Talk) 18:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/v/User_talk%7EDavid_Lauder_1345.html"