Talk:Mary Curzon, Baroness Curzon of Kedleston

Mausoleum

The article states "She was the love of George's life and in his grief built an enormous mausoleum in her memory" - I think she is buried in the family vault beneath a chapel rebuilt by her husband attached to the parish church at Kedleston Hall Giano 19:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I found a ref for this, and will add it to the page. Giano (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Giano, Thanks for the info. I couldn't find a reference for the mausoleum statement. Your specific location info is good. do you have a citation to confirm the chapel vault?-Marcus 02:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like adding cite templates to good pages like this, but I think this opinion does need domething "and that she was the best dressed woman in the world--an opinion shared by other good judges." Perhaps we ought to be told whose opinion this is, or who these judges are. Giano (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Viceroy's Daughters.jpg

Image:The Viceroy's Daughters.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Title of nobility

The article states the following: "As Vicereine of India, she held the highest official title in history of any American woman."

I'm not sure if this ("the highest official title in history of any American woman") is correct, since the United States Constitution doesn't allow or recognize any title of nobility. See here for more: Title of Nobility Clause and Titles of Nobility Amendment

Leiter was the wife of the Viceroy of India, who was originally the head of the British administration in India or the Governor-General of India. The office was created in 1773, with the title of Governor-General of the Presidency of Fort William. The complete authority over all of British India was granted in 1833, and the official became known as the Governor-General of India. The title 'Viceroy of India' was added to the office to be known as 'Viceroy and Governor-General of India' in 1858.

Leiter's husband accepted the position of Viceroy of India and was elevated to the Peerage of Ireland as Baron Curzon of Kedleston in the summer of 1898 at age thirty-nine.

Viceroy of India:

Suzerainty over 175 princely states, some of the largest and most important, was exercised (in the name of the British Crown) by the central government of British India under the Viceroy; the remaining approximately 500 states were dependents of the provincial governments of British India under a Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, or Chief Commissioner (as the case might have been)

Thus, in fact, Leiter was the wife of a British Governor-General who was made an Irish baron in 1898.

Generally, a title of nobility held by an American citizen is not recognized as an official title by the US government. See also the discussion here: Does the US recognize foreign titles of nobility during the naturalization process?

IMO, the above-mentioned sentence should either be referenced to a reliable source or removed from the article.

--91.61.104.84 (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear to me how the US constitution matters. She married a British man, and acted as a couple with him. Her title mattered as his wife and in India and the UK not America. Seems more like irony to me, but also true, she had the title. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

As to the those articles on amendments to the US constitution, the first relates to people in the US government and she was not in it. The second never was ratified, so it is irrelevant. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I see your point. From a British or Indian point of view, the claim "highest official title in history of any American woman" is certainly correct, as she married a British man and acted as a couple with him in India. But is the claim really justified? I still feel uncomfortable with this sentence: "As Vicereine of India, she held the highest official title in history of any American woman."

In particular, I have an issue with the comparison "the highest official title".

What is an "official title"?

Vicereine is listed under aristocratic titles, not under legislative and executive titles.

How do you compare, for example, the title of a (theoretically female) US vice president, a legislative and executive title, to the aristocratic title of the wife of a viceroy. A viceroy is a regal official who runs a territory on behalf of some monarch. The office of "Viceroy and Governor-General of India" was an official part of the British Government until 1947.

Which title is a higher rank?

The wife of a reigning king is called a queen consort. A reigning female royal is called a queen. In Leiter's case, as vicereine she was not the regal official who ran the territory, but the wife of the viceroy. Let's have a closer look now at the office of the US vice president. The wife of the incumbing US vice president is called the Second Lady of the United States. It is an informal title."

Which title is a higher rank? "she held the highest official title in history of any American woman"

Why is this aristocratic title of the wife of the viceroy of British India a higher rank than the informal title the wife of the incumbing US vice president?

Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State of the United States of America. It is a legislative and executive title. How do you compare this legislative and executive title to an aristocratic title (not recognized in the US!), and which one is a higher rank?

"Secretary of State of the United States of America" is an official title. The Secretary of State of the United States is the highest-ranking appointed executive branch official both in the presidential line of succession and the order of precedence. The Secretary of State is fourth in the Presidential Line of Succession.

Is the aristocratic title "vicereine" of the wife of the Viceroy and Governor-General of India also an official title, when her husband is in office? Usually , the title of the spouse is an unofficial one. Michelle Obama is the current First Lady of the US. However, First Lady is an unofficial title. So, I even doubt that the term "official title" is in Leiter's case correct.

I simply have difficulties to understand why the wife of a British Governor-General of India should be ranked higher than a female Secretary of State of the United States.

IMO, you can't compare the incomparable. This comparison makes no sense to me and I think it should be removed. At least, "official title" should be replaced with "aristocratic title".

--93.193.2.42 (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for vicereine being an aristocratic title rather than an official title of Britain at that time? I mean a source different from the organization of a Wikipedia list article. If so, you can use that to make the change you want. For now, I put aristocratic in the body of the article and left official in the lead. Plus I added, of her time, which seems obvious but is now stated. She gained an aristocratic title simply by marrying him; her husband was appointed Viceroy in the era of the Raj, which seems different to my non-historian eyes. As to your comparisons to American women in America: the wife of the US President or the spouse of a US governor has a title given by society and the press, not the government. How each one uses the visibility given by virtue of their spouse's elected position is their choice. Hillary Clinton is also long after Mary Curzon's time, and she is not the first woman to hold a cabinet position in the US. The first woman came after Mary Curzon. Titles in Britain are not my specialty, except to know they have a different importance, and usually arise from different sources, than elected or appointed officials in the US. Some American women who gained titles from marriage outside the US: Grace Kelly, American actress became Princess Grace of Monaco, but long after Mary Curzon's time. Lisa Najeeb Halaby was born American, and became Queen Noor when she married the King of Jordan, but she renounced her US citizenship if the Wikipedia article is correct (no source), again long after Mary Curzon. What remains is for you to find a source on how the British of the time of Mary Curzon and her husband viewed the title of vicereine. Else I suggest leaving the sentence as is. --Prairieplant (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

CrumbleCrumble This change you made here} to the categories for this article is a bit startling to me. I do not generally mess with categories; your change raised a question. Derby is in England. You say Northern Ireland. Both are British, right? Why change it. I changed it back to British. Her husband was born in Derbyshire aka County Derby, in England. Baron Ravensdale is based in Derby. In addition, "He was created a Peer of Ireland as Baron Curzon of Kedleston, in the County of Derby,[22" If he has two barony titles, why choose just one? Their daughter inherited the Barony of Ravensdale title. How many of her husband's titles did Mary get, as his wife? As you see, I find these title confusing, and do not grasp why British was erased in favor of Irish, not even saying Northern Ireland. Please explain your changes in this complex topic. -- Prairieplant (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mary Curzon, Baroness Curzon of Kedleston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930132626/http://www.charlottecory.com/travel/delhi_durbar.htm to http://www.charlottecory.com/travel/delhi_durbar.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mary Curzon, Baroness Curzon of Kedleston/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The information in this article needs verification. This can be done by using scholarly sources instead of popular history books whose sources are not verified. The view on Mary Curzon and her era expressed in this wiki article has a romantic angle which must be moved towards the neutral and factual. There is a mix of trivial and substantial information, but perhaps a separation of these two elements into separate sections might be a good idea.Charlotte jorgensen2 (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 23:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Curzon, Baroness Curzon of Kedleston. 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/20080214193300/http://www.kaziranga100.com/ to http://www.kaziranga100.com/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 18:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Set checked to true, as it is the right page found by the wayback machine. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Question of rank

Prairieplant and other interested editors and readers, there is a discussion at WT:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility on the relative ranks of spouses of British peers. As it will affect this article, please share your comments there. WT:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#Question about rank of spouses of British peers is a direct link to the discussion. Kablammo (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mary Curzon, Baroness Curzon of Kedleston. 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/20070517065922/http://www.mohyal.com/gms/m_member.htm to http://www.mohyal.com/gms/m_member.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kaziranga100.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306052857/http://www.peterwestern.f9.co.uk/maximilia/pafg1237.htm to http://www.peterwestern.f9.co.uk/maximilia/pafg1237.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 07:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

All three links get to the expected web pages. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)