Talk:Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Brazil and Brazil-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
To-do list for Brazil:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.
This article is supported by the Military work group.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
??? This article has not yet been prioritized.

Had two edit conflicts on Thomas Cochrane -- Mintguy (T)

Fine now, but needs a bit of copy-editing. Gdr 19:14, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)
yes, Gamo/Gramo blame "The Royal Naval Museum" [1]
Actually there's more errors in this source. I changed the date of the capture from 1801 to 1800 as per this source, but it looks like this is wrong . Mintguy (T)
I relied on Cochrane's letter to the Admiralty [2] which gives May 6, 1801. Gdr 19:22, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

This article states two popular fictional British sea captains (Horatio Hornblower and Jack Aubrey) were based on Cochrane. The article on Lord Nelson states both were based on NElson.

Which is correct?Johnwhunt 15:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The first book of the Aubrey-Maturin series, Master and Commander is basically a fictionalised retelling of Cochrane's exploits in the Mediterranean aboard Speedy. The Hornblower novels also include exploits similar to Cochrane's. Later tales diverge from the Cochrane model and Patrick O'Brian includes incidents that come from other people's lives. Nelson does not really offer much material for novelists as his career is too well known and started too soon in history, so I am surprised that he is listed as a model. Dabbler 16:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As Dabbler points out, there are a lot of similarities between the fictional career of Jack Aubrey and the real-life career of Cochrane. But I don't think its correct to say that Aubrey is based on Cochrane. They're completely different personalities, they come from different social backgrounds, and Cochrane had all the political and social connections that Aubrey always seemed to lack. ¶ If you compare Master and Commander with the relevent chapters of Cochrane's autobiography, you'll see almost exactly the same events, but completely different people. In general, O'Brian borrowed material from the real-life adventures of a lot of different people. Cochrane sort of dominates, simply because he got written about a lot. ----Isaac R 00:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] External links: not autobiography

The work on Project Gutenberg is the continuation of Cochrane's autobiography, written not by himself, but by an hired writer and Cochrane's son, the eleventh Earl of Dundonald (Cochrane was the tenth Earl).--193.175.194.60 14:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was no information about his lovely wife in the article, and only one bit on his south american adventures. A pity, I'll break open the books one day soon. As for hornblower and such i believe that it can be shown that the basic character is indeed based on cochrane. In the days of the war he became quite a popular man at home, as well as being feared among the spanish and french enemies of the day. watch the film - master and commander with russel crowe and you maybe able to remember the diversionary tactic used to escape a more powerful ship at night, by afixing a light on a float. It also appears in hornblower(if my memory is right). These were the actions taken by cochrane and can be directly attributed. just one example

[edit] Capitailization

If by BE you mean British English, then you are sadly mistaken. I am a native British English speaker and writer and I call upon my extensive collection of books by such authorities of British naval history as Brian Lavery, N.A.M. Rodgers and Colin White all of the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich who are all British English writers and all use lower case for ranks when writing of the position rather than using it as a title. Dabbler 17:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Oxford Manual of Style disagrees with them, and I see no reason whatsoever why writers on naval history should be automatically considered authorities on grammar. The usage you're advocating also contradicts that found on the Royal Navy's own website. Proteus (Talk) 18:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And the Times (of London) style guide (among others) differs with your authorities See under A for admiral as do my British English dictionaries to hand, including the Oxford Shorter (in it Field Marshal is capitalized but admiral is not). In other words it is at best a matter of preference and not a compulsory rule. I prefer to follow dictionaries and knowledgeable and professional academics and their style who have no doubt consulted more books and documents on the Navy than the editors of the Oxford Manual of Style. I am not going to revert your changes because despite the rather infelicitous nature of your edits, it isn't worth fighting over with someone who knows everything. Dabbler 23:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I refer to the style guide. In this largely naval article, following naval fashion seems to be the way to go, especially as anybody coming to this article is most likely going to be interested in naval matters.
Obviously the Royal Navy isn't interested in naval matters. Proteus (Talk) 00:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia style guide states clearly that titles should be only capitalized when a name is attached. The Royal Navy may be excellent at fighting and sailing ships but it is not the arbiter of style even when it comes to the writing down of its ranks. There are a lot more people outside the Navy than in it and English usage is the province of English users. The Navy may prefer an ugly style but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with them. Since this is a matter of preferred style and not a hard and fast rule of the English language, why do you want to overrule people who have studied the subject, been regular editors in this article while you are flying in like the proverbial seagull? Your persistent reverts of perfectly acceptable non-capitalizations smack of arrogance. Leave us to edit our articles in a reasonable and acceptable style while you play around doing what you want in yours. Dabbler 01:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can't quite follow Proteus's logic. Wikipolicy is to use lower case in the general and upper in the specific. This isn't a matter of grammar, as he seems to think, and the opinions of naval historians are of extra relevance in an article based largely on naval history. Pete 01:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KB or KCB

When Cochrane was first knighted, he would have been a KB, but then he had the honour removed. The Order then changed so that instead on one level, there were three; GCB, KCB and CB. Did Cochrane have his original KB restored or was he placed back in as a KCB or even GCB? Dabbler 08:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind found my answer, he ended up as a GCB (Project Gutenburg, title page of the continuation to his Autobiography of a Seaman). Dabbler 08:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chile

I added some information realted to his stay inChile, is not much but i might add some more later. I also icluded the link to the Chilean Navy's Biography of Thomas Cochrane.

Francisco.


[edit] Cochrane

This morning the person using the IP Address 70.170.18.18 again vandalized the Wikipedia article on the Cochrane surname he wrote "Cochrans are desendants from the Jews and have what has now become known as "nigger blood". Cochrans have stretchy anuses and have no control of thier excretory valves". I think this guy needs to be blocked.

[edit] Bombardment ships

Added more information on Cochrane's bombardment ship plans, diagrams to follow


[edit] Pillory

Did Cochrane end up in the pillory or not? The article seems to contradict itself: "He was excussed from doing Pillory for fear that his supporters might riot." "His time in the pillory was more of a triumph than a humiliation, and was the last usage of the pillory in England." A quick search of other sites indicates that he didn't spend any time in the pillory. Also, according to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Pillory someone served in the pillory in 1830, so I don't think Cochrane was the last usage. I'll edit accordingly. Athenastreet 02:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rank on Retirement

Cochrane is referred to as rear-admiral but I've seen references to his having retired as an admiral of the fleet. I can check DNB but perhaps others would investigate. The Royal Navy site lists him as an admiral bigpad (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He was a full Admiral, but given the honorary title Rear Admiral of the United Kingdom which is only given to very senior officers. Dabbler (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Middle Name

Thomas Cochrane did not have a middle name so I have changed Thomas Alexander Cochrane to just Thomas Cochrane. The following sources are consistant with this: ODNB, DNB, "The Fighting Cochranes" (a family history including a family tree written by family members including the 14th Earl), his obituary, and every single biography of TC including Fortescue, Vale, Harvey, Lloyd, Cordingly, and his own and his son's works. Brian Vale in his "The Audacious Admiral Cochrane" goes out of his way to make the point that TC was just plain Thomas Cochrane... although anything but an ordinary person. If anyone finds any valid source for him having a middle name, please post the information. I do see several web pages with Alexander, but no sources are listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timoneer (talk • contribs) 10:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Honiton

The first paragraph in the "Political Career" section needs to be revised due to the information revealed in David Cordingly's recent biography titled (USA) "Cochrane: The Real Master and Commander" or (UK) "Cochrane the Dauntless: The Life and Adventures of Thomas Cochrane" (2007).

Cochrane was defeated for MP from Honiton in June 1806 rather than 1805 as noted.

The reason that Cochrane stood for election from Honiton again so quickly (October 1806) was due to the dissolution of Parliament that Fall. Cochrane was still fitting out "Imperieuse" and was still available.

Honiton was not a "rotten borough" but a "potwalloper borough." In a "rotten" borough, the MP is appointed by several powerful persons (sometimes only one) in secret. Voters in a "potwalloper" borough are those who own their own cottage with a "pot" hanging over the hearth. In Honiton, like other such boroughs, these small property owners relied on bribes to pay their annual rents (taxes). Saying that Honiton was a "rotten" borough decided by bribing the voters is a contradiction in terms. Honiton is actually listed in the "potwalloper borough" list here in Wikipedia.

Cochrane lost the first election in June 1806 because he refused to bribe the voters. True enough.

However, Cordingly has found evidence that proves that Cochrane did bribe the voters in the October 1806 election which he won. The evidence came from comments made by Cochrane himself in Parliament 10 years after the event. During a debate on election reform, Cochrane described the bribery details and gave his reason for doing so. Mr. Townshend, local headman and banker, paid each voter £10 10s for Cochrane. During the debate, Cochrane stated that he still had the paperwork. I assume that the ten year difference between the election and Cochrane's confession is the reason that earlier biographers missed this.

Cochrane justified his bribes by saying that the only way for him to join Parliament to work toward governmental and naval reform was to do so. Cordingly felt that the ends justified the means in Cochrane's mind. Strangely, Cordingly remarks that Cochrane would have been elected without the bribes since one of the three candidates switched to another borough leaving just two candidates for two positions.

When Cochrane stood for election again it was for Westminster, a borough with a democratic election more suited for someone lobbying for the elimination of rotten, pocket, potwalloper, and etc. boroughs

If no one else attempts to rewrite the first paragraph in the next few days, I will make an attempt.

Timoneer (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted that information because firstly it was added by an anonymous editor, if that was Timoneer then you must not have been logged in, secondly it used a red-linked term "pot-walloper" that I had never seen before and looks pretty odd, and thirdly there was no reference given for what you must agree is a fairly radical change from the usual story. I have not read Cordingley. Dabbler (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dabbler, I thought that I only did a preview and forgot to save my changes, but upon thinking about it, realized that I needed to come to the discussion page first. I did not realize that I failed to log in also. I am fairly new at making changes here so I apologize for the confusion. I am just finishing a project of reading eight different biographies of Cochrane (plus separate biographical chapters in other books, obits, Internet searches, etc.) and am now resolving my notes and comparing them to the information here. Cordingly's prose might not appeal to everyone but he is, by far, the most accurate when it comes to basic facts. Cordingly appears to have read, not only Cochrane's speeches, but a lot of other supporting info not usually researched about TC. Timoneer (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)