Talk:Archibald Armstrong

POV?

The article overall seems to be highly negative in tone... AnonMoos (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

To tell the truth, uncritical use of the old Britannica as a "reliable source" is liable to POV abuse, unsupported assertions, and generally inadequate scholarship. It is often a valuable source, but not always a trustworthy one. Jackaroodave (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Longevity / death year issue

It seems to me unlikely that, if he was old enough to be appointed Court Jester to the British monarch in 1603, he could have died in 1672. Not impossible, but unlikely. The doubtful status of his stated death year is compounded by the title and year of publication of the second Banquet of Jests book. --Haruo (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Had he been 21 (full legal age then) at his appointment, he would have been at his death 89 or 90 which was a rare age to live to then but not impossible. He could have been appointed though at a younger age, we never know.Cloptonson (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)