Jump to content

Talk:Mitford family

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wisnton Churchill connection

[edit]

The Mitford sisters are said to be 'cousins' of Winston Churchill but I can't find specific confirmation of this.--Jack Upland 04:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right...the Mitfords were cousins of the Churchills-the best place to learn about this is in Jessica Mitfords novel "Hons and Rebels." She actually married her cousin, Esmond Romilly, who was the nephew of Prime Minister Winston Churchill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.17.245 (talk • contribs) at 08:08, 28 December 2005
Actually, "Hons and Rebels" is a "memoire," although many of Jessica (better know as Decca)'s sisters claim that not all of the information is actually true. "The Sisters: The Saga of the Mitford Family" by Mary S. Lovell is an excellent biography for anyone who wants to know more about this family. Winston Churchill was actually the son of David (the father of Nancy, Pamela, Tom, Diana, Unity, Jessica, and Deborah)'s aunt (his father's sitster), making him their cousin. If all this family lineage talk confuses you, there's a very nice family tree in the book I mentioned before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.43.37.66 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 January 2006
[edit]

The article on Unity Mitford says her father was related to Churchill's wife, Clementine Ogilvy Hozier, biologically if not legally. I do find these family trees confusing! Can anyone try to explain? BrainyBabe 13:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, the sisters' father was a first cousin to Churchill's wife, Clementine. As such, he was not a cousin to the sisters. His children, however, would have been second cousins to the Mitfords. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.219.100 (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notoriety

[edit]

Not all of the sisters were notorious: viz Pamela and Deborah --Cunningham 16:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Private language

[edit]

The sentence "The children had a private language called "Boudledidge" (pronounced 'bowdledidge')" is still ambiguous. Is the "bow" in "bowdledidge" pronounced like "cow" or "tow"? DH85868993 (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date on photo

[edit]

Could we get a date on the first photo?--Aichik (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked for it in my copy of Hons and Rebels and it's dated 1921; I've amended the page. Good lookout. Kilburn London (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"They were, it has been alleged..."

[edit]

I'm not sure this adds anything to the article, at least where it is: "They were, it has been alleged, "the most ardent burnishers of their own public image."[5]" Seems a bit catty without further context. I'll delete it unless anyone wants to argue for its inclusion. Kilburn London (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete sentence & Last Name Questions

[edit]

This is not a complete sentence:

The children of David Freeman-Mitford, 2nd Baron Redesdale, known to his children as "Farve" and various other nicknames, their mother was Sydney Freeman-Mitford, Baroness Redesdale, known as "Muv", the daughter of Thomas Bowles.

Since this paragraph follows a description of the sisters, I thought it was introducing the next generation. Is it supposed to say that the Mitford sisters are the children of David and Sydney? If so, it should say so, and the sentence should be moved to earlier in the section. Or maybe it is a complete sentence, or at least the last part is ("their mother is ...). This would mean that the first part is a dangling participle or just awkward phrasing.

Looking back at the article I see that their parents were already identified in the Introductory section. Is there a need for this to be mentioned twice? Since the article is about the family, should this information be in that section?

Before the intro, the mother is identified as Sydney Bowles, but here is identified as Sydney Freeman-Mitford. Whereas in the third section she is identified as Sydney Freeman-Mitford, her married name. Shouldn't this be "Sydney Freeman-MItford, nee Bowles, daughter of Thomas Bowles." Why repeat the fact that their mother is a baroness? Doesn't that follow from the fact that she's married to a Baron? It seems redundant.

Also, if their father's and mother's last name is Freeman-Mitford, why aren't they the Freeman-Mitford sisters?

Again, since article is about the family, the last sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction should give some reason for focusing on the sisters. Something along the lines of "Among the more famous members of the family in the 20th Century are the Mitford Sisters, the great-great-great-granddaughters of William Mitford." Most notorious, much in the news, prominent?

By the way, I didn't know who these people were. I got here because the article on J.K. Rowling says that her daughter was named after Jessica Mitford, and provides a link.Ileanadu (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mitford family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mitford_family&oldid=1204093550"