Talk:Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin

NPOV?

The sentence in question is "Thomas Bruce...notorious for the removal of marble sculptures from the Parthenon in Athens...." "Notorious" is too strong. "Famous" shows similar bias but in the opposite direction. I have changed the word to "known." 193.255.108.20 08:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is apparently an enduring issue. It looks like there is a slow motion edit war happening now, 16 years later, with some parties describing the removal as "theft" and some as a "controversial procurement." "Theft" is at odds with the content lower down in the page. Recognitor (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Heraldica 76.148.165.128 (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the "appropriately" in "sued his wife's lover for an appropriately high sum" is also a bit biased. Also, the bit about his disease-lost nose making him "even less appealing to his young wife than he had previously been" misleads, since they were at one time by contemporary accounts quite the popular, happy couple. The article also currently omits mention that Elgin spent vast amounts of *Lady Elgin's parents'* money getting the marbles home, that Lady Elgin finally travelled home to England at least in part because their children were already there, and that it was mostly her campaigning that finally got him released from French detention. The article also omits Elgin's diplomatic accomplishments in Constantinople. Susan Nagel's biography Mistress of the Elgin Marbles: A Biography of Mary Nisbet, Countess of Elgin may show some partisanship, but does cite a good degree of documentation on the basic facts above. Can't say I've read original source myself, though, so reluctant to add most of that right now -- though I'm for changing at least that "appropriately" unless anyone can explain what it's doing there. User:selkins 21:40, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Why not just specify the amount claimed from wife's lover? (rather than "appropriately large") And let people allow for inflation themselves, and decide for themselves on the appropriateness of it. His success in the action for compensation should be indicated also: if he didn't get this amount, then the adjudicators would have thought it an INappropriately high sum! Heraldica (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Finding that he could not get the British Museum to pay what he was asking for the marbles, Elgin sued his wife's lover for an appropriately high sum." The timeline of the removal of the Marbles and the suit for adultery doesn't seem to match. The adultery action was in December 1807 and the first (possibly only?) account of it appeared in 1808, before Elgin began negotiating for the sale of the marbles with the British Museum in 1811. (I'm looking at a copy of the adultery trial now, but it's on Gale if anyone has access: "An authentic account of the proceedings under a writ of enquiry of damages in an action in the court of King's Bench: in which the Right Hon. the Earl of Elgin was plaintiff, and William Ferguson, Esq. defendant.") The damages awarded were 10,000 GBP, which would have not been a small sum even for Elgin but wasn't even half of his cost for the marbles. Based on this I think a causal link between the adultery suit and Elgin's loss on the sale of the marbles is highly questionable. It was certainly plausible that Elgin was seeking to recoup some of his initial costs, but the sum should be noted or a source cited for a causal link. 73.196.0.57 (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Madeleine

Correction in citation for children

In reading biographical information on Mary Nisbet, the birth of a second son to Thomas Bruce, Earl of Elgin, is mentioned. According to this son's name was William Bruce. He was born 4 March 1804, and died 20 April 1805. Their source for this information, which I have not seen, is cited as: The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct, or Dormant (1910), Cokayne, George Edward (main author) and Vicary Gibbs (added author), (New edition. 13 volumes in 14. London: St. Catherine Press,1910-), vol. 5 p. 44 fn. (d). Npl4wiki (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

References

File:7thEarlOfElgin2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:7thEarlOfElgin2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Kalmyk

http://www.inst.at/trans/15Nr/05_05/howard15.htm

This is interesting at least for Germans, as Kalmyk (the artist) worked in Karlsruhe, before accompanying Elgin to Greece. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feodor_Iwanowitsch_Kalmück ought to have an English article. Stephanie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.128.89.183 (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Organisation

The section of the article Elgin's procurement of the Parthenon Marbles contains much relevant information but it is clear that it has been written piecemeal and that editors have jammed information into paragraphs where in some case they have no relevance, or have been detached from the first and relevant sentence by the unthinking insertion of other information.

I will tidy it up, probably retaining every single one of the current sentences. This is a rearrangement, not a rewrite, and I am not searching for missing references.

Amandajm (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

There is an error somewhere

In section 'Return to Britain and Later Life' it is stated: "Elgin married Elizabeth Oswald of Dunnikier with whom he was to have eight children".

In the following section it says that Elgin and his second wife had four sons and three daughters.

Is the first section wrong or was there another child that we don't talk about? Kombo the mzungu (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The biography says he had eight children with his second wife, but Burke's Peerage says seven. I'll go with Burke's. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)