Talk:Bendor Grosvenor

1839 or 1389? The section explaining Vendor's name says his crest changed in 1389. That strikes me as unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.234.31 (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

1389 is correct. Cross Reference (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bendor Grosvenor. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140924040923/http://www.philipmould.com/staff.php?id=2 to http://www.philipmould.com/staff.php?id=2

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) 00:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

genealogy

Thank you for your good faith edit. However, it's not that we *want* to be vague User:12.144.5.2, it's a matter of sourcing. Wikipedia don't use primary sources such as books on genealogy, especially for biographies of living people. If you can find a good secondary source that is specific about the lineage you are free to reinstate the claim; otherwise we must limit ourselves to what we can source. CapnZapp (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I have big problems with a number of Wikipedia policies...but how are books on genealogy not the best possible source?...if you think "secondary" better than "primary" then surely the "primary" in genealogical matters would be the actual birth/marriage/death certificates involved?If you limit yourself to media that are not inclined to be specific,you are indeed demanding to be vague,which to me is necessarily a worse practice than being precise.12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. A book on genealogy is hardly primary: it depends on the author's having consulted other references (family documents, church records, newspapers etc). CapnZapp should reread W's primary restrictions. Cross Reference (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead image

Poor Bendor. He looks like he's been locked in a cupboard under the stairs and forgotten about (... since July last year)? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)