Talk:Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma

Career

After the loss of the Kelly the British Admiralty wanted to court-martial Mountbatten for losing her through his own incompetence and poor judgement, but they were overruled. This was naturally not made public, but was fairly widely-known in the Navy at the time. After the Kelly he wasn't given another ship. added 16:40, 17 April 2005 from 194.6.112.192

This is discussed on the HMS Kelly talkpage; probably the confusion beween a "Court of Inquiry" (standard practice for any captain who loses his ship) and a "Court-Martial" which is something else again. Anyway, it's manifestly untrue; this page here says he was given command of HMS Illustrious.194.176.105.39 12:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

PS I don't know how old that post is, it isn't signed 194.176.105.39 12:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I do; has this been sitting here all this time without a challenge? 194.176.105.39 12:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no mention of his submarine duty wherein he was aboard and co-commanded the only US submarine to be commanded by two nations - the US and Britain, during WW II. This action was conceived to provide deniability of either nations involvement should the boat be captured.99.206.85.225 (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC) 04FEB2011 - Sharon (SS) USN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.206.85.225 (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added material on 29 Nov 1940 engagement of HMS 'Javelin' off the Lizard. I recall a rumour that there was a gunnery range estimate problem which was blamed on Mountbatten. I cannot find citation and therefore have omitted it from article.Rdmoore6 (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

MI5 plot

The 5th episode of The Crown season 3 on Netflix is called Coup. It is a (partially) fictionalised account, but a factual account of the background is included on this TV show website - www.radiotimes.com/tv/entertainment/the-crown-lord-mountbatten-coup-harold-wilson-plot/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The section "In 1967 Mountbatten attended a private meeting with press baron and MI5 agent Cecil King, and the Government's chief scientific adviser, Solly Zuckerman. King wanted to stage a coup against the then crisis-striken Labour Government of Harold Wilson, and urged Mountbatten to become the leader of a Government of national salvation...[1]" needs sources badly. And no I don't think the speech in the HofCommons of a single hard left labour MP constitutes the basis to support the paragraph. If we can't find anything then we need to remove or phrase this as an claim not - as now - as statement of fact.

I think its common knowledge now that this is factual and that there have been astonishing reports that not only did Wilson [pm] know of the plot but had sympathies with Sein Fein/IRA. I believe the 50 year rule on that 'supposition' will make it clear and perhaps even suggest collusion with LMB's murderers. Twobells 11:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As to the KstJ wiki seems to be off on it's adventures here - as the post noms are only, by custom, used within the order not in official lists/usage

If someone wants to add his foreign decorations to the honours section they are listed at the UK national archives [1] or for amusement you can see the original service record which is a dogs breakfast! [2] Alci12 12:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree very strongly -- I don't think a rather remarkable allegation made under the protection of Parliamentary privilege should be considered automatically legitimate. If I knew anything about the subject matter I would likely remove that paragraph immediately pending better confirmation. But as I don't know anything I will just say that the allegation should probably be taken with a grain of salt and at minimum the article should reflect that fact (identifying the MP making the allegation would help). Greyfedora 17:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If the alleged accusations were true the instigators would be committing high treason and would be liable to immediate arrest. They would go to jail for it, or worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.190 (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That section is historically illiterate. As is well known, on 8 May 1968 Cecil King, who was bonkers, went to Mountbatten's house at Broadlands with Mirror editor Hugh Cudlipp and, not for the first time, talked about his barmy plan for a coup. A month earlier, Mountbatten had suggested that perhaps Barbara Castle could take over from Wilson, but King and Cudlipp preferred Denis Healey. It was all quite nuts. This time, Mountbatten's old friend Solly Zuckerman came along, arriving mid-meeting. Dominic Sandbrook, White Heat: A History of Britain in the Swinging Sixties, Abacus, London, 2007, ISBN 978-0-349-11820-8, p.655, has: 'By this time Zuckerman had turned up, and, since he had a better grasp of political reality than either Mountbatten or King, he reacted with horror. "This is rank treachery," he exclaimed. "All this talk of machine guns at street corners is appalling. I am a public servant and I will have nothing further to do with it. Nor should you, Dickie." Then he walked out.

'In the stunned silence that followed Mountbatten evidently came to his senses, telling his visitors that Zuckerman was right and the scheme was "simply not on." King and Cudlipp were shown out a few moments later. That night Mountbatten recorded that he had been listening to a lot of "dangerous nonsense," and when he encountered Zuckerman the following day he remarked "that he greatly regretted he had ever consented to the meeting." A month later he saw Cudlipp again and told him that he had reported the entire conversation to the Queen.' Sandbrook cites Cudlipp, Walking On the Water, p.376, and Ruth Dudley Edwards, Newspapermen, p.360. Khamba Tendal (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Pearl Harbo(u)r

At least one major British newspaper agrees with me - from The Guardian's style guide "Pearl Harbor Use American English spellings for US placenames". Mind you, a search of their website suggests that they only actually manage to spell it that 2 times out of 3, but that's in the best traditions of the Grauniad of course. I'm not going to keep changing it, but it grates even to my British eyes to see Pearl Harbour, it seems to me they have the right to decide how to spell their own placenames. David Underdown 12:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Even proper nouns are sometimes altered between British and American English. Following on from your example, if we look at (say) the New York Times (one recent example that springs to mind) we see e.g. It began with an effusive exuberance as Britain’s Labor party[3], ...he will step down as leader of the Labor Party[4], etc, etc. The (American made) movie was, according to the IMDB, "Pearl Harbor" in the US, but "Pearl Harbour" in the UK [5]. I suspect that usage differs according to source to be honest- if Wikipedia has a policy on this then feel free to change it to whatever spelling is appropriate, it's not a big deal for me. It is usually better to avoid alien spellings in British articles however, if possible, simply because I feel they do have a tendency to jar the reader's perception and interrupt the flow of the piece. But that may just be me... All the best, Badgerpatrol 13:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

North Americans tend to be rather peremptory about these things: the Canadian newspapers invariably "correct" the Australian Labor [sic] Party to "Labour." One would have thought that in the case of a geographical place name the local usage ought to prevail, at least when one is dealing with English-language place names. Which isn't to say that one ought to use Italia rather than Italy or Munschen rather than Munich. Or even, necessarily, Melaka rather than Malacca. My vote would be for "Harbor" in this case.Masalai 05:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is likely that the original spelling was 'harbour' as the first charts of the Hawaiian Islands were likely drawn up on Captain Cook's voyage, and whatever the native name was for the locale, he wouldn't have spelt it 'harbor'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.190 (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

BOAC Flight 781

Years ago, I recorded an episode of the History Channel program Incredible, But True? concerning the loss of the Comet jetliner known as "Yoke Peter" and carrying BOAC Flight 781 on January 10, 1954. In this episode, the narrator mentioned that Mountbatten, referred to as Lord Louis Mountbatten in the aforementioned episode, was ordered by the Admiralty as the commander-in-chief of the Royal Navy's Mediterranean Fleet to look for the plane. Does anyone else know anything about this? Or is my information wrong? And003 (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It is true, as Mountbatten was Commander of the Mediterranean Fleet at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.190 (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It was murder, not an assassination

Mountbatten was a retired 79-year-old man on holiday with his family during a time of peace. The man convicted of planting the bomb on his boat was charged and convicted of the crime of murder, not an assassination. The articles for the former Tsar Nicholas II and his wife and children all describe their deaths as murder. (92.7.21.148 (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC))

Whether you feel he was assassinated or murdered, if you want to add that he drowned after the blast, please provide a source for that claim. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody had reason to kill -- and publicly claim credit for killing -- a "retired 79 year-old man on holiday with his family during a time of peace." Mountbatten was killed because he was a world-famous, influential, previously high-ranking military officer and diplomat, known to be related by blood to the British Royal Family. It was an assassination because the (openly acknowledged) intent of the conspirators was to influence political developments by murder of a high-profile individual. FactStraight (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(deleted) BLP violation - removed - do not post again without a very reliable source, even on the Talk Page.

Assassination is a politically motivated murder. I am unsure why there is a discussion about what to call it.125.236.202.112 (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

From the point of view of promoting the Republican Cause it was a blunder of the first magnitude, in that it further alienated and enraged moderate Loyalists, and probably ensured the continued presence of the British Army in Northern Ireland for the next fifteen years.

The Army had originally been sent to Northern Ireland in 1969 to forestall any possibility of the sort of events that were subsequently to occur in Bosnia and Rwanda. Many Loyalists were members of the Territorial Army (TA) and if push-came-to-shove were likely to be able to get access to their unit's armouries. Sending in Regular Army units prevented that possibility as control of the armouries, which contained weapons ranging from small arms and other automatic weapons, up to light anti-tank weapons, then passed to Regular Army units outside the sectarian divide.

Although not announced at the time, this has since been revealed in declassified Cabinet Papers from the Wilson Government. IIRC, the Minister responsible at the time was James Callaghan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.241.103 (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course it was a blunder. He was a hugely popular, legendary, highly respected military man; born a prince in his own right; related to the royal family and deeply loved by them, and by most, if not all, of England. I mean, if you wanted to alienate England, what better way than to murder/assassinate the elderly and illustrious Lord Mountbatten, who was retired, resting on his laurels, and just going out fishing with his family. War is hell, isn't it. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Attendance at Nazi funeral

Lord Mountbatten has a distinguished WW2 record but I read that he attended the funeral of his niece Cecile, a Nazi Party member, at Darmstadt in 1937 accompanied by his nephew Prince Philip (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-379036/Prince-Philip-pictured-Nazi-funeral.html). While there seems to be no suggestion that he had any Nazi sympathies, his attendance is at least questonable and is this not a relevant historical fact given the known Nazi sympathies of some UK royals at the time?92.23.31.33 (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Why, no. Attending your niece's funeral seems strikingly uncontroversial to me. --Yaush (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

In 1937 the Nazis had not yet started to make themselves as notorious as they were later to become. Why then, shouldn't he of attended the funeral of a relative, his niece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.190 (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree; if you have affection for your niece then you'll attend her funeral no matter her political affiliations. Besides, in the Mountbatten/Battenberg family things were complicated. Some were Nazi sympathizers and some were hardcore opposers. It was often the case in that family that relatives who were emotionally very close to each other would disagree on their allegiances during the wars. Everyone was confused back then. I don't think that's a good reason to avoid your loved one's funeral. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 06:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

You can't possibly be serious. By 1937, only a fool didn't know what the National Socialist agenda was. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Alleged MI5 plot

It is not correct that MI5 "tacitly confirmed that there was a plot against Wilson". They confirmed that MI5 did have a file on him - it would have been odd if they did not. They apparently confirmed that some MI5 agents may have tried to did up dirt on Wilson. They did not confirm that there was any treason plot.125.236.202.112 (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

HMS Sister Anne

The Admiralty's purchased yacht Sister Anne was headquarters ship for Mountbatten as Chief of Combined Operations. Sourced additions on the vessel's service to the draft article would be appreciated as that section is rather thin. Davidships (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry

How is Franz Leopold Lafontaine relevant to this article? Or Princess Maria Anna of Hesse-Homburg? Why does Charles Louis, Hereditary Prince of Baden, need to be mentioned? Surtsicna (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Because they're recent ancestors of the subject of this article. Since the ancestors are presented in a drop-down menu labeled "Ancestry" that the reader only sees upon choosing to do so, retaining the information is entirely appropriate. Flyte35 (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

No, they are not his recent ancestors. Not even his grandparents met them. Hiding irrelevant content makes it neither relevant nor tolerably irrelevant, otherwise there is no telling what rubbish we would have. Mountbatten's great-grandparents are relevant. They are mentioned in the running text and had an impact on his life. Those farther are not and we should not mention them. Surtsicna (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes they are his recent ancestors. Wikipedia only accommodates six generations, meaning 32 ancestors, in an ancestry tablefrom whom an individual is, on average, apt to have inherited genetic material. Beyond the seventh generation, any given genealogic ancestor is unlikely to have been a genetic contributor, except due to pedigree collapse. Whether or not one ever meets a parent, grandparent or other ancestor does not affect their degree of genetic kinship, nor alter the fact that you would not be who you are if they were not your ancestor. Interaction with an ancestor may affect the amount of impact that ancestor has on your life but not whether there has been impact. We don't require that every datum about a person be independently shown to have contributed to who one is or what one does in life: some information is included as standard because it is presumed to be significant by the normal reader's interest therein, i.e. the degree to which it is likely that people looking up Mountbatten expect to be able to find certain information in a bio. There is no proof that the fact that Mountbatten's second name was "Francis", or that he was born on the 25th of July, or in London, contributed to make him who he was, unique from others -- we merely presume those factors had some contribution. And so we include that information in Wikipedia bios because it is standard to do so, i.e. easily enough verifiable, readily included and sufficiently unobtrusive that we don't wait for or require -- nor are we likely ever to obtain -- specific, independent data about its precise significance in the life of the subject. The truth is, there is rarely connclusive proof that any individual's role or achievements can be traced to specific ancestral influence -- which doesn't persuade most of us that background and ancestry are irrelevant. Because the notability of royalty depends so much more than normally upon ancestry, we accommodate a greater degree of interest in that data, ergo Ahnentafel. Such information might be omitted from a newspaper article, whose space and style limitations normally exclude it. Much that Wikipedia includes in bios was not regularly included in print encyclopedia. But ancestry tables in English Wikipedia for persons of dynastic significance or prominence have now long been standard, until very recent efforts to eliminate or trim them. We've agreed upon a format for them, drop-down menus visible to readers only by deliberate choice, that allow us to include up to six generations unobtrusively. That works. FactStraight (talk) 09:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia can accommodate seven or more generations if we want it to. The ahnentafel is just a template and templates are easy to create and edit. The genetics applies to all people, yet ahnentafels are included only in biographies of royal people, meaning that genetics is not the reason we have ahnentafels. We have them to show how the subject is related to relevant people. Nobody is saying that Mountbatten's background or ancestry are irrelevant. Please stop putting words into my mouth. It is also not true that the efforts to keep these templates under control are recent. Agricolae, Srnec, John K, Angusmclellan and others have been doing it for over a decade and for a variety of reasons, some advocating that the charts be removed entirely. The compromise is not to arbitrarily set the number of generations to five and then collapse it but to restrict the chart to people who can at least be demonstrated to be relevant to the topic of each article. That is really not too much to ask for. Surtsicna (talk) 14:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

That's an appropriately restrictive criteria for prose, not for a drop-down menu that is viewable only by choice by the reader. And the tabular format is appropriate for the much greater interest in the ancestry of those of royal descent than in other bios. The criteria for inclusion should reflect that difference. The fact that the vast majority of modern dynastic bios include Ahnentafel also show how widely the interest and expectation are. FactStraight (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Kicking content under the rug does not make said content any more appropriate or relevant. The fact that the vast majority of modern dynastic biographies include ahnentafels shows that a handful of users were very prolific and efficient in copy-pasting those charts across articles without ever consulting anyone. Ahnentafels have been condemned as irrelevant, intrusive, overdetailed, etc, every time they were brought up before the community. There is not a single reason given here as to why the ahnentafel in this article should present six generation rather than five or seven. There is, on the other hand, a reason to restrict to five: nobody in the sixth generation is relevant to the topic of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Info in a drop-down menu would be "kicked under the rug" if it were intended to go unseen, but that's the opposite of the case: it is intended and available to be viewed by those who, having read that it's labeled "Ancestry", decide to view it. The fact that the vast majority of royalty-related articles have such charts has made them standard and means that they have been compiled and included deliberately by individual Wikipedia editors who thought the data important enough to edit in -- just like every other edit to this encyclopedia. Far more contributors have added or corrected them than objected to them. If the point of an ancestry table were to document each ancestor's individual influence on the bio subject, the rare rise of Mountbatten's Hauke ancestors from commoners to princes is presented only in this Ahnentafel's visual display of it for five generations. Despite his dynastic male line, that ancestry drastically affected his social and economic status, just as the other ancestry shown provided a stark contrast to and mitigated that effect. But the ancestry table's primary function has always been to snapshot background and allude to connections, not to replace prose narrative. FactStraight (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

And the fourth generation in the table is the only part of the article that shows how his parents were related. Opera hat (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry charts are a welcome addition to any article where they can be substantiated and the particular audience that prefers them should be treated with respect! LE (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Archiving

I have archived a considerable amount of material from this page - everything prior to 2017. The page was becoming excessively long, and old threads keep being resurrected years after they had come to a finish. There is a search box for the archived material near the top of the page. DuncanHill (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Heraldic pedigree chart

Pedigree showing descent of Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, from Louis II, Grand Duke of Hesse and from Queen Victoria

I have added an illustration of a pedigree chart, illustrated with heraldry, showing clearly the descent of Lord Mountbatted from the Grand Duke of Hess and from Queen Victoria. This is a very relevant matter to the article as this person's whole career depended on his relationship to the UK royal family - although clearly he was a very talented person in his own right. I believe it is more user-friendly and possibly more informative than the pre-existing bare tabular presentation at the bottom of the article. I propose that the chart should replace or compliment the tabular presentation, which is useful in that it contains links and may trace the pedigree back in a bit more detail. If that is a problem the illustrated chart can be amended accordingly. Please leave your comments below, thanks. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

In response to your repeated pleas that we discuss addition of the heraldic genealogical chart here rather than via edit warring, I must admit that I prefer the more extensive information already provided in the Ahnentafel format, yet I note that in the "Ancestry" discussion above, Opera hat seems to share your preference for a chart that more fully displays familial inter-relatedness. So I think that concern merits further discussion. I would not object to substituting the heraldic genealogy for the Ahnentafel in this instance. FactStraight (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I mean, the descent of Mountbatten from the Grand Duke of Hess and from Queen Victoria is already provided in Ahnentafel chart that is at the bottom of this article. And I actually think the standard ahnentafel chart is easier to understand than the image at right, in part because it's standard across these sort of articles. Flyte35 (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't find this image very user-friendly either, so I've just spent my afternoon creating User:Opera hat/Battenberg, showing the relationships between this family and the Russian and British royal families which enabled their rise, with the idea of replacing Template:Battenberg family on this and other articles. But when I tried to incorporate it into a navbox format it was far too wide. Suggestions anyone? Opera hat (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Mountbatten.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Mountbatten Festival of Music

I'm leaving it to someone else to decide if this is worth adding to the Legacy section, but the Royal Marines' annual Mountbatten Festival of Music concerts are named after the subject of this article. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjC8RPE_Pls&t=1042 --2003:C4:DBCA:D11F:6C7A:F42C:A1D9:FDF3 (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Promotions Chart

Any objections to posting the following (lots of articles on military persons have similar) JMvanDijk (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Insignia	Rank	Assignment	Date
	officer cadet	Entered Royal Navy	1913
	Rated Midshipman	* H.M.S. Lion, 1916; H.M.S. Queen Elizabeth, 1917; H.M. Submarine_ K6, 1918.	1916
	Sub-Lieutenant	* H.M.S. P31.	1918
	Lieutenant	* H.M.S. Renown, 1920 (Prince of Wales' Tour, Australia and New Zealand); H.M.S. Repulse, 1921 H.M.S. Renown, 1920 (Prince of Wales' Tour to India, Japan and the Far East); H.M.S. Revenge, 1923; Signal School, Portsmouth, 1924; R.N. College, Greenwich, 1925; Reserve Fleet Wireless and Signal Officer, 1926; Assistant Fleet Wireless Officer, Mediterranean Fleet, 1927–1928.	1920
	Lieutenant Commander	* Second Destroyer Flotilla Signal and Wireless, 1928–1929; Senior Instructor in Wireless at H.M. Signal School, Portsmouth, 1929–1931; Fleet Wireless Officer, Mediterranean Fleet, 1931–1933.	1928
	Commander	*Qualified as interpreter in French and German, 1933; In command of H.M.S. Daring, 1934; In command of H.M.S. Wishart, 1935; Appointed to Naval Air Division at Admiralty, 1936.	1932
	Captain	* In command of H.M.S. Kelly and Fifth Destroyer Flotilla, 1939 (mentioned in dispatches twice); In command of H.M.S. Illustrious, 1941.	1937
	Commodore (First Class)	* Commodore, Combined Operations, 1941–1942;	1941
	(acting) Vice-Admiral	* Chief of Combined Operations and Member of Chief of Staff’s Committee	1942–1943
	(acting) Admiral	* Supreme Allied Commander, South-East Asia	1943–1946
	Rear-Admiral	* Flag Officer commanding First Cruiser Squadron, Mediterranean Fleet, 1948–1949.	1946
	Vice-Admiral	* Fourth Sea Lord, 1950–1952; Commander-in-Chief, Mediterrnean, 1952–1954.	1949
	Admiral	* Commander-in-Chief, Allied Forces, Mediterrnean, 1953–1954; First Sea Lord, 1955–1959.	1953
	Admiral of the Fleet	* Chief of the Defence Staff and Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, 1959–1965.	1956
	Admiral of the Fleet	Retired (Admirals of the Fleet retain their rank on retirement)	1965

Looks good, useful etc. Minor points:

(1) Some of Ur bullet-point blobs are rendering on-screen as asterisks (no, me neither, it’ll be something to do with computers);

(2) the London Gazette reference seems to relate only to the final promotion, to Admiral of the Fleet, so the <>ref-tag needs to be inside the box; and

(3) “H.M.S. P.31” looks strange / needs explaining . . is this a submarine? If so, I think “H.M.S/M” is the accepted abbreviation;

and (major!)

(4) I would definitely show the appointment more fully: “Captain (D), Fifth Destroyer Flotilla, in H.M.S. Kelly (mentioned in dispatches twice)”.

On the last point, (4), the whole Captain (D) thing so often strikes people as wholly mysterious tht it’s a great shame to miss the opportunity to give the details of a clear and well-known example.

- SquisherDa (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Personally I do not think it is helpful. This is an article which has previously been assessed as 'B' on the quality scale as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. To achieve the that standard the article had to be written in good prose (and this chart is not prose) and it needs to be fully referenced (and this chart is not currently referenced although I suppose that that could be done but it will require a lot of work). But just my opinion. Dormskirk (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

HMS P31 was a P-class patrol boat. See P-class sloop. I would have no objection to the chart being included so long as it is fully referenced and the ships etc linked. SquisherDa makes a good point about Captain (D). Charts like this can be very helpful to readers, giving as they do a quick oversight of a career. DuncanHill (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm opposed. There's already a list of his commands, the earlier ranks are irrelevant, and the pictures are just there to be pretty and colourful. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The objections so far seem to me misconceived:

Prose quality, for article grading: the requirement concerns the quality of the prose - not that the article should consist only of prose.

References: certainly the content needs to be referenced, in line with the article’s quality generally. I sort-of take it tht @JMvanDijk plans to do that? if the offer to add this table is accepted?

Already a list: but not in list form? (unless owt is ‘falling off the side’ of my smartphone screen?) Convenient reference / summary is desirable.

Earlier ranks irrelevant: Mountbatten’s promotion rate is significant politically (royal privilege / influence? + relations with Churchill) and professionally (his tactical and command style and his record of seamanship were all controversial). (Irrelevant to what, actually??)

Pretty: umm, pretty is good, right? And there’s benefit in seeing why a “proper four-ring Captain” is so called. (As opposed to someone merely appointed to the command of, say, a small ship.)

- SquisherDa (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to be a damper of this but take a look at what a "good article" looks like: John Slessor for example. This is an encyclopedia: so we are striving for good quality articles in good prose. "Pretty" is not part of the criteria. Dormskirk (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The current First Sea Lord, Philip Jones (Royal Navy officer), joined the navy in 1980 and got his first command in 1994 (just under 14 years). The previous one, George Zambellas, joined in 1980 and got his first command in 1991 (11 years). Mark Stanhope joined in 1970 and got his first command in 1982 (12 years). Mountbatten joined the navy in 1916 and got his first command in 1934 (18 years). I see no evidence whatever of royal privilege or undue influence or significance politically. His promotion rate is not unusually speedy by any stretch of the imagination. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The above comment is misconceived. Careers - in many walks of life - tend on average to be a bit "quicker" nowadays (which is hard luck on late developers, and on 55 year olds who are pushed into unwilling retirement when they may yet have plenty to contribute). In order to get a valid comparison you would need to compare Mountbatten's promotion rate to that of an average officer of the time. My recollection is that Beatty, who enjoyed a meteoric early career, became a captain aged 29 at a time (circa 1900) when the average age was 43; assuming the average age was much the same in 1937 Mountbatten thus became a captain somewhat earlier than usual. Furthermore, the modern admirals listed above are all presumably highly able men, whereas a lot of men who worked with Mountbatten testified that, apart from his charm and energy, he was not particularly able, which suggests he might well have been given promotions which his ability alone might not have earned him had he been of more modest birth. Finally, he may well have been retained in the RN in the early 1920s during the Geddes Axe because he was "wealthy and well-connected" (it was me who posted that in the article a few years ago) - a good example of how the "early years" of a biography often provide a useful insight into the times through which a person lived.Paulturtle (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

“Do not think it is helpful” / “see no evidence”: I should make it clear tht I’m not arguing tht there was royal privilege or influence affecting Mountbatten’s career, or tht his style or seamanship were unsatisfactory; or tht there wasn’t / they were exemplary.

A mighty lot of other people have. Among them are those who feel the loss of /Kelly/ resulted from a flamboyant, hasty and perhaps self-obsessed command style which surfaced again with the most dire consequences in Mountbatten’s failure to deal effectively with Jinnah, resulting in Partition. Also among them are those with the hugely contrasting view tht /Kelly/’s Survivors Association was longest-lasting and enthusiastically supported after the War for very good reason.

With all that in mind, I’m aware of @Celia Homeford’s observations as a good illustration of how the proposed table *is* helpful. The tabular format makes it straightforward to argue tht if this or that view was soundly based, the evidence for it would be there on-screen and findable. Celia sees no evidence - and that’s not because she’s found the wrong place to look, or isn’t looking hard enough. She’s looking at a straightforward table which would show any such evidence plainly. It’s because @JMvanDijk’s table is there for all to see tht her argument is so forceful. It’s a useful table!

I think we can probably agree tht prettiness is not really a key issue!

In relation to Slessor, it may be worth noting tht there is no Air counterpart to the close relationship the Navy experiences between ship, crew and captain. An individual’s record of postings, in the Navy, is the backbone of his career and personal associations (whether or not as captain). It’s both the practical reality, and the reference framework in which ordinary Service reputation and any reflective assessment take shape. In the Air Force any senior officer will have been “flying a desk” from very early on.

A detail: the “Assignments” column should probably be titled “ Appointments”.

- SquisherDa (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

If anybody ever goes ahead with this - and I am of the "it's a useful summary from which people can learn, especially as articles inevitably grow like Topsy over time" view - then it might be worth amending the shoulder boards to their then equivalent. A Rear Admiral used to have only one star, for example (as worn by "M" in the Bond film "You Only Live Twice" in 1967) - the stars were increased to bring them into line with their US equivalents in the 1980s, I think.Paulturtle (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

"Lust for young men" article in The Times

I've added the link:

Tucker, Grant (18 August 2019). "Lord Mountbatten's 'lust for young men' revealed". The Times. Retrieved 18 August 2019.

Under further reading.

The above is just a book review. The book is THE MOUNTBATTENS: Their Lives and Loves by Andrew Lownie at http://www.themountbattens.com/ This is obviously going to be controversial and a long term discussion. I have no taste for either right now, but figure that the conversation should get started.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Slightly ahead of you here. It's already in reliable sources so I'd say it already belongs in the article. Happy to discuss, of course. --The Huhsz (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

A slight disconnect between source and what we have in the article; Source says bisexual, article says homosexual, source says "young men", article says boys. Is there a source for "predatory"? This all seems to be in The Sun and Daily Mail articles, but I don't think they are considered reliable. (Hohum ^@) 13:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

"She stated that Lord Louis Mountbatten was known to be a homosexual with a perversion for young boys." "One of the lost letters had been sent to him by a man who claimed Mountbatten had tried to seduce him when he was 17." and "Tom said Mountbatten had something of a fetish for uniforms — handsome young men in military uniforms (with high boots) and beautiful boys in school uniform." were what I was thinking of. Suggest a reword? --The Huhsz (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC) added: I changed "boys" to "young men"; you're right, that is fairer. --The Huhsz (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

This section of the article seems out of place in the "marriage" section. Perhaps a new section "Allegations of sexual offenses"? It's also somewhat rambling, and possibly of WP:UNDUE length given that it's all based on one source, the book by Lownie. (Hohum ^@) 00:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It needs both moving and pruning. Dormskirk (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Allegations of homosexuality and abuse of children were stored together here, which is inappropriate. Sexual abuse of children is not a sexuality. I've split the allegations of homosexuality from the claims of sexual abuse of children, each in their own subsections. I used "abuse" rather than "offenses" as suggested above as at the time homosexuality was a sexual offence. MatthewWilkes (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The FBI dossier is explicit in naming his preference as “boys”. Only Rupert Murdoch’s Times attempted to pass off Mountbatten’s paedophilia as merely "Lust for young men". --91.54.1.150 (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

An FBI dossier can include all sorts of reports from witnesses and interviewees of varying reliability. Their presence in a file doesn't necessarily mean the FBI believes them. They will often to meet WP:RS.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC) A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Assassination

The section covering his assassination provides the IRA's arguments for the act while more or less ignoring the avalanche of condemnation from around the world. His murder (along with that of his family members) was the subject of near universal and excoriating criticism. I have tagged the section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I have added something from Margaret Thatcher - please feel free to add more. Dormskirk (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I will have a look when I get some time, though my access to sources is limited. The added line is appreciated but this section remains seriously unbalanced and deficient due to its failure to discuss the global reaction. I have restored the tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I have added quite a bit more material and would urge you to now remove the tag. I agree with the substance of your point but hope you agree that it has now been re-balanced. While commenting I should point out that President Carter's response was really quite muted. Dormskirk (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. Looks much better. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Discrepancy?

After seeing action in August 1916...

The wiki page on HMS Lion does not indicate that the ship saw any action in August 1916. Could we have some support for this claim? Valetude (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

T A Heathcote in "The British Admirals of the Fleet 1734-1995" on page 183 states "...he was present at a minor action on 19 August 1916 and transferred to the battleship Queen Elizabeth in February 1917". Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

There was an action of 19 August 1916 but it was a major action rather than a minor action (and I cannot find evidence that Lion was there). Dormskirk (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Village magazine

BMK, why do you say Village (magazine) isn't a reliable source? Konli17 (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Because it is a magazine with a specific PoV (i.e. left-wing), and they make no bones about the fact that their reporting comes from that orientation. (It also represents the opinions of its editor, of which it's only had two in its entire history.) Now if the allegations against Mountbatten are picked up by other media outlets and verified, that would be a different matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, but as I see others have said more or less the same thing, I'll re-add the reference without the extra text. Konli17 (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of sexual abuse

I am intrigued by the comment "These claims were dismissed[who?] at the time" which editors cite to Andrew Lownie's article in the times of 7 November 2017 and Chris Moore's book "The Kincora Scandal". Both these works seem to be promoting the allegations but neither of them seem to be dismissing them. This little sentence needs a better source. Dormskirk (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The allegations were rejected by Historical Institution Abuse Inquiry and I have added properly sourced information which I hope readers will find useful. Dormskirk (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

This entire section in the article reads as being rather homophobic, honestly. Tabruns2021 (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Paul Maxwell

The violent act causing the death of Mountbatten (and others) impacted Anglo-Irish history. I would like Paul Maxwell's (life and) death better explained rather than the meaningless epithet / epitaph "boat boy". What was Paul Maxwell's relationship with Shadow V (boat) / Mountbatten. It seems strange to me exactly why this lad was with them / was there. Was he befriended by Nicholas / Timothy Knatchbull (I'm guessing this unlikely, or the would have been described as such). I think the circumstances of Paul Maxwell's unfortunate death deserves better recognition than the meaningless term "boat boy". Is there a suggestion that this lad was there because Mountbatten had a fondness of youngsters. Was he just a mooring rope deck hand skivvy (on a tiny, 25ft, crabbing pleasure-boat)? I find Paul Maxwell's unfortunate place in history (currently) very odd. A few words for him being there would be better than the stupid parroted epithet / epitaph "boat-boy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.28.224 (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Capitalisation

I suggest the IP editor reads MOS:CAPS, specifically MOS:JOBTITLES. FDW777 (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning the partition of India in the lead

Mountbatten oversaw the disastrous partition of India, leading to up to 2 million deaths and 10 to 20 million displaced, as well as violence and misery that has continued to the present day. As one of the most massive events he was involved with in his life, and one for which he was strongly criticised, wouldn't it merit some mention in the lead? 4ndrepd (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD. The lead should be a summary of the article and at present there is no mention of "2 million deaths and 10 to 20 million displaced". Dormskirk (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal ADC

Mountbatten was appointed Personal aide-de-camp to the Queen in March 1953. Did he remain in this role until his death, or was it ended earlier, and if so when and do we have a source to say so? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi - I was a bit hasty with my previous edit; if he was a Personal aide-de-camp (as opposed to an ADC General or equivalent) he probably did hold it to his death. Thanks for raising this. Dormskirk (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

"His Excellency"

No evidence was provided that this title continued after his term in office. FDW777 (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I did add provide evidence with the following source from the offical website of the National Assembly of Pakistan:[6] But this was then removed with the comment that no evidence was given. Kinda circular reasoning, huh? Could you please explain why this source was removed or was not good enough? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@User talk:Mr. D. E. Mophon I agree with you, but what we can do about it? Wikipedia is not fair, nor does it try to be. Maybe you should report it to WP:ANI? But in the meantime relax. Stress is not your friend. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

My error, edit restored. Sciencefish (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I repeat, no evidence was provided that this title continued after his term in office (my emphasis). FDW777 (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Also where is the evidence that a) Highest honorific prefixes and titles are included in Infobox, and b) "His excellency" (if correct in the first place) is highest? FDW777 (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with FDW777, he wasn't 'His Excellency the Earl Mountbatten of Burma'. He was created Earl Mountbatten of Burma after leaving office. This construction takes a style from one period of his life and puts it together with a title from a different period of his life. It's like writing 'His Serene Highness the Viscount Mountbatten of Burma'. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Concerns

I do not have access to the sources but there are some concerns to consider.

• Currently the 6th paragraph of Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma#Last Viceroy of India section:

"When India and Pakistan attained independence at midnight of 14–15 August 1947, Mountbatten was alone in his study at the Viceroy's house saying to himself just before the clock struck midnight that for still a few minutes, he was the most powerful man on Earth."

He was alone in his study and was saying to himself. The only way this could be known is from his writing or notes so conveys some confusion and needs rewording as from the source or better sourcing.

• The 7th paragraph states:

"Accounts differ on the future which Mountbatten desired for Kashmir."

This begs a (accounts) tag.

• The same paragraph:

"Pakistani accounts suggest that Mountbatten favoured the accession of Kashmir to India, citing his close relationship to Nehru. Mountbatten's own account says that he simply wanted the maharaja, Hari Singh, to make up his mind."

Pakistani accounts and Mountbatton's own account use the same three pages from Schofield (2010), pp. 29–31, and it seems this could be narrowed to which page supports the content. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Sexuality subheading

@EEng: regarding this reversion: Having the subheading refer to the accusations does not gave credence to them. I changed it to "Sexuality and pedophilia accusations", not "Sexuality and pedophilia". Many Wikipedia articles on people who have been accused of sexual abuse in one form or another have subheadings that mention it. A subheading should let you know what is in the section. Just "Sexuality" certainly does not "cover it" given the section details his alleged homosexuality and his alleged pedophilia. It also suggests that allegedly being a pedophile is part of his sexuality. As it is, the section is homophobic. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Headings are supposed to succinctly (a) give an overview of the article and (b) guide the reader looking for something specific to the right section. While the alleged pedophilia may not be "part" of his sexuality, it's certainly related -- that's why they're in the same section. And someone who has, perhaps, heard of the pedophilia question will correctly suppose the a "Sexuality" section will address it. The one word performs both functions without calling out one particular aspect in particular, as if it's especially important. EEng 17:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly: the section is on alleged homosexuality and pedophilia, so an overview should mention both, and if the reader is specifically looking for the pedophilia accusations then a more specific subheading would be more appropriate. Mountbatten may only be alleged to have abused boys, but pedophilia is not related to homosexuality. (Also, people who have heard pedophilia rumours about him would not necessarily suppose a sexuality section would address it – I, for example, had heard he was an alleged pedophile but not that he was allegedly gay before I first read this article.) Using just the word "Sexuality" as the subheading appears to conflate homosexuality and pedophilia together. The section comes across as homophobic and the last part of your comment reads as if you don't think pedophilia accusations are important. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I think putting the paedophilia allegations into the section heading gives them too much WP:WEIGHT. DuncanHill (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. EEng 19:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. I think it's due and not including it buries it. Many articles with people accused but not convicted of similar include subheadings mentioning it, e.g. Edward Heath ("Allegations of child sexual abuse"), Peter Morrison ("Allegations of child abuse"). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not buried, it's there in the article for anyone to read. DuncanHill (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

And as for the Heath and Morrison articles, different articles have different needs. In both those cases, those are separate sections on only the sexual abuse allegations, so naturally those sections' headings will reflect that. EEng 22:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm gay myself so I suggest you give the homophobia bullshit a rest. EEng 19:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't dispute any point I made. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

How about your claim that the Sexuality section is homophobic? I too am gay and I too wish you would give the homophobia bullshit a rest. DuncanHill (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

And we queens are just not in the mood given recent events. EEng 22:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the title of the "Sexuality" section be renamed to include mention of the pedophilia accusations? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes: I think it should be changed to something such as "Sexuality and pedophilia accusations". Other articles with similar allegations have it mentioned in the subheading, and I think that it just reading "Sexuality" when the section details his alleged homosexuality and pedophilia conflates the two together. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Homosexuality (alleged or actual) is an aspect of "sexuality". Pedophilia (alleged or actual) is an aspect of "sexuality". Including them both under "sexuality" doesn't conflate anything. EEng 22:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  The issue then is, some may see putting paedophillia in the sexuality section as validating it as part of the LGBTQ+. I support the Sexual Allegations proposal, as neither can be proven and it avoids the afforementioned issue. EmilySarah99 (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• No for the reasons stated in the prior subsection. Plus opening an RfC because you're not getting your way about a section heading after 6 whole hours is a selfish waste of community time. EEng 22:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• No. In addition to the reasons already stated, headings should be as concise as possible, and I see no compelling reason to lengthen this one. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support, maybe to "Sexual allegations". His sexuality isn't black and white seeing as he was married with issue, and the allegations aren't 100% confirmed.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  So you propose that we report the subject's potential homosexuality under the heading of "Sexuality allegations"? Better watch out before someone labels you homophobic! EEng 18:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  P.S. And it's not that the rumors "aren't 100% confirmed" -- they're 0% confirmed. EEng 00:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• No. What do you propose that the title be changed to? Personally, I don't see how the sexuality of a person has bearing on any illegal/unusual propensities of that person. Historically, persons who practice Paedophilia and it's associated behaviours are spread over the whole 'spectrum' of sexuality and thus Paedophilia does not 'favour' one type of sexual inclination over the other. I don't see how your request could be fulfilled in any way. But, this is just my opinion in this regard BenBrownBoy BenBrownBoy (Aye?) 21:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• No - As the previous comments already make clear, such a change would serve little purpose other than muddying the waters and giving rise to further controversy among editors. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• No Doing so does not improve the article. Always be very cautious when dealing with any new content in a BLP pertaining to "accusations." Before wordsmithing a headline, it is imperative that we have vetted the sources as iron-clad AND that the new content bears weight for inclusion: MOS:BLP, MOS:UNDUE, MOS:RELIABLEKerdooskis (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• No: doing so would lend the accusations, which are hearsay at best and not under investigation or the subject of a civil case, an undue weight which they do not deserve. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• No Homosexuality (alleged or actual) is an aspect of "sexuality". Pedophilia (alleged or actual) is an aspect of "sexuality". Including them both under "sexuality" doesn't conflate anything per EEng and specifically this text conflates nothing and many allegations iro young boys appear to be particularly tenuous and hearsay.Pincrete (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• No, as per all the above comments. If anything it should be changed to something like "Homosexuality", "Alleged Homosexuality", or "Homosexual Paedophilia". I could even get behind calling it pederasty, but I imagine others would not want to, as that term is not used there right now is it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)